sideshow

New Research Projects, Travel, and… Death?

/ katiestringerclary / 1 Comment

Lately I’ve contemplated where my research will take me following the publication of my manuscript on accessibility for people with special needs, the publication of a chapter on accessibility in education in The Manual for Museum Learning, 2nd Edition, and continuing my work towards truly accessible museums.

I’ve decided to take a new track based on the historiographical work I did in my dissertation on museum history and the use of human bodies and human remains in museums. My previous work focused on living humans, often billed as “freaks“, in museums and other exhibitions; now I want to focus on the corporeal remains that we still see in museums today: mummies, bog bodies, medical specimens, skeletons, relics, shrunken heads, and so much more.  What laws (aside from NAGPRA) govern the display and collection of human remains? What are the ethics involved here? How does the public react to these remains? These are just some of the questions I hope to answer as I embark on a new research plan.

I have organized a roundtable at the National Council on Public History meeting in 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada to present preliminary findings and bring together a fascinating group of women who study these questions. Our presentation, “Death and Display, Bodies and Boundaries” will explore our own work and also encourage participation from our audience. I’ve invited my former college roommate, Shelby Judge, a modern funeral director; Laura Anderson Barbata, artist and activist; Dr. Trish Biers, osteoarchaeologist at Cambridge University museums; and Kristen Semento from Winterthur Museum and Gardens.

As I planned my most recent trip abroad, I knew I would have the opportunity to visit international museums that are working with these issues. What I didn’t know was the amount of opportunities that would present themselves on my trip. My future blogs will detail some of the places I visited and some of the remains I encountered in Ireland and Scotland.

The first stop on my trip to Ireland was the Irish Museum of Modern Art. I had just arrived in Ireland, my hotel room was not ready, and my husband and I needed to get out and see the sights while we waited. The only problem was: I don’t think I have ever been as exhausted as I was on this museum visit. I was jet-lagged. I was running none hour of plane sleep. It. Was. Awesome.

Image result for living need light dead need music

You may have read my thoughts on art museums in the past; in short, I’m not their biggest fan. IMMA was in a great historic building, and there were some interesting exhibits while we were there. However, there was one exhibit in particular that spoke to me through my sleepy haze and has stuck with me. It also set the tone for my exploration into death and bodies.

In the back of the museum, in a quiet, dark room with benches (the initial attraction, let’s be real), I encountered a film installation. The piece, titled The Living Need Light, The Dead Need Music by The Propeller Group is probably the best video installation I have ever seen.  Their description reads:

The Living Need Light, The Dead Need Musicis a visual and musical journey through the fantastical funeral traditions and rituals of south Vietnam. It attempts to engage in dialogue with funerary traditions that pulsate in the same vein throughout the global south. The film merges documentary footage of actual funeral processions with stunning re-enactments that bring the film into the realm of the abstract, poetic and metaphorical – a rumination on death and the lives that pay homage to it.

I encourage you to watch the video in its entirety if you can. It is so fascinating, beautiful, disturbing, scary, and amazing all at the same time. The fact that I was almost at a hallucinatory stage of tiredness only heightened by appreciation for the piece. However, it stands up even as I re-watch it today.

So that’s it! I’m on a new program of research, and I’m so excited to have already been welcomed with open arms by so many Death Historians and Death Academics. Thank you, and I can’t wait to let you all know more about my research!

What is a “freak”?

/ katiestringerclary / 3 Comments
What constitutes a freak?

What constitutes a freak?

A section of my dissertation discusses the meaning of freak, and what exactly the term “freak” means.  In the study, I relate the sideshow and freakshows of the past (and sometimes the present!) to exhibitions in museums.

Webster’s online dictionary defines “freak” as: “one that is markedly unusual or abnormal: as a person or animal having a physical oddity and appearing in a circus sideshow.”

Photo from Wikipedia "freak" entry. Their caption reads, "Julia Pastrana, a woman of unusual appearance."

Photo from Wikipedia “freak” entry. Their caption reads, “Julia Pastrana, a woman of unusual appearance.”

Wikipedia says, “In current usage, the word “freak” is commonly used to refer to a person with something strikingly unusual about their appearance or behaviour… An older usage refers to the physically deformed, or having extraordinary diseases and conditions, such as sideshowperformers. This has fallen into disuse, except as a pejorative, and (among the performers of such shows) as jargon.”

