I’m working on a story about an early 20th-century carnival sideshow. The exhibits are not disabled humans. Rather, one’s a mermaid, one’s a highly sophisticated android, one’s a ten-foot-tall woman, etc.
Given that none of the exhibits are normal humans, disabled or otherwise, is ableism an issue here the way it would be if this were a real sideshow using real conditions?
Thank you,
Dave
Dave,
Thanks for your question! The ways that non-disabled non-humans represent disabled experiences, and the ways they don’t, is something I think about a lot, so I’m happy to share my thoughts. :)
The physical and mental differences between non-humans and humans can represent specific disabled experiences, even when the non-human characters are themselves non-disabled. Mermaids are a particularly good example of this. Mermaids that don’t transform into humans need mobility devices to get around on land, commonly using wheelchairs. While a wheelchair-using, non-disabled mermaid won’t represent the full range of disability experiences that a disabled character would, they do represent the specific experience of being a wheelchair user.
Any way that a non-human represents a disabled experience needs to be handled with care to avoid perpetuating myths and stereotypes. In addition, any way that the characteristics of a non-human are similar to a disability will create an association in the minds of the audience. For example, a ten-foot-tall woman has enough similarity to people with gigantism for associations to develop. As this previous Q&A suggests, I recommend researching any disabilities associated with non-human or fantastical characters to avoid negative representation.
In addition, non-humans living within a human society may encounter access barriers caused by the physical and social construction of that society. For example, the ten-foot-tall woman is going to find most human objects and spaces to be too small for her to easily use, causing her to experience certain aspects of disability within human spaces. The understanding that the physical and social structure of a society can cause disability is an important part of the social model of disability. Communicating this understanding to audience members is significant and often easily done through non-disabled, non-human characters.
While these non-disabled, non-human characters won’t have the same experiences as disabled humans or disabled members of their own species, they will have access needs caused by the structure of human society. The way their access needs are handled will either reinforce ableist ideas or it will teach people what it means to effectively meet someone’s access needs.
I recommend having at least some of your story’s protagonists model good ways to respond to access needs. Here are some things to keep in mind:
- Look for access needs anywhere a character is struggling to function or fully participate in something.
- The person with the access need should be centered in the decision-making process for meeting it. For example, they decide when their need is effectively met.
- The best way to meet an access need is usually the option that gives the most agency to the person with the need.
- Address conflicting access needs when they come up.
- Characters should be proactive in meeting access needs. This means working to meet known access needs without being told to, such as making sure things are wheelchair accessible for a wheelchair user. It also means having proactive conversations about accessibility and asking people what they need, rather than forcing people to bring their access needs up.
- Don’t make assistive devices do all the work of creating accessibility and meeting access needs. Assistive devices are just one piece of accessibility.
- Treat accessibility as a work in progress, rather than a finished state that can be achieved. This means that people check in and make adjustments as needed.
While having non-disabled non-humans in this carnival sideshow does change things, there are definitely important elements of disability representation present. Representing them respectfully matters. In addition, whether or not the dynamics of the sideshow itself are stigmatizing depends on how these dynamics interact with the disabled experiences being represented.
I hope that this helps, and good luck with your story!
–Fay Onyx from Writing Alchemy
Keep the answer engine fueled by becoming a patron today. Want to ask something? Submit your question here.
I am not disabled, so grain of salt, but my hesitation with this concept is that using a setting so inextricably linked to exploitation for a particular group has the potential to be painful for members of that group regardless of whether your characters are members themselves. Like if you did a story about selkie conversion camp where the magical creatures learn to be girls instead of seals, although no reader is in that exact situation, it’s close enough to the real and traumatic experiences of some lgbt people that really upsetting feelings can be elicited. It might be intentional for a story that uses metaphor to explore serious emotions (especially if you have had similar real life experiences), but it would be jarring if you intend a lighthearted romp.
Approaching this from a race perspective: historically a lot of PoC have been put on display in sideshows/zoos/exhibitions, while also being considered non human / less human than their colonizers. While the relationship between fantasy species and real-world PoC is a complicated topic, this carnival sideshow idea specifically could still be very uncomfortable for people in your audience depending on how you handle it.
This is probably off the subject, but while freak shows have an undeniably problematic history, it’s hard to say if they’re problematic by themselves.
Now, while that which at some point might have been considered empowering can at a later time be seen as demeaning (particularly many anti-racist portrayals end up being racist in their own right), there is a possibility of the opposite being true as well.
There’s this travelling freak show called 999 Eyes, that fancies itself as the last of its kind. Although, as a product of the 21st century, its marketing places emphasis on celebrating genetic diversity and the stories of the performers’ lives outside the stage (they also only perform on wheelchair accessible venues). Whether or not it’s a better show than the freak shows of old is up to debate, of course.
As for the whole non-humans as sideshows, I too would say it’s more racist than ableist. Showmen and managers were always coming up with all kinds of fancy stories for their freaks. The PoC’s in particular were told to have come from some savage land or being sovereigns of a foreign country, depending on what stereotype gave the greatest sense of “authenticity”.
I could imagine similar fancy stories given to the mermaids and androids and whatnot. Especially if this is a 20th century tour we’re talking here.
The first novel of the Adventures of the Athena Club has both aspects – Beatrice is ‘displayed’ against her will by a man who has her under control as she’s alone in a foreign country. Catherine and Justine, on the other hand, are with the circus out of their free will and they – like the other performers of the freak show – are treated excellently and not demeaned the least. Therefore, Beatrice needs to be rescued while Catherine and Justine just terminate their contract with the circus in an amiable manner.
As part of your research – or general reading anyway, since it’s an excellent book – I can recommend “Inseparable: The Original Siamese Twins and Their Rendezvous With American History” by Yunte Huang. It’s a biography of Chang and Eng Bunker, the “Original Siamese Twins”.
After reading this…
What I was planning was a “lighthearted romp”
But given the implications that you have all mentioned, I’m not convinced I can do this subject w/ the proper justice it needs
I will put it on the back-burner for now, I have other stories I can write, until when and if I can do this right
Thank you to Fay Onyx and everyone else who responded
Hi, disabled person here, I studied performing arts and musical theatre and used the history of freak shows as part of both my dissertations.
In my research, I found that it was important to consider how empowering these jobs were for some of the performers. My first example is Charles Straton, aka, Tom Thumb, who has been called the first international superstar and was PT Barnum’s star performer and also cousin. He had reputation and the freedom to retire when he chose and buy a big fancy house for himself and his wife. He was by no means a man who wanted pity.
A more modern case study I found, Otis Jordan, performed under the name The Frog Boy, until people protested against the word “Freak”. Otis lost his job. He was not happy about that; he did not object to the word himself. It gave him the power to make money and be independant.
Going back to the early years and PT Barnum, there was “The Revolt of the Freaks”, a widely publicised backlash against the word freak which papers claimed came from the performers the name was applied to. Except, the performers weren’t revolting against the name. It was a hoax by Barnum’s publicist. This was a huge twist for me, really changed my angle!
For clarity: I am not recomending the use of the word “freak”. Rather, a reminder that if a disability parallel is used in an “oh, it’s so sad” or “someone needs to save them”…it can be super patronising and cause more harm than good, even perpetuating ideas that make real disabled people lose their jobs. Sorry for citing no sources, but I can dig through my bibliography if anyone is interested in reading up on it!