Greg Clayton
Prof. Cacoilo
Convergence
9 December 2015
Social Networking: A Modern Day Freak Show
The carnival was grotesque, with its
freak shows and abnormal humans, was very popular and controversial back in the
late 18th to early 19th century, by then it had matured into a distinct form of
entertainment. In the 21st century, has the concept become dated? Has the freak
show been revealed for the mistreatment and subjugation of many poor human
beings? We live in times where many things that were once discriminated are now
accepted and many kinds of people recognized as members of society and although
there are instances that would challenge that notion, it is only a minority.
This represents the progress mankind has made to understand one another. But
has the idea of the freak show been abandoned with this new period? It is
unfortunate to say that is not the case. In fact if anything it has only
intensified with the advancement of society, particularly relating with
technology and social networking. Social networking is the spectacle and barker
in this relationship of the freak show to modern times. It is because of social
networking, that we can see examples of the freak show displayed in our daily
lives.
I want to
explore this further, explaining in greater detail on how the freak show and
the carnival grotesque have just as advanced with society as everything else
and in fact plays on these advancements to contribute to the spectacle of the
freak show and grotesque.
Of course, technology is how we advance in society. In advancement, we take on
new cultures and let us abandoned many uncivilized ideas. Social media sites
like Facebook or Twitter are examples of how we have advanced in talking with
more people and social networking. With that, people argue that it has led to
“more communication and not less” (Observer) and makes socializing easier and
making difficulties like lengths and region null and void. Then now with that
in mind, this has led us to incorporate more of social networking into our
lives. The social media sites allow us to upload and express our identity. Of
course there is debate on insults over Facebook post online, but debaters argue
social networking is a new field of communicating there is no social
conditioning really to establish how to properly act online compare to how
different from how we act in real life.
It is also with social
media that even when we point out the freak show and in some way degrade the
person, it leads to a positive matter. (Observers) For example, the article,
“Serious documentary or freak show” depicts a medical professional journey in
observing a clan of deformed natives. The clan was being “sensationalize” by
providing programming and donations to them for animals rights regardless it is
a cartoon. However because of this, the clan got money and medical treatment
for themselves (Koppel 325). That is an example of exploiting the deformities;
it actually helped the clan despite a loss in privacy and dignity. That is
true, that social networking has allowed us to communicate with more people. We
are social creatures; we enjoy the company of others but are sometimes limited
because of distance situations, language barriers, and even failure to
understand one another. Social networking is a concept that has received an upgrade
along with society. These upgrades are sites like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube,
and etc. They are the new ways we socialize with the world around us. We can
communicated across oceans with international friends, translate text online,
see all the things people like and are interested in. These should have been
making socializing easier. However that is not the case, it is fact ironically
leads us not to socialize with the world. Many reviewers and critics have
pointed out this flaw about social networking.
In “Social networking under
fresh attack as tide of cyber-skepticism sweeps US”, it brings up various
points related to how society extends itself through it social media and the
opinions towards or against it. This all surrounding a reading of Sherry Turkle
called Alone Together. She pointed out that social media is “actually isolating
us” with “cyber-reality” (Observer). Now this is an interesting point relating
to the spectacle of the freak show. Relating to Susan Stewart, On Longing, they
bring up the relationship between the spectacle and the audience. Within the
space of the freak, he or she is isolated within this world made for him to be
presented in. What emphasizes that is the assumption that the spectacle, to
them, “the object is blind” and only the “audience could see” (Stewart). So
there is only a one-way relationship, with no reciprocation. By that no
response from the other side, then it provides the isolation the spectacle
feels. And bringing it back to social media, this cyber reality causes
isolation within its users despite the idea it was use to bring people
together.
That is much like social
networking, where people are allowed to comment and not be expected to receive
or return a comment they put on any image or post. In “What is Good is the
‘You’ in YouTube?” it communicated lack of individuality gained from the number
one video-sharing site, since many videos are taken down for either censorship
or violation of copyright. (Marche) These cases deny the chance for expression,
and apply their own sense of individuality and you either comply or do not,
however that means you unable to comply, it makes you abnormal to the eyes of
YouTube. Many social network sites apply this practice with their other users.
