Introduction

Forms of otherness, typically classified as disabilities, have always been a non-negotiable part of life. To clarify, disabilities are non-negotiable because they are not preventable and may occur at random instances, making disabilities a truly surprising aspect of life. Dwarfism, for example, occurs at a frequency of one in every 15,000-40,000 births, and many occur due to completely random genetic mutations.^[1] While outside factors can contribute to disabilities, these random, genetic mutations can also be the deciding factor. Disabilities boast a range of variance as not one disability is the same. However, because of this, disabilities have gained negative and positive associations, alongside a multitude of labels (such as gifted, freak, different, unique). These associations and labels call into consideration the concept of the master status, where each individual has a primary identifying characteristic. This phenomenon is rooted in our view of reality, wherein we separate and label humans based on a predetermined category. These characteristics can range from race, gender, religion, to the primary focus of this study: disabilities.

As an individual with dwarfism, it is quite evident that the experience of having a disability is not merely personal, but rather, a public affair. Stemming from this public affair, throughout history, those with identifiable disabilities usually experience their whole identity as being broken down to their disability. This notion is evident throughout ancient texts and artistic depictions, theater and freak shows, and modern television. In order to begin examining the history of the broad category of otherness, the specific lens of dwarfism will be employed. This decision is supported by the Horn Effect, which describes how “a single negative attribute can bias subsequent impression formation judgments on unrelated dimensions in a negative direction.”^[2] When a negative view is taken against dwarfism, this view will transfer to other disabilities and, subsequently, other people who also look different. Because dwarfism is part of a broader category of disabilities, personal attitudes towards perceived disabilities will be interrelated and shared across the board. Prevailing social attitudes determine not only the social expectations and treatment prescribed to a person with a disability but also his or her self-image and personal function.

Historical Overview

Jean-François Staszak, writing for the 2008 International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, unpacks the phenomenon of otherness within human relations. In order to understand the concept of otherness and its implications on human interactions, it is essential to define key terminology. Staszak first defines otherness as an occurrence wherein a “dominant in-group” creates a “dominant out-group” through the stigmatization of differences, whether they be real or imagined.^[3] Staszak notes the importance that power plays in this phenomenon, as the dominant group has the ability to impose value on itself and devalue others, alongside the implementation of discriminatory measures.^[4] One of the earliest examples of otherness, Staszak explains, can be seen in the ancient categorization of Greek speakers and Barbarians. Barbarians were non-Greek speakers and viewed as uncivilized compared to the Greeks.^[5] This simple difference led the Greeks to classify these non-Greek speakers as Barbarians, therefore creating the categories of ‘us’ and ‘them.’ For this study, the concept of otherness will be examined by using the example of dwarfism in comparison to the majority of the able-bodied population.

To gain a sense of how otherness was initially seen and treated, it is essential to examine early civilizations and societies, beginning with Ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt, one of the most prominent early civilizations, paid particular attention to otherness, especially dwarfism. Leading up to the treatment of dwarfism, the Ancient Egyptians faced several forms of otherness throughout their society, including their royals. Royal families, such as those of the Hapsburgs and of the Pharaohs, arguably faced more chances of developing disabilities and physical deformities due to inbreeding and incestual relationships to maintain a pure bloodline (Charles II of the Hapsburgs faced hematuria and intestinal problems along with delayed development from years of inbreeding).^[6] Egyptologist Dr. Zahi Hawass reveals how Pharaoh Tutankhamen had malaria, a cleft palate, scoliosis, and a clubbed foot.^[7] This instance supports the notion that Ancient Egyptians were accustomed to, at some level, a range of otherness and disabilities. Therefore, individuals such as Tutankhamen were accommodated to, rather than ostracized.

Ancient Egyptian art points to positive and accurate depictions of dwarfism, with numerous artists taking special consideration of the disability. One instance of this mindset manifested in the statue of Seneb and his family. Seneb, who had dwarfism, was in charge of the royal wardrobe. A statue of him and his family, dating back to the 6th century B.C., features Seneb sitting cross-legged on a seat with his average-sized wife seated next to him. His wife, depicted with a smile on her face, conveys that she is happy with her husband. To compensate for the missing space underneath Seneb’s crossed legs (an average height man’s legs would usually fill this space), the artist chose to place his two children there. This particular choice helps establish a sense of balance and unity within the statue while offering respect to Seneb, by not drawing immediate attention to his dwarfism.^[8] Portrayals of dwarfism went beyond the representations of the average working man, as seen in the dwarf god Bes. Joshua Mark, a founder of the Ancient History Encyclopedia, describes Bes’s role as overseer of childbirth and fertility, sex, war, and humor while also serving as a protector of pregnant women and children.^[9] Interestingly, Bes has been depicted as both dwarf and giant, with ancient papyrus illustrating him as a “‘giant of a million cubits who carries the sky with his powerful arms.’”^[10] While acknowledging Bes’s short stature, this description highlights how important Bes was seen with his status elevated and celebrated.

Alongside Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece also provided insight into the early treatment of people who were different. In Ancient Greece, it appears that physical disabilities were treated similarly to Ancient Egypt. Disabilities, for the most part, were integrated into society, and individuals with disabilities had access to prominent roles. People with disabilities, including dwarfism, were included in the Greek polis as citizens and could not be stripped of their citizenship.^[11] However, this perspective was not universally held across Greece. The philosopher Aristotle provided several commentaries on dwarfism with his views appearing largely negative concerning the quality of life and expectations for those with dwarfism. He described those with dwarfism to be inferior to men, with limited memory and less intelligence due to their physical appearance of bigger and heavier heads.^[12]

There were limited artistic renditions of dwarfism in Ancient Greece, but the few available seem to lean towards more comedic and lowly portrayals. In order to avoid confusing little people with children, the features of dwarfism were heavily exaggerated and drawn out. Much of the portrayals feature little people in the role of slaves for adults and children. Swiss Archaeologist Veronique Dasen illustrates an example of one of these depictions:

Like slaves, short people are often naked and adopt comic or unusual poses...on the Ferrara cup, for example, a dwarf, characterised by his over-large head and his short limbs, follows a child as short as himself, who is wrapped in a cloak. This iconographic schema is frequent in vase painting: the master walks forward, followed by his servant who carries some item. On the Ferrara cup the dwarf replaces the familiar pedagogue, the trustworthy slave who accompanied children to school and to other public places.^[13]

Depictions of normal life for disabled individuals also existed, where little people were assimilated into the majority non-disabled population within the artwork. Dasen brings up a few instances of little people shown dancing at festivals alongside their average-height companions. But, for the most part, the prominent view of little people and dwarfism was akin to children, as many depictions of little people appear on vessels and vases meant explicitly for children coupled with little people and children typically appearing together in artwork.^[14]

Disabilities became, once more, the focal point within the Victorian and early American freak shows. With the word freak appearing for the first time in 1847, sister terms such as ‘monster’ and ‘curiosities’ quickly arose and accompanied the label of freak.^[15] Robert Bodgan notes how the term freak became “a metaphor for estrangement, alienation, marginality, the darker side of the human experience,” and these shows ultimately came to represent the “pornography of disability.”^[16] The first mention of freak shows in America occurred in the mid-18th century, as illustrated by a 1783 notice advertising “a female about four feet high, in every part like a woman except her head which nearly resembles the ape.”^[17] However, freak shows hit their peak in the mid-to-late 19th century with the help of P.T. Barnum’s American Museum. Rosemary Garland Thomson catalogs Barnum’s expansive museum as home to “wild men of Borneo to fat ladies, living skeletons, Fiji princes, albinos, bearded women, Siamese twins.'' Performers such as “beauty contestants, contortionists, sharpshooters, trained goats, frog eaters” also joined the show.^[18] Interestingly, Barnum identified individuals from different countries to those with different body types to those with unique skills as all being worthy of display.

Thomson explains how these individuals were not just gathered, but collected. This collection and categorization of freaks “emerge[d] from cultural rituals that stylize, silence, differentiate, and distance the persons whose bodies the freak-hunters or showmen colonize and commercialize.”^[19] Deviations from the perceived normality had to be identified by the culture or the majority group, and those with deviations were therefore ostracized (and potentially faced a form of removal from society). Meanwhile, “the exhibitions also simultaneously reinscribed gender, race, sexual [aberrance], ethnicity, and disability as inextricable yet particular exclusionary systems legitimated by bodily variation-- all represented by the single multivalent figure of the freak. Thus, what we assume to be a freak of nature was instead a freak of culture.”^[20] Thomson affirms that differences are not defined by natural law, but by human law.

Today, the terms little person, dwarf, or midget are used to refer to an individual of unusually short stature. While the terms little person and dwarf are generally viewed as acceptable words, the word midget is typically seen as an offensive descriptor and is not preferable for use. The word dwarf stems from the Old English word dweorh, the Old Saxon word dwerg, Old High German twerg, and Old Norse dvergr which all roughly translated to a short human or something tiny.^[21] On the other hand, the word midget developed from the Old English word mygg, or midge, which translated to a small gnat.^[22] Coupled with the suffix -et, the word midget was formed to refer to small bugs and, eventually, people of short stature. While these terms can refer to someone of short stature, they are usually reserved for someone who has the medical diagnosis of dwarfism.

Discussion

The ever-changing perception of disabilities, as dictated by society, is illustrated through these accounts of dwarfism throughout history. Dwarfism has been received with varying attitudes and perspectives, posing the question: “what changed?” Arguably, the disability of dwarfism has not changed, but rather, the attitude towards it has, and continues to, undergo change. Dwarfism still has the same features as it did thousands of years ago as individuals with dwarfism are shorter, have smaller/disproportionate limbs, and different facial structures. Instead, human perception has evolved where the classification of normal and other has fluctuated and depends on individual and collective ideals, environments, and current majorities. With the master status introducing the idea of identification on a single aspect such as disabilities, the divide between ‘us’ and ‘them’ only continued to grow.

In Ancient Egypt, dwarfism held a prominent status. Disabilities, especially dwarfism, were integrated with the rest of society, revered, and seen as divine gifts. This divine mindset allowed individuals with dwarfism and other disabilities to not only have access to standard jobs and duties but to high ranking positions within the Egyptian hierarchy. With these portrayals in mind, it is worth noting that little people still experienced a form of removal from society. Salima Ikram describes this seemingly paradoxical situation in Egyptian Bioarchaeology: little people and “people of abnormally short stature were considered different from ‘normal’ people.”^[23] Ancient Egyptians treated dwarfism as a “divine marking,” and while dwarfism was seen as positive and able-bodied, it was also still seen as a form of “other.”^[24] Thus, dwarfism and disabilities did not just exist. They were still pulled away from the majority and seen as something abnormal.

Ancient Greece, while accepting of otherness as a part of society, shifted away from Ancient Egypt’s reverent view of disabilities and dwarfism. Ancient Greece’s outlook indicated how disabilities were not meant to be fully accepted. Aristotle’s commentary pushed towards a negative view of dwarfism and the idea that disabilities limited human potential. He expressed how those with dwarfism were expected to have lives of lesser quality and dismissed their potential intelligence as being limited due to their size. Despite the political nature of accepting disabilities as part of society, they were still ostracized in a social sense through Aristotle’s social commentary and through artistic depictions.

As the mid 19th century saw an explosion of disability popularity, this came in a combined sensation of both disgust and extreme curiosity stemming from the more abled-bodied majority of Americans. The majority of individuals controls this ever-changing perception, with the majority of individuals are those who are able-bodied. Robert Bodgan's observation of freak shows, along with their associated alienation of certain individuals, provides insight into how the concept of a master status affected disabilities. Disabilities were, and are, a primary means of identification for many. Personally, my peers have referred to me as "the girl with dwarfism," if my name does not suffice. This proves that my disability is an identifier. Rosemary Thomson's study examines how we, as humans, decide what forms of identification are acceptable or not acceptable in society. From this decision, we may also prescribe forms of consequences to those who are different.

Ultimately, freak shows played on others ability to make judgments on those who differed from the majority. As for standing out, this idea is dependent on changing categories prescribed by a particular group of individuals. The definition and representation of a freak fluctuated throughout the course of freak shows in their peak popularity. The word freak had a changing definition as it was subjective to a societal context, that is, the current time, place, and held beliefs. As a prominent physical disability, dwarfism stood out and gained attention from strangers. Perceived differences in body composition between those with dwarfism and those without dwarfism allowed those in the majority to capitalize upon these differences.

Eventually, Hollywood actor Billy Barty formed an organization dedicated to the awareness and advocating for individuals with dwarfism. In 1957, Barty met with twenty other little people in Nevada and formed the organization Little People of America or LPA. The organization today includes approximately five thousand families across the nation.^[25] LPA holds an annual national conference, where individuals with dwarfism within the country can gather and meet. The national conferences feature discussions and lectures on various relatable topics, medical tools and resources, access to outside supporting organizations, and ample opportunities to meet and befriend other little people. Some smaller conferences and gatherings occur in regional districts, and these are not limited to meeting once a year, like the national conference. These smaller conferences do not provide resources on the same level as the national conference does, but rather focus on building relationships and fostering communities. The mission statement of LPA is as follows:

To [improve] the quality of life for people with dwarfism throughout their lives while celebrating with great pride Little People’s contribution to social diversity. LPA strives to bring solutions and global awareness to the prominent issues affecting individuals of short stature and their families.^[26]

Previous LPA President Gary Arnold encompassed this idea in his newsletter, collectively calling the member’s goal as “creating communities in which people with dwarfism can pursue educational, employment, and social opportunities on an equal playing field.”^[27]

While LPA provides physical and health-related information, it also serves to connect individuals. For many, these annual conferences are their only chance to meet and connect with others who have similar conditions. Brian Watermeyer finds in Disability and Social Change how communities centered around the gathering and collaboration amongst individuals with disabilities provide means of coping, acceptance, and relating socially.^[28]

With the eventual diminishment of public freak shows, it is worth noting that these freak shows did not entirely vanish, but found a footing within the creation of reality television. Under the pretense of spreading awareness, reality shows about otherness and differences emerged in television. Similarly to freak shows, the focus of reality shows ranges from lifestyle choices to disabilities to unique living situations. A few examples of these reality shows include My 600 Pound Life, The Undateables, Sister Wives, and Hoarders. This modern representation through media leads to the current representation of dwarfism. With shows such as Little People Big World, The Little Chocolatiers, The Little Couple, Pit Boss, Our Little Family, and Little Women LA, dwarfism is no stranger to television and is at the forefront of reality television.

The question might be raised, then, why is dwarfism a major focal point of reality television? The 2018 “Routledge Companion to Media, Sex, and Sexuality” proposes such fascination stems from an unconscious desire for individuals, part of the majority, to feel validated in their own skin.^[29] In a sense, these shows reinforce the socially-constructed bridge between ‘normal’ and ‘other.’ They perpetuate differences while seemingly pushing viewers to feel better about themselves. The constructed majority is validated in their decision to separate themselves from the labeled others, as the others’ lives are broadcasted on television and become the object of fascination and entertainment.

Mariela Gonzalez captures this sentiment in her Thesis, “Stereotypes of Little People and Their Depictions within Fictional and Non-Fictional Television.” Gonzalez states that the media effectively “uses stereotypical images as a strategy of subjugation as a way of disempowering the little people community.^[30] Under the masquerade of empowering, reality television and media only perpetuate the culture of othering and otherness. Concerning dwarfism, Gonzalez argues there are three main categories used for representation: magical creatures and fantasy, angry or violent behaviors, or comic relief.^[31] All three of these categories work together to reinforce the stereotypes that haunt individuals with dwarfism continually. Fantasy depictions consist of mystical and magical beings and phenomena. Gonzalez states films such as Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings utilize these fantastical depictions wherein little people are suggested to have superhero powers.^[32] Angry and violent portrayals of dwarfism encourage the notion that individuals with dwarfism are inherently prone to anger and are aggressive. With “mini-me” from Austin Powers and the “Hank, the Angry Drunken Dwarf,” little people are reinforced to be negative and perpetually upset individuals.^[33] Recently, the comic relief of little people appeared in Todd Phillip’s 2019 Joker. In Joker, the character Gary who has dwarfism (played by Leigh Gill), is used for laughs through numerous height-related jokes and to break a tense moment where Gary’s height is referenced as a means of potential demise. These categories and their accompanying media depictions remind society that for disabilities to have representation, they cannot solely exist by themselves: they must have some defining label. Because they are not fully understood or accepted by society, they must be labeled to exist and have meaning.

With these depictions in mind, it is equally important to recognize that positive depictions do exist. A positive depiction of dwarfism that has been at the forefront of disability awareness in the media is HBO’s Game of Thrones. Peter Dinklage, who has appeared in a multitude of shows and films, plays the character Tyrion Lannister. Tyrion is a member of the Lannister family and holds a high position in society as a Lord. Gonzalez examines his character and his impact on the show, finding that his physical representation prevents him from being seen as a mythical creature, but rather, he is presented as a human. The show works to portray Tyrion as “an independent person who recognizes his condition, which does not stop him from pursuing his ambitions and aspirations.”^[34] Game of Thrones not only acknowledges the discrimination, prejudice, and inequity that little people may face but works to present dwarfism and disabilities in a way that no other shows will do, escaping the “traditional hegemonic way” of stereotyping.^[35] This attitude that HBO has taken is essential to begin dismantling the box of stereotypes and representations reserved exclusively for those with disabilities.

However, these positive representations cannot undo all of the damage inflicted by the negative portrayals. With centuries of negative leaning depictions, disabilities and dwarfism are still primarily seen as something that is and should be removed from society. In an ideal world, there would be no need to have distinct modes of identification or the “us” and “them” mentality. Watermeyer touches on this sentiment, finding this mentality to be an “illusionary binary opposition” with the media reinforcing this opposition and contributing to continuing stigmas and misunderstandings.^[36] These stigmas and misconceptions date back to the multitude of negative perceptions (as seen with Aristotle to the freak shows). They will take more than a few positive depictions in television to undo.

Conclusion

While there are both positive and negative portrayals within the ancient and modern societies of humanity, it is important to look at otherness from a religious perspective. By examining and understanding the current history of otherness and dwarfism, one may start to see the role they play in God’s greater plan. The Bible contains quite a few instances of otherness and how they may impact the lives of others. The Gospel of John presents the parable of the blind man, highlighting how God utilizes several means of sharing His glory. The passage reads:

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.^[37]

Jesus explains how God’s glory can manifest in several ways, such as disabilities. Now, while this parable provides an instance of Jesus performing a miracle to heal a man with a disability, disabilities do not have the sole purpose of being healed. People with disabilities are given a unique situation in life and must experience trials that are unfamiliar to more able-bodied individuals. Because of this, those with disabilities may develop powerful testimonies of the strength and perseverance they must draw from God in order to face these difficulties. These personal strengths and testimonies call a witness to God’s almighty power and control in these situations and illustrate how faith is an unwavering and powerful component in our lives. We, as humans, are perfectly imperfect, tainted in sin yet made in God’s image. It is not our job, as humans, to make a judgment concerning disabilities as we cannot fully understand God’s plan for them. Therefore, it is conclusive that disabilities are not a product of sin but a gift from God.

With the twenty-first century bursting with disability awareness and activism, it may feel like the culmination of the history of otherness is coming to an end. However, it is crucial to note that we are simply at the present culmination of the history of otherness and that it has not ended yet and will not until human life ends. If a person with a disability, such as dwarfism, were to be asked what their perfect world looks like, they may provide a reply along the lines of complete and utter acceptance and integration into society. Personally, as a disabled woman, I would say that my perfect world is to simply be me. I do not want to be seen as something accidental, bad, or pitied, nor do I want to be seen as a divine gift or blessing. I would prefer to exist as God made me, just as He made everyone else with their unique bodies. Beginning with Ancient Egypt’s reverence of dwarfism to Ancient Greece’s hesitation on full acceptance to the freak show’s capitalization, dwarfism has always been seen as something. Whether it be mystical and magical, to a curse, a hindrance, or abnormality, dwarfism is a form of otherness continually facing labeling and differentiation. For people classified as other, it is a constant battle to be seen as a person before the otherness, or disability. In the end, we want to be seen as a person, nothing more, nothing less.