TLC, (The Learning Channel), A Contemporary Exhibition of Freakery?

We all have our guilty pleasures. One of those guilty pleasures may include binge-watching episodes of a favorite TV series on Netflix for hours on end. Personally, I do not watch much television when I am away at college. However, when I go home for breaks, I turn to TLC (The Learning Channel) as the main source of my binge-watching nightly entertainment. For example shows like Little People, Big World, 19 Kids and Counting, My Strange Addiction, and Breaking Amish are all shows that have captured my attention and have kept my gaze for hours on end. These programs are meant to be addicting; TV producers want viewers to enjoy their creations so that they can create a profit. Clever titles are devised in order to attract more viewers to increase profit. But does this profit come at a cost; are the people being featured TLC's programs given agency from this sort of outlet to share their story or does reality television take away their authority to self-define who they are?  Also, how closely related are freak show agendas of the early 1800’s up until the early 1900’s to the functions of The Learning Channel?

In case you did not know, freak shows were extremely popular between 1840-1940. Freak shows were a form of entertainment that exhibited "abnormalities" which included people of different races,genders,sexualities and disabilities. Robert Bogdan, on The Social Construction of Freaks explains that "although freak shows were often presented as educational or scientific exhibits, they were always first and foremost a for-profit activity, and within the climate of the amusement world, misrepresentation was an accepted practice" (25). The ultimate goal of the freak show was to make profit. The justification of for the exhibition of freaks was not the just about capitalizing off estranged bodies put onto display. Presenting freaks as educationally and scientifically purposeful helped to distance the shows from being in any sort of moral distaste. Freak shows became a type of entertainment that the more "normal" population were allowed to enjoy without the feeling of guilt that accompanies staring at those with traits that stand outside what it means to be normal and able-bodied. Lastly, the idea that "misrepresentation was an accepted practice" still seeps into the depths of what reality television actually is. Misrepresentation of people being portrayed on TV is a common practice that although questioned, is accepted because it provides entertainment for mass public.

The company that owns TLC, Discovery Communications, claims that their mission is to "satisfy curiosity" of the 200 channels that they run, one of the most popular being TLC. Their mission statement in its full is that "to satisfy curiosity and make a difference in people's lives by providing the highest quality content, services and products that entertain,engage and enlighten." TLC is meant to be a source of media which educates the public, much like freak shows were. In thinking about Bogden's piece again, it is evident to me that there are past strategies of contextualizing the freak that seems to slip into reality shows of TLC. Shows that are meant to "entertain,engage, and enlighten" employ freak strategies that Bogden discusses. Bogden cites Gresham (1948) who says that freaks were categorized in terms of "born freaks," "made freaks," and "novelty acts" (24). 

The "born freaks" are those that "at birth, had a physical anomaly that makes them unusual, such as Siamese twins and armless and legless people" (Bogden, 24). Displays of born freaks are widely represented on TLC's network. A popular example includes the series Little People, Big World. This reality series follows life interactions of the Roloff family which includes two parents and a son who have dwarfism, and 3 children who are of average height. The "made freaks" are freaks that "do something to themselves that makes them unusual enough for exhibit, such as adorning their bodies with tattoos" (Bogden, 24). TLC does not fail to include the representation of the "made freak." In fact, there is even a show that is called America's Worst Tattoos. The show examines what are considered to be the most unsightly tattoos that people decided to get and questions why they would get them in the first place. It puts the person with the "ugly" tattoo in the position of the freak because it was their idea to "make" their body modified with the use of ink. Lastly, the idea of the "novelty acts" is that someone has an "unusual performance,such as swallowing swords or charming snakes" (Bogden 24). This theme is also explicit within multiple TLC programs. One example is the show My Strange Addiction, a show that depicts those with "unusual performances" (read: unusual addictions) such as eating foam from mattresses and dressing up like character dolls. 

And then of course Bogden explains that "gaffed freaks" are the "fake" freaks which are people who have had fabricated identities created for them so that they can pass as freaks and make money for the person exploiting them. This leads me back to my original questions. A lot of reality television is clearly fabricated in order to obtain viewers and make profit. Even though it seems as though shows like Little People, Big World and My Strange Addiction are spaces where modern "freaks" can tell their stories, TLC can direct the stories of episodes by their own consent to attract viewers, which in turn, begin to misrepresent the people's stories that they are trying to portray. Even though I did not think to associate TLC with 1900's freak shows, after reading Bogden's piece, it is clear that not much as changed. These shows really do not give a voice to those who are "abnormal" because their stories are being used to make a profit. The only difference now is that we can gaze at at our TV screen for hours rather than beginning to feel the guilt associated with viewing people who are physically on display for exhibitions.