Sunday, November 28, 2010

Constructing Normal

Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s article “From Wonder to Error – A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity,” critiques the way bodies throughout history have been devalued in the way they are presented. She argues that viewing non-privileged bodies is a way of making the privileged feel better about themselves. This has happened in many ways, and today it can be seen at the Mütter Museum. While the creators of the museum claim that its purpose is for furthering science, it can also be critiqued for the way the bodies are being viewed.

By displaying the bodies in the museum as something different from the natural as a way to understand how to improve science, the bodies are being viewed as “others.” The public display is framed in science as being used for prevention of the diseases in the future. The problem with this view is that many of the medical problems were hereditary issues that the people had no control over. For this and other reasons, the purpose and use of the museum can become very controversial.

In class we watched the video “Love at the Mütter” and saw how these controversial issues could be seen. The video showcased a young, white, heterosexual couple becoming engaged within the background of the museum. We discussed how the video constructs the idea of the normative body and what the “normal” couple looks like. Something I found interesting when I looked at the video online was the comments. One viewer, Comelunch103, wrote several comments about how disgusting it was that someone would propose at such a museum. After some conversation and realization of the history of the couple, he apologized for his comments. However, he also made a statement that I think applies very well to our discussion: “Love is a disease. Incurable.” In the same way that we view medical diseases, we can view love. The Mütter Museum is a way of constructing a normative body, and in many ways, traditional ideas about love also construct “normal.”

In arguments about nature vs. nurture and why people are not heterosexual, many claim that they can’t help the way they feel about other people. For them, love is like a disease that cannot be controlled or cured. Just like the people whose bodies are displayed in the museum, they cannot help or control the way they are.

Our ideas about love and what is “normal” is heavily defined based on what is not normal rather than what is normal. In medicine, a “normal” body is determined based on the non-existence of disease. In the same way, we use ideas such as homosexuality to define “normal” love. We are socialized that love is between a man and a woman. I can recall the common picture of little boys kissing little girls because this is “normal”, meaning that we are born having feelings for the opposite sex. No one can define what love is or what it means to love. Everyone has a different ideas and normal love is not definable. However, when asked what an abnormal love is, it would be easy to list a myriad of ideas about rape and pedophiles.

Defining what is normal in any sense is very difficult. To do it, we have to define what is not normal. From love to medicine to psychological behaviors, the more we understand what it is not, the more we understand what it is. Freak shows, and museums like the Mütter display things seen as abnormal, and people view them in order to better understand themselves as normal.




Thomson, Rosmarie Garland. "Introduction: From Wonder to Error--A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity." Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. Ed. Rosemarie Garland Thomson. New York: NYU Press, 1996.

4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find your correlation to the Mutter Museum and “love” very interesting! You wrote, “Love is a disease. Incurable.” I think this reflects Garland-Thomson’s essay, because she notes that during the Enlightenment there was a shift in seeing corporeal difference from being one of wonder to one of medical. Therefore the medical discourse found in the love quote fits nicely into you noticing how the “un-normal” body is displayed as something medical in the museum (disease). However you also note these seemingly natural (medical) diseases are somewhat culturally constructed. The picture you've used is a nice example of this argument.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great stuff. You do a wonderful job going through Garland-Thompson’s main points, making them clear, and applying them to current situations. I think you also do a great job of going into the psychology behind these museums and the general need we, as human beings, have to see ourselves as normal. And usually we do so by making someone else feel abnormal.

    Picture of the little kids kissing always gets me. People usually go crazy for them and think they’re so cute, adorable, and normal. But when you actually think about 2 little kids kissing, it’s kind of creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Holding hands with someone in elementary school was even considered risqué.

    I very much liked your points on the natural bodies that those exhibited in the disease had and how unchangeable they are. When discussing how heteronormative love is defined by the many deviations and socially condemned types of love, it brought me right back to the Mutter. In the book we looked at there was an image of a woman with an enlarged clitoris. She was completely female, but her genitals were different enough to earn her a place in the book. Truth be told, her genitals looked like a lot of F-M's genitals after going on hormones. Just thought that was an interesting link.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.