June 12, 2004
DOWN WITH DOPEY!
Mental Illness in Disney Animated Films (Andrea Lawson, Gregory Fouts, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, May, 2004)
The average number of mental illness references per film was 4.6, with the 3 most prevalent words being (in descending order) “crazy,” “mad” or “madness,” and “nut” or “nutty.” These references were commonly employed to segregate, alienate, and denote the inferior status of the character(s) to which they referred—a finding consistent with the overwhelmingly negative portrayal of mental illness found in adult media (6–8). For example, in Beauty and the Beast, the townspeople frequently refer to the intellectuals Belle and her father, Maurice as mentally ill. Mental illness words are used to set apart and denigrate these characters, implying that to be mentally ill is to be different in a negative and inferior way. As the film progresses, the frequency of these words aimed at Maurice increases, climaxing in a scene where he will be chained and hauled off in a “lunacy wagon.” The children watching could associate mental illness labels with people who are so frightening and dangerous that they must be chained and locked away from the rest of society. This emotional association may result in increased fear of persons with a mental illness, increased worries of possible harm, and an increase in distancing and avoidance of contact. This is consistent with research indicating that children fear and distrust persons with mental illness and try to maintain their social distance from them (11,12).Most of the characters referred to as mentally ill serve as objects of derision, fear, or amusement. In The Lion King, 3 characters (the hyenas) are depicted as being mentally ill, as evidenced by their rolling eyes, their high-pitched hysterical laughter, and the antics of Ed (the “craziest” of them all), who at one point mistakenly gnaws on his own leg. As the film progresses, it is clear that the hyenas represent the lowest social group in the animal kingdom and that they are to be feared and avoided. Thus, these “mentally ill” characters represent an animated example of being feared, socially distanced, and (or) alienated (1,11,12,29) as well as being laughable and laughed at—a trait that likely reinforces the previously modelled behaviour of social distancing. This combination of modelling and reinforcement is one of the most potent tools of socialization (30–32) and has the potential to teach prejudicial attitudes and distancing behaviours toward individuals perceived as being mentally ill. It has been suggested that, once these beliefs are formed, children continue them into adulthood (6,12,23,24).
In summary, young children who watch a range of Disney films during their formative years are consistently exposed to animated characters who are referred to or labelled as mentally ill, often several times within each film. This has several implications. Owing to the potency of repetition on children’s learning (33–35) and the denigrating nature of the references, young viewers may learn to label and stereotype others using this terminology, thinking it appropriate and funny. They may learn negative emotional responses (such as fear and derision) through the negative portrayals of the characters. The popularity of these full-length animated films and the ability of children to repeatedly view them (for example, in the home and often with parents) suggests that animated films may have more impact than TV programs.
Pity the poor Disney executive who, believing his company and films to be on the cutting edge of social sensitivity, now sees the glimmer of a campaign to force him to exorcize eccentrics and stupid bad guys from his endeavours so as not to hurt the feelings of the mentally ill. Someone should have warned him the cause of political correctness is eternal.
In the modern West, the totalitarian impulse appears, and often is, thoroughly compassionate. We have great difficulty in recognizing budding tyrants because they do no not conform to our image of fanatical demagogues who write books with titles like My Struggle and threaten war and death. Their road to power is through so-called science, single-issue pressure groups and bureaucracy, rather than street gangs. Physical harm is generally abjured, but the absence of physical harm is the sole restraint and justifies just about any measure to control and direct the lives of people in the most minute detail, including, as we see here, ordaining the only acceptable emotional responses to whatever storms blow our way on the sea of life.
The barbarians are indeed at the gates. When they confront us, we tend to be confused and unable to marshal much resistance. How can one do battle with those exuding such angst over the human condition? Their impulse to alleviate pain and improve the lot of some needy group seems so charitable and disarmingly noble that we rarely notice they invented the pain and the problem themselves. They are the nicest, most decent barbarians you will ever meet.
Which is why conservative claims that "We're winning" are just silly.The only debate they've won is the economic debate and that only because of the painfully self-evident failure of socialist,keynesian economics.
In all other realms,conservatives simply move left and call it a victory.
And here I thought that the Hyenas were black, and the film racist.
I don't mind, in theory, the application of academic critical tools to pop culture. I sometimes do it myself, and it can be fun. But in practice it is uniformly awful, as this article demonstrates. In her discussion of Beauty and the Beast, in particular, Lawson shows that she has the critical sense of a doorknob.
The obvious point of the treatment of Belle and her father is that being different is good. They are the characters with whom we empathize. The viewer doesn't experience the shunning by the townspeople as a community coming together to share its values, we feel it as unfair rejection manipulated by evil.
Lawson's whole point is incredibly wrong-headed. One of Hollywood's enduring sub-themes is that those labeled mentally ill are actually the sane one's who see clearly, while the "normals" are blinded by their conformity. There are, after all, only three movie plots, the most common of which is that of the outsider who triumphs.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 12, 2004 9:35 AMDavid:
Yes, you are bang on and I was going to note that the guys taunting Belle's father couldn't have been depicted more unfavourably. But I don't think that matters to this crowd, anymore than they would pick up that Dopey was loved and cared for. The agenda is to expunge anything that suggests the "mentally ill" are different. In some ways, treating them compassionately or admiringly is just as bad as being mean. Try standing up today to laud publically the trememdous contribution gays have traditionally made to the arts and watch what happens.
This is still a looney voice in the wilderness that may or may not catch on, but give it ten years and that Hollywood sub-theme might be seen as outrageously patronizing. Forrest Gump will be seen like as offensive as Hattie MacDonald in Gone With the Wind.
Posted by: Peter B at June 12, 2004 9:53 AMThe term is "Compassion Fascist"-- people who believe evil means justify good ends, and only they get to decide what's good.
If Ms Lawson and Mr Fouts would just broaden the focus of their analysis, they would have to conclude that all humor is basically insulting and denigrating to someone, and should be banned. It reminds me of an interview that I heard on NPR several years ago of an academic who claimed that "Seinfeld" promoted nihilism because the characters were self-centered but did not suffer bad consequences from it. Of course, that is what made it funny. Humor is all about turning the normal state of affairs on it's head. We laugh at kindly old grandmas who swear and tough, grizzly bikers who cry at soap operas. Humor only works when it is politically incorrect. The last Seinfeld episode, where the characters got their comeuppance in court for their misdeeds, was the least funny.
Peter, there is another angle to this article, in that the "researchers" are Canadian, and their target, Disney, is an American cultural behemoth spreading its message of insensitivity to defenseless Canadian youth. This is another attempt by Canadian intellectuals to promote a Canadian cultural ethos against the tide of American cultural imperialism. Canada as the champion of sensitivity. If this catches on, look for a law banning all humor from Canadian media outlets.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 12, 2004 1:10 PMD'Oh! That was supposed to say "evil means are justified by good ends". And I previewed,too.
Although the wrong way does capture the spirit of some of those people.
Robert (and Peter): Isn't there such a law already?
Posted by: Chris at June 12, 2004 2:55 PMRobert:
Sorry, I'll buy your first paragraph, (which is spot on and backs Orrin's assertion that all humour is conservative) but not your second at all. Although Ms. Lawson & co. might take a perverse Canadian leftist pride in your comments, I'm not buying it. Very little of this kind of deconstructionalist social science originates up here. It originates in America (just like multilateralism and the UN), and our progressives latch on to the trends like good American-inspired anti-Americans, all the while proclaiming their independence. Sorry, but them's the facts. Our progressives are followers, not leaders. If this kind of thinking was not acceptable or respectable in American academia, you wouldn't see it here.
Posted by: Peter B at June 12, 2004 7:46 PMPeter B
So even in their confused intellectual elitism,they merely follow America's lead?
Oh,dear.
Posted by: at June 12, 2004 7:57 PMAnon:
Most definitely. There are many sins you can accuse us of, starting with complacency and smugness, but being on the cutting edge of progressive intellectualism is not one.
Posted by: Peter B at June 12, 2004 8:04 PMThat gives the "Cry of the Loon" motto a whole new meaning.
Posted by: at June 13, 2004 7:53 AM>How can one do battle with those exuding such
>angst over the human condition?
Simple. El Deguello. No Quarter, No Mercy.
Growing up with an abusive/manipulative sociopath brother taught me one thing:
Concern and Compassion (TM) is the Mark Of The Sociopath.
Posted by: Ken at June 14, 2004 1:14 PMP.S. And Disney's Lion King is an obvious knockoff of Tezuka's Kimba the White Lion. In both, the main bad guy (a dark-maned lion) had stumblebum hyenas for comedy-relief sidekicks; just the Disney hyenas were UGLY.
Posted by: Ken at June 14, 2004 1:16 PMThe trope in Disney that's really harmful is monarchism.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 15, 2004 2:59 AMI don't think so.
I haven't seen many recent Disney movies, only part of "Lion King."
But don't most of them -- virtually all up to "Lion King" -- say that the suffering of the people (or animals) will be relieved by an hereditary miracle worker?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 15, 2004 8:08 PM