I anticipate that this October will be the month of “freak,” and not because of Halloween. Though that won’t help.
Because the media can’t resist trend stories, and any three or more items with a common link can constitute a trend, the confluence of the AMC series Freakshow; the new season of American Horror Story, entitled “Freak Show”; and the Broadway musical Side Show, with its opening number inviting audiences to “Come Look at the Freaks,” will prove irresistible. However, they may also engender more frequent use of the word “freak” to apply to people with disabilities, bringing into vogue a term used far too often to marginalize those who don’t match up with what is far too often termed as “normal.” What, after all, is normal anyway?
“Freak” is a particularly ugly word when applied to a person with a disability, since it is not only designed to clearly label them as being something other than the prevailing “standard,” but it has been layered over centuries with implications of fear and horror and objectification. Many people went to see side shows in order to gaze with at best fascination, but often with superiority or revulsion at people who, in some cases, could find no other employment (and developed extraordinary skills to combat that) and for whom medical treatments and assistive tools were unavailable. That connotation lingers.
Part of the challenge that’s barreling towards us in the next month comes from how these works are advertised. The deeply unsettling ads for American Horror Story, whether in TV or on subway signage, are determined to link “freak” with “scary” and “strange.” In an effort to recall the very side shows in which John Merrick was displayed, the pending Broadway revival of The Elephant Man already has theatre signage imploring passers-by to “Behold an extraordinary freak of nature.” And how many people may come out of Side Show humming the often-sung and whispered, “Come look at the freaks/Come gape at the geeks/Come examine these aberrations/Their malformations/Grotesque physiques/Only pennies for peeks”? It’s quite possible that more people will see or hear the word “freak” than will actually see the shows that contain or employ them, reinsinuating the term back into common parlance, devoid of context or understanding.
Each of these examples may be very different works – one a reality TV show, one a fictional horror fantasy, one a Broadway musical – but they’re all rooted in the setting of a circus or carnival sideshow or, as they were often known, freak show. The side show has proven a rich location for tales of fiction and fact for many years, from William Lindsay Gresham’s noir Nightmare Alley to an early and rare Spalding Gray monologue In Search of The Monkey Girl to Katherine Dunn’s family saga Geek Love. The legacy of Tod Browning’s film Freaks lingers after 80 years, along with the debate over whether it was utter exploitation, or something more.
This is not to suggest that we can entirely eradicate “freak,” but that as these depictions proliferate, we should be thinking about the context in which they’re used. In the various accounts being told, it would be dishonest to pretend that “freak” was not a common term for people with disabilities. Within each work, it’s an accurate term (although in its out of town run at The Kennedy Center, I noticed Side Show’s careful use of “disabled” at one point, anachronistically but diplomatically), no different than the term “crippled” in Martin McDonough’s The Cripple of Inishmaan, which played on Broadway in the spring.
Daniel Radcliffe and Sarah Greene in The Cripple of Inishmaan
But Inishmaan is also the example that provokes my concern about “the fr-word” this fall. While in Ireland in the 1930s, no one was stopping to find a more proper term for the boy they all called, to his own frustration, “Cripple Billy.” But when the show was discussed or written about, the term was used over and over again, with some critics seemingly of the opinion that since it was spoken so often in the play, they could use it in their own writing. But those critics were writing in 2014, not 1934, and their language should not have been the language of the play except when making direct quotes.
Just like the language regarding race, the best term for discussing those who have disabilities has been evolving. Terms like “handicapped” and “differently abled,” which were seen as proper not so long ago, are now problematic; for comparison’s sake, think about how terms like “Oriental” or “Negro” seem today. Worth remembering is that the long-prevailing language was imposed upon minority groups without consultation or consent; now it’s incumbent upon us to employ the preferred terms that groups choose for their own self-definition.
That’s not to say the word is never to be uttered. Beginning in the 1960s, the counterculture embraced “freak” specifically to define themselves as outside of conventional society, but the term was usually dissociated from physical attributes and was more of a state of mind; we began to hear about “freak flags flying” from groups that assiduously wanted to be perceived as outside the mainstream. There are nouveau side shows in a number of places, including Coney Island and Venice Beach, but on recent looks, their bills of fare were just as apt to favor people who displayed outré body art or performed stunts than those with disabilities, and in every case the performers are there under their own agency.
