This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/136480BE-C668-444F-BE4E-FDA0A3DFCD1D.jpeg 2021-03-28T14:56:18-07:00 Social Constructions 66 plain 2021-04-29T17:54:11-07:00
  SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND THE SPREAD OF IDEAS
  The sideshow relied on a presentation of the authentic body—or at least a claim to authenticity—that was in reality a highly staged encounter. While it’s troubling to think about the display of human beings as passive exhibits—or indeed to read earlier language describing them as displays—objectification and commodification of people was a central part of marketing sideshow performances in the mid-nineteenth through the early twentieth centuries.¹³ Robert Bogdan describes two patterns of presentation that dominated the sideshow industry: “the exotic, which cast the exhibit as a strange creature from a little-known part of the world; and the aggrandized, which endowed the freak with status-enhancing characteristics."¹⁴ The former category included acts such as the “Wild Men of Borneo” and William Henry Johnson’s portrayal of “Zip, the What-Is-It?” while the latter category included performers such as General Tom Thumb—significantly, all of the backstories presented about these performers were complete fabrications. Despite the similar use of exaggeration or outright falsehood employed in constructing the sideshow performers’ identities, this essay is focused on the “exotic” mode because of the way it reflected and informed larger social and cultural constructs, and how it permeated other parts of the circus, such as the grand spectacle shows.
  
  The sideshow acts and spectacles that focused on non-Western cultures were an outgrowth and extension of the curiosity that audiences in Europe and the United States had about unfamiliar cultures,¹⁵ and the particular presentations reinforced a racist hierarchy that was an inevitable effect of imperialism in the wake of British colonization and American expansion. The exotic mode of presentation was in many ways a logical complement to the “patriotic spectacles” that valorized the discovery and militaristic expansion activities of U.S. and European civilizations, such as Barnum & Bailey’s 1892 spectacle Columbus and the Discovery of America.¹⁶ In the decades leading up to this, P.T. Barnum and other showmen were already reflecting an undercurrent of colonial ideologies in their circuses and museum shows. In 1874 Barnum featured a Grand Procession of the Congress of Nations to open the show at his Roman Hippodrome in New York City; this show depicted the imperial courts of the world, but was actually staffed with circus extras filling these roles.
  
  
  In 1879 Barnum’s traveling Greatest Show on Earth featured a group of Zulu Warriors that was so popular as a ring act, showing “barbarous” displays of dancing and spear throwing, that it “paved the way for an increasing number of ethnological acts and exhibitions in the years that followed, most notably the so-called Ethnological Congresses that featured people drawn from around the globe.”¹⁷ These Congresses, exhibited in the menagerie tent with the performers appearing alongside animals from their homelands, were billed as educational events, “illuminating ‘specimens’ of their respective races.”¹⁸
  
  This shift toward large displays that positioned certain performers in terms of their “otherness” and “primitive exoticism”¹⁹ placed them as part of a shorthand for American understandings of non-Western cultures. This shorthand included the use of identifiers such as “Pygmy”, “Bushman”, and “Zulu” (sometimes interchangeably) to describe African performers regardless of their ethnic, national, or cultural affiliation,²⁰ and often extended to identifying any Black performer as African, regardless of their nationality.
  
  The mixture of Western imperialism and exploration, along with newly emerging “popular” understandings of evolution²¹ (and the body of pseudoscientific knowledge that arose around it) fed into a cultural move to project Western understandings and desires onto the people and cultures of previously remote areas of the world.²² This tendency to rationalize objectification by couching it in so-called legitimate study was already deeply embedded in the sideshow world, with Rachel Adams noting that “freak shows had always drawn on ethnographic and medical discourses to grant legitimacy to the fantastic narratives they wove around the bodies on display.”²³ The commentaries of doctors, explorers, and scientists were used to present the sideshow performers’ narratives and to create the printed biographical sketches that often accompanied the acts. These narratives were usually fabrications, but the testimony of “experts” added a sense of authenticity. The increasing cultural fascination with “exotic” cultures meant that sideshows began to “employ more non-white performers” who were billed as “savages, cannibals, and missing links,” and that the authoritative voices of the fake “professors” and “doctors” who presented pseudoethnographic narratives about them lent credibility to the educational claims of most circuses at the time. In fact, “anthropological exhibits at freak shows often provided American audiences with their primary source of information about the non-Western world.”²⁴
  
  Sideshows took advantage of the growing interest in scientific inquiry and the language used to describe Western expansion by blending travel narratives—a type of literature that was marketed as a safe and moral way for people to learn about the broader world, conveniently compiled by those adventurous enough to experience it—with current events, scientific writings, and ethnological studies²⁵ to produce the backstories and biographical sketches of performers. This way of presenting the exotic in the context of contemporary social views was further expanded when sideshow performers were billed as “prehistoric” in some way. Ann McKenzie Garascia explains more generally that:

