Alex Jones
SOC 2470
Sec: 12:00
Disillusioning Disney
Sparked by the advent of the telegraph, revolutionaries have been seeking to create
technologies that increase the efficiency of communication over greater distances. In
recent years, technology has become vastly more common and advanced; used for both
communication and leisure in many different ways. This exposure to and reliance on new
technologies in modern culture has led to the rise of consumerism. The exponential rise of
consumer culture in America has increased moral panics amongst the older generations.
These people fear that the expanse of consumerism has a degrading effect on the youth and
signals the decline of American society due to its reliance on technology and decrease in
interpersonal relationships. As a result, corporations at the top of consumerism, who have
the greatest access to and use of many different forms of modern media, take the blame.
Disney has risen to a conglomeration in recent years, owning a lot of the media industry
and has been at the heart of public criticism. People claim that Disney preaches ignorant
and harmful messages by the way it “idolizes and supports the ideal white suburban
family”. They believe that it, therefore, condemns other races. However, it is hindsight bias
that allows these critics to jump to conclusions. Images and ideals portrayed in popular
Disney movies of the past are not necessarily reflective of culture, including messages and
morals, of modernity. Furthermore, Disney follows formulaic models to produce their
stories. These models were not invented by “the evils of Disney corporatism”, they were
simply reinvented by Disney, inscribed with values of innocence and magic while meshing
with the values of the time period, for their contemporary target audience, children around
ages 4-12. Although there are certain specific flaws and problems within the images
Disney projects, critics fail to note the important and beneficial values in Disney products
that have remained constant over time regardless of changing societies and these critics fail
to recognize that, as a whole, Disney portrays messages of acceptance and works to better
fulfill the values and desires of the modern culture in America.
John G. Cawelti, who pioneered the establishment of the study of popular culture in
academia, discusses the use of formula stories in his book Adventure, Mystery, and
Romance: Formula Stories as Art and Popular Culture. He explains that formulaic stories
have to conform to the idealized world in which they are created in order to be effective.
He writes, “the degree to which particular works share common characteristics may be
indicative of important cultural tendencies” (Cawelti, 7). Formula stories become so
popular because they provide a desirable escape for the viewers by reflecting idealized
notions of the time period. In order for the escapes to be desirable, they have to include the
ideals of the society’s fantasy. Disney movies are so popular because the fantasies they
creates are desirable for their audiences whether critics agree or not. Yes, there are issues
with some of the implied connotations in Disney movies. However, this is not the fault of
the corporation, it is the fault of the society that wanted to see it. When Snow White was
released in 1937, America had not yet been through the radical feminist movement and
there was a commonly accepted ideal of perfect femininity. Betsey Hearne, professor at the
Graduate School of Library and Information Science at University of Illinios at UrbanaChampaign, explains,
“His first full-length feature, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves *1937), embroidered basic fairy tale
formula with Hollywood romance, slapstick humor, and a utopian alternative to the harsh
competition engendered by the Depression (witness the cooperative work ethic of the seven miners
and of the heroine’s menagerie of housecleaners, an aspect that Terri Wright has explored in
‘Romancing the Tale: Walt Disney’s Adaptation of Grimms’ ‘Snow White’’). Some 50 years later,
Beauty and the Beast has again emphasized romance and humor, but the Depression is long gone,
and Disney films have long since entered the conservative mode adopted by Disney himself after
World War II” (Hearne, 4)
Over time, Disney has worked to compensate for potentially offensive depictions of the past
because society is also working to compensate for these faults. Affirmative Action is a
political example of the same compensation. At the same time, Disney works to maintain
the formula they present that is so desirable to viewers, even in the present. Disney keeps
the constant themes, particularly of innocence and magic, while incorporating relatable
elements of contemporary society. Many of these changes are due to Lieberson’s
motivators of change, particularly the external factors i.e. the Great Depression and World
War II. The Princess and the Frog has been seen as a mirror to the Obama administration
and America’s election of its first African American president (Gehlawat). Once again, these
changing depictions are not due to Disney and what it “wants you to believe”, they are
mirroring what society does believe. Hearne continues,
“Disney’s modifications originate from accurate readings of our culture… We who criticize Disney
have seen the enemy, and he is us. We are mistaken to speak as a voice removed from the rest of the
population, as 18th and 19th century educators did in criticizing fairy tales and fiction, or to condemn
artists as gulfing the rest of the population” (Hearne, 5)
Disney did not invent the princess narrative and does not intend to swallow the
audience into any of its representations. Famous names like Perrault, Grimm and Lang,
who are known for their folklore, did not invent it either, they merely wrote it down. In the
18th and 19th centuries, their stories were considered vulgar (Sayers, 2). Formulas have
been reflecting societal values for centuries.
