Title: writer’s choice you can read it online THE BOOK IS http://www.isbnlib.com/preview/0674018257/One-of-Us-Conjoined-Twins-and-the-Future-of-Normal The lens essay uses one text to shed light on another in order to show readers something they would

Title: writer’s choice

you can read it online THE BOOK IS http://www.isbnlib.com/preview/0674018257/One-of-Us-Conjoined-Twins-and-the-Future-of-Normal The lens essay uses one text to shed light on another in order to show readers something they would not have been able to see if they had examined the texts in isolation. For this assignment, you will use one of the following academic sources as a lens for shedding light on Dreger’s One of Us in 3-5 pages: – Leslie Fielder, Freaks: Myths and Images of the Secret Self” – Robert Bogdan, “The Social Construction of Freaks” – Allison Pingree, “The Exceptions that Prove the Rule: Daisy and Violet Hilton, the New Woman, and the Bonds of Marriage” Your aim is to synthesize your understanding of the argument in your chosen academic source with your interpretation of a specific passage, case study, or idea in Dreger’s book to create an argument you could not have made through close reading of Dreger alone. You seek to inform your readers, to open up Dreger’s stories about abnormal bodies in new ways — and, in doing so, to help your readers see the potential for producing critical readings of texts like Dreger’s. In order to be successful at this assignment, you will have to narrow down and select threads in both your lens essay and in Dreger’s book. From your lens source, you want to select an idea, a term, a concept, or a piece of the argument that you can apply to a thread in Dreger. Additionally, you won’t have the space to write about all of Dreger’s argument. Instead, you need to focus on a particular case she considers or a passage from her book—most likely, you will be concentrating on less than a single chapter of the Dreger book for the bulk of your analysis. While it will be necessary to quote from both sources in your paper, you will be quoting more from the Dreger than your chosen lens source [you may only quote and analyze material from the lens source in one paragraph early on], and the analysis you produce of Dreger (the sentences you write about a quote or example on the right hand side of the citation before moving on) should always involve the idea you’ve extracted from the lens source rather than just your analysis of the Dreger alone. Lastly, let me remind you that your paper should be thesis-driven. That is to say, it should search for links between materials for the purpose of constructing a thesis or theory about their relationship to each other. Your thesis should be a disputable claim that is proven through your use of specific evidence in the form of MLA-style in-text citations, around which you incorporate the characteristics of PIE structure (point/purpose; integrate; examine/evaluate/explore/explain). Furthermore, your thesis should feature prominently in the introduction of your essay and organize the development of your body paragraphs. As a part of making your paper conform to MLA style, you are required to have a Works Cited page at the end of your final draft that includes works cited entries for both One of Us and your lens text, formatted according to MLA style. We have learned how to construct Works Cited Pages on the MLA Olympics handout, so go back to that assignment if you need help with works cited pages. First drafts are due for peer review Wednesday, November 2. Final drafts are due in the appropriate dropbox Friday, November 4. Pattern for Your Lens Essay This assignment is like doing textual analysis with a magnifying glass, or doing surgery with tweezers– you have to focus on the smallest details here! You are literally focused only on two very small pieces of information—an idea/concept/term from your academic source (literally, just a couple of words!) and just a small piece (less than a chapter!!!) of Dreger. Ideally, you could/should use one of Dreger’s examples, stories, or cases of abnormal embodiment like the Hiltons or the Bunkers, and that is all. Intro paragraph— – Starts with the big idea you’re considering and narrows down from there→ gender roles and the body? How we judge those who are different from us? The experiences of the abnormally bodied themselves? It’s all about the ideas, though, and you start general and then narrow down into the specific parts of the two texts you’re going to use. – Includes a quick one or two sentence summary of each source– but no more. – Begins to set up the lens you’re using with this pattern for your thesis: By using Fielder’s/Pingree’s/Bogdan’s idea of “____________” to analyze Dreger’s presentation of the lives of ________________, it becomes apparent that ________________________. Organizing the body— It makes the most sense to organize the body in a way like this: – 1 paragraph where you quote, paraphrase, and summarize the idea or concept you’re taking from the lens source. – 1 paragraph where you quote, paraphrase, and summarize the case study, story, or example from Dreger (at most, you’re working with a couple of pages in One of Us here!) [You can choose to present these first two paragraphs above in either order- pick the one that makes the best sense for your argument] – THEN: 1-2 paragraphs where you bring it together—what does the lens idea illuminate about the Dreger case study? What comes up in your analysis in light of the concept, idea, or term from the lens source you’re using? When you quote from Dreger in these paragraphs, the analysis your produce (the ‘interpret’ from report + interpret or the ‘E’ from PIE structure) —everything to the right of the quote before you move on from it—should be focused on bringing the lens idea to bear on the Dreger quote. You literally couldn’t produce the analysis you were making about the Dreger quote without the lens idea. – FINALLY: Optional 1-2 follow-up paragraphs that explore the insights you’ve gained from the lens analysis in other parts of Dreger’s book in a more general way, or explore or explain the big similarities or differences between Dreger’s ideas and your lens sources ideas. [These paragraphs are fine to include after you do your lens analysis, but they can’t replace them—they are not the same thing as doing a lens analysis. It could make sense, for the purpose of your argument, thesis, or topic, to get broader and think about the sources in relation to one another based on what you find. Not required though.] Conclusion— – Repeats the important ideas that have come for your analysis. Summarizes what you found using the academic source as a lens to analyze the Dreger source. Thinks about the sources in relation to each other in a broader way if you haven’t included the optional paragraphs above. Example Thesis: – "By using Fielder’s conception of the ‘freak’ to analyze the case of Chang and Eng Bunker in Dreger’s One of Us, it becomes apparent that the Bunkers may been ‘freaks’ in the way Fielder describes. As I will show in the analysis to follow, though, to be a ‘freak’ in the way Fielder describes is not opposed to Dreger’s pleas for greater social acceptance for the abnormally bodied in One of Us. Both texts rely on the first-hand experiences of the abnormally bodied to advocate on their behalfs." Sample outline for paper: Intro Paragraph 1– explaining Fielder’s idea of the freak Paragraph 2- explaining Dreger’s presentation of Chang and Eng Bunker. What’s she trying to show about their case? Paragraph 3– putting it together: analyzing Chang and Eng Bunker according to the lens– how they might be ‘freaks’ Paragraph 4– putting it together: how being a freak is not opposed to Dreger’s purpose in One of Us Paragraph 5– how both texts advocate on behalf of abnormally bodied people Conclusion