Indeed, just as LGBTQ activists embraced the derogatory “queer” as an emblem of their own efforts at acceptance, and to confront those who sought to suppress them, there are those in the disability community who proudly call themselves “freaks” or “crips,” and those names are often claimed by performers with disabilities as well. But no differently than someone straight should call a member of the LGBTQ community “a queer,” no one should think that they have the right to label someone with a disability “a freak.” Those individuals can self-identify as such, but it doesn’t cut both ways.
As Christopher Shinn wrote so eloquently for The Atlantic, disability is not a metaphor. I would add to that sentiment that “freak,” when applied to a person, is not a title of mystery and wonder. It’s a slur. So see these shows according to your own taste. But think carefully about how you’re going to talk about them afterwards.
This essay appeared in a somewhat different form as part of The Guardian’s op-ed section, “Comment is Free.” Click here for that edited and condensed version.
I am angry and I am sad. But I am not entirely surprised.
Earlier this morning, Dawn Burch, drama director at South Williamsport Area Junior/Senior High School in Pennsylvania, was fired from her position. By e-mail. The reason given? “Job performance.”
It doesn’t take a detective to figure out what’s really going on. At the beginning of July, Burch asserted that her musical choice for this school year, Spamalot, had been nixed by the school due to its gay content. School officials vehemently denied that was the case.
In late August, Keystone Progress and I received copies of school e-mails between Burch, principal Jesse Smith and superintendent Mark Stamm regarding the decision. An e-mail from Smith from the end of June cited “homosexual themes” as the reason for canceling the show.
So now, less than a month after the administration’s efforts to hide their own actions were revealed, Burch suddenly loses her job. Save for holding auditions and beginning rehearsals for the school’s fall play, Alice in Wonderland, she has barely undertaken her job for this year, as prior to that it was summer break. When exactly did these job performance issues come to light? Awfully coincidental, no?
I believe Burch has been fired for telling the truth. Burch has been fired for not being willing to accept that gay life was not something to be hidden away, not something to be ashamed of, not something to be afraid of. It hardly takes another Right-to-Know request to put together the pieces.
I wanted to interview Burch about what has transpired, but she was too emotional to say much more than the bare facts of the firing as cited above, except to express concern about what would happen to the fall play and to the students already cast, who were looking forward to being in the show. Will it still happen? Who knows. But even on a difficult day, Burch’s main concern was for the students. She may not be a teacher (and therefore has no tenure), but putting the needs of students first is a sign of an excellent teacher, accredited or not. There are many ways to teach.
It’s worth noting that at a Board of Education meeting a week and a half ago, conversation regarding the Spamalot issue was expressly deferred until this coming Monday, September 22. So it’s quite remarkable that this decisive action took place even before the South Williamsport community could discuss the issue publicly; that they were denied any opportunity to speak before the issue was resolved and that it became a referendum on Burch’s performance, rather than about condoning homophobia and then hiding that fact. Will the topic still be discussed Monday night? Perhaps. But there’s going to be a lot of discussion in the past tense when it comes to Burch.
Perhaps we’ll all be surprised. Perhaps overwhelming support for Burch will be in evidence on Monday night. Perhaps the Board of Ed members will discover that this is an issue that will be a factor when they run for reelection. Perhaps parents will make clear that they can’t trust the word of the board chair, the superintendent and the principal, given their efforts to obscure the truth in this situation. Perhaps the press will cover the fallout of this firing with rigor and depth, and a truer picture will emerge.
I don’t know how the students will feel, or what they’ll be told about the loss of their drama director. I don’t know how they’ll react, or if they will at all. But just as kids are smart enough to intuit a great many things from a very early age, I suspect many of them are going to realize that they’ve just been given a lesson in right and wrong, in honor and duplicity, in the politics of fear and silence. They’ve seen just how badly their elders can behave in the name of protecting them. I hope they’ll see through it as well.
And I hope they’ll realize that Dawn Burch is a hero. I think plenty of people already do.
