During my angst-filled teenage years, I never quite fathomed the appeal of children’s shows. I thought they were so ridiculous (and I thought I was cool, joke’s on me); certainly if you told someone not to swipe they wouldn’t. My younger cousins followed a series on Disney Channel religiously, playing it every night after they had completed their schoolwork. It was only mindless entertainment, something they could do that was completely unrelated to school—practically harmless. For the next couple of days, my cousins iterated actions and phrases they caught on after watching the TV. I remember my aunt telling me, “They learn so fast from these TV shows, but nothing from school.”
In CMC 200, I wrote about the changes in femininity in the Disney Princess line. Particularly, I had to look into how films produced specifically for a younger audience typically hold ideological values and stereotypical representations. For example, a theme seen in earlier Disney Princess movies is that in order to reach a girl’s happily ever after, she must be beautiful and married (or has the prospects of being married to a man). It appears then that when an eight-year-old girl (or boy) watches Cinderella or The Little Mermaid, the message she receives is that happy endings are the direct results of her playing a submissive damsel-in-distress waiting for her prince charming to save her. These stereotypes are harmful; it not only affects how she views herself, but also how she views the world around her.
As Dorfman and Mattelart mentions in their essay, Disney’s “'new reality'… is artfully isolated from the reality of the everyday. Adult values are projected onto the child, as if childhood was a special domain where these values could be protected uncritically” (113). It seems to be a catch-22 situation then: adults inject ideologies and values onto children through Disney films, children imitate these values, of which adults study and come to the conclusion that this is what children want to see on the TV screen. Consequently, it demonstrates that “[f]iction reinforces, in a circular fashion, the manner in which the adult desires the comic be received and read” (Dorfman and Mattelart 114). Do we tell children what they like, and in return produce what they (we) like? Ironically, it almost seems as if adults are living vicariously through children. Perhaps children shows aren’t as innocent as they seem.
Carmen! This is really cool! I did my final essay for Writing about Magic Kingdom on Disney Princesses as well! I also explored the portrayal of happiness and accomplishment as the act of finding a romantic partner. Disney is such an influential company. Today, in our globalized world, it reaches audiences within the entire planet. The rhetoric of Disney is a powerful one, and the enterprise is an active influence in the lives of millions of children (audiences that do not have a critical mindset yet).
ReplyDeleteHowever, in my work, I saw a small silver lining (although I also took a critical stance against the princesses). I believe that, in the most recent princess movies, we see some kind of progress in the portrayal of happiness linked to romantic love. Earlier princesses didn't even know the prince they fell in love with. Their “love” happened instantly. Moreover, the princes (males) were portrayed as the princesses’ (females’’) saviors. Princesses were only able to get out of a bad situation because a man saved them (we see that in Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc.). More recent Disney films change this scenario a little bit. In Tangled and in The Princess and the Frog, for instance, both the female and the male protagonists help each other as the plot progresses. They also have the chance to build relationships (instead of automatically getting marries).
The most progressive princess movie (in my opinion) is Brave. For the first time a princess resists the idea of marriage (or being in a romantic relationship in general)! Merida doesn't end up with anyone, and that is precisely her happy ending (her independence). I like to think that she may even be the first aromantic/asexual Disney princess (maybe that’s a bit of a stretch, but one can only hope).
I may be an optimist, but I enjoy seeing some progress in a franchise that is so widely influential in our society. Disney will be here for a while, so it can at least provide some positive change!
I know this post doesn't relate that much to the readings, but I get super excited about this topic so I had to talk about it! Eco talks about Disneyland (and Disney World towards the end of his essay), which I believe is whole other world outside of the actual movies and TV series Disney produces. But since he is exploring a part of the Disney franchise, I decided to do my own analysis on another significant aspect of the Disneyverse.
I just wanted to add that Brave was produced by Pixar, which was bought by Disney in the late 2000s. I thought it was interested that they released Brave under Pixar, but Frozen under Disney...
ReplyDeleteI think you pose a really good question: “Do we tell children what they like, and in return produce what they (we) like?” It brings to mind the books and television series of my childhood; I did the same thing as your cousins, repeating adages from commercials and TV as if they were sacred script. I definitely believe that this informed who I was in my earliest formative years. One of the most significant impacts that television and books had on my development was their influence on my behavior. I learned what was “normal” from the media I consumed. I’ve had people ask me when I “turned” gay; yes, this is an offensive and ignorant question, but I understand why it is asked. I may not be the rule, but of course I thought I was straight as a child. That was the only option presented to me. It was the default, and it didn’t occur to me to move outside of what I saw, heard, and knew to be true and right from the media I consumed. It wasn’t as if the shows I watched were overtly homophobic, it was simply that they operated under the societal imposition of compulsory heterosexuality.
ReplyDeleteThis reflects a few of Dorfman and Mattelart’s points, specifically in his quote “[p]aternalism in absentia is the indispensable vehicle for the defense and invisible control of the childhood model.” This parallels Macherey’s concept of tmesis: what is not said within children’s literature and media is just as ideologically significant as what is said. Paternalism is an operative word in discussing the influence of the patriarchy. The ideals of “the father” that Dorfman and Mattelart allude to are not just a manifestation of their projected desire to return to a time of magic and innocence. They are ideals that spring from a patriarchal definition of what is truly “pure.” In my generation, “pure” was straight, cisgender (and adhering to the correlating gender presentation), and obedient to one’s parents (a code for obeying the societal influence of “the father”).
However, like Marcie, I do see a silver lining on the rise. The cartoons of today’s generation are beginning to explore themes of alternative gender identity, sexual orientation, and the roles of girls and boys in society. I think first and foremost of Steven Universe, which features multiple queer characters and features a protagonist, Steven, that rejects gender norms and embraces traditionally “feminine” characteristics (empathy and healing being his power), even donning a dress in one of the newest episodes (and not even as the butt of a transphobic joke!). Likewise, Clarence recently featured a gay couple, Adventure Time alludes to a lesbian relationship between Marceline and Princess Bubblegum (explicitly stating its existence in the comics), and Avatar: The Legend of Korra featured multiple bisexual characters and ended the finale with a romance between two women.
So while children’s literature and media does have (in my opinion, inevitable) ideological messages imposed by the adult authors and creators, they don’t have to be negative or narrow-minded. As ideology shifts to encompass a broader representation of beliefs and identities, children’s media and literature can operate as a powerful vehicle for change. I suppose my final question would still of the ethics of including any type of agenda in children’s media. Regardless of its message, is it still an imposition of the “father,” or in this case the “parent,” (as children’s media slowly becomes less absolutely patriarchal) into children’s worlds and minds?