Jane Doe

 ENG 102

 Mr. Lane

 14 February 2011

Conjoined Twins’ Quest for Economic

and Emotional Independence

From 1840 to 1940, the culture of freak shows was introduced to the United Sates, when opportunists brought conjoined twins from different parts of the world to put on display. According to Robert Bogdan, a well known Professor of Cultural Foundations of Education and Sociology at Syracuse University, a freak show is defined as, “ the formally organized exhibition of people with alleged physical, mental, or behavioral differences at circuses, fairs, carnivals, and other amusement venues…in the United States” (23). During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Americans flocked to freak shows, which were accepted in American society and grew to be popular and profitable. People who were seen as different in the society were dehumanized as members of the community. They often suffered demeaning introductions, such as, “step right up…see the most astonishing aggression of human marvels and monstrosities gathered together in one edifice” (Bogdan, 23). Bodgan relates that these people were not regarded as people, but rather, as freaks of nature. Comment by IT Services: Good quote integration, but no comma needed here—test yourself by trying to write the sentence as if there were no quotes—if a comma is not needed there, it wouldn’t be needed here either.

Although they were financially successful, conjoined twins displayed in freak shows throughout the United States often struggled to gain their independence. Bogdan’s article, The
Social Construction of Freaks, and Allice Dreger’s book, One of Us, describe the attempts of conjoined twins to establish their own identities. These authors not only try to define the conjoined twins as the victims of freak shows, but also to reveal the twins’ attempts to normalize within their cultures. Bogdan extends Dreger’s analysis and perceptions that although the unusual bodies of conjoined twins were exploited by freak show managers, the twins eventually gained economic and emotional independence. Comment by IT Services: Just quotes and not italics for the Bogdan article—articles inside anthologies, like the words from inside a book, just take quotes. Only titles on the outside spines of books—One of Us, Tyranny of the Normal, Freakery—get italics. Comment by IT Services: Terrific thesis—I can see just how you’re using the Bogdan as a lens for the Dreger.