By doing so, people feel free but only within their own space, daring not to
step out foo line in fear of going against normalcy. But now, people are put
into these cages. These cages are the making of themselves due to unable to
comply with normalcy. This makes them feel isolated, but within their own
space, while they cannot step out of their cage, viewers are allowed to see in
and view them. This makes the viewer the “audience” The audience hold the
essential part of the freak show. They are what shaped the cultural ideal of
the freak show. What might have been considered a freak may have been accepted
as normalcy. So the audience is the representation of that said culture. For
example, Elephant Man, the Elephant man is kidnapped back from the freak show
barker to be back into the show. However when presented, he is met not with the
disgust of his body but rather met with disgust of his current state. He was
accepted into society by those audience and high-ranking figures, and not
looked upon as a monster but as a gentle human being. This is an example that,
it was not he himself who was the freak but whether the viewer has viewed him
as a freak, the term can always be defined differently with different eras. The
audience carries on the freak show. In social network, the audience also plays
the role of the spectacle sometimes on the site. I mean it makes sense, they
are both users on the site, they are probably people who post photos and
socialize on the site like everyone else. For they are in the same position as
the spectacle and the spectacle could be in the same position as them, but the
only difference between maybe one on the chopping board and one ridiculing him,
is that one is right now on the chopping block while the other is not on yet.
However then the problem occurs. The freak show must be separated from the
audience in all ways, as to not be reminded of the association of identity to
the audience. That is the role of the barker, who prepares the audience for the
spectacle, most likely choosing to exaggerate the human body in a way; YouTube
and other sites do that in a way.
This is where the barker plays
the part to separate the two sides: the audience and the spectacle. He usually
does so by stating: “Stand back ladies and gentlemen, what you are about to see
will shock and amaze you” (Stewart) in the circus environment. By the banker
saying that, he establishes this parameter and warning of not being overwhelmed
by the freak show about to be presented. The significance of the separation is
to normalize the audience so they are not aware of the spectacle and whether he
should be regarded as people, or they assume he cannot look into them. If you
add more distance, it not only applies more distance, which he’s a foreigner
faraway, but acts, on the human part: curiosity. The Barker would arrange the
freak show much like categories and determines which will be the center of
attention by trying to display which is most interesting in the center. With
social media, the site carries the role of being the barker within this social
circus. Social networking sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram play the
role of the barker. How they operate is that they are where uploading videos,
images, or blog posts. Censorship is another tool of social media that could be
related to the Barker’s duties. Censorship is by removing or blocking images or
ideas that would be either too controversial or inappropriate for social
consumption. There by restricting the audience from seeing certain viewings but
rather focusing ion the ones they considered within their conditions to be
displayed. Then also by censoring, they control what the audience sees much
like how the barker in freak shows control what the audience wants to see from
the freak.
The freak show exploits the
abnormalities of the human being. But nonetheless are still incredibly natural
parts of the human body compared to all the body modifications and surgeries
people go through achieve the “perfect human body” where people see deformities
as unnatural. In fact Bogdan points out in his book Freak Show Presenting Human
Oddities for Amusement and Profit, the freak is a more of a “frame of mind” and
is more based on the “social arrangement in which they found themselves” (3).
What he means by that is that freak is not defined because of the physical
appearance but rather how the social culture recognized what is or is not a
freak. So necessarily, they do not have to be physically unappealing to not be
a freak.
The freak has no longer been identified or associated with such extreme
physical deformities, but now is formed or branded a freak by social behavior
like being obnoxious, shallow, mean, or any other form, they appear to be
internally deformed and making them a freak there so. The freak displays itself
with a photo that people may attack on due to it being against the norm or
socially unacceptable. What makes it interesting is that the photos are also
things that many people may actually do in their life. For example, viewing
photos, we see a man shirtless with a big belly and with his wife in what
appears to be leaving a bonfire. Already people make comments about his weight
and size of his body, relating it to “pregnancy” and such. Then the comments
were directed towards the woman and were implying sexual innuendos about her
swallowing semen. Aside from the people, this scene is relatable with people
going out in the outdoors as many have done that. It plays on the freak show
that the spectacle is only really noticed when he or she is placed within a
normal situation. For example on page 9 of Bogdan’s Freak Show, there is
Adolph-Rudolph play an example of phony Siamese twins, dressed in formal
attire, put on display. This way of presenting themselves represents the way
the freak would dress up from even casual attire to be in display (Bogdan 9).