Disney’s first princess tale, Snow White emulated the ideal during that time of how
women should act. Deborah O’Keefe, writer educated at Vassar College, describes, “the best
girls were passive, still… the rebellious ones were urged to emulate the saintly ones and
they usually gave in by the end of the book or at least the end of the series” (Whelan, 22).
Clearly, Disney did not invent this ideal of the “perfect girl” or the ways the princesses are
depicted either, these images were invented by society and Disney simply mirrored them.
The first story to really break this mold of ideal girlhood was Burnett’s A Little Princess
where Sarah Crewe is not a real princess, but only one by her imagination, which brings her
power. This story was very popular upon its release. Bridget Whelan, in the dissertation
for her Ph.D. in children’s literature, continues on to describe Snow White as, “a
groundbreaking retelling of a Grimm’s’ fairy tale: Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
(1937)… the tale loosely mimics the narrative of Burnett’s A Little Princess … Disney
manipulated a somewhat fluid traditional, and existing narrative and shaped it into their
own” (Whelan, 22-23). Disney meshed two stories using similar and familiar formulas to
make it its own. The combination of the two was used to emulate contemporary thought,
making it popular to its audiences and its popularity was astounding.
Disney followed this pattern of creation with the next movies.
“Disney released their second animated princess narrative. Cinderella (1950 was then followed by
Sleeping Beauty (1959). These two films continued to conform to societal convention regarding girls
and their place in society… Disney’s repackaging of the princess narrative, linking ‘princesshood’ to
contemporary concepts of ideal girlhood, and presenting it to the public on the big screen and in
vivid color at a time when such a thing was uncommon, and hence utterly captivating to the
audience” (Whelan, 23-24).
The movies would not be so captivating if they were not following a formula through which
audience members could escape into their ideal worlds. This ability to transform movies to
create such a desirable world requires a masterful understanding of the values of
contemporary society (Cewalti). These ideal images that are reflective of society are what
people take issue with in Disney movies. Therefore, the issue is not with Disney, it is with
society.
Critics complain of poor race depictions and relations in Disney movies. Reflecting
culture of the past, these issues were not as big of a problem. Looking back and pinpointing
areas that are potentially problematic is unfair and detracts from the use of the movie
especially with regards to its original intentions. It is unfair to blame Disney for portraying
a common ideology 60 years ago and to lessen the messages that are heavily emphasized in
all of the movies, even today. Even those who fear the degradation of society want to
preserve youth, which is what Disney attempts to do through its messages of innocence.
First of all, pinpointing issues with symbolization in Disney movies is a mute point.
The target age of Disney movies, the age when the majority of children who watch Disney
movies are watching them, is age 4-12. As children reach the older years, children are
more exposed to digital media and Disney targets them with other products, more than just
the classic Disney movies in discussion now (“Consumer Analysis”). During a large amount
of this time, until age 7 or 8, while children have less media exposure, according to
psychologist Piaget, children are in the preoperational stage. Piaget explains that the key
features of the stage include egocentrism, animism and the inability to use logical thinking
(PBS). This age is perfect for Disney films because children tend to use magical thinking
and their belief in animism allows them to believe inanimate objects are capable of actions
that have lifelike qualities. Because of these tendencies, Disney is able to suspend the
children’s disbelief and create believable, fantastical worlds. However, egocentrism means
that children tend to pick their own views out of what they see rather than understanding
the views potentially shown. Therefore, regardless of the hidden messages that scholars
claim to find, those subliminal messages are not the ones children are finding in Disney
movies at this age. Rather, they are finding the values and messages that their society
teaches them prior to viewing (“Preoperational Stage”).