Bogdan agrees with Dreger’s emphasis on the restricted freedom of the twins and discusses in great length how the conjoined twins’ disabilities were exploited. First, Bogdan analyzes how the conjoined twins’ status in society was eroded when managers introduced them as products of strange societies: “The person in the exhibit came from a mysterious part of the world – darkest Africa, the wilds of Borneo, a Turkish harem, an ancient Aztec kingdom” (28). The conjoined twins were looked upon as inferior to other members of Western society marketed as products of societies that were regarded as uncivilized. In One of Us, Alice Dreger vividly describes the lack of freedom that conjoined twins, Daisy and Violet experienced, “They worked on the entertainment circuit from an early age, without much control over their lives or the money they earned” (48). Dreger describes how the twins’ bodies were used for the profit of the managers rather than for the well-being of the twins. Bogdan takes Dreger’s analysis further when she suggests that the show owners not only took advantage of the twins’ bodies but also of their emotional vulnerability. By fabricating absurd identities for the twins, Bogdan emphasizes that society limited the twins’ emotional perception of themselves. Comment by IT Services: You don’t want to set Daisy and Violet off with commas here because Dreger presents several cases of twins, and so it would be essential information for us to know which pair of twins this references. Comment by IT Services: As I reader, I first thought you might need to show how this is so by providing a quote and offering PIE structure for it. Then I read on, and realized you did that in the next paragraph. What you might want to do then, to keep the reader from getting hung up here, is move this sentence and have it start the next paragraph.

Bogdan also agrees with Dreger’s conception that these people were perceived as freaks because they were different: “People with physical and mental anomalies came under the control…and many were secluded from the public” (Bogdan, 34). The twins’ bodies, however, existed in society to be exploited. Moreover, Bogdan enhances Dreger’s concept of the exploitation of twins by suggesting that conjoined twins’ were seen as a threat to American society. Bogdan explains, “People with physical and mental differences became dangerous because they were alleged to have inferior genes that, if not controlled would weaken the breeding stock” (34). Bodgan’s emphasis on society’s limitations on the twins’, however, seems to disagree with Dreger’s analysis that the twins’ identities were limited by their own perceptions, rather than by those of society.

The two authors also discuss the attempts of freaks to normalize in terms of what society considered common behavior at that time. Early on, the freak show manager, took many of the “freaks,” the conjoined twins, out to play. Dreger relates that the children walked, played, attended school, swam, bicycled, drew, learned, and had dreams for the future like other normal children in their society. She writes, “So far as I can ascertain, they do what most people do” (49). Dreger adds that the twins tried to act normal, even when others stared at them. “As one might expect, occasionally someone stares or exclaims astonishment at the sight of them, but they take this in stride” (37). As all children, they tried to fit in. Bogdan further notes that, “…they found acceptance and more freedom [from the show managers] than either custodial institutions or the mainstream might provide” (35). Bogdan extends Dreger’s analysis of the twins’ living environment by suggesting that the twins were actually better cared for in the freak shows than they would have been in the general public. Comment by IT Services: These sentences at the end of your body paragraphs make it really obvious that you’re not just comparing and contrasting the sources, but using the Bogdan as a lens for the Dreger. Great work!

In addition, Dreger writes about the economic freedom of the conjoined twins, Violet and Daisy, “In 1932, after successfully suing their managers, they were finally awarded independence and one hundred dollars in damages.” (48). Despite the exploitation of the twins’ by their managers, the conjoined twins finally won their financial independence. Bogdan indicates that conjoined twins’ strived to be economically independent and were often successful.

Bogdan’s article The Social
Construction of Freaks and Dreger’s book One of Us not only discuss the bodies of the conjoined twins but also their quest for economic and emotional independence. During this time, people with unusual anatomies were exploited financially and suffered emotionally throughout their lives. Both Bogdan and Dreger reveal the exploitation of the conjoined twins and point out their desire for normalization within their societies. Like Bogdan, Dreger focuses on the deprivation of freedom of the twins and describes how the conjoined twins’ handicap was capitalized on by opportunists. Bogdan highlights society’s restrictions on the conjoined twins whereas Dreger focuses on how the twins own perceptions of themselves limit their identities. Bogdan is helpful in magnifying Dreger’s analysis by describing that despite the freak show manager’s exploitation, the twins’ eventually gained their economic and emotional independence and secured their own identities. Comment by IT Services: “The Social Construction of Freaks” Comment by IT Services: Excellent job using Bogdan as a lens to analyze Dreger. Lots of great ideas, and it was really clear you weren’t just comparing and contrasting sources throughout. One place to organize the transition between ideas a bit better, and some minor grammar items to work on—italics vs quotes for titles, use of commas when integrating quotes.

