Written by Victoria Lewis, featured panelist at the VSA arts RI sponsored preshow discussion of the Gamm Theatre’s production of The Elephant Man on Friday October 5, 2007 at 6:30pm
Back in the day, the day being the late 1970’s and early 80’s, well before the quirky, dark dramas of HBO became the water-cooler rage, some astonishingly fresh and unlikely stories and stars appeared on stage and screen. In 1980, Bernard Pomerance’s The Elephant Man, the story of sideshow exhibit Joseph Merrick and his doctor Frederick Treves, won the Tony for Best Play. The next year Mark Medhoff’s Children of a Lesser God, a drama featuring a romance between a Deaf woman and a hearing man, took home the Best Play prize as well as awards for Best Leading Actress (Phyliss Frelich) and Best Leading Actor (John Rubenstein). In cinema, similarly, Hal Ashby’s Coming Home, a film whose emotional core rested on the sexuality of a disabled man, won Oscars (1978) for Best Screenplay, Best Leading Actor (Jon Voigt) and Best Leading Actress (Jane Fonda). What, one might have asked, was going on? When did disabled characters become leads? When did audiences come to accept disabled characters as complex, autonomous human beings, instead of heroic overcomers such as Franklin Delanor Roosevelt in the old warhorse Sunrise at Campobello or the victims and villains so familiar from melodrama (Tiny Tim, Dr. Strangelove, Captain Hook, etc.). But as we know there is no such thing as “overnight” success: years of unrecognized labor more often than not proceed a brilliant “debut.” So too with ideas. In the early 1960’s a new disability identity was being formed on the streets and in the courts of America. Disabled activists fought discrimination in education, employment, housing and transportation and, less concretely, but no less profoundly, challenged the old stereotypes of disability. Inevitably, this struggle for identity found its way into our national storytelling.
No play better captures that moment of transformation than Pomerance’s The Elephant Man. The drama represents and then undercuts the two primary cultural lenses that have been used to interpret physical and mental difference through the ages–lenses that have operated both on the legitimate stage and in the mass media. The first is the so called Moral (or religious ) Model in which the physically different body is explained by an act of divine or demonic intervention. “Who has sinned, this man or his parents?” the Pharisees asked Christ about the blind man. In the medieval era a spinal deformity was explained by the presence of a devil curled up inside the hump. Choruses of devils babbled in the ears of the deaf. Children born disabled were proof of intercourse with the devil, and their mothers could be burned as witches. Famous stage roles that rely on this character shorthand include the stigmatized Oedipus, Richard III, on the dark side, and saintly characters like Tiny Tim, the special child who represents pure goodness, on the other. When the Elephant’s Man’s manager Ross promises the crowd at the play’s beginning that they will see “Mother Nature uncorseted and in malignant rage!” he is tapping into the crowds’ fears and superstitions, giving them a brush with a taboo and a chance to reaffirm their own normality and goodness.
But beginning in the Victoria era and continuing well into the 20th century, a new idea of disability began to take hold in Western societies. Fueled by advances in the sciences and the growing professionalization of physicians, the so-called “Medical Model” radically revised the meaning of disability. The “impaired,” whether in body or mind, were no longer viewed as supernaturally good or evil, but sick. Under the Medical Model the disabled person is no longer a saint or a sinner, but a patient and must either be charitably removed from society, through institutionalization and in some cases death, or cure themselves, or at least “pass” as cured. Extreme proponents of this view used Social Darwinism and the pseudo-science of Eugenics to justify segregation and elimination of “defective” human beings in pursuit of a perfect human race. Plays and films that reflect the medical model include: Sunrise at Campobello, The Magnificent Obsession, Heidi, Of Mice And Men and Whose Life Is It Anyway? In The Elephant Man Frederick Treves represents the best of the medical model: kind, compassionate, intelligent, and seemingly selfless – an idealistic man whose control of Joseph Merrick is always “for his own good. “
The conflict between Ross, the crass “carny,” and Treves, the humane healer; between superstition and science; between public display and institutionalization was a quarrel that would play out in civic dialogue over the course of the 20th century The Freak Show was one cultural hotspot where the two met head on. Cities passed ordinances closing down the shows, accusing the operators of inhumane exploitation of the ill and unfortunate. By 1932 a New York Times reviewer commenting on Todd Browning’s horror film, Freaks, wrote: ” the difficulty is in telling whether it should be shown at the Rialto [movie house] —where it opened yesterday—or in , say, the Medical Centre.”