Many of the critiques revolve around representation of minorities in Disney movies.
While many of them are, in fact, issues, many of the critiques are exaggerated. Jacquelline
Maloney of Du Bois Institute and Harvard University stated in Mickey Mouse Monopoly
when describing depictions of African Americans as animals “The crows, it’s either the
crows, the monkeys, the orangutans they’re always the ones that are sort of doing the jive
dancing or the hip hop dancing or the break dancing or have the kind of slow, slurred
speech pattern”. She continues on to use the orangutan from The Jungle Book as an
example of this issue by saying that he is a monkey who sounds like a black man who
“wants to be like men”. However, this statement is inaccurate because King Louis is, in fact,
was voiced by Louis Prima who was an Italian jazz musician from Louisiana (“Louis Prima).
Because of her bias in her search, Maloney failed to recognize the different culture and,
therefore, different representation and, instead, subscribed to the stereotype herself; it was
not inherent in the movie. Dr. Alvin Poussaint makes a similar allegation in the
documentary. He refers to a story of white children hearing black children laughing and
associating it with the hyenas of the Lion King; the villains. However, this was not the doing
of Disney. Dr. Poussaint fails to note that an African American plays only one of the hyenas,
and therefore only one third of them could present that association. The other two are
Hispanic and white. Both Mufasa and Sarabi, Simba’s parents are played by African
Americans and they are two of the wisest characters in the movie. Scar, the true
antagonist, is not played by an African American and does not have that association (“Lion
King”). So then, these negative associations are entirely ascribed by the scholars viewing
the Lion King and not the movie itself.
Other critics in Mickey Mouse Monopoly take issue with the representations of
Hispanic characters as Chihuahuas and Asians as Siamese cats. It’s important to note that
there are stereotypes associated with those ethnicities that are portrayed in the film and
should be corrected in the future, but it is not the association between the ethnicities and
the particular animals that is racist. Though the origins of the Chihuahua and Siamese cat
cannot be known specifically, it is commonly accepted that their places of origin are Mexico
and Asia, Thailand specifically, respectively (“Chihuahua: History” and “Siamese Cat”).
Therefore, their associations with those countries are not arbitrary or racist, only some of
the characteristics associated with those characters are. Furthermore, in Lady and the
Tramp, all of the dogs had different ethnic accents including British, German and Scottish,
yet the critics fail to note the variety of accents and complain only about the Chihuahua and
the Siamese cats.
Whether they believe Disney’s portrayals of animals are racist or not, even the
critics agree that, through time, Disney has made trends in a more politically correct
direction. Chyng Feng Sun notes in Mickey Mouse Monopoly, “if you compare the Siamese
cats with Mulan, Disney has made very significant improvement with visual portrayal of
Chinese.” Through these changes it can be seen that, as society has changed, Disney’s
reflections have changed as well. That being said, these changes are often ignored. Critics
of Disney are seemingly impossible to please. Henry Giroux, expert in communications
studies and professor at Penn State University, states that the original story of Tarzan was
extremely racist, however, Disney rewrote it for its audiences using gorillas instead of
African Americans. Maloney argues that the removal of African Americans from the film is
a racist act in itself. That argument is on the other end of the spectrum and, therefore, the
debate is a stale mate. The inclusion of African Americans in the original Tarzan is racist,
but the modification of the story where the racist portrayal of African Americans and
replacing them with gorillas, animals native to Africa, is racist as well. Both sides of the
argument contradict each other.