Works cited

Bogdan, Robert.”The Social Construction of Freaks.” Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of The Extraordinary Body . Ed. Rosemarie Garland Thomson. NY: NY UP, 1996.  23-37. Print

Dreger, Alice Domurat. One of Us: Conjoined Twins and the Future of Normal. London: Harvard UP, 2004.  Print.

John Doe

Mr. Lane

English 102 – One of Us Essay, Final Draft

14 February 2011

The Composite Creature Comment by IT Services: Great title!

Leslie Fiedler in his article “Freaks: Myths and Images of the Secret Self” discusses the disparity with which denizens of the freak shows of old were both revered and looked down upon by members of “normal” society. It is by applying Fiedler’s concept of the composite creature, the monstre double, to Alice Dreger’s discussion of the Bijani twins that we can begin to understand the choice of Ladan and Laleh Bijani, the first and only conjoined twins in history to choose separation of their own volition after living healthy and fulfilling adult lives. Comment by IT Services: Great set-up. It’s clear here that you are ‘lensing’ and I can’t wait to see what your analysis brings out of the Dreger!

Fiedler uses the visual image of a composite creature to describe the concept of a being that is at the same time both lacking in humanity and yet also rising above, “a monstre par defaut, lacking one leg and foot, but also a monstre par exces, possessing an oddly displaced third eye, as well as a supernumerary horn on its otherwise human head” (20). This concept is used in Fiedler’s article to explain the way freaks have always been viewed by society, both as inhuman creatures to be looked down on for their abnormalities and as amazing beings to be looked up to, idolized and placed on pedestals.

Dreger tells the story of Ladan and Laleh Bijani, 29-year-old conjoined twins who opted in 2003 to seek out a team of surgeons to separate them, despite the knowledge that it could quite likely lead to one or both of their deaths. The Bijani twins are thought to be the only pair in known history to actively choose separation for themselves. Dreger tells us that “the Bijanis were unlike all their predecessors in one important respect: they decided that their conjoinment intolerably limited their lives” (41). In fact, Ladan and Laleh spent at least eight years looking for a medical team willing to perform the surgery before finding a doctor at a Singaporean hospital who reluctantly agreed.

First, Fiedler’s image of the monstre double, a hybrid of two creatures stuck together by biology, seems almost by design a reference to conjoined twins as a “quite human attempt to sum up in a single iconic form the essential nature of all Freaks” (20). It cannot be argued that conjoined twins are among the most celebrated participants of the freak shows of old. The Bijanis, “risking their lives to try to achieve physical independence” (Dreger 43), had lived their entire lives as craniopagus twins, joined at the back of the head. They had never even seen each other’s faces without the aid of a mirror, and yet they could not get away from each other’s company even for a few minutes at a time, nor (as it turns out) could they live without each other. Two women sharing one body, each both enhanced and limited by the presence of the other. Comment by IT Services: I love this commentary. You’re doing a terrific job of integrating quotes seamlessly and smoothly into your own argument.

While the creatures in Fiedler’s monster are related and biologically conjoined, they feature very different characteristics. The monster is intersex, featuring organs of both man and woman. One leg is scaly and birdlike in nature while the other is more human. Similarly, the Bijani twins “had developed psychosocially as two distinct individuals, with notably different personalities, interests and tastes” (Dreger, 43). Ladan was more outgoing and assertive and enjoyed studying the law, while Laleh passed her time playing video games and caring for animals, and wished after the separation to become a journalist. Laleh had taken a law degree alongside her sister, but also wished to pursue her own interests. Again, like the extra eye in its inhuman limb enhanced the composite creature, each twin was offered experiences and opportunities she might not have had otherwise by virtue of being conjoined. Comment by IT Services: I would have never thought that the Bijani twins could function as an embodiment of the monstre double this way—way to go with your lens analysis!