Interestingly, the objects of this early 20th-century “culture war,” the side show exhibits themselves, held with neither model. Many considered themselves legitimate entertainers and, more importantly, prized being employed and financially independent. Anything was better than being in the hands of the doctors. Conjoined twins Daisy and Violet Hilton (1908-1968) protested that they “loathed the very tone of the medical man’s voice,” and feared that the doctors would take them from the stage and “punch and pinch and take our pictures always.”
In the sideshow exhibits’ desire to control their own lives we hear the beginning of a new expression of the disability experience that emerges in the late 20thth century–one that rejected both the moral and the medical models and argued instead for independent living and social integration—the social model. In great part the issue of institutionalization provided the catalyst for the entire disability civil rights movement. Advocates argued then, and continue to argue today, that institutionalization of people who are physically dependent is much more expensive than providing support services so that people can live in their own homes, integrated into society. Independent Living came to mean, not physical autonomy, but the ability to make decisions about one’s own life.
And what of Joseph Merrick and Frederick Treves? Pomerance wrote about a time, the Victorian era, and in a time, the 1970’s and 80’s, when questions and assumptions about power fascinated and activated the public. Some twenty years later these issues continue to trouble our public life: Who controls our bodies? What is the value of charity in medical care? Is health care a right or a privilege? What constitutes “quality of life?” And the simplest and the most difficult: How do we care for one another?
A final note on the question of casting. As The Elephant Man premiered in New York in 1980, disabled actors had begun to organize within the performing unions seeking access to wider casting opportunities—the chance to play disability-specific roles as well as so-called “non-specific” roles –lawyers, moms, etc. All minority actors have fought such battles. When William Butler Yeats and Lady Gregory set out to create a Irish/Celtic literary theater that would “reveal the true nature of Ireland,” they drew the line at casting Irish actors. Instead Yeats and Gregory traveled to England where they cast and rehearsed their revolutionary plays with English actors. Not surprisingly few Irish actors of the day could make a living on the stage relegated as they were to playing the Irish drunk in melodramas.
–Victoria Ann Lewis, Associate Professor of Theatre Arts, University of Redlands; Founding Director Mark Taper Forum’s Other Voices
Sections of this essay were published in Victoria Ann Lewis, ed.’s Beyond Victims and Villains: Contemporary Plays by Disabled Playwrights. New York: Theatre Communications Group, Inc., 2006.Sources: Robert Bogdan. Freak Show: Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Paul Longmore. “Screening Stereotypes: Images of Disabled People,” in Why I Burned This Book and other Essays on Disability. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003.
Now it’s your turn! Discuss Victoria Lewis’ essay here at the VSA arts of RI blog and then come see her speak in person at the pre-show discussion of the Gamm Theatre’s production of The Elephant Man on Friday October 5, 2007 at 6:30pm. For more information click here for the full pdf or to purchase tickets visit www.gammtheatre.org
“Anything was better than being in the hands of the doctors.” For people with physical or mental disabilities, the medical world must surely represent a quandary — will the doctor help or hurt me? So often hurt comes in the name of help. One wishes that medical “teams” would be more collaborative. Help needs to be directed by the person who knows what is in her “best interest;” help is not therapy performed upon a person… Attitudes should be adjusted to reflect that humans are people first, and all have disabilities. Some may take longer to perceive than others.
and, PS: Victoria writes of “old” stereotypes — and still uses “disabled” as an adjective. Not to offend with political correctness — but language forms attitudes. Why is progress so slow? Even if we can’t all walk the walk, we can surely do better with the way we talk the talk!
Language is certainly one of the slippery slopes when speaking of any stigmatized group. As a Teacher of Special Education, there are so many, dare I say, “rules and regulations” about using language, especially to define any one person, or group thereof. I feel the most important thing to keep in mind, is that every human has a right to dignity and respect, regardless of their ability or inability to function the same as the “majority.” Labeling and attitudes seem to always reflect what the majority is, hence former (and still prevalent) issues dealing with race, gender, and class.