Even if I were to attend the Board of Education meeting of the South Williamsport Area School District in Pennsylvania this coming Monday, September 22, I couldn’t speak. That’s because the district only allows comment from residents and taxpayers, and I am neither. Even if I were permitted to speak, I very likely would only be permitted to make a statement, since many school boards allow public comments at meetings, but don’t necessarily engage in dialogue. I have no idea what the practice is in South Williamsport.
I remain very concerned about the school’s decision to cancel the musical Spamalot due to, in the words of Principal Jesse Smith, “homosexual themes.” This is no longer an issue about play choice, but about institutional bias. As a result, I have a lot of questions I wish I could ask, both at that meeting and elsewhere in South Williamsport, about all that has transpired over this clear effort to suppress any portrayal of gay life at the Junior/Senior High School, even in a piece as non-doctrinaire as a Monty Python musical.
So all I can do I toss my questions out into the universe, hoping that perhaps a resident or taxpayer might ask them, or speak to them, before Monday night, during the Board of Education meeting itself, and afterwards.
1. Principal Jesse Smith: when this story was first reported, a quote was falsely attributed to you, which has rightly been corrected and/or excised. In school e-mails, you expressed concern that this falsely attributed statement made you look like a bigot. However, the central issue remains – you don’t think it appropriate for homosexual characters or relationships to appear in a school show. This leads me to ask an obvious question: do you personally support or oppose equal rights for all people – gay, straight, bisexual and transgender? Do you personally think the portrayal of gay characters in Spamalot is inappropriate in a school setting, or are you acceding to the opinions and wishes of those who do?
2. Superintendent Mark Stamm: internal e-mails from the school have you declaring that Mr. Smith’s original decision on this issue is “sound.” Therefore, it’s only natural to ask you the same question put to him: do you personally support or oppose equal rights for all – gay, straight, bisexual or transgender?
3. Board of Education chair John Engel: On July 3, regarding the initial assertions that Spamalot was canceled due to gay content, a story from PennLive/Patriot-News said, “Homosexuality did not enter into that decision, Engel said.” The released e-mails prove that homosexuality was the reason for the decision. So, were you given false information by school district staff that led you to make this incorrect statement, or were you attempting to obscure the facts? As an elected official, what is your position regarding the dissemination of incorrect information to the public by any member of the school staff or school board?
4. WNEP Television: You first reported the story of the cancelation of Spamalot and, regrettably, that story contained a noteworthy error which proved distracting. Several days later, you aired a second story about the community coming together. However, since then, you have not reported on the story at all, even after multiple sources revealed that indeed it was the show’s gay content that provoked censorship. Is this fulfilling your responsibility as a source of local news? Have you scared yourselves away from covering an important story?
5. PennLive.com/Patriot-News: You also wrote about the Spamalot controversy when it first broke in July, but have not written about it since the school e-mails were revealed. Why do you not consider those facts newsworthy, especially since they contradict material you previously reported?
6. The news staff of the Williamsport Sun-Gazette: Why did it take a blogger and a progressive advocacy organization to bring forward the truth of the reasons for Spamalot’s cancelation through Right-to-Know requests? Given the information you published originally, it was clear there were varying accounts, and there was an obvious way to clear things up. Why didn’t you do this on your own? Why, once the e-mails were revealed, did it take you another 10 days to report the story?
7. The editorial page staff of the Williamsport Sun-Gazette: Since your paper ultimately wrote about the release of e-mails which made clear that Spamalot was canceled due to its “homosexual themes,” and prior statements from school administrators had been designed to obscure that fact, you have not mentioned this issue at all – either with any letters to the editor or an editorial. In fact, you haven’t offered an editorial about this situation at all since the story first emerged in early July, even though you have managed 10 pieces relating to the Federal government, including terrorism and the IRS, among many others, in that time. Why haven’t you written a word about a case of anti-gay bias in your own backyard?
8. Superintendent Stamm: When you spoke to the Sun-Gazette about the released e-mails, you spoke about statements being taken out of context. However, as the Right-to-Know administrator for the district, you were personally responsible for redacting the context in the e-mails, presumably with advice of counsel. Is it reasonable to complain about lack of context that you blacked out? Also, you defended Mr. Smith’s signature on a check for the rights to Spamalot by saying the attached contract was folded. Is folded material a legitimate excuse for not understanding why disbursements are being made?