Even as they were choosing separation, the Bijani twins did not express the wish that their parents had opted to separate them as children, claiming to reporters that “We have enjoyed being together” (Dreger 67). However, as a man and woman cannot always follow the exact same path, and as a bird must of necessity fly a different road than a person, the Bijanis knew that, while they had enjoyed their time together, they had come to a time in their lives where in order to be happy, they needed to separate and have their own experiences. Ultimately, Laleh and Ladan Bijani did not survive their surgery. In the final stage of the process by which their monstre double would be divided into its inherent and beautifully individual parts, they both suffered uncontrollable hemorrhage and died within two hours of each other. But on their return home from Singapore to Iran, they were transported in separate coffins, allowing them the separation in death that they were never able to attain in life. Comment by IT Services: Maybe ‘on the return of their bodies…” Comment by IT Services: Outstanding job with the lens analysis! Your work shows the results of arriving at insights impossible if you read the Dreger by itself. Great job with commas, great job with integrating quotes in PIE structure, and great job with works cited page. All goals accomplished!

Works Cited

Fiedler, Leslie A. “Freaks: Myths and Images of the Secret Self.” The Tyranny of the Normal. Ed. Carol Donley and Sheryl Buckley. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1996. 11-26. Print.

Dreger, Alice Domurat. One of Us: Conjoined Twins and the Future of Normal. Boston, MA: Harvard UP, 2004. Print.

John Doe

Mr. Lane

English 102 – One of Us Essay, Final Draft

14 February 2011

The Composite Creature Comment by IT Services: Great title!

Leslie Fiedler in his article “Freaks: Myths and Images of the Secret Self” discusses the disparity with which denizens of the freak shows of old were both revered and looked down upon by members of “normal” society. It is by applying Fiedler’s concept of the composite creature, the monstre double, to Alice Dreger’s discussion of the Bijani twins that we can begin to understand the choice of Ladan and Laleh Bijani, the first and only conjoined twins in history to choose separation of their own volition after living healthy and fulfilling adult lives. Comment by IT Services: Great set-up. It’s clear here that you are ‘lensing’ and I can’t wait to see what your analysis brings out of the Dreger!

Fiedler uses the visual image of a composite creature to describe the concept of a being that is at the same time both lacking in humanity and yet also rising above, “a monstre par defaut, lacking one leg and foot, but also a monstre par exces, possessing an oddly displaced third eye, as well as a supernumerary horn on its otherwise human head” (20). This concept is used in Fiedler’s article to explain the way freaks have always been viewed by society, both as inhuman creatures to be looked down on for their abnormalities and as amazing beings to be looked up to, idolized and placed on pedestals.

Dreger tells the story of Ladan and Laleh Bijani, 29-year-old conjoined twins who opted in 2003 to seek out a team of surgeons to separate them, despite the knowledge that it could quite likely lead to one or both of their deaths. The Bijani twins are thought to be the only pair in known history to actively choose separation for themselves. Dreger tells us that “the Bijanis were unlike all their predecessors in one important respect: they decided that their conjoinment intolerably limited their lives” (41). In fact, Ladan and Laleh spent at least eight years looking for a medical team willing to perform the surgery before finding a doctor at a Singaporean hospital who reluctantly agreed.

First, Fiedler’s image of the monstre double, a hybrid of two creatures stuck together by biology, seems almost by design a reference to conjoined twins as a “quite human attempt to sum up in a single iconic form the essential nature of all Freaks” (20). It cannot be argued that conjoined twins are among the most celebrated participants of the freak shows of old. The Bijanis, “risking their lives to try to achieve physical independence” (Dreger 43), had lived their entire lives as craniopagus twins, joined at the back of the head. They had never even seen each other’s faces without the aid of a mirror, and yet they could not get away from each other’s company even for a few minutes at a time, nor (as it turns out) could they live without each other. Two women sharing one body, each both enhanced and limited by the presence of the other. Comment by IT Services: I love this commentary. You’re doing a terrific job of integrating quotes seamlessly and smoothly into your own argument.

While the creatures in Fiedler’s monster are related and biologically conjoined, they feature very different characteristics. The monster is intersex, featuring organs of both man and woman. One leg is scaly and birdlike in nature while the other is more human. Similarly, the Bijani twins “had developed psychosocially as two distinct individuals, with notably different personalities, interests and tastes” (Dreger, 43). Ladan was more outgoing and assertive and enjoyed studying the law, while Laleh passed her time playing video games and caring for animals, and wished after the separation to become a journalist. Laleh had taken a law degree alongside her sister, but also wished to pursue her own interests. Again, like the extra eye in its inhuman limb enhanced the composite creature, each twin was offered experiences and opportunities she might not have had otherwise by virtue of being conjoined. Comment by IT Services: I would have never thought that the Bijani twins could function as an embodiment of the monstre double this way—way to go with your lens analysis!