To historian Robert Bogdan, “freak” may be a frame of mind, a set of practices that person employs, or a way of thinking about and presenting people. Sideshow U.S.A. by Rachel Adams defines freakishness as “a historically variable quality, derived less from particular physical attributes than the spectacle of the extraordinary body swathed in theatrical props.”

Rosemarie Garland-Thomson is a disability historian who analyzes disability and the freak show.  She says, “Freaks are above all products of perception: they are the consequences of a comparative relationship in which those who control the social discourse and the means of representation recruit the seeming truth of the body to claim the center for themselves and banish others to the margins.”

Coney Island Sidshow Entrance, 2008.

Coney Island Sidshow Entrance, 2008.

By labeling a person a freak, the sideshow takes away the humanity of the performer because he or she might not have the same physical characteristics of the “normal” person, and authorizing the paying customer to approach the person as an object of curiosity and entertainment.  To reconcile the exploitation of people who were different as curiosities worthy of admission price, society had only to take away the humanity of those individuals.

The shift from “born different” to “self-made” freaks in sideshows and other displays is shown in the sideshows of Coney Island today, television shows and movies.

Cast of "Freakshow" on AMC

Cast of “Freakshow” on AMC

A promotional video for the new television program called Freakshow premiered on the American Movie Channel in the fall of 2012.  The show follows the Venice Beach Freakshow performers in a reality show format.  The promo features several individuals with physical disabilities.  The main character, owner and performer Todd Ray, states in the promo, “freak is one of the most positive words I can think of; for us freak means normal.”

In addition to the live sideshows of Coney Island and Venice Beach and the new program Freakshow on the cable network AMC, many television programs take on the circus midway sideshow.  As technologies and interests grow and change, perhaps this is simply the next evolution in the presentation of “the other” for entertainment at home.

Perhaps today society is more comfortable watching, asking questions, and gawking at the different people with disabilities or different proclivities than they would be in a public forum.

How do you define “freak”?  How did sideshows and freakshows of the past influence exhibitions today?

TLC as a Sideshow: Final Reflections

/ katiestringerclary / 2 Comments

by Tori Warenik, Abigail Gautreau, and Katie Stringer

Tori: Over the last couple of months I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about the type of TV we as a society are being shown. Specifically, it’s been interesting to think about TLC and their offerings. Before I began this investigation I had so many preconceived notions about American Gypsies and the Duggers that I just thought I would be presenting my initial biased, admittedly close-minded, view. Instead, after doing some research on both shows, it became simple to separate my personal thoughts about the people involved on the shows with the company who airs them.

I have come to find that TLC, much like other channels, panders to their viewers and is just as biased as the rest of us. During a time when TV networks pride themselves on their partisanship (ala Fox News, CSNBC, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) we shouldn’t be surprised this would be the case for TLC. And yet, given TLC’s brand is based on “The Learning Channel,” what are they actually teaching us? That it is utterly ridiculous to get married so young in the Gypsy culture (but they do it anyway) and completely acceptable to get married and have 19 kids if you’re able to sustain your family? In the end, people watch TLC for the entertainment, not an education which leaves me with one final, unanswerable, question: is this what TLC wants from their programming?

Abigail: First of all, I’d like to thank Katie and Tori for taking the time to have this slightly more formal conversation about this particular moment in popular culture. I’ve enjoyed reading your posts, and I had a lot of fun writing mine.

Sister Wives

This is probably the time when I should make some great announcement as to whether TLC is the modern sideshow, but since I’m still safely ensconced in the ivory tower, I’ll use my academic prerogative to challenge the question rather than simply answering it. If we consider the sideshow a place where people could safely view the “other,” than yes, TLC is certainly such a place. From the comfort of our own couches, we can sit back and wonder at the titillating questions raised by Abby and Brittany and Sister Wives or gawk at the lifestyle choices of the Duggers and Honey Boo Boo’s family. At the same time, TLC is hardly the only place where such programming exists. A&E, Nat Geo, and even The History Channel offer similar programs (after all, there are shows on hoarding on TLC and A&E, and Nat Geo’s Taboo often includes the same people featured on TLC’s My Strange Addiction or My Weird Obsession). If it’s a sideshow network, then it’s hardly alone.

Calling any program a sideshow has connotations of exploitation. Katie is far better suited to answering the question of whether sideshows are inherently exploitative in nature, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that I don’t think the TLC programs are. One of the themes that came up again and again as I watched these shows and read about them was the extent to which the subjects control their own narratives. It’s also clear that these people are being compensated by TLC for appearing on the program, though it’s unclear how much money is involved in the agreements. Whatever we may think of these stars of “reality” television, I, for one, hope they are using their fame to their advantage.