Each and every person is different, and those differences are what make life beautiful. If awareness of disabilities becomes more widespread, then language will not be so detrimental. The more one understands and is exposed to certain cultures, or people…the more everyone can benefit from that understanding, and then we can all live more harmoniously.
I hope that art can be the catalyst for understanding and more importantly, for change.
Ms. Izzo points to one of my personal pet peeves in this arena – the challenge of (“politically correct”) language in speaking of and addressing the social construct of disability identity. Some individuals, with and without disabilities, have remarked how annoying it is to be so picky about language, when we insist on the vital importance of using Person First Language. Language and attitude form each other, so where do we best begin to make lasting change? For me, during the past almost three decades of living with an acquired disability, what I most yearn for is opportunities for those of us with disabilities to at least participate in (if not exclusively control) the creation of the public images of our lives and experiences – as other communities of peoples in our culture are able to do, to some degree in most (alas, not all) cases.
Pomerance’s work is important to me in contextualizing the history and evolution of disability culture and identity within the civil rights and social justice movements of this country because the John Merrick’s resounding cry captures the very heart of the issue for all of us who have been marginalized and demonized for being distinctive ~ ” … I am a Human Being ! ”
Both the Moral and the Medical Models of disability identity make us Other than our fellows. Resisting these “mythical, stereotypical images” of ourselves is why we must continue to claim our place at the table of human cultures and communities by practicing active citizenship in community; so that diverse voices do continue to ask not just who is “allowed” to participate in ~ and create ~ human culture, society and community, but more pointedly: “WHO gets to decide Who is included … ?”
Looks like a great event. Already got my ticket!
I think the issue of casting is an interesting one. Here in Rhode Island we will have a major theater – Trinity – doing Richard III (VILLIAN), and they as well as numerous others will do productions of Christmas Carol (TINY TIM – VICTIM).
Will any of them make a real attempt or effort to find actors with disbilities to play those roles – or is that too Irish/English with ‘good’ excuses? That casting would bring something interesting and deeper to the productions. I hope the theatres accept the challenge!
Wish I could be at the event. Looks amazing, and it’s stimulated an important discussion.
Mindy
It’s extremely interesting to view disability culture in a historical context. One result is the awareness that language has made a difference. Political correctness isn’t at issue; what is at issue is the how people with disabilities define their identity. Language should emanate from that group, not from any external groups or theories.
The historical perspective underlines that cultural attitudes towards people with disabilities has changed but still need to change dramatically. As a member of the disability community, it also reminds me to agitate for the changes we want, and to refuse to have changes imposed on us. If we can’t all personally serve as advocates, we need to support those of us who can.
The single most important thing any of us can do is to refuse to accept outmoded perceptions and challenge those who persist in them.
Fish, I agree with you about the importance of our refusal to accept outmoded perceptions of people with disabilities and reaching beyond political correctness as a fashionable behavior. But I do think there is something else at least as important. I believe we also need to go well beyond challenging the old models of Moral (religious) and Medical (curative) definitions of disability identity to proactively engaging the issue you mention – WHO defines disability identity. And that is why the work of Victoria Lewis, the other Voices Project, and a growing abundance of other artists (with and without disabilities, across the country and around the world) is vital and valuable; we are claiming our place at the table of cultural context, and our power to create the language about and thus an image of disability identity. Beyond the Moral and Medical models, is there an Artistic Model as Neil Marcus claims – “Disability is an art…it’s an art …” ?
Jaehn,
I’m actually more in agreement with you than not. I believe that active members of the disability community began to reject the moral/medical models well before the advent of the ADA. The historical view of those models informs us, and it’s important to be aware of our history, but everyone in the disability community I talk to has moved to a model based on personal identity. This is an acceptance of the idea that there are no models, including any ideas of disability as an art. While we all know Thomas Szaz’s (sp?) theory that disability, and specifically madness, is a culturally misunderstood artifact, there’s no particular beauty or nobility in pure difference.
