By Sarah Keck<\/p>\n
In freak shows, people with physical differences–such as conjoined twins, those with fewer limbs than the norm, and those who can perform unusual actions–are displayed for the public to gawk and stare at. Because their differences from the \u201cnormal\u201d concept of the human are emphasized, they are made to seem inhuman to spectators. Displaying human difference in this way is clearly a problem. However, can this sort of dehumanizing display be done in writing, even though the only things writing presents to be stared at are literally written words on a piece of paper? Sure. Here\u2019s why:<\/p>\n
A few definitions of the verb \u201cdisplay,\u201d according to Merriam-Webster\u2019s dictionary, are \u201cto put or spread before the view,\u201d \u201cto make evident,\u201d and \u201cto exhibit ostentatiously.\u201d When writing about people with disabilities, writers are not literally displaying them for people to view (although people are capable of envisioning what\u2019s written down in detail), but it is still a form of exhibit. Julia Twigg describes this in her article \u201cSocial Policy and the Body\u201d in the book Rethinking Social Policy<\/em>: \u201cAn emphasis on the bodily potentially demeans disabled people, presenting them as the rejected \u2018other\u2019 of the freak show, subject to\u2026pitying gaze of the dominant society\u201d (135). This emphasis on a person\u2019s bodily \u201cabnormality\u201d can occur physically or in writing.<\/p>\n Twigg presents an example from her own research, in which she decided that a description would amount to a demeaning display. She was writing about a disabled woman whose caretakers did not arrive at her house at the right time. In the midst of writing that the woman wouldn\u2019t just \u201ceat, sleep and live but also excrete in the bed,\u201d she stopped herself because that last detail would \u201cexpose and lessen\u201d that woman (135). Readers should learn about disabilities, but their focus shouldn\u2019t be solely on the disabled body to the point that they forget the disabled person\u2019s humanity. Focusing on the woman\u2019s body, in this case, could present her as animalistic because hygiene practices are one of things that we see as separating humans from animals, and, without a caretaker, this woman was denied access to these practices. Also, although excretion is normal and natural, it is considered private, and this privacy is central to human dignity.<\/p>\n In the play The Elephant Man<\/em>, Bernard Pomerance challenges the dehumanization of disabled people in writing. Although the play is meant to be performed, the challenge comes through to a reader as well. In Scene 3, the main character, John Merrick, is put on display due to his body being disabled. Dr. Frederick Treves, the surgeon who takes in Merrick, describes Merrick\u2019s body in his medical display:<\/p>\n …From the upper jaw there projected another mass of bone. It protruded from the mouth like a pink stump, turning the upper lip inside out, and making the mouth a wide, slobbering aperture…The deformities rendered the face utterly incapable of the expression of any emotion whatsoever…developed hip disease which left him permanently lame, so that he could only walk with a stick (Pomerance 5-6).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Though this written display of Merrick focuses dominantly on his body, dehumanizing him, it is only a brief scene, and it is later criticized within the play. The majority of the play doesn\u2019t center only on Merrick\u2019s body. There are many scenes in which Merrick\u2019s personhood is noted so that his body is not the focal point. A few examples would be when he cried at how Madge Kendal, a visitor, was the first woman to shake his hand (35), when he explained his purpose in building a model of St. Phillip\u2019s church (38), and when he questions the standards Treves has regarding the display of women\u2019s bodies in Scene 16 (55-58). Readers can learn in The Elephant Man<\/em> that Merrick is more than his stage name. From being in a freak show to living in Treves\u2019 care, Merrick goes from \u201cfreak\u201d to \u201cnormal\u201d in the reader\u2019s mind. He is presented in writing as a human being, displaying qualities and actions of any human, as every person with a disability does.<\/p>\n In performance, the play takes this focus on his humanity further. Pomerance made it clear to focus on Merrick as a person in the play\u2019s introduction: \u201cAny attempt to reproduce his [Merrick\u2019s] appearance and his speech naturalistically \u2013 if it were possible \u2013 would seem to me not only counterproductive, but, the more remarkably successful, the more distracting from the play\u201d (V-VI). If an actor took the appearance of Merrick, the audience would only be drawn to the character\u2019s abnormality, not to the humanity. Thus, it wouldn\u2019t be different from a live freak show with Merrick on display. Pomerance doesn\u2019t focus only on Merrick\u2019s body in the script, so he doesn\u2019t advise actors to take on the role literally in the production. But he does not ignore Merrick\u2019s body either. He suggested using \u201cprojected slides\u201d (VI) to give people an understanding of how Merrick appeared. Thus, once they\u2019d gotten past their initial prejudices, the reader and viewer can come to an understanding of Merrick as a person with a disability, rather than a person in spite of his disability.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not entirely possible to write about people without indirectly displaying them. The thing is, if what\u2019s written about disabled people is meant to teach people about the feelings and experiences of those put up on display, then it\u2019s not meant to be negative. They can be displayed in writing in ways that do not other them but instead educate readers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Works Cited<\/p>\n “Display.” Merriam-Webster.com<\/em>. Merriam-Webster, 2015. Web.<\/p>\n Pomerance, Bernard. The Elephant Man<\/em>. New York: Grove, 1979. V-VI, 5-6, 35, 38, 55-58. Print.<\/p>\n Twigg, Julia. “Social Policy and the Body.” Rethinking Social Policy<\/em>. Ed. Gail Lewis, Sharon Gewirtz, and John Clarke. London: Open U in Association with SAGE Publications, 2000. 135. Print.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Sarah Keck In freak shows, people with physical differences–such as conjoined twins, those with fewer limbs than the norm, and those who can perform unusual actions–are displayed for the public to gawk and stare at. Because their differences from the \u201cnormal\u201d concept of the human are emphasized, they are made to seem inhuman to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":57,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63,265],"tags":[7,279,269,280,281,282],"class_list":["post-713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-entertainment-media","category-issue-3","tag-bsudlr","tag-disability-studies","tag-display","tag-the-elephant-man","tag-venus","tag-writing"],"yoast_head":"\n