December 7, 2014 - 19:59
For my intersectionality paper, I am strongly compelled to discuss the relationship between disability, class, and representation, specifically focusing on the story of Mary from the Mutter museum.
Mary was a little person of low income, as we can assume from that fact that she was found in a house of prostitution. Not only was Mary's body was taken and put on display without consent, but her baby's body as well. Mary's low status and physical abnormality somehow allows the Mutter and its audience to view her as an object unworthy of respect.
In freak shows in the past, it was common for low-income families to sell their children into entertainment so they could make money and so their child would be taken care of (in a sense). Their display as "Freaks", while lacking respect and humanity, was a way for indiviuals with disabilities to support themselves. (However, I may discuss the multitude of individuals who did not have a say in whether or not they "performed", the degradations they endured, and the similar lack of informed consent to Mary's display). Mary, on the other hand, was not afforded a choice in the matter of her display, or that of her child's.
The juxtaposition of Mary with "the Mutter giant" and a normative human body and the lack of personal history/medical info* make clear the fact that Mary's body is on display to reassure visitors of their normalcy. The very reason she is in the museum is not to honor or learn about her life, but to promote the fact that she is an anomaly. Her position in the case with the normative body reinforces the safety of the (likely) normative-bodied viewer.
*The Mutter Museum's mission statement: "The Mütter Museum helps the public appreciate the mysteries and beauty of the human body while understanding the history of diagnosis and treatment of disease." Without personal history/medical info, it seems to fail in both "appreciating" and "understanding"...