Even as they were choosing separation, the Bijani twins did not express the wish that their parents had opted to separate them as children, claiming to reporters that “We have enjoyed being together” (Dreger 67). However, as a man and woman cannot always follow the exact same path, and as a bird must of necessity fly a different road than a person, the Bijanis knew that, while they had enjoyed their time together, they had come to a time in their lives where in order to be happy, they needed to separate and have their own experiences. Ultimately, Laleh and Ladan Bijani did not survive their surgery. In the final stage of the process by which their monstre double would be divided into its inherent and beautifully individual parts, they both suffered uncontrollable hemorrhage and died within two hours of each other. But on their return home from Singapore to Iran, they were transported in separate coffins, allowing them the separation in death that they were never able to attain in life. Comment by IT Services: Maybe ‘on the return of their bodies…” Comment by IT Services: Outstanding job with the lens analysis! Your work shows the results of arriving at insights impossible if you read the Dreger by itself. Great job with commas, great job with integrating quotes in PIE structure, and great job with works cited page. All goals accomplished!

Works Cited

Fiedler, Leslie A. “Freaks: Myths and Images of the Secret Self.” The Tyranny of the Normal. Ed. Carol Donley and Sheryl Buckley. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1996. 11-26. Print.

Dreger, Alice Domurat. One of Us: Conjoined Twins and the Future of Normal. Boston, MA: Harvard UP, 2004. Print.

Jane Doe

 ENG 102

 Mr. Lane

 14 February 2011

Conjoined Twins’ Quest for Economic

and Emotional Independence

From 1840 to 1940, the culture of freak shows was introduced to the United Sates, when opportunists brought conjoined twins from different parts of the world to put on display. According to Robert Bogdan, a well known Professor of Cultural Foundations of Education and Sociology at Syracuse University, a freak show is defined as, “ the formally organized exhibition of people with alleged physical, mental, or behavioral differences at circuses, fairs, carnivals, and other amusement venues…in the United States” (23). During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Americans flocked to freak shows, which were accepted in American society and grew to be popular and profitable. People who were seen as different in the society were dehumanized as members of the community. They often suffered demeaning introductions, such as, “step right up…see the most astonishing aggression of human marvels and monstrosities gathered together in one edifice” (Bogdan, 23). Bodgan relates that these people were not regarded as people, but rather, as freaks of nature. Comment by IT Services: Good quote integration, but no comma needed here—test yourself by trying to write the sentence as if there were no quotes—if a comma is not needed there, it wouldn’t be needed here either.

Although they were financially successful, conjoined twins displayed in freak shows throughout the United States often struggled to gain their independence. Bogdan’s article, The
Social Construction of Freaks, and Allice Dreger’s book, One of Us, describe the attempts of conjoined twins to establish their own identities. These authors not only try to define the conjoined twins as the victims of freak shows, but also to reveal the twins’ attempts to normalize within their cultures. Bogdan extends Dreger’s analysis and perceptions that although the unusual bodies of conjoined twins were exploited by freak show managers, the twins eventually gained economic and emotional independence. Comment by IT Services: Just quotes and not italics for the Bogdan article—articles inside anthologies, like the words from inside a book, just take quotes. Only titles on the outside spines of books—One of Us, Tyranny of the Normal, Freakery—get italics. Comment by IT Services: Terrific thesis—I can see just how you’re using the Bogdan as a lens for the Dreger.

