The Not-So-Wonderful World of Disney

It was in my undergrad that I started thinking about Disney and its ideological implications. Encouraged by an English degree that promoted critical readings, all of a sudden I was re-thinking my reasons for never enjoying The Little Mermaid as a small child. Was it because it had such an archaic underlying message for young girls? I mean – gain supposed “freedom” (in the arms of a man), by merely sacrificing one’s voice (who needs it)? Reflecting as an undergrad, this storyline hardly seemed to mirror the overarching “innocence” narrative that Disney would have most adults buying into. Pair this alongside my new reading of Beauty and the Beast wherein Belle is housed-up with a (literal) beast who beats the crap out of her, (but don’t worry, she stays), continues to love him, and *voila!* he becomes a romantic prince (blond-haired, blue-eyed to boot), and it was finished, it was done. I had officially written Disney into my exponentially growing accumulation of poisonous things to inflict on children.

The Beast: abusive, manipulative and controlling.

And so it is no surprise to me to read Giroux’s critical reading of the expansive Disney empire and find that the larger empire too, is full of inherent contradictions which all serve to benefit the few. And I don’t have to think very far to realize just how effective Disney has been in really duping people into thinking that it really is all good fun, innocence, and magic. I have made no friends at dinner parties offering my readings of Beauty and the Beast. In fact, it would probably be conservative to suggest I’ve only made a few enemies. Grown women don’t want their little girl dreams ruined, I mean, there is nothing feel-good about realizing that your childhood “hero” was really a battered woman. And Ariel’s voice? “But she loved him!” they cry to me, or, “But she was leaving her father! That’s feminist in itself!” Depending on how many drinks I’ve had I either leave it alone, or I hash it out further, and by the end of the party most people have called me a buzzkill, or a conspiracist, or if I’ve done really well, I leave with most of the room hoping to dear god that I never teach their children. After all, imagine how negative it must be to be in my classroom!

And perhaps it is. Or perhaps it is this bogus idea of childhood innocence that I want to give my students the ability to question. Childhood innocence? You mean the childhood innocence that means that children can’t think? You mean the childhood innocence that suggests that children are better off watching and reading uncritically, absorbing every bit of conformist, commercialized, problematically ideologized crap that is designed with their “innocent” (and buying) minds in mind? Ah yes, that one. And it is not a “buzzkill” of a teacher who has her classroom question Disney, rather, it is a classroom that empowers students to make their own decisions – and to have the option that maybe, just maybe, there are better role models than Belle or Ariel. And maybe, just maybe, they want to be “A Part of THAT World”.