There are similar conflicts regarding critique of the newest Disney princess movie,
The Princess and the Frog. Some critics argue that, though the main characters of The
Princess and the Frog are of non-white origin, there are still egregiously racist connotations
within. Critics argue that the fact that Prince Naveen is not black, but of other “foreign
origin”, makes the statement that a black couple cannot live “happily ever after” in
marriage (Gehlawat and Lester). On the other hand, those critics do not take into
consideration the fact that this symbolizes an interracial marriage that is reflective of a
culture where people can live “happily ever after” regardless of whether they are people of
color or choose to marry someone of another race. In fact, this statement leads to more
diverse connotations than a solely black couple. Critics also argue that Tiana spends more
of her time being a frog than being a black female, which is problematic because none of the
other princesses underwent anamorphous transformations (Gehlawat and Lester). This
argument presents issues on multiple levels: 1) The story is developed as a twist on
Grimm’s Frog Prince, it was not an arbitrary decision by Disney and 2) that could also
symbolize that race does not matter. Black or brown, it’s not skin color that creates love.
Disney had been under a lot of scrutiny for it’s “racist” past and it was time to create a
Princess of another ethnicity (because apparently, Mulan does not count as a princess
technically, and Jasime is too light skinned to be “ethnic”). Critics who analyze Disney look
at it through a biased lens and tend to miss some alternate, perhaps, more appropriate
interpretations.
The criticisms of The Princess and the Frog, for a number of its depictions, contradict
each other. Professor Neal Lester of Arizona State University writes,
“Disney also walks the fine line between racial/ethnic authenticity and racial stereotype. While there
was much resistance to the princess character’s being named ‘Maddy’ in the early production stage
because of its homonymous connections with racist associates of ‘Mammy’ both in American slavery
and with Jim Crow race relations of black servitude and deference to whites, some complain that the
name Tiana is ‘too ethnic’” (Lester, 299).
The critics want Disney to compensate for its racist past, yet Disney also gets flack for
overcompensating and, therefore making even the new representations offensive. The
same is said about the dialect used in the movie,
“Tiana’s and her family’s Southern speech rhythms and physiological voice quality are identifiably
African American; as well, they speak ‘standard English’, not necessarily black street vernacular. The
linguistic rhythms of the potentially racially stereotypical nonstandard English spoken by blind
elderly Mama Odie and snaggle-toothed firefly Ray created a buss of discontent among some
audience members” (Lester, 300).
Jasmine and Aladdin from Aladdin were criticized for having Americanized accents making
them seem “whiter” even though their skin was darker. These characters from The Princess
and the Frog are criticized for having different “stereotypical” dialects. However, the fact
that they each have different dialects means they are not in fact stereotypes, but
characterizations. Stereotypes imply that the idea applies, unprecedentedly, to all people
of a certain physiological category. So, stereotypes need not be an issue in this situation.
Interestingly, both Aladdin and The Princess and the Frog were directed by Roger Clements.
The changes between the two show the conscious effort to reflect the diversity in society
and towards making amends for previous poor representations.
There are more criticisms that Tiana is stereotypically constrained to the service
industry since she aspires to own a restaurant. The deputy of communications to the
mayor of New Orleans wrote this in response, “While I agree that this constrains Tiana to
the service industry, I do think her role as a chef is complicated because she is in New
Orleans, where everybody wants to be a chef and own a restaurant. These are the most
prominent (and often most wealthy) people in town” (Lester, 297). The dream to own a
restaurant, along with many other depictions, was historically accurate to great details; as
many as could be included in the story including visual images and references to African
American civil rights activists (Gehlawat). However, Ethnic Studies professor at Colorado
State University, Richard Breaux, argues,
“Audiences are wholly left to their own knowledge about New Orleans in the Jim Crowe era… Cultural
studies critic Henry Giroux contends that such renderings of history are ‘not merely edited, sanitary,
nostalgic view of history, free from poverty, class difference, and urban decay,’ they shape public
memory in ways that benefit corporate interests, present US history as innocent and not a
‘historically specific politically constructed ‘landscape of power’’” (Breaux, 404)
On the one hand, critics argue that Tiana is stereotyped into a maid figure which is
degrading to African Americans, but on the other hand, they argue that the films aren’t
historically accurate. This argument goes back to the Grimm argument about story
manipulation. Hearne writes,
“Although there’s no question that private commerce manipulates public will, public will also shapes
private commerce, and both are shaped by social forces that influence the creation of and response to
Disney’s film. Dare we look at Disneylore as a grassroots movement, as electronic myth driven by
social need as well as commercial ‘reed’ es formulae of exaggerated effects a la American tall tales?