She is full of wisdom.

It’s also probably worth a reminder that when we talk about popular culture, and especially about the stars of “sideshow” programming, we are really talking about ourselves. So whether you love Honey Boo Boo or just love to hate her, do yourself a favor and take a minute to think about why.

Katie: I’m so happy that after months of watching all of the TLC shows unfold before our very eyes the three of us were finally able to sit down an put together a blog series on our thoughts, questions, and ideas.  Thanks so much to Tori and Abby for participating!

As I’ve said before, this is a topic that I feel I could write about for each of the shows, probably multiple times.  Last night during the Sister Wives premiere (which Abby and I g-chatted through “Kody is such a fool!”) I saw promos for a show about the wives of Sin City and another about the Amish Mafia.  While is is really more fodder for the freakshow fire, I still do wonder how educational it is?

Since Abby and Tori summed up a lot of thoughts from this series, I can’t help but go back to the History Channel (as I always seem to do), which in the not too distant past did show documentaries about castles, Vikings, The “Dark” Ages (they weren’t that dark!!!), and of course, Hitler.  With the reality TV of Swamp People,  Mountain Men, and Hairy Bikers  it seems like they are focusing on the out-liers (and MEN) of society to draw visitors to see something weird or strange rather than actual history (ya know, from the past).  Yes, History is made every day, but aren’t there other channels for that?  What is the education value here?

The flip side to that is, what happens when educational programming actually occurs?  I will admit that How the States Got Their Shapes is educational and pretty fun, which proves that this is a possibility.   I also got a text from Abby that there is a new show called I Love the 1880s;  while this is an obvious play on the I love the... series on VH1, Abby pointed out that it isn’t about the 1880s.  I haven’t watched enough to know if this is something worth watching, educational, or just silly, but I’m not sure how well relating to teenagers is working out for the network with this theme.

Watch, as four white males survey the beautiful country that they built (seemingly) without the help of immigrants, non-whites, slaves, women, or anyone else that isn’t rich and gloriously ivory.

My last example from the History Channel of “actual educational programs” is the warning vibes that I got, just from the titles really, of Mankind: The Story of All of Us and The Men Who Built America.  The former may cover all genders and races, but the title seems to appeal to the male demographics the history channel reaches, and from the short clip that I watched (which enraged me), no women were shown. On principle I pretty much refuse to watch The Men Who Built America because I think traditional history classes and the “great books” and everything else in the world has covered the stories of the rich, white men more than enough.  Is this seriously a show?

Maybe I’m just irked that the History Channel caters so much to men and leaves women and minorities out of the picture so much; maybe I’m irked that this shows a skewed history; maybe this should become another blog series…

As I digress, I do think that television in general has replaced the sideshow, the freakshow, the circus, the gladiatorial ring, and so forth. As technologies and interests grow and change, perhaps this is simply the next evolution in the presentation of “the other” for entertainment and, in some small way, education.  People are always curious about the strange and the different, so it makes sense that there would be television programs that address that.  Perhaps society is more comfortable watching, asking questions, and maybe even silently (or vocally) judging the different people/lifestyles/choices/disabilities/whatever than they would be in a public forum.  My only remaining question is, how long will this trend continue on educational television networks?

The Duggers—Creepy Cult or Average Americans?

/ katiestringerclary / 5 Comments

Guest post by Tori Warenik

The Dugger Family [1]

Here’s the thing. My title is a tad misleading. The answer to the question is more complicated than choosing descriptive adjectives to illicit an immediate, heated response (from either side). When I first started this exploration, I would have chosen the first choice without question. Since going down the rabbit hole that is the Dugger family, I can’t choose either. Because, let’s face it, with 19 kids running around (and more on the horizon, if the past is any indication) their Arkansas home, a TV crew following their every move, and their faith, the Duggers cannot be classified as an “average” American family.

As I said before, I was ready to lambast the family and smear everything they hold dear because their life sounded absolutely ludicrous to me as the product of a secular, two-child, single parent home in, admittedly liberal, south Florida. I have become the picture of the “average” American, but does that make my experience any better than anyone else’s?

When I first started watching TLC’s Duggers, they were still “17 Kids and Counting” and I was young and disgusted by the sheer physics of it all (i.e. Michelle giving birth naturally to all those little ones). Six years later I can admit I was scared of the Duggers’ faith because I didn’t understand it. And that’s really the crux of it.