Another example was when a man was posing between two half naked women in
bikinis, though while not physically unsettling, it plays on the internal
grotesque with assuming the guy was an obnoxious human. The people would make
comments of him being a “douchebag” or “pre-K fat ass”. The comments were
judging him based on social stigma of the way he dressed, which was this white
tank top with gold chain and sweatpants and these sunglasses. This appearance
was unapproved, however it was interesting to point out that one person
commented on him being okay with the image because he was between these two
girls in bikinis. Internal deformities are what differentiate from the circus
sideshow, which exclaimed human abnormalities, the social network ridicule
internal deformities. However what they carry together similar, is what draws
our attention to both is the why, questioning either the existence of the freak
or the motives of the person posting the picture or status on their Facebook.
What the spectacles do is question about it and be curious about it, be lost
within the world of the spectacle.
Now to explore the
relationship between the spectacle and the audience from the freak show time
compared to its place in social network. In the freak show, the audience is
brought in by the showmen to see the display of monstrosities, deformities, and
near animalistic humans with these relatable environments like drinking tea or
working in a home. Sometimes they would just be dressed up. In Freak Show,
Bogdan points out freaks were “what you made them”(95). Some of the so called
“freaks” added painted third eyes to be “the man with three eyes” or some lie
about their age, like for instance children pretended to be dwarves but lied
about how old you would actually be (Bogdan 97). It is interesting how the
freak show would intentionally dress up as a freak, compared to actually
deformed humans like “three legged man” or the “Siamese twins” (Bogdan 95).
What was the reason: curiosity. The audience likes to be surprised and curious
on how such a person exist compare to where they are from but again at the same
time not wishing to directly interact with them. Then there when people adjust
themselves in a similar matter (i.e. makeup, push up, Photoshop, hair dye, or
just even tiny modifications) they can be harassed for that. I am not saying
the freak show was not harassed, especially in that era, but with modern times,
a harasser online can already hide and be found to face the consequences of
what he had done to the victim online. I think there is such contradiction and
many opinions, because unlike the relation between audience and freak show,
which that they separate in every form, from location, origins, and identity,
the viewers to the user of socials network is blurred because the viewers also
uses the social network and there by can be in the same position as the
spectacle of the social network. However this also can be a negative, with this
sort of sympathetic side to the social network and spectacle, there are people
who understand the pain but instead just wants to bash people like them because
they cannot accept it themselves for being abnormal like that. If you compare
between the circus environment and the social networking, social networking
would win in terms of cruelty and discriminations towards the freak. Sure there
was physical abuse with sideshows at the circus, but the social networking
carries something that wins over physical abuse: ambiguity. Social networking
carries the ambiguity over the viewers to the spectacle. Unlike maybe in
sideshows, where people might be intimidated to mess with the freak show
because he or she could just easily confront them, where as social networking,
you are denied those possibilities. People can post anonymously and bash you,
then hide behind the computer screen as a fake ID or secret viewer on site like
Form spring, that are people can ask and answer questions anonymously. It is no
use, they are aware, that even if they are across the street or from school,
the Internet makes them hard to track and they could just as well be in the
Philippines. Then with ambiguity, comes aggression. People knowing they could
not possibly be caught, unrestraint themselves to be completely honest, whether
it be hurtful or not towards anyone online. On the article, “Is Facebook
Turning You Into A Monster?” near the end of the article, Marynell points out
the difference between insults online compared to real life. She brings up the
point that you can leave insults online “too easy” because there is no “interaction”
online. (Malcolm) That is what encourages aggression, we are not restrained
because it is registered in our heads there is no repercussions. So they just
target the spectacle harsher compared to the freak show, where they restrained
themselves as to not be overwhelmed by all of it. What else makes the spectacle
harder to contain is that with social networking site, some people communicated
on the sites like they would in real life, however that is hard to distinguish
online leading to a lot of miscommunication (Malcolm). What is interesting is
how Facebook practically invites us to judge the spectacle or anything uploaded
on Facebook, much like other sites. For you seen, there is like comment, it is
offering to like it or comment your opinion, it is not closed, it is again like
the barker, by saying again this “Stand back ladies and gentlemen, what you are
about to see will shock and amaze you” (Stewart). He is also inviting you into
see the spectacle, kind of like double meaning phrase. This is interesting as
humans are initially afraid but at the same time curious to want to behold or
not even stand back. Then with the like and comment, it feels easy as stated by
Malcolm, that it is too easy to do so as there is no interaction.
