Interpretation, Taboo and Climbing
Mountains: the Problem of Frieda Pushnick’s Obituary
The source I have chosen to analyse
is the obituary of Frieda Katherine Pushnik, ‘Freak Show Artiste’, published in
the Daily Telegraph on 24 April 2001 and held in the Sheffield National
Fairground Archive.[1]
The genre of the obituary as a source presents several unique problems about
how the dead are presented to the public within the newspaper framework, and
these concerns in turn shape the history of the life described within the
source, and its potential use to a historian. In addition, the very nature of
the subject of Pushnik’s life – that of the freak show – is one wrought with
its own problems of interpretation. How can a modern historian engage with a
source document that, in turn, is written with perhaps anachronistic concern
for political correctness and even polemic about the potentially emotive
subject of disability? How far can we place the past away from modern concerns
and within its own context, in order to garner more use from a source?
The obituary
is a commemoration of Pushnik’s life and asserts her historical place as ‘among
the last surviving freak show artistes to have worked for the Barnum &
Bailey circus’ (1943-1956). It also outlines her previous work at Ripley’s “Believe
it or Not” (1932-1938), and her retirement.[2]
Billed as an “armless and legless wonder” in the show, the obituary emphasises
that she “showed true grit” in carrying her performances “beyond the realm of
mere oddity” and while she worked 16 hour days within the Freak Show “she was
never resentful of her condition.”[3]
For the historian, the obituary gives us an outline of a remarkable single life
within the history of the American freak show, and therefore might offer a more
personal insight of the individual’s experience. However we are restricted: the
source offers no voice to Pushnik or her family but for a brief quote, and
while the nature of the obituary is concerned in glorifying her personality,
and touching upon the historical character of her occupation, it is clear that
the (anonymous) author within the British newspaper has no connection to the
American Pushnik or her family. We might then ask why the British daily paper
would choose to publicise the death of a foreigner who had been out of the
public eye for half a century. This answer is
key to the concerns and problems of the source genre and cannot be ignored by
historians if we hope to interpret the document.
The New York
Times anthology asserts that obituaries should serve as “Stimulants to
the...discovery of life’s richness, variety, comedy, sadness, of the diverse
human imaginations it takes to make this world”.[4]
Steeped in narrative, focused on memorialisation, the obituary serves a social
purpose as well as an informative one, and this should be taken into a
historian’s account whenever interpreting this genre of document. Fowler and
Esperanca emphasize the “mountain climb” image of the individual’s biographical
trajectory, which is present within all obituaries in some form or another, be
it socially via career ‘distinction’ or, in Pushnik’s case, through overcoming
the adversity of disability.[5]
An individual’s choice for celebration is determined socially, appealing to
modern concerns and thematic events, as well as modern conceptions of the value
of lives ‘well lived’, and any historical facts therein are inevitably inserted
into this framework. It is noteworthy that Hume, in his study of the obituaries
of Amerindians in the nineteenth century, discovered that they were crafted to
socially contribute to their subjection.[6]
When subjection was no longer required, the Amerindians all but disappeared
from the obituaries.[7]
It is clear then, that the supply of lives offered in the obituaries are
subject to the demand of the public and its social concerns, and it is
important to contextualise each source within this demand. Pushnik, as we shall
see, was no exception. However, before a researcher can address the problem of
this issue s/he must be educated in the house style of the source’s newspaper
in order to make full use of it.
