Bodies in American Culture, Spring 2014: Staring and the Cultural Contradictions of Reality

Staring. Simple curiosity or a social taboo? Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, a scholar, examines the politics of staring and how society regulates looking. Within her novel, Staring: How we look, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson discusses the cultural contradictions of staring. First, staring exposes the “paradox at the heart of the civil inattention that staring violates” (Garland-Thomson 2009, p. 74). In the dominant American culture, staring functions as a tool which ‘others’ people based on their ‘abnormal’ appearance. People are marginalized based on their disabilities (mental and physical), cultural beliefs (polygamy), and social relationships. Staring establishes what is normal as staring exposes what is seen as different. People are able to blend in and have visual anonymity based on their outward appearance. This function contradicts “claims to the value of the unique individual as a model for citizenship” (Garland-Thomson 2009, p. 74). Staring exposes the unattainable need to fit with the other people, while being an autonomous individual. According to Garland-Thomson (2009), staring “validates our individuality, calls out our differences from other” (75). When people are similar, staring does not occur. Somehow people are expected to be in the middle of being an individual within a culture that values sameness.

Before reading her piece, I had not thought of the contradictions and politics involved in staring. Culturally, we are told that everyone is an individual and to embrace the parts that make us and others ‘unique.’ But if we are all individuals, why do we stare at people whose images and actions do not reflect our own? Garland-Thomson’s piece begins to expose the contradictions of our individualistic culture. We embrace societal expectations of beauty and appearances by buying trendy clothing and staring at people who challenge societal norms. But, the concept of sameness cannot happen without a marginalizing effect. People are excluded and judged based on their physical appearances. We turn “othered” people like little people and conjoined twins into spectacles because their physical differences cannot be easily hidden from the normative gaze. By putting physical abnormalities on display through staring, another paradox of staring arises where people “should always see a spectacle but never be a spectacle” (Garland-Thomson 2009, p. 76). This paradox relates to the cultural desires of sameness as people who are different are seen as oddities and freaks. By exposing the paradoxes staring, Garland-Thomson exposes acceptable norms about who fits into the characteristics of ‘sameness’ and who is ‘othered’ and marginalized.

As I read through the paradoxes exposed by staring, my mind kept turning to reality television shows like The Little Couple. The Little Couple follows the lives of married couple, Bill and Jen, who both have dwarfism. The show has been running for six seasons following the couple in their home and work lives. On the TLC website, viewers can explore the couple’s interactive Journey of Love which recaps when the couple met to the present. In the recent seasons, The Little Couple has documented Jen and Bill’s attempts to have a child and eventually adopting two children, Will and Zoey. This show makes me question why was this couple chosen. Why not a single person with dwarfism? Why not a person with dwarfism who is a disability activist? What makes Jen and Bill the ideal story for people with dwarfism?

A Family Picture

To answer some of these questions, I will rely on Garland Thomson’s cultural contradictions that staring exposes. According to Garland-Thomson (2009), “pubic life demands that citizens stare at the new and changing worlds we live in, while at the same time staring at one another risks intrusions far too familiar for everyone’s comfort” (76). Reality television allows for and promotes anxiety free staring. Does The Little Couple create a space for staring without a price? The Little Couple relies on Jen and Bill’s dwarfism in order to draw people in to watch the show. TLC commodifies audience’s curiosity about a marginalized group. Audiences are given a “free pass” to stare and gawk at Jen and Bill who do not fit into the societal norms of average and accepted height. Jen and Bill’s dwarfism validates what Garland-Thomson (2009) describes as the “claims that value individuals as a model for citizenship” (74). Since Jen and Bill have dwarfism, the couple is unique but is too far from idyllic sameness. The staring involved in reality television exposes the cultural contradiction where marginalized people are turned into spectacles. The Little Couple gives the normative viewpoint an anonymous place to gawk, but the show is complex because the representation for little people can be positive.

Before I end, I do not want to wholly discredit the positive attributes of The Little Couple. Although the show promotes staring, The Little Couple has positive qualities because it gives representation to people who have dwarfism and are normally reduced by their height. By Jen and Bill moving through the typical milestones of life, The Little Couple relates to the sameness necessary for individuals to fit within society. Although the show makes mention of the couple’s size and the hardships that come with having dwarfism, The Little Couple shows how people with dwarfism are more than their physical disability and gives the couple some agency.

To end, here is Jen, Bill and Will going to the beach: