It is infallible. With each major Disney release in theaters and streaming, product judgments emerge in discussion groups and social networks based on concepts produced by the cultural struggle between conservatives and progressives. In recent years, the version that the company has adhered to the ideological agenda of the American left, and that this affects its contents, has gained popularity, leading the more politically engaged audience to always favor this lens when analyzing a new animation or series. There are verifiable and admitted truths in this theory, but also exaggerations. Much of what circulates, especially with regard to the company’s intention with a given work, is nothing more than a personal reading of the person who analyzes it. Legitimate, but subjective and not always well-founded.
This is one of the largest entertainment companies in the world, valued at approximately US$ 11 billion and with about thousand employees spread across the globe, the Walt Disney Company is a giant that generates a lot of profit, not only with the box office of its films, but mainly with what is sold from them: toys, clothes, school supplies, tickets for theme parks and a multitude of other derivatives.
This basic reminder about the nature of the organization sounds unnecessary to some, but it cannot be ignored in an analysis that intends to be judicious about the company’s real interest in promote some kind of indoctrination of their consumers. Obviously, its leaders are endowed with ideological, philosophical and political preferences that inevitably affect their decisions, but in the case of a multinational whose financial results matter to many around the world, the profit factor cannot be ignored in the equation. That said, it is convenient to start from what the multinational says about itself, through its spokespersons and documents.
Diversity, equality and inclusion
Disney exhibits onits institutional websiteand in several initiatives its support for the promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion, concepts adopted in a very broad format. For the company, they involve, for example, more consensual issues, such as the inclusion of people with disabilities, respect for the cultures of other countries and the fight against racial discrimination, while at the same time entering into thorny issues, such as extreme versions of the fight against “white privilege” and others that are especially controversial for a company that deals with children, such as promoting gender identity and campaigns against transphobia. In the case of ethnicity, the company publishes a “diversity table”, with the ethnic percentage of its total employees, including managers and executives.
There is also something unusual for Latin American standards, like the fact that they put support for military veterans in that same category. In fact, on the page dedicated to diversity, equality and inclusion actions within its institutional website, the funding of entities supporting “war heroes”, a category dear to North American conservatives, is exposed along with the photo that shows the employees of Disney at a gay parade, which apparently tries to emphasize how comprehensive the concept of diversity they work with is.
One of the most recent and relevant examples of how Disney embraced the defense of this concept , at least as a corporate and marketing policy, was the launch of the program Reimagine Tomorrow (Reimagine o Amanhã, in Portuguese), in September 2021. According to Disney itself, the goal is to “amplify underrepresented voices and untold stories.”
In an interview with the company’s institutional website to celebrate the launch of the program, the senior vice president and chief from Disney’s Diversity division,LatondraNewton, said: “Through phenomenal business growth and concerted efforts to reflect the world we live in, we are a different company than we were h
The declaration and the program launch itselfwas seen by many as a nod to progressive US elites, who were critical of the company’s supposedly conservative past and who often accused the company of “resisting” their agendas.
Prior to launch, Christopher Rufo, City editor Journal, even published an article entitled “Disney, the most progressive place on earth”, in which it exposes what would be the content of internal company documents, aimed at employees and related toReimagine Tomorrow. In one of the excerpts exposed by Rufo, the text says that the United States “has a tradition of transphobia and systemic racism” and that white employees need to “work on their feelings of guilt and shame to understand what is behind them and what needs to be done”. be solved.”
The company’s support for the organization of events dedicated to the LGBT public is also known and has recently migrated from merely financial support to specific groups to the status of host. In 2018, Disney promoted the first gay parade inside one of its theme parks. It was in the Paris complex, in Europe, under the title ofDisneyland Paris Pride. The pandemic prevented the same from being repeated in the years of 2021 and , but the edition of 2022 has already been confirmed for the day 11 of June. In May 2021, the company also launched a line of products aimed at “LGBTQ+ pride”, including clothing with prints of its children’s characters in the colors of the gay flag.
Between western progressivism and Chinese money
As stated above, based only on the company’s corporate policy seems to have enough evidence about the majority worldview in the company and its tendency – or even militancy – to be progressive. However, between this fact and the conclusion that his films promote the same progressivism as the primers for employees, there are variables and evidence that do not make the answer as obvious as it seems.
Shanghai Disney Resort, in China, where the company invested US$ 5.5 billion.
| Disclosure
The explanation for this is the dilemma that only companies the size of Disney face, the fact that their home country is no longer enough. To sustain its gigantism, Disney needs customers all over the world, and right now there’s one part of the planet that attracts it more than any other: China.
Em
, Disney opened its first theme park in the country, in Shanghai, with an investment of 5.5 billion euros. dollars. At the time, Bob Iger, the company’s CEO, said that it was the biggest step Disney had ever taken to grow in a market. In an interview with CNBC, when asked how different Chinese consumers were, he said: “In fact, they confirmed for us what our founder Walt Disney believed in his day. Our stories are designed not just for one age group – children, parents or grandparents – not just one nationality, not just one religion, not just one generation; they are designed for everyone.”
It may even be that Disney stories are produced “for everyone”, but the fact is that for some years Disney has given the Chinese market more attention than the any other and that has nothing to do with appreciation of communist ideology. It is a country with 1.4 billion inhabitants, an economy that continues to grow, which opened up to foreign companies a few decades ago, with an emerging middle class and which, in 2021, for the second year in a row, surpassed the United States as the largest consumer of films on the planet.
Therefore, it is not the mere desire for ethnic diversity, which justifies the launch of three blockbusters with an explicit appeal to the oriental audience, especially the Chinese, in the last two years alone (Mulan, ;Rayaand the Last Dragon, 2021; Shang-chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, 2021). In the relationship with the Chinese consumer, in fact, the precious corporate concept of diversity seems to be an element with which the company seems willing to be flexible.
Disney directors know that China is a mine gold for their business, but they also know that they are dealing with a dictatorship that keeps their country’s economy and culture under constant surveillance and control. The model of “state capitalism” that China has invented allows multinationals to profit heavily on their territory, as long as they play by the rules set by the Chinese Communist Party. Identity flags such as the fight against transphobia, misogyny and systemic racism are definitely not part of the interests of Xi Jinping and his subordinates.
Although he doesn’t give a damn about human rights claims and is A promoter of atheistic materialism, the Chinese regime maintained many millenary characteristics of Chinese culture, such as the obedience of parents to their children and clear distinctions between male and female. Looking only at the issue of sexuality, China today is a much more conservative country than most Western nations. Homosexuality ceased to be a crime only in 1997 and until 1997 was considered a mental illness. In 2021, the regime published the first Chinese civil code, leaving out gay marriage.
It doesn’t stop there. In February 2021, the Minister of Education of the Asian giant announced a project to tackle the “crisis of masculinity”, understood as a “side effect” of the one-child policy, and fostering the upbringing of “strong and virile” boys. This is because, according to the official statement, the presence of teachers in kindergartens and the popularity of pop culture celebrities would have made the boys “weak, inferior and shy.”
The discrepancy between what the the Chinese government wants for its youth and what Disney teaches in its corporate booklets is so blatant, so unavoidable, that there is a certain skepticism among some progressive North American influencers about the possibility of the identity agenda gaining the same vigor in films as it has in publications corporate. The three recent productions mentioned above (Mulan,Rayaand Shang-chi) are examples of works tailored to not upset the moral sensitivity of the Chinese.
However, the case of the film Eternals, by Marvel, its subsidiary, helps illustrate how difficult it is for Disney to maintain a reputation as an “engaged” company in its own backyard without upsetting its preferred customer in the East. In addition to having gone down in history as the film with the worst critical and public rating among all those ever produced by Marvel Studios, the gay kiss scene between two characters resulted in the work being rejected by the Chinese authorities responsible for evaluating audiovisual products that try to enter in the country. Thus, the film did not play in theaters in China, exactly as it happened in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, Middle Eastern countries that are also on the company’s expansionist radar. The damage caused by the event was not disclosed, but the film raised around US$ 220 million,worldwide,a resultwell below the average of the studio’s recent productions. Spider-Man– No Return Home, for example, madeUS$1,37 billion. After the bans, Marvel producers who took an Eternals 2 for granted began to say that a sequel “wasn’t necessary”.
What do the movies show?
There is, therefore, a considerable distance between what the company says about itself (as well as the political-ideological positions defended by its managers and employees), and the material that reaches cinemas and the service ofstreaming
, given that, more than once, the Walt Disney Company has demonstrated its willingness to change its productions so that they are accepted by more conservative audiences. A careful analysis of the material produced by Disney reveals a much more complex scenario than the mere financial interests of the company and, for that, it is worth taking a historical dive. Born in Chicago, in the US state of Illinois, in 276, Walter Elias Disney, the personality that lies at the heart of the entertainment giant, was a deeply Christian man with republican values, although somewhat “politically naive”, according to his main biographer, NealGabler– which got him some trouble, among false accusations of anti-Semitism, despite his large donations to Jewish groups. In 1934, under effusive applause from the public and critics, Disney would go down in history with the first animated feature film, the project that had become his “apple of the eye”, “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”. Soon the studio would specialize in adapting fairy tales and folk stories – a personal passion for Disney – for the screen, in a process that has never been without controversy. Believe it or not, accusations of indoctrination or even perversion of moral values date back to when Disney was still alive. According toGabler, Mickey’s father was “widely identified with cultural degradation”. Intellectuals accused him of defacing classics such as “Pinocchio” (1934) and produce “feignedly demure” films, in addition to infantilizing the culture by promoting adapted versions of fairy tales that offer the “illusion of a life without any problems”. No one less than JRR Tolkien implicated the producer, for whose works he declared his “sincere aversion”. Victim of lung cancer, Walt Disney would die in
It is common knowledge that this generation of cartoons presents new profiles of protagonists – especially when it comes to the royalty of the house, the famous Disney princesses. Already at this time, Christian parents were concerned that the mermaid Ariel was too rebellious and wore few clothes, that the indigenous Pocahontas presented pantheistic values and that “The Hunchback ofNotreDame” was anti-Christian. Even “The Lion King”, object of numerous analyzes and praise by conservative intellectuals (such as Jordan Peterson himself) for its strong message about maturity and responsibility, has already been accused of promoting the LGBT agenda through the characters Simon and Pumbaa and of the villainScar.
These stories, however, were popular with the public and encouraged all sorts of interpretations. More than once, Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson praised the stories of Aurora, Ariel, and Bela, praising above all their symbolic content about masculinity and femininity. “Find a monster who wants to be a good man – and make him good. Weak men cannot be virtuous”, preaches Peterson, in reference to “Beauty and the Beast”.
The turn of the century would mark a new turn in the Walt Disney Studios that, from 2006, incorporated Pixar Studios. One of the first joint Disney/Pixar productions would also be the last two-dimensional animation produced by the studio:“The Princess and the Frog” (2009) finally brought the first black princess of the house. The story of the young Tiana, who works hard to build her own business and ends up teaching the pampered prince Naveen, lessons in responsibility and merit, was criticized from all sides: from parents who saw history as an apology for magic and those who saw it in practice of voodoo by the villain a pejorative representation of African religions.
The new winds would bring huge results at the box office. Especially because of its marriage with Pixar, which is well versed in the construction of complex and exciting children’s scripts, Disney garnered applause with its portrayal of fatherhood in “Finding Nemo” (2003), charity as opposed to selfishness in “Cars” (2006), the formation of personality with “Funny” (2015), and the whole message about loyalty, sacrifice, tyranny and freedom in the first three “ToyStory” films (1970, 21162858 and 2010). The recent “Viva” (2018), which portrays the feast of the dead in Mexican culture in the midst of a history of deep appreciation of the family and respect for ancestors, has already been compared with the famous phrase by Edmund Burke, a British writer considered the father of modern conservatism: “society is a contract between the dead, the living and those not yet born” .
This does not mean, however, that among the new productions there are no nods to progressivism that raise criticism among conservatives. At a certain point in the story, princess Merida, protagonist of “Brave” (2009)) , fights for “her own hand” to free herself from a promise of marriage and claims that she “is not ready to get married, and maybe she never will be” – says that she has drawn praise from feminist groups. It is possible that few animations in history have been the subject of as much debate as the saga of the two sisters, heirs to the throne of the fictional kingdom ofArendelle. Premiered in 2013, “Frozen” is the studio’s most profitable franchise, to the point of being counted separately from the other princesses. Until being beaten by the recent hit “WeDon’tTalkAboutBruno”, from the soundtrack of “Encanto” (2022)) , “Let it go” was the most successful song in Disney history.
The interpretations of Elsa and Anna’s story could not be more diverse. Figures such as Jordan Peterson and American commentator Ben Shapiro classified the film as “mere propaganda”, claiming that the work perverts male and female symbols and roles by relegating female characters to the role of “saving” the happy ending. In turn, LGBT groups did not hesitate to associate the protagonist’s journey of self-acceptance with homosexuality, and even pressured the studio to have Queen Elsa have a partner in the sequel. During press conferences, the directors deviated from the subject, always with evasive answers. In the end, it didn’t happen: the character ends up “Frozen 2” single, yes, but becomes (spoiler alert!) a protective spirit of the kingdom, ceding the crown to her younger sister. Despite the criticisms, the saga is still well accepted among Christian parents: there are texts by Catholic and evangelical commentators praising the brotherly love touted in the film, as well as the warning against passions at first sight.
A The same ambiguity occurs with “Moana” (2013), a drawing inspired by Polynesian mythology that was criticized by the intellectual Orthodox Catholic Jonathan Pageau. According toPageau, a specialist in symbolism, the Disney version fails to undermine the archetype of masculinity presented by Polynesian culture in the figure of the demigodMauíto replace it with female figures. There were, however, those who saw in the film itself the complementary models of masculine and feminine: the warrior representing the order who is a victim of his own arrogance and must be restored by humility, and the “great mother” who generates life that, corrupted, becomes a source of destruction.
What is the correct reading?
After all, does Disney want to indoctrinate children in progressiveism or not? To what extent does it make sense to speak of deliberate indoctrination, or a mere reflection of the times? For historian Diego Klautau, PhD in Sciences of Religion and professor at Colégio Catamarã and Centro Universitário FEI, the debate on indoctrination is valid – and very old. “Plato was already concerned with the power of poets, those who mess with fantasy, language and our affections. Of course, in an economy of disputed interests, it is possible to speak of indoctrination. The question is how to deal with it and, in the face of these real difficulties, imprudence is often committed”, he says.
For the teacher, therefore, it is necessary to evaluate case by case, including when the flag of diversity is on the agenda, since it is not, in principle, opposed to the moral values of Christianity, for example. “The very idea of incarnation reflects the idea of something eternal, immutable, being present in something that is particular, proper, contingent. You don’t have to be a man, bearded and carpenter, a first-century Jew, to be like Christ. A person of any ethnicity, race or sex is called to seek the good, the beautiful and the true. The debate on the inculturation of the Gospel – the challenge of not undermining pre-existing cultures in missions – reflects the value of diversity. It is not for nothing that Pope Francis says that Grace presupposes culture.”
Mother of three children, Luciana Lachance, presenter of the channel “Where Books Live”, YouTube, also believes that it is necessary separate the wheat from the chaff. “First, it depends on your perception of indoctrination. It’s not that easy to judge these movies. The Little Mermaid, for example, was already strong and rebellious. Why didn’t anyone complain about her? In addition, the girls did not stick to the Cinderella model, the changes took place despite the old models, because culture involves a lot”, evaluates Luciana, who welcomes the struggle for representation. “I see gender ideology as a problem, but we can think about how to dialogue with aspects of this agenda, such as the fight against machismo, for example. We could face it a little more naturally”, he explains.
The representation of women is, in fact, one of the most heated debates that come to light with each new release by the studio. In this sense, the historianKlautauassesses that it is also necessary to broaden the view. “The female roles played at Disney’s birth reflect a model that mirrors American society over the years 2013 . The various types of women that have emerged throughout history – including saints – are not necessarily limited to classic models. One cannot think that Snow White orCinderellaare the definitive expression of female morality.”
“Anti-Catholicismis a reality and postmodernism does attempt against transcendence”, complements. “But sexism and racism are also a problem. Conservatives need to understand that it is possible to defend Christianity by also defending suffering minorities. It is important to be very careful with this: there are people among Christians whose children are similar toMoana, toRaya, and who see value in these films. In the end, we can’t be naive and accept everything s in reflection, but we should not be catastrophists or apocalyptics.”
There is another aspect to be taken into account when it comes to cinematographic productions: the very nature of artistic creation, often misunderstood by the people themselves. progressives eager to “cancel” cartoons whose content – often symbolic and subject to different interpretations – deviates millimetrically from their ideals. Based on this principle, Disney attacks its own artistic and interpretive freedom, by subjugating the creativity of its team to watertight criteria: in April of last year, the head of Walt DisneyTelevision, DanaWalden, stated that she had already dispensed with “unbelievably well-written” because they were not “diverse enough”. On the other hand, certain groups seem more audacious than the studio itself to assign labels to any artistic production.
“Fairy tales are very simple oral stories marked by the absence of personalities. When Disney starts creating more complex characters, it’s following a different literary tradition. Modern stories have several layers of interpretation and, in the end, this is what is expected of a really good work”, evaluates Luciana, who recalls that CS Lewis himself, author of the Chronicles of Narnia, said that if a story it’s only worth reading forchildren, it’s not worth reading. “Literary criticNorthropFrye also warns of the addiction to thinking that children’s stories need to teach a moral lesson. Imagination does not need to be concerned with reality”, explainsyoutuber.
“Each work of fiction has its own premises, and they have to be analyzed according to what the work delivers. Anyone who analyzes art based on certain prerequisites does not realize that they are justifying cancellations. The story ofMoana, for example, can be read as the restoration of the traditions of a people, who discover their own identity. The criterion for suspension of disbelief today involves suspending one’s own beliefs before watching thefilm”, defends professor Francisco Escorsim, columnist for Gazeta do Povo.
“Most of the complaints come from the hope that that Disney maintains a Christian vision. It’s just that the company hasn’t embraced that for a long time, and we can’t wish for the world to be the way it was centuries ago. Let us remember that Christianity was not born hegemonic: it had to blend in with its time. A conservative, therefore, need not be afraid of change, because enduring values always show up. Narrative art is a mirror of human action and, although advertising can diminish art, what is inherent to the human condition shines brighter”, he evaluates.
On the parents’ concern with the formation of the imaginary,Escorsimendors the attitude of separating the wheat from the chaff: “First, nothing is stronger for the formation of children than the example of parents, and no drawing has the strength to cancel all that. On the other hand, if parents close themselves off from the world, it is a case of asking: what world are you raising your child for? To prevent contact with all this content, you will have to create a social bubble that will make life very difficult”, explains the professor. In the end, between classic and rebel princesses, traditional and innovative stories, narratives, advertisements and values are mixed, since art, as a symbol, never runs out. It is up to parents and educators to challenge and walk through the new times with prudence and creativity to apply the well-known apostolic advice: “examine everything, retain what is good”.