To be of potential use to a
historian, an individual obituary source must be placed within the context of
its newspaper’s house style. Many newspapers’ obituaries of the 21st
century were largely concerned with featuring artists and academics: manual
workers were virtually unseen.[8]
The host of our source, the Daily Telegraph, focused on the dominant representation
of individuals who had gained temporal power, especially military subjects, yet
it still retained an enthusiasm for the performing arts which is clearly
represented in the inclusion of Pushnik with the author’s delegation of her in
the subheading as an ‘artiste’.[9]
On this subject, it is also worthy of note when identifying obituaries, that
while newspapers are notoriously competitive, within this sector they are more
relaxed: for example the Guardian commented that it was pointless to compete
with the Daily Telegraph for representation of military subjects.[10]
Consequently a historian must be careful not to give more significance to the
absence of the military figures from the Guardian than this simple reality of
style or, more fatally, designate it as national trend of exclusion. However,
with knowledge of these issues of house styles, a historian is offered new
potential for interpretation though assessing whether their source breaks the
house conventions and why. The obituary sector is generally not as restricted
for time as the rest of the newspaper, and the Daily Telegraph in particular
has been known to delay up to 108 days from the death of an individual to the
publication of their obituary and delays of a month are common.[11]
Therefore only individuals of significant public interest are published, rather
than there being a concern to simply advertise deaths as they happen. With this
in mind, a historian must also be aware of the gender bias within newspapers as
well as the class bias. In the Times in 2001 women accounted for only 17% of
obituaries, therefore an inclusion of a woman in an obituary gains a heightened
significance, because the minority of her inclusion asserts the significance of
her perceived interest and achievements.[12] Reinforced by all of these points, we can
therefore understand that Frieda Pushnik’s obituary was chosen to be featured
because of its exceptionality. Pushnik defies the Daily Telegraph’s conventions:
she was not a British citizen, but a foreigner of minor fame; she was a female
of lower or middle class, in a modest career; with no interesting cause of
death. Her interest for the paper lies then, we can conjecture, in the sheer
novelty of her career and the unusual nature of her life: as a subject of the
Freak Show. Through acknowledging these frameworks the historian can discern
the modern public’s interaction with the past.
The source has obvious descriptive
use in giving us an idea of what Freak Show acts performed in the thirties, and
the relative mobility of the artistes themselves. As we have seen, the
obituary’s inclusion at all, in defiance of house style, is a reflection of the
editor’s decision that Pushnik is of modern interest, and the way that her life
is presented within the source itself is reflective of how modern concerns can
implant themselves upon the past. In this case, we can see how the modern
notions of disability are summoned in direct commentary to the historical narrative
of the Freak Show and how this affects the way that Pushnik’s life is
represented. The ‘Believe it or Not’ auditorium she performed in grossed over
$900,000 in 1933-34, yet by the 1940s –during her career- the freak show was in
decline, increasingly regarded as morally bankrupt as scientists began to study
the disabilities of the performers.[13]
The obituary reflects this scientific classification, explaining Pushnik’s
disability as due to ‘a botched appendectomy on her pregnant mother’.[14]
Categorized into a disease, they transitioned from public presentation as an,
at times, apparently morally beneficial performance for both education and
entertainment, associated with prestigious organisations, and into something
viewed as distasteful and exploitative.[15]
Indeed, the issue of exploitation is directly addressed in the obituary itself,
through Frieda’s response to an interviewer who asked her ‘whether she thought
it acceptable to exploit disability for entertainment’.[16]
She replied, ‘with a characteristic snap’ of spirit that the author emphasises,
“If you’re paid for it, yeah.”[17]
Frieda’s attitude is a direct echo of Otis Jordan ‘the Frog Man’s response in
1984 to public complaints about perceived exploitation: he insisted that there
‘wasn’t anybody forcing him to do anything’, and represented himself as a
showman and businessman, adding ‘Hell, what does she want for me – to be on
welfare?’.[18]
While the amusement industry was notorious in cheating its public, within its institution,
but for sad cases such as the Hilton twins, to be a ‘Freak’ was a showman’s
presentation of a role, and something that many contemporary acts took pride
in. Frieda’s presentation was respectable; she displayed skills such as
‘writing, typing and sewing’, ‘all the while she would amuse the audience with
her repartee.’[19]
She was a showman, and ‘always enjoyed recalling her days as a sideshow star’,
and yet her obituary itself is crafted to address the modern anachronistic
negative judgements of such a show.
There is a curious interplay within
the source of the modern upon the past that the historian must recognise in order
to interpret it. Frieda is presented by the author as a showman; happy and
determined and in control of her career, however it never seems to move away
from modern notions of exploitation. Its repeated emphasis on her ‘true grit’
and skill are more than descriptive. They are included to paint her as brave
and proactive in order to adhere to the overarching ‘mountain-climb’ image that
is necessary in obituaries as a source genre. Furthermore, through emphasising
these qualities and painting Pushnik as admirable, the obituary seems to offer
a subtle apology for its existence at all, concerned that it itself is not seen
as exploitative. Unusual in house conventions, it is clear that Pushnik’s
obituary was chosen for inclusion because
of her career in the freak show, and because
of her unusual disability, and the resultant almost guilty curiosity that these
inspire in a modern audience. Through subtly criticising Freak Show exploitation,
and emotively asserting Pushnik’s independence, the newspaper also defends
itself from appealing to the same public desires that birthed the freak show
amusements in the first place. The same modern mentality is present in Bogdan’s
book on the show as he appeals ‘But don’t leave! There will be exhibits (and it
will be okay to look!)’.[20]
The freak show and disability is charged with taboo, and this taboo influences
how the modern audience interacts with its past to form a collective memory.
When approaching such a subject, the historian has to be aware of these issues
in order to properly interpret the past, and how they alter the narrative of
the source and its presentation.
In
conclusion, when approaching a genre of source such as the obituary, and doubly
so when approaching a source regarded as taboo to modern audience, the historian
must recognise how these issues affect the historical narrative in order to
properly gain value from a source. The present and the past are both framed by
their contexts, and when one interacts with another and is called to make
commentary upon it, anachronism can blur the superficial evidence presented.
However, with careful attention to the house styles and framework of the genre
of their source, and with knowledge of the changing public perception to their
source’s subject, one can reach a clearer and more detached interpretation of
the evidence within the source. To paraphrase John Donne, no (source) is an
island.
[1]
‘Frieda Pushnik, Spirited Freak Show Artiste’, The Daily Telegraph,(24
April 2001)
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Nigel Stark, ‘Death Can Make a Difference’, Journalism Studies,(2008)
vol1, issue 6,p912
[5]
Bridget Fowler and Esperanca Bielda, ‘The Lives We Choose to Remember: a
Quantitative Analysis of Newspaper Obituaries’, Sociological Review,(2007)
Vol 55, Issue 2,p207
[6]
Stark, ‘Death’,p.912
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Ibid. p207
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Stark, ‘Death’, p918
[11]
Stark, ‘Death’, p921
[12]
Fowler and Bielda, ‘The Lives We Choose to Remember’,p28
[13]
Robert Bogdan, Freak Show: Presenting
Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit, (1990:University of Chicago Press)
pp.62-67
[14]
Frieda Pushnik
[15]
Bogdan Freak Show p104
[16]
Frieda Pushnik
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
Bogdan Freak Show p280
[19]
Frieda Pushnik
[20]
Bogdan Freak Show p3
Bibliography
Printed Primary Sources
‘Frieda Pushnik, Spirited
Freak Show Artiste’, The Daily Telegraph, (24 April 2001)
Sheffield University National Fairground Archive, NFA collection 178Q1.9
Sheffield University National Fairground Archive, NFA collection 178Q1.9
Published Secondary Sources
Bogdan,
Robert, Freak Show: Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit (1990:
University of Chicago Press)
Fowler,
Bridget and Esperanca Bielda, ‘The Lives We Choose to Remember: a Quantitative
Analysis of Newspaper Obituaries’, Sociological Review (2007) vol 55
issue 2, pp203-226
Stark,
Nigel, ‘Death can make a Difference’, Journalism Studies, (2008) vol 1,
issue 6, pp.911-924
0 comments: