P.T. Barnum has been in the news again because of The
Greatest Showman, a movie which has been getting some pretty harsh criticism not so
much because of the movie as a movie but because of the man celebrated in it.
Barnum hired ‘freaks', many of whom were forced into the work as children, and
profited greatly from them, which was not uncommon at the time. He was probably
a better man than many at the time; I did not read that he forced anyone into
this. However, he eagerly bought out contracts and hired children as young as 5
to join his show. Even if he is better by comparison, that's a far cry from
declaring him good.
However, there was a clear benefit to many of those who put themselves on display. “Many of his performers were paid handsome sums, some earning as much as today’s sports stars.” For example,
In spite of this benefit to many of the freaks, the argument is that Barnum treated them unfairly
to gain an unfair advantage or benefit for himself. He exploited them, right?
No amount of money or fame could compensate for the dehumanization and
commodification of other human beings so that Barnum could benefit.
We live in a world that condemns Barnum’s exploitation. But
we also live in a world the has made consent a holy grail. So what do we do
when these two things clash? Can the consenting – especially if they benefit
well from a transaction – still be exploited? Most of the freaks agreed to it.
In fact, most of them ended up pretty well off financially, far better off than
they likely would have if Barnum had not hired them.
So, if they consented to work for Barnum, how is this wrong?
An agreement was reached, a form of social contract; Barnum profited from them,
but they did from him as well. Even if you make the argument he exploited them
because he had an unfair advantage or treated them unfairly, it was “their body
their choice,” right? As long as they were not coerced, we should be
celebrating how these freaks took what society used against them and turned it
to their own advantage. In today’s term, I think we would call that
empowerment. Unless, of course, there is something about the very nature of what happened that is in some sense wrong.