Jim Bob and Michelle Dugger[2]

People either love the Duggers because they represent a strong family unit, living their lives by a book written thousands of years ago, containing the words of a man written by other men most Christians interpret and live by today or hate the Duggers because they represent everything that is most coveted (by most) in the United States today: a debt-free, loving, full family.

I mean, sure, I long to live debt-free (stupid student loans) and I hope for my own loving family in the future, but I think the hang-up for most people who watch the show or know the family because of their extraordinary circumstances (the whole 19 kids thing) is their faith. Six years ago, and even two years ago, I would have wanted to “show them the light” and turn them away from this mythical God they believe in.

Admittedly, some of the tenets Michelle lives by, and promotes, make me sick to my stomach, even now. Tracie Egan Morrisey, writing for Jezebel, a general-interest woman’s website, calls the Duggers the “Cult of Progeny,” listing the eight the eight factors used to identify a destructive cult, outlined by psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton. Among them, Morrisey identifies “Demand for Purity” which includes the following graphic Michelle adheres to for her hairstyle[3]:

“The Seven Basic Needs of a Husband”[4]

Interestingly, I have great friends who identify themselves as Orthodox Jews and would have little problem with this graphic. As a society, we shy away from anything we ourselves don’t understand and the Duggers appear to be just another case of our inability to understand. By all accounts, the Duggers are a wonderful family who love one another and support themselves through patriarch Jim Bob’s job, and the family’s involvement in the show.

I do take some umbrage with how the children, specifically the girls, are raised. The children are home-schooled and the older children help take care of the younger ones. The older girls show complete deference to their parents, specifically Jim Bob, when it comes to future suitors with Jill (one of the eldest) saying, “Talk to my dad. He knows what we’re looking for in a guy and future spouse”[5]. The feminist in me, raised by a fiercely independent mother, rears and roars to go save these girls, close to my own young age, who are willing to date anyone their father accepts. Taking a step back, and a deep breath, I realize this notion is not unlike other utterances by women in our society, “I can’t bring a black man home,” “I can’t marry anyone outside of my faith because it’s too important to my parents,” “I can’t come out, I’ll be kicked out.” We are all forced to make decisions about our lives with our parents and community in the back of our heads guiding our way. There are those who go against the grain whose family happily accepts them but there are more stories of children being thrown out of their families for the love they choose or the choices they make that doesn’t align with their community.

President Obama on Letterman[6]

When President Barack Obama was on David Letterman one night earlier this fall, Letterman notes how grown up President Obama’s daughters look and adds, “Does it kill you?” only to have the President quip, “It worries me, but they’re surrounded by men with guns” (“The Late Show”). While it may be seen as sweet and that a father is protecting his daughters, the subtext is that anyone who tries for his daughters will be summarily handled, by men with guns. Do we have a problem with this though? Couldn’t we say this is the patriarch of the family unit of Michelle, Sasha and Malia choosing his daughters potential suitors?

Now, though I am bothered by Michelle’s comments about women and their place and Jill’s response about suitors, the family seems to be a working unit that gets along fine without what I hold dear: independence. I cannot say I would ever willingly belong to a family like this but then, the kids don’t really have a choice. I think it is a tad harsh to call the Duggers a cult, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. What makes what I think more correct than what others think? Does authority of the author even have a place in this discussion?

Years after I started watching “17 Kids and Counting,” we now have “19 Kids and Counting” and honestly, I don’t understand the backlash anymore. If you don’t agree with the family and the decisions they’ve made all power to you, but what can you do? Michelle and Jim Bob realize that people make snap judgments about them and how they raise their family and they accept the love along with the hate. Never once has the family tried to indoctrinate the viewers of their show. The Duggers simply try their hardest to live their lives by the word of God and they seem to be doing fine. I don’t live my life by God and here I am, doing fine.

Life is all about personal choice.

In my last post I talked about American Gypsy’s and their representation by TLC. Here I wanted to talk about how the public represents the Duggers because TLC actually did something right. Because they actually respect the family, their representation is unbiased and plain. While I could spend time castigating TLC for, inadvertently, showing favoritism, instead I’ll just note how uneven the response to the Duggers is. Whether the family is highlighted on “Anderson Live,” “Today,” or “TLC,” the response from viewers is divided, further proof that we are a country strengthened by our diverse beliefs.

[2] Image 2: people.com

[3] Found on this site, http://www.southheightsbaptist.com/mp3/CliffPalmer/7BasicNeeds_Husband.pdf, the list of rules for a wife is extensive and “for the WIFE ONLY.” Men are encouraged to study “The Seven Basic Needs of a Wife.”

[4] Image 3; ibid.

[5] Morrisey, Tracey Egan. “The Duggers Aren’t Just a Family, They’re a Cult.” Jezebel. 4 Sep. 2012. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.

[6] Image 4: blog.zap2it.com

Tori Warenik is a second-year MA student in English at Middle Tennessee State University. While she’s busy ignoring the football team she enjoys reading, lamenting the loss of “Firefly,” coming up with new words for existent definitions, and watching TLC. Her research interests lay in Popular Culture, Children’s Lit, and Early American Lit. You can reach her at vlw2s@mtmail.mtsu.edu

Abby and Brittany: Conjoined Twins, TLC, and the Sideshow

/ katiestringerclary / Leave a comment

TLC Promo

No discussion of the similarities and differences between TLC programming and antiquated sideshows is complete without a post about Abby and Brittany.  Abigail and Brittany Hensel were born in 1990, and they are dicephalic parapagus twins, which means they are conjoined twins.  The “interesting” part of their condition is that they each have a separate head, but their bodies are joined.  To some, without closer investigation, this almost makes it appear that they are “a two-headed girl.”

SO many questions!

When Abigail and I saw the promo for this show, we knew immediately that we would HAVE to watch it.  Even though the preview was sensationalized, as they usually are, we were intrigued and had SO MANY QUESTIONS.  The obvious: how does one control each side? how do they attend college classes? how do they drive? what parts of their bodies do they share?  And the questions you want to know, but are afraid to ask: What if one of the girls was a lesbian and the other was straight? How do intimate relationships work when there’s no privacy? How does privacy even work?   Fortunately, the show does a lot of answering of these questions through interviews with friends and the girls themselves.

TLC’s website really only provides videos and images from the show, and not much real outside information about the women.[1]  Gawker published a very informative article about the girls.[2]  One quote in particular is very relevant:

“So basically the show exists so we can oggle these girls in private? I thought TLC was supposed to be The Learning Channel. What the hell happened?
This is one of the stalest observations a person can make on the internet but, since you brought it up, TLC’s (alleged) downward spiral began with the program Jon and Kate Plus 8… From there, we moved to 19 Kids & Counting, Toddlers & Tiaras, and now the apex of observational learning Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo. The criticism that TLC isn’t doing enough to educate its viewers is a weak one, because, if you really wanted to explore the world of science, you wouldn’t rely on the folks who brought you A Wedding Story to do it. Anyway, look at all you’ve learned about conjoined twins so far today.” (full article at: http://gawker.com/5933247/)

Anatomical Answers!

The article also asks and answers:

“What happens if one of the girls doesn’t want to have sex with a man but the other one does — is that rape? Do they have to buy separate tickets if they see a 3-D movie, because they require one seat but two sets of glasses? What if Abby had failed her driving test but Brittany had passed it? What if one of them is sleepy and the other one is wide awake? Since they have two stomachs but one bladder do they have to pee all the time? What if one had graduated high school but the other had failed all her classes? What happens if they have to throw up?

Who knows? They aren’t doing press. But now you’ve uncovered the real fun of Abby & Brittany: coming up with an endless list of questions you will never ask them in real life, because it would be rude.”[3]

Conjoined Twins: Now and Then

Chang and Eng Bunker

Another set of conjoined twins that I have studied helped to inform many of these questions and provide more.  Chang and Eng Bunker were born in 1811 in Siam (get it – Siamese twins? – but seriously, please don’t call conjoined twins this [racist]).  Rather than being conjoined to the degree that Abby and Brittany are, the Bunkers were connected only by a narrow band of flesh at chest-level.

Advertisement for Show

Robert Hunter, a British merchant, “discovered” the twins and paid their family to allow the boys to be exhibited as a curiosity during a world tour. The men toured the world to give demonstrations and lectures, and they were among P.T. Barnum’s “curiosities” that included Tom Thumb,  Native American dancers, giants, and albinos.  After a successful career of traveling, the men settled in North Carolina, bought a farm, and married sisters Adelaide and Sarah Yates.   To answer the question, YES the men did have children: 21 between them.  They died in 1874 within 3 hours of each other.[4]

Exhibit at Mutter Museum

Another interesting note is that a cast of the men’s bodies can still be seen on exhibit at the Mutter Museum in Philadephia.

How might things be different if the Bunkers lived now, or alternately, if the Hensels lived in the 19th Century?  Would the Bunkers have a television show on TLC, or would the Hensel twins take part in traveling sideshows?

One similarity between the two sets of twins is their fame (sought after or not), due to their “differences”.  It is unclear whether or not the Bunker twins were presented as and appreciated as actual people with feelings and lives, or if they were simply curiosities.  While many people might be attracted to TLC’s Abby and Brittany initially because of their condition, if one watches the show they will get an education about the girls, their lives, and their daily experiences.  At least TLC can be commended for that.

Exploiting people who are “different”?

Human “Freak Show” tent

In my research, I recently came across an article that is really informative to this discussion.  Annie Delin’s article, “Buried in the footnotes: the absence of disabled people in the collective imagery of our past” looks at disability in museums, and in side shows.[5]  Delin says, “In modern society, we no longer actively condone the showing of ‘different’ people as freaks.  …. Yet we do perpetuate the acceptability of staring and pointing whenever we allow a picture of a small person or someone with a disfiguring condition to be displayed without identity and context.”[6]

DOES modern society really shy away from exhibiting people who are “different” as freaks?  Even if no one is outright calling TLC or other network programming a freakshow or a sideshow, are we de-humanizing people through these exhibitions?

I do think that the TLC show Abby and Brittany does manage to show that the women ARE real people, with feelings, and lives, and success, rather than just displaying them for their differences.

TLC and the Sideshow

An article on dlisted.com puts out a seemingly accurate call for a new show saying, “if you’re a pair of pregnant redneck conjoined teen twins who are former child beauty queens and own a cake shop that caters only to little Amish people, call TLC, because your dream of being on The Soup every week can come true!”[7]

Too true.

[3] Ibid.

[5] Annie Delin, ““Buried in the footnotes: the absence of disabled people in the collective imagery of our past” in Museums, Society, and Inequality edited by Richard Sandell. New York: Routledge, 2002

[6] Ibid, 89.

Romani Travellers: Are We Ready to Care?

/ katiestringerclary / Leave a comment

Guest post by Tori Warenik

Over the past ten years or so, The Learning Channel has been making marketing moves forward. Instead of promoting shows that have substance, they’ve bought into the rise of reality TV and moved toward more sensational television programming, right?

One of the shows that is the most popular is “My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding,” which presents Romani families living in the U.S. This show, and truly, all of the shows airing on TLC (a re-brand from The Learning Channel), has developed an almost cult-like following of fans. Is this support unfounded? Should everyone just point and laugh at these seeming caricatures of American life? What follows is a reflection on the reality TV show that has aired on TLC in the past year, and by extension, the last decade. I will visit newspaper articles, forum responses, and TLC captions to present a fuller view of the perceptions of the show. Personally, I watch this show for entertainment. I sink into the microcosms of the Romani lives and am simultaneously disgusted, warm-hearted, and intrigued. What more could TLC want? And does this personal interpretation fit in with the perception of our new “American Sideshow”?

“Gypsy” fashion at its finest

“My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding” first aired on TLC May 2012. The show follows multiple Romani girls, and boys, throughout its season and concentrates on getting the girls down the aisle in the most extravagant dress possible. One fan’s comment on Facebook says it all, “TLC, we do NOT dress this way. What you are doing is wrong. You are perpetuating old negative stereotypes, while simultaneously modifying our culture to create even MORE negative stereotypes” (“Gypsy Fashion and Beauty: Facebook Comment 1”). This Facebook comment is posted under “Gypsy Fashion and Beauty,” a photo gallery of twenty-nine photos of American Gypsy women and their related party and wedding regalia. Under one such photo, the caption reads, “The blinged-out bodice says it all. Barbie is the beauty ideal” (DCL). This photo displays a young woman wearing a pink dress that reads “Barbie” in rhinestone-encrusted script across the bodice (Image 24 of 29). The first of the gallery is a picture of one of the Gypsy girls pouring Champagne into a waiting flute, seemingly on her way to walk down the aisle. The photo also captures her bra strap hanging out of her bodice.

Cultural norms in the Gypsy community?

What does this say about the girl? What does this say about the culture of the Romani? What does this say about the viewing audience and our ever-present need to rubberneck, to see the disaster, shake our heads and thank god we weren’t involved? Something else to keep in mind is the fact that for all of these women, they think it is okay to dress in a sexually appealing way. They dress in this way to attract those of the opposite sex while also upholding the belief ‘they can’t touch me,’ which is another signal to the audience, that we can look but not touch. The girls TLC portrays represent a direct challenge to the ever-present rape culture endemic in our American/Western society because girls who dress in the manner described above, with tight-fitting bodices, low-cut tops and shorter skirts, are “asking for it.”1

Here’s the thing. I like “My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding” and “My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding”2 because I can sit and gawk at the young women and men and be astounded that there are certain offshoots of our own culture(s) that welcome this behavior. Through all of the episodes there are certain themes and scenes that carry through. For instance, in every episode, there is the meeting of the bride, her groom and the bridal party. Romani grooms, or how TLC presents their show(s), are not involved in the big day and they can choose what color they want to wear. If they are amenable, they’ll change to match their future bride. It seems that most times they do appease their bride if only because they are bemused by her investment in the big day (sound familiar?). The young brides (usually 16-19) spend their time finding a venue that will be willing to host a Romani wedding, going to one of the only dressmakers willing to make a dress for the Romani people, partying in the nights leading up to the big day (though women can’t drink heavily), fighting with friends/family/family-in-law, and actually walking down the aisle.

TLC’s image

TLC has an entire site dedicated to their American Gypsies and through the site there is a article about the “5 Urban Legends about Gypsies” including:

  1.  Gypsies Horde Their Wealth
  2. Gypsies are Lawless Thieves
  3. All Gypsies are Nomadic
  4. One Gypsy is the Same as the Next
  5. Gypsies are Originally from Egypt (Jessika Toothman).

But what about the legends we are creating as a society in watching the Romani’s? Should we also add:

  • 6. All Gypsies are Uncouth
  • 7. All Gypsies Dress Scantily Clad
  • 8. All Gypsy Women Have No Rights in Their Marriages
  • 9. Gypsy Men Bring in the Money and Do What They Want
  • 10. All Gypsy Women Want to be Cinderella/Barbie

One commentator, a Roma herself, quipped through a Facebook comment, “Urban Legend 6: TLC is telling the truth about Romani” (“5 Urban Legends About Gypsies”). Most of the press “My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding” receives is negative. Even the captions TLC’s own place under pictures, while trying to be positive, reeks of cynicism and money earned off of the ridiculous nature of the Romani’s they’ve chosen to highlight. What that saying, ‘no press is bad press’?

What interests me is the way in which TLC presents the Romani of the United States. The Romani are presented as fiercely loyal to their families and fun loving. The girls dress to show off their assets while still appearing demure to the men, in that they say, ‘we have fun but there’s no grinding. Romani girls don’t do that,’ and the men get lessons from a young age about their place over the women in their fringe society.

Though there have been no studies done to see the impact “My Big Fat American Greek Wedding” and other shows have on the psyche of their viewers, I would be interested to see how young boys and girls, outside of the Romani’s (this specific group of them who are shown to a viewing audience, anyway) view the interactions between men and women. Women are expected to not drink, clean the house, cook the food and abide unfailingly to their husband. As a woman and a feminist, this ‘understanding’ goes against what I believe in. But then, what do I matter? I still tune in to watch the show and, admittedly, get wrapped up in the dress or the fight between families, and not the overtones of the larger problems.

In the end, do we actually care about the Romani travellers and their culture, or are we just watching to see a train wreck? From the many forum commenters, I found that TLC isn’t even trying to represent a true view of what the Romani’s are like anyway, so even if we did care about their culture, we would be getting incorrect information.

Thanks for the education, TLC.

Tori Warenik is a second-year MA student in English at Middle Tennessee State University. While she’s busy ignoring the football team she enjoys reading, lamenting the loss of “Firefly,” coming up with new words for existent definitions, and watching TLC. Her research interests lay in Popular Culture, Children’s Lit, and Early American Lit. You can reach her at vlw2s@mtmail.mtsu.edu

_______________________________

1 Thanks go to Abigail G. for her advice.

2 Originally aired in the UK, “My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding” ’s rights were sold to the US’s TLC for airing in 2011. As a result TLC produced their own “American” Gypsy wedding show.

