Racism and The Lion King

I was skeptical before reading Naomi Rockler-Gladen’s article Race, Hierarchy, and Hyenaphobia in the Lion King, but after completing this read I find it to be one of the most insightful and interesting articles within the text.

Rockler-Gladen does an excellent job in justifying her research, while at the same time quelling her critics before they can interject and claim her work as frivolous. I agree with the author when she summarizes that The Lion King most likely will not turn toddlers into racists, but that the “film’s larger ideological implications remain unchallenged.”

Of those “larger implications,” there are a number that I found very interesting, and although Rockler-Gladen applies her analysis mainly to race, gender, and class systems, I can see a wider berth of application for this analysis.

First, I found the article cited in the beginning of this study very surprising. When professors surveyed their students, most were reluctant to criticize Walt Disney or their films because the company was deemed innocent. This was a shocker because the company’s founder Walt Disney was very outspoken about his personal bigotry and the film has a history of producing questionable pieces. Most pointedly the anti-Nazi propaganda shorts produced and released in the 1940s.

Second, when Rockler-Gladen explains the naturalization of hierarchal structures in society, I feel that could be applied to the entire structure of Western Democracy, and not solely from a race/gender perspective, but from and elitist domination view and hegemonic systems of power, as well.

Finally, and most disturbingly, when the author explains her analysis of hyenaphobia and how it is portrayed in the film it parallels almost exactly with Lincoln Rockwell’s noted white supremacist children’s story, “The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens.” (http://www.heretical.com/pubs/fabledh.html). The idea of the outcast society causing havoc and destabilization of a perceived utopian society is clear as she outlines it in the film, and it is surprising that the link with this type of literature is so clear.

Overall, this article was really fascinating and makes me want to go watch some Disney films myself, but this time with a more critical eye!

Celluloid Closet and Queer Theory

The Celluloid Closet documentary details the evolution of the gay role in Hollywood. According to the film, homosexual men were originally cast as comedic sissies characterized by flamboyant femininity, while lesbian women were often slotted as ruthless demons or evil personas. Later, although, homosexuality gained more exposure, gays were then cast in even more ominous roles. First, they were all slated to die, most in horrific matters, and later they were often portrayed as the victimizers. Eventually, the gay agenda did receive some equal footing around the mid 1990s, but there is still a long way to go.

Recent research suggests that gay characters still lack development and depth, most specifically in regards to their love lives. Carolyn M. Byerly, in her article Situating “the Other,” elaborates on this point citing film scholar Vito Russo who “found that historically, mainstream films show gay characters (and their lives) as sterile in the areas of love and sexuality.” She furthers this point by highlighting the acclaimed television series Will & Grace. “Will’s character [is] devoid of sexual passion or a gay political consciousness,” she writes.

The theory most useful in approach homosexuality and media would be cultural and queer studies. According to Purdue University resources, these studies “explore issues of sexuality, power, and marginalized populations in literature and culture.” Another, important concept to keep in consideration when examining these topics is hegemony. Hegemony is a Marxist concept that “describes the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class, who manipulate the culture of the society — the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores — so that their ruling-class becomes the worldview that is imposed and accepted as the cultural norm” (Lull, 2000).

MTV and Mindless Narratives

In Terri L. Russ’ examination of MTV’s My Super Sweet 16 narrative theory serves as the basis of her theoretical foundation. According to Russ, narrative theory is a way to consider the importance of stories and the roles they play in shaping and defining our lives. In her study, Is Daddy’s Little Girl a Bitch or a Princess? Narratives of Female Identity on my Super Sweet 16, Russ examines the role of the each girl from three perspectives: gender roles, behavior, and existence limitations.

What I found of most interest in this study was Russ’ explanation of the eternal child requirement for girls. She explains, “In order to be Daddy’s Little Girl, the girl must stay little. She may age and mature physically, but as demonstrated repeatedly throughout the various My Super Sweet 16 narratives, her mental and emotional maturation seems to be stunted. The built-in limitation of the Daddy’s Little Girl narrative then becomes a limitation on her complete existence” (p. 217).

This struck a chord with me as it reminded me of the contradicting roles women are constantly placed in. In this situation, she is literally celebrating a coming of age, yet she is required to maintain a sense of childlike vulnerability. In a similar scenario, women are encouraged to be both sexy and virginal, once again the contradiction is clear, slutty virgins just don’t exist.

In addition to this aspect, I was also interested in this study for the potential it offered for further research. I think the use of expectancy theory in conjunction with viewer focus groups could yield some interesting results. Further, this series also showcased young men and their sweet 16 parties, so it would be interesting to conduct a type of comparative analysis on how the boys and girls are treated and portrayed and if those two elements are different.

I can see both sides, but does it really matter?

I recently watched an episode of Dateline where the staff had set up a gender experiment in a local Halloween costume shop. Actors were hired to portray a mother/son duo and a mother/daughter one. In each scenario, the child was to choose a stereotypically opposite gender allocated costume. For example, the boy wanted to be a princess and the girl wanted to be Spiderman. The mother’s role in the scene was to be opposed to their child’s choice, and to repeatedly tell them, “They could not be that, because it was for girls/boys.”

The main point of the experiment was to analyze other customer’s reactions to the fictional mother/child situation. And, while most customer’s minded their own, some were very outspoken about the issue, the majority of which were against the boy being a princess and the girl being a superhero.

One response, in the girl scenario, was that if the mother did not “get this type of behavior under control” it would only get worse. While, other responses were directed at the children, most offering more “appropriate” choices to the children, while simultaneously trying to dissuade them by saying “I really think you would look nicer in this.” The last response was, in my opinion, the only one that held water. This customer told the fictional mother that “it really wasn’t a big deal” and that her only concern was the fact that the child might “get teased badly at school.”

And, while I can see the final responders point, and agree with it to some extent, I really don’t see why it matters what a child wants to be for Halloween. After all, Halloween is about dressing up as someone else, right?

Further, I feel the rigidness involved in our society’s definition of gender roles, is one of the main contributing factors to the lack of progress in regards to discrimination and oppression.