Exploring multiple factors
that build the freak show, to come understand the relationship between the
circus freak and the social media freak. The freak show is not defined as
mentioned before by the actual deformities but rather the perception by society
and the cultural stance it has towards the human body, whether what part has
been acceptable. What has always made the freak, it is the audience, they
provide their own judgment that defines his own status. The freak show is to be
used as cultural entertainment and yet at the same time to be the symbol of
what is not normalcy for people, so they can identify their own ordinary
compared to the extraordinary of the freak show. The showman exaggerates the
spectacle to be more grandeur, the barker preparing the audience for the show
coming. Then the ‘”freak” is defining his character, there are some who can
live outside their own stage identity and some that can cannot. The freak show
is ridiculed and looked at either with confusion or disgust, but at the moment,
he is the center of attention for all these emotions around the freak show. Now
with the social network, some are very much the same, the character or user can
not be defined by her own physical appearances, she is shaped by internal
beauty or deformities tat can be expressed through her interest and likes. The
viewer picks up on that and recognizes that as the viewer is also the user, but
it is that kind of relation that makes the ridicule more hurtful and worse due
to being on social media, tracing would be difficult. It is different from the
circus, people dare not interact in fear of it, but now people insult the user
and hide behind a computer screen somewhere else. The spectacle is brought upon
to judged by not only the sit itself who determines what is seen and censored
anything else, denying you individuality and punish if dare show it, so this is
what cages the spectacle and separates him or her from the viewers in another
aspect, her individuality where many people on social networking tend to
conform to popular choice, where it proves difficult to retain identity. But
when she tries to, she is attacked by those who are recognizes as normal by
their own standards and see her as not. The freak show in both aspects retain
their identities and do not changed but rather their perspective of them does.
Works Cited
Best, Steven, and Douglas Kellner. "Debord,Cybersituations,and the
Interactive Spectacle."SubStance. 28.3 (1999): n. page. Print.
Bogdan, Robert. Freak Show Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit .
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990. Print.
Clark, Elizabeth. "What Good is the ‘You’ in YouTube? Cyberspectacle and
Subjectivity." Gnovis Journal. 9.1 (2008): n. page. Print. .
Grande, Laura. "Strange and Bizarre: The History of Freak Shows."
Things Said and Done. Wordpress, 26 sept 2010. Web. 17 Dec. 2013. .
Koppel, David. "Medicine and the Media: Serious Documentary or Freak
Show?." BMJ Publishing Group 338.7690 (2009): 325. JSTOR. Web. 16 Dec
2013. .
Marche, Stephen. "Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?." Atlantic. n. page.
Web. 16 Dec. 2013. .
Marynell Maloney Law Firm, . "Is Facebook Turning You Into A
Monster." EmilyVento. Blogger, 22 Mar 2012. Web. 16 Dec. 2013. .
Mean Comments. 2010. Photograph. Mean CommentsWeb. 17 Dec 2013. .
Nyoung, . "freak shows for our times." Western Morning News. (2007):
n. page. Print.
The Observer, . "Social networking under fresh attack as tide of
cyber-scepticism sweeps US." Guardian. (2011): n. page. Web. 17 Dec. 2013. .