At this point, it might be useful to mention that many of us have trouble getting jobs, apartments, and accessible ingress/egress. I understand that mainstream exposure to our lives can be useful, but I think if you go out in the community it’s very easy to find people who are still living the life this piece of theater refers to. I can’t actually engage with ideas about that, because outside of direct political action, I see very few solutions
I agree it is important to focus awareness on the idea that language reinforces the dominant culture’s views of most things, including disability.
Many titles were used to exhibit people for money, some favorites of mine are Raree Show, Hall of Human Curiosities, Sideshow, Odditorium, Museum of Nature’s Mistakes, and of course Freak Show. And the names for the people exhibited, because showmen exploited ‘medical’ and ‘scientific’ interest range, from old show-world hype, curiosities, lusus naturae, freaks of nature, rarities, oddities, eccentricities, wonders, monsters, to our more recent handicapped (and the embarrassing) very special. All making sure to ehance the idea of “other”.
I think there is also often an enormous difference between how language addresses physical and mental disabilities. Our culture is still much more accepting of words like crazy and looney used commonly than it is now of gimp or cripple.
Obviously – from user to user and from time to time – the language used to describe disability has changed often; at times insulting, derogatory, offensive, degrading and even occasionally mystifying. Yet these terms, while out of the past do frame current ideologies about the connections between language and societal attitudes and beliefs.
Yes, it makes a difference how we refer to other people. And who but those in the group has the right to decide what any group of people should be called?
The thing about “Disability” culture/community/identity seems to me to be in conflict with the idea that while disability is a part of what informs our lives, my life, it is only a part. (Disabled actors? No thank you. And I don’t get the Artist Model as the next progression – sorry Jaehn but that seems like a bad marketing idea).
Yes, I have a disability, but “Disability” does not define me or my art. It is not unaccompanied – I also have a race, an ethnicity, a class, a gender, and a sexual orientation. As an artist and as an advocate all these components inform my work. Making art is my solution.
I have seen the Gamm Theater’s performance of the Elephant Man. The acting and directing are excellent. I had read the piece by Ms. Lewis before I went to the show. The questions she brought up allowed me to view and reflect on the story in a way that I would not have otherwise done. What I came away with was the ambivalence that all the characters had as to identiy and self determination. The simple yet profound question of: Am I helping another for him/her or me, and more importantly do I even know what that help should be.
In the play Treves believes that he is helping Merrick by isolating him from the “uneducated” and introducing him to people that are of a high social status, yet when issues come up, like sexuality, Treves treats Merrick like a non human. It is not about language, but rather about actions that we need to focus on.
KEVIN: Yeah, Disability is an Art is prob’ly NOT a notion that would gain wide acceptance in The Mainstream … it just tickled my fancy to think of it that way. And your point about disability being merely one facet of the myriad aspects that comprise our identities is a strong one, and one that I also try to emphasize. Your point about the distinction betwixt physical and non-physical disabilities is also important to me. Different kinds of stigma are associated with each, and some individuals can “pass” as non-disabled.
I totally agree with you that “it makes a difference how we refer to…people.” Attitudes and language form each other in a continuous feedback loop. And I am so appreciative that you pointed out what seems obvious to me: “…who but those in the group has the right to decide what [they] should be called?” What will WE decide is an acceptable “label” for us? IS there one term that will suit all of us? Aren’t people with disabilities as diverse as non-disabled people?
I appreciate the point that Fish Bundy makes concerning our progression towards a model of PERSONAL identity … with disability as an aspect but not THE defining aspect. Fish’s assertion that many of us still struggle with some pretty basic issues (housing, employment, independence, appropriate interdependence) reminds me that there are some folks with disabilities who do not have the perspective that I have ~ that change has taken place and even some improvement in the cultural context of disability identity. And I believe that the arts and the rise of so-called Disability Culture has made a signifcant contribution to this change in the cultural landscape of disability.
I choose to believe that there are solutions, including “direct political action” AND making art ~ sometimes simultaneously ! I also think Victoria is correct ~ it is high time that we push ourselves and our cultural/society beyond “victims and villians”. I think we can no loner wait to be offerd a place at the table of human community ~ whatever the struggles, we all need to get out there at least some of the time and claim a place at the table, even if we find it necessary to ask someone else, “Please move over a bit, will ya?”
And I ask myself ~ why are there only nine or so voices engaged in this blog, to date?