Bogdan agrees with Dreger’s emphasis on the restricted freedom of the twins and discusses in great length how the conjoined twins’ disabilities were exploited. First, Bogdan analyzes how the conjoined twins’ status in society was eroded when managers introduced them as products of strange societies: “The person in the exhibit came from a mysterious part of the world – darkest Africa, the wilds of Borneo, a Turkish harem, an ancient Aztec kingdom” (28). The conjoined twins were looked upon as inferior to other members of Western society marketed as products of societies that were regarded as uncivilized. In One of Us, Alice Dreger vividly describes the lack of freedom that conjoined twins, Daisy and Violet experienced, “They worked on the entertainment circuit from an early age, without much control over their lives or the money they earned” (48). Dreger describes how the twins’ bodies were used for the profit of the managers rather than for the well-being of the twins. Bogdan takes Dreger’s analysis further when she suggests that the show owners not only took advantage of the twins’ bodies but also of their emotional vulnerability. By fabricating absurd identities for the twins, Bogdan emphasizes that society limited the twins’ emotional perception of themselves. Comment by IT Services: You don’t want to set Daisy and Violet off with commas here because Dreger presents several cases of twins, and so it would be essential information for us to know which pair of twins this references. Comment by IT Services: As I reader, I first thought you might need to show how this is so by providing a quote and offering PIE structure for it. Then I read on, and realized you did that in the next paragraph. What you might want to do then, to keep the reader from getting hung up here, is move this sentence and have it start the next paragraph.

Bogdan also agrees with Dreger’s conception that these people were perceived as freaks because they were different: “People with physical and mental anomalies came under the control…and many were secluded from the public” (Bogdan, 34). The twins’ bodies, however, existed in society to be exploited. Moreover, Bogdan enhances Dreger’s concept of the exploitation of twins by suggesting that conjoined twins’ were seen as a threat to American society. Bogdan explains, “People with physical and mental differences became dangerous because they were alleged to have inferior genes that, if not controlled would weaken the breeding stock” (34). Bodgan’s emphasis on society’s limitations on the twins’, however, seems to disagree with Dreger’s analysis that the twins’ identities were limited by their own perceptions, rather than by those of society.

The two authors also discuss the attempts of freaks to normalize in terms of what society considered common behavior at that time. Early on, the freak show manager, took many of the “freaks,” the conjoined twins, out to play. Dreger relates that the children walked, played, attended school, swam, bicycled, drew, learned, and had dreams for the future like other normal children in their society. She writes, “So far as I can ascertain, they do what most people do” (49). Dreger adds that the twins tried to act normal, even when others stared at them. “As one might expect, occasionally someone stares or exclaims astonishment at the sight of them, but they take this in stride” (37). As all children, they tried to fit in. Bogdan further notes that, “…they found acceptance and more freedom [from the show managers] than either custodial institutions or the mainstream might provide” (35). Bogdan extends Dreger’s analysis of the twins’ living environment by suggesting that the twins were actually better cared for in the freak shows than they would have been in the general public. Comment by IT Services: These sentences at the end of your body paragraphs make it really obvious that you’re not just comparing and contrasting the sources, but using the Bogdan as a lens for the Dreger. Great work!

In addition, Dreger writes about the economic freedom of the conjoined twins, Violet and Daisy, “In 1932, after successfully suing their managers, they were finally awarded independence and one hundred dollars in damages.” (48). Despite the exploitation of the twins’ by their managers, the conjoined twins finally won their financial independence. Bogdan indicates that conjoined twins’ strived to be economically independent and were often successful.

Bogdan’s article The Social
Construction of Freaks and Dreger’s book One of Us not only discuss the bodies of the conjoined twins but also their quest for economic and emotional independence. During this time, people with unusual anatomies were exploited financially and suffered emotionally throughout their lives. Both Bogdan and Dreger reveal the exploitation of the conjoined twins and point out their desire for normalization within their societies. Like Bogdan, Dreger focuses on the deprivation of freedom of the twins and describes how the conjoined twins’ handicap was capitalized on by opportunists. Bogdan highlights society’s restrictions on the conjoined twins whereas Dreger focuses on how the twins own perceptions of themselves limit their identities. Bogdan is helpful in magnifying Dreger’s analysis by describing that despite the freak show manager’s exploitation, the twins’ eventually gained their economic and emotional independence and secured their own identities. Comment by IT Services: “The Social Construction of Freaks” Comment by IT Services: Excellent job using Bogdan as a lens to analyze Dreger. Lots of great ideas, and it was really clear you weren’t just comparing and contrasting sources throughout. One place to organize the transition between ideas a bit better, and some minor grammar items to work on—italics vs quotes for titles, use of commas when integrating quotes.

Works cited

Bogdan, Robert.”The Social Construction of Freaks.” Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of The Extraordinary Body . Ed. Rosemarie Garland Thomson. NY: NY UP, 1996.  23-37. Print

Dreger, Alice Domurat. One of Us: Conjoined Twins and the Future of Normal. London: Harvard UP, 2004.  Print.