  “Mapping the ancient world onto the British Empire’s little-explored outposts produced a spatialized dimension of time: a phenomenon in which moving further away from the modern center of the empire was represented as moving back further in time. This ratified the practice of taxonomical ranking [of] geographically dispersed populations by banishing them to a ‘permanently anterior time’²⁶ within modernity.”²⁷

  
  The American sideshow capitalized on the idea of presenting non-Western cultures through a temporal lens in part by casting certain individuals into the role of “throwbacks” or “prehistoric” figures. One of the most notable examples of this was Barnum’s characterization, beginning in 1860, of Zip, the What-Is-It, as a “missing link.” The biographical sketch narrative sold at Barnum’s museum places him in a suspended time and place, exemplifying how “freak shows sought to ritualize physical and cultural difference through the “show space,”²⁸ a confluence of time and space that materialized historically specific relationships between colonizers and colonized.”²⁹
  
  The positioning of people as primitive reinforced some of the dominant cultural narratives in both America and Europe, where “colonized people were often read as child-like—in need of the nurturing, civilizing force of the colonizing nation.”^{30 31} In relation to America specifically, Janet Davis points out that the “circus Americanized also reinforced a status quo of exclusion and inequality with its performances of racial hierarchy under the big top and sideshow…”³²
  
  If, as Paul Bouissac noted, the circus has been “a kind of mirror in which culture is reflected, condensed and at the same time transcended,”³³ and considering the advertising claims of edification for all people that were mentioned earlier in this essay, the framing of sideshow performers and those appearing in ethnological congress processions would have both reflected and taught deeply ingrained and troubling ideas about America’s relationship to other people and cultures around the world.
  
  RISE OF THE RAILROAD SHOW
  In America the circus became a form of mass cultural entertainment with few rivals in large part because of national expansion and the use of railroads to travel huge distances. The entertainment was inexpensive and accessible, with widely publicized educational goals “to instruct the minds of all classes”³⁴ aligning with “a cultural imaginary [of] the frontier [that] nurtured exceptionalist myths and symbols regarding the nation’s representative republican government …”³⁵
  
  Barnum’s Greatest Show on Earth was traveling exclusively by train in 1872, expanding the show’s reach by increasing the distance the show could travel. Around this time Barnum’s partner William Cameron Coup also pioneered the use of chartered excursion trains that could bring in spectators from surrounding areas.³⁶ The crowds that flocked to the circus came from around town and from the surrounding area, ensuring that large circuses had reach into both the urban and rural communities near where they stopped. Newspapers frequently listed crowd sizes as part of the coverage of the day—it added to the spectacular quality of the already outsized operation. Janet Davis describes a journalist in 1890 writing of Barnum & Bailey’s that “a great sea of faces stretched out in every direction, representing all of the country thirty miles around.”³⁷ The use of excursion trains on the performance day greatly helped with this because they were marketed to bring people to the more centralized site where the circus was appearing. The trains were often advertised to arrive before the free morning parade and depart again after the show, ensuring that people had opportunities to be immersed in the action throughout the day. This use of trains to both transport the vast circus shows and ensure that droves of people showed up on performance day continued well into the twentieth century.
  
  The movement, reach, and appeal of the circus is significant here, and can be traced in part through the route books published at the end of a season. These books include various pieces of information, including listings of circus staff and performers, but they also include detailed accounts of ticket sales and the dates and towns where the circus stopped.³⁸ This information underscores how the late nineteenth and early twentieth century proliferation of ideas about science, medicine, and ethnology, coupled with deeply-embedded colonialist ideas about the non-Western world, were solidified into a narrative that circuses, especially through sideshows and staged spectacles, helped to spread.³⁹ 
  
   
• 1 2021-01-28T08:49:17-08:00 Ethnological Congresses and the Spectacle 58 by Rebecca Fitzsimmons plain 1048207 2023-11-16T14:04:39-08:00 by Rebecca Fitzsimmons

  Perhaps the circus seems to stand outside the culture only because it is at its very center.
                                        — Paul Bouissac, in Circus and Culture: A Semiotic Approach

  INTRODUCTION
  The Golden Age of Circus is deeply embedded in the cultural history of the United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.¹ The circus had nearly unimaginable levels of dazzle and excitement, coupled with a tremendous geographic reach. Many businesses and schools closed down when the circus arrived in town, making “Circus Day” the almost singular focus of attention. The arrival of a traveling show brought out local residents, but also people from the surrounding area as circus excursion trains encouraged spectators to travel to the centralized venue. In fact, the size of the crowds that flocked to the circus lot were often a focus of attention, with newspapers reporting on the totals as a part of the larger picture of the incredible scale of operations.² It is through that reach that the large circus shows also had a platform to shout ideas, many of which positioned the circus as a form of mass culture that “had tremendous power to help shape audiences’ ideas about the expanding nation-state and its changing position in world affairs."³
  
  Marian Murray has described the circus as a site where “Brilliance runs side by side with dinginess; comedy with horror; the meretricious with the genuine; the mediocre with the sublime."⁴ It's in those blurred lines and in-between spaces where the “experiential inversion of reality and fantasy unique to the circus” ⁵ was probably most able to exert its cultural influence. The authoritative presentation of ideas, billed as “educational and ‘uplifting’,”⁶ was coupled with the utter immersion of audiences in the brilliant sights and sounds around them. In particular, when applied to the spectacle and menagerie portions of the show, this would have offered a chance for spectators to have an experience that must have truly skirted the line between authentic⁷ and staged environments. The idea that “the circus acts as a reflective space for not only self-regard, but also for broader cultural evaluation” ⁸may not have been at the forefront of an average circus-goer’s mind, but as we will explore in this essay the underlying messages would have been there nonetheless.
  