Sister Wives

/ katiestringerclary / Leave a comment
Guest post by Abigail Gautreau
Buzzfeed recently published a history of TLC, and the unspoken punchline was that the channel has deviated from it original mission as a home of education programming. While this is certainly true in some respects, I would argue that although the programs (and especially their commercials) have become much more sensationalized, many of the programs are still educational inasmuch as they offer a window into how people who do not fit into the standard media paradigms live. People who have seen commercials for programs like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo and Sister Wives, but have not actually watched the shows, are often surprised by the programs themselves. Although TLC uses sensationalized clips to advertise their programming, the narratives presented on the programs appear to be heavily guided by the subjects themselves. This is particularly noticeable in the case of Sister Wives, which follows the lives of Kody Brown, his four wives, and their 17 children.

Meri, Jannelle, Kody, Christine, and Robyn Brown

Sister Wives is notable for its candid discussions about the challenges of a polygamist lifestyle, which go beyond its illegality* (and which required the family to leave Utah and move to Las Vegas in Season 2). Kody, Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn all discuss the personal challenges their lifestyle creates for them, and often do so with an eye to the questions that monogamists might have. Jealousy is probably the most commonly mentioned theme, and they all frequently make bashful comments about their more intimate relationships, constantly reiterating that they have four separate marriages. These conversations make the program more interesting and set it apart from shows that focus on the collapse of relationships; these five adults talk at length about the challenges they face in nurturing their relationships with each other. The overall picture they present is of an ordinary family working to cope with a unique situation, which is somewhat refreshing. At the same time, it’s also clear that one of the goals of the program is to legitimize this lifestyle choice to a broader national audience. This is not unusual in TLC’s programming lineup: 19 Kids and Counting and Jon & Kate Plus 8 follow similar guidelines. The superficiality of the narrative, however, became evident in the third season finale.

Interview after Season Finale

Breaking with its normal formatting, the final episode of Season Three featured Kody and his wives being interviewed by Natalie Morales. The show included several remarkably candid moments that broke with the image the five had crafted over three seasons. Kody openly revealed that he was initially repulsed by third wife Christine’s body (a moment made more dramatic by the fact that the three older wives had been struggling with their health and fitness in the third season). Meri talked about feeling devalued because of her fertility challenges (she only has one child). The tension between the wives was explored in much greater depth than usual, due in part to the recent publication of the Browns’ book, Becoming Sister Wives. While this episode was remarkable in many ways, its true significance lies in the fact that it revealed how performed the previous three seasons were, and the extent to which TLC allowed the subjects to control how they were represented to the audience and pursue their own agenda.

(Most of) The Brown Family

While this contributes to the intimate and non-voyeuristic feel of TLC’s reality programming, it raises important questions about TLC’s role as a platform for groups with political or social agendas. The Brown family’s goal is clearly to legitimize their lifestyle, particularly given that much of the publicity related to polygamy comes from the activities of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), an organization usually labeled a cult that was/is headed by Warren Jeffs. The Browns are careful to separate themselves both from the Mormon Church (which no longer recognizes polygamy) and the FLDS, a delineation made clear by the fact that the Brown wives cut their hair and wear modern clothing. This middle ground, however, is clearly a hard place to find purchase, given the Browns’ struggles with their own relationships. Their choice to position themselves as representatives of a lifestyle makes their own foibles and passing comments fodder for critics as well as their considerable fan base. Interestingly, the Browns rarely discuss their religious beliefs in depth (they are members of the Apostolic United Brethren church, which encourages transparency along with plural marriage), choosing to allow their example to make their case for them. Despite the criticism the Browns have received, they have clearly done a great deal to normalize perceptions of polygamy (or plural marriage, as it is generally called). The program has also appeared at a somewhat interesting moment for the Mormon Church, which has gone to great lengths to distance itself from polygamy while the first Mormon presidential nominee takes the national stage.

Although the Browns have gone to great lengths to set the tone of the discussion about their lifestyle, they do not do so in a vacuum. Sister Wives appears alongside fictional programs like Big Love and news stories like the successful prosecution of Warren Jeffs. While these events may derail the discussion the Browns want to have about their lifestyle, they no doubt also help them attract a much wider audience. Whether they come to gawk or admire, these viewers are unwittingly participating in an advertising campaign for the decriminalization of plural marriage.
*Kody is only legally married to his first wife, Meri (the rest are “spiritual unions”), but the fact that they all shared a single residence divided into three apartments meant that they violated common law marriage statutes.

 

Abigail Gautreau is a Public History PhD student at Middle Tennessee State University. Her research focuses on how marginalized people use history and heritage to stake out political identity. Her website is http://thepastpresently.wordpress.com.