9. To the (claimed) South Williamsport area parent who contacted me via my website: You wrote, “I have a child that attends the So. Wmspst school district and would never want him exposed to that sexual sin. There are still parents and students and many members of our community who do not agree with homosexuality or gay marriage… We have freedom of speech also-I don’t want to see our innocent children exposed to that. They don’t need to grow up thinking that it’s normal. Some of us still have morals. Keep it out of South!” Your freedom of speech absolutely does guarantee you the right to express your opinions. However, a public school has the responsibility to prepare students for life and to teach them about the world beyond their local community. Do you believe that your disagreement with aspects of the world can dictate what students learn and perform?
10. All officials and residents in South Williamsport: national news reports on this issue have the potential to leave a lasting image of your town as one that does not believe in inclusion and equality. Will you make a public effort to assure members of the local, regional and national community that South Williamsport accepts, respects and welcomes all people as equals, without regard to gender, age, race, religion, disability or sexual orientation?
I realize that my questions go far beyond the scope of a Board of Education meeting. But that meeting is as good a reason and opportunity as any to start raising these questions, since they arose from a school issue. Now all I can do is hope that they get asked.
September 4th, 2014 § Comments Off on The Stage: American Stages § permalink
I created the fortnightly “American Stages” column for The Stage in London in 2013 with the mandate to cover news of American theatre news that didn’t necessarily warrant a standalone story and wasn’t being widely covered in other UK media. It gave me the ongoing opportunity to mix commercial with not-for-profit, Broadway with regional, as I saw fit, all targeted primarily at a readership of theatre professionals in the UK. Beginning in October 2014, the column became a weekly feature. Given the relatively tricky formatting of the original pieces, this pages serves as an index that will take you to each column as it appears on The Stage’s website, and will be updated on a rolling (and somewhat erratic) basis.
Because the media can’t resist trend stories, and any three or more items with a common link can constitute a trend, the confluence of the AMC series Freakshow; the new season of American Horror Story, entitled “Freak Show”; and the Broadway musical Side Show, with its opening number inviting audiences to “Come Look at the Freaks,” will prove irresistible. However, they may also engender more frequent use of the word “freak” to apply to people with disabilities, bringing into vogue a term used far too often to marginalize those who don’t match up with what is far too often termed as “normal.” What, after all, is normal anyway?
Part of the challenge that’s barreling towards us in the next month comes from how these works are advertised. The deeply unsettling ads for American Horror Story, whether in TV or on subway signage, are determined to link “freak” with “scary” and “strange.” In an effort to recall the very side shows in which John Merrick was displayed, the pending Broadway revival of The Elephant Man already has theatre signage imploring passers-by to “Behold an extraordinary freak of nature.” And how many people may come out of Side Show humming the often-sung and whispered, “Come look at the freaks/Come gape at the geeks/Come examine these aberrations/Their malformations/Grotesque physiques/Only pennies for peeks”? It’s quite possible that more people will see or hear the word “freak” than will actually see the shows that contain or employ them, reinsinuating the term back into common parlance, devoid of context or understanding.
Each of these examples may be very different works – one a reality TV show, one a fictional horror fantasy, one a Broadway musical – but they’re all rooted in the setting of a circus or carnival sideshow or, as they were often known, freak show. The side show has proven a rich location for tales of fiction and fact for many years, from William Lindsay Gresham’s noir Nightmare Alley to an early and rare Spalding Gray monologue In Search of The Monkey Girl to Katherine Dunn’s family saga Geek Love. The legacy of Tod Browning’s film Freaks lingers after 80 years, along with the debate over whether it was utter exploitation, or something more.
That’s not to say the word is never to be uttered. Beginning in the 1960s, the counterculture embraced “freak” specifically to define themselves as outside of conventional society, but the term was usually dissociated from physical attributes and was more of a state of mind; we began to hear about “freak flags flying” from groups that assiduously wanted to be perceived as outside the mainstream. There are nouveau side shows in a number of places, including Coney Island and Venice Beach, but on recent looks, their bills of fare were just as apt to favor people who displayed outré body art or performed stunts than those with disabilities, and in every case the performers are there under their own agency.