As even, perhaps a form of parody… Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame – based on a book that never,
of course, was intended for children – takes parody to dizzying heights. Why is Jon Scieszka and Lane
Smith’s The Stinky cheese Man and Other Fairly Stupid Tales or The True Story of the Three Little Pigs –
along with a recent multitude of revisionist fairy tales – considered cleverly entertaining by so many
children’s book literi while Disney revisions, also cleverly entertaining, are deeply suspect? Why is it
okay… for socially sensitive library-storytellers to omit elements of violence, racism, and other
unacceptable from their story hours, and not or Disney to make changes, too? Do we really want to
go graphic with heroes who trick their adversaries into eating a boiled relative, one of Brer Rabbit’s
escapades that somehow go left out of Disney’s Song of the South? Can you just see animated blood
dropping form the does and shoes of Cinderella’s sisters, per the Grimm’s’ version, or two adorable
little pigeons plucking out the sisters’ eyes at Cinderella’s wedding, on eye from each sister going into
the church, and one eye from each sister coming back out? The folks at Disney want to make zippy
productions and make everybody happy and make money, not hemorrhage all over the audience”
(Hearne, 3)
These stories have to be manipulated for their audiences. No parent would want a
two year old being exposed to the brutality of slavery in Pocahontas or the gruesome twists
Grimm put in the stories. It would be hard for a young child to find a positive message in
such a frightening tale, which is the main goal of Disney. Referring back to Breaux’s quote
of Giroux, the removal of conflict is not meant to sanitize society. Cewalti explains, “[the
formulaic element] reflects the construction of an ideal world without disorder, the
ambiguity, the uncertainty, and the limitations of the world of our experience” (Cewalto,
13). With this understanding, it can be seen that Disney movies are not meant to erase
parts of history, but teach morals and ideals through known stories and formulas. Disney
movies are educational entertainment, not and entertaining way of educating history and,
for this reason, Disney should not be criticized for minimizing some of the terrors of
American history. Critics seem to forget the messages that Disney is teaching using magic
and the imagination. The use of the song “Savages” played at the end of Pocahontas depicts
that people fight when they don’t understand, but that people are all people and words can
solve problems. Those are messages taught in many Disney movies and promote peaceful
conflict resolution, as Martin Luther King Jr. did. The lyrics in “When You Wish Upon a
Star” reads, “it makes no difference who you are, anything your heart desires will come to
you.” That is not discriminatory, in fact, it points out that it makes no difference who you are
(Pinocchio), implying that skin color or ethnicity is irrelevant. Though critics complain
about Tarzan, the relationship between Tarzan and the gorillas is one of acceptance,
teaching him that, though they don’t look the same, they all have a heartbeat and all can
love one another. These are messages that are important to the contemporary society that
values diversity, acceptance, and peace.
There are flaws in Disney character representations. However, studying them
through the lens of society today, colors them inappropriately. Disney movies are created
from formulaic models that represent the fantasies and desires of the contemporary
society. These desires and values have changed over time, and so have Disney
representations. The objective of a Disney movie is to both entertain and educate children
about important values like problem solving, peace, understanding, optimism and love.
Some of the depictions through time have been controversial, but from a backwards
perspective. Society is much more concerned with the representation of ethnicities now
than it was in the 1930s. All the criticism and the careful watching of Disney overshadow
the good that Disney can provide for children. It gives them an escape to a fantasy that
attempts to teach children good messages through their imaginations. Disney, both the
company and its namesake, should not be labeled the villain; they deserve more credit for
what they have done.