  The circus was a site for myriad forms of entertainment, but the main focus of this essay is on the grand spectacle—often known as the “spec” in the circus world—and the sideshow. It is in these two places that the circus was most outwardly able to project itself as a synthesis of entertainment and education for the masses. Beginning in the 1870s, P.T. Barnum began to relentlessly advertise that his circus was “moral, instructive, and family-friendly,”⁹ relying in large part on his menagerie shows. The advertising of this instructional aim, however, quickly began expanding to include the sideshow as a site of ethnological study (a presentation framing that had already been in place from earlier museum exhibits). The spectacle was similarly billed as a tool for edification, but the implied hierarchy of Western cultures generally and American exceptionalism more specifically was a deeply ingrained message of these performances, whether historical dramas or patriotic reenactments. ¹⁰
  
  It is also these parts of the performance that are likely to be some of the most controversial and ethically tenuous, raising questions about exploiting people and solidifying societal ideas of “normalcy” and “otherness”,¹¹ and about the possibility of agency within a structure that was largely built on “unequal social relations, oppression, and exploitation.”¹² 

• 1 2021-03-04T05:58:47-08:00 Ethnological Congresses 43 Section that discusses similarities and differences in Ethnological Congresses, Spectacles, and shows a timeline of development. plain 2021-04-29T17:16:31-07:00

  More than mere entertainment, the circus was a window on the outside world for Americans with limited opportunities for travel.             
          —Benita Stambler and Jennifer Lemmer Posey, "The Oriental India Poster" 

  Spectacles and ethnological congresses shared some similarities, including being promoted as educational programs, but while spectacles emphasized the theatrical, ethnological congresses emphasized the anthropological aspects of viewing people from other cultures.⁴⁰ Ethnological congresses and other similar displays of people tended to be presented outside the main circus tent, unlike the spectacles that often opened or closed the circus show. The ethnological shows began in Europe and America, with the latter sometimes blurring the line between sideshows and the later ethnological congresses. As the 19th century wore on, sideshows, for example, increasingly incorporated a category referred to as "exotics" that featured performers billed as "Fiji cannibals" or "Zulu Warriors."⁴¹ Performers such as William Henry Johnson, known to audiences as Zip, "the What is it?" were vaguely described as being from "Central Africa" (despite being American) and this became a central part of the billing. The related pamphlets sold alongside his performances at Barnum's American Museum (and later at traveling circuses) presented a fully fabricated background presented in the form of an anthropological description, using wording such as "he has been examined by some of the most scientific men we have..."⁴² to give credibility to claims of study and authenticity. Sideshow acts, however, were still usually presented somewhat differently than the people found in the ethnological congresses in that they were often presented as one-of-a-kind performers as opposed to "typical" representatives of a culture. Ethnological congresses and shows tended to present groups of people, often in the menagerie area alongside animals and with dress, weapons, religious objects, cooking implements, and backdrops that placed them in a context asserted to be a natural environment. This aligned with the rise of travel and expedition writing and the associated armchair tourism that offered Americans and Europeans a glimpse of the world tied up in perceived adventure that had clear overtones of colonialism. Benita Stambler and Jennifer Lemmer Posey note that "for the layperson, exhibitions, circuses, photographs, and illustrations in popular print media provided intimate experiences with unfamiliar customs and people without the burdens of foreign travel.⁴³

  Circuses in the nineteenth century tended to emphasize "exotic otherness" by contrasting presentations of what was viewed as "refined" (European or American cultures) and "uncivilized" (non-Western cultures). This resulted in often sumptuous and elaborate displays of people and customs that were nonetheless meant to emphasize difference in a paternalistic and voyeristic way. The movement from sideshows and spectacles presenting other cultures in a theatrical way to more specifically ethnographical displays where entire cultures were presented in a kind of representative shorthand is significant.⁴⁴ The circus had a role in both spreading and reinforcing the dominant colonialist ideas about power dynamics, race, and culture, and this heightened with the development of more ethnological congresses in the 1890s. These displays were a departure from the earlier Congress of Nations spectacles, building on that idea while stripping away some of the theatrical elements. These ethnological congresses of the 1890s were presented as opportunities for audiences to engage in pseudo-scientific study of the people on display--"a neatly packaged study of other cultures" that aligned with and was billed as extending the educational mission of the circus menagerie.⁴⁵