A critique made in class about Dorfman and Mattelart’s essay, “How to Read Donald Duck,” is that their message doesn’t reach very far because Disney is a profit seeking corporation and they release content based on what the public wants to see. Even through paradigm shifts where society has (supposedly) become more progressive, profit still outweighs the ethical considerations of Disney’s themes and ideologies. My response is that Dorfman and Mattelart’s critiques are still warranted because Disney was essentially trying to capitalize on an entire nation’s common culture, so a critique on Disney is also a critique of the dominant ideology reflected in American society during the Cold War.
Considering anti-socialist sentiments during the Cold War, it comes as no surprise that Americans wanted to consume content that reflected their jingoistic views. Disney benefited from propagating such views even though it was socially irresponsible. However, if Disney released the Donald Duck comics in today’s political climate, that would be detrimental to their business model. If consumer behaviour/power drives the success of certain businesses, I think Disney “does care” about the opinions of their customers. Companies seeking profit and social progressivism doesn’t necessarily have to be at odds with each other.
Additionally, such paradigm shifts that made society (a little bit) less racist can be attributed to people like Dorfman and Mattelart who scrutinize the consequences of American imperialism and other aspects of capitalism, and their critiques are still relevant today. It is especially important to criticize Disney in particular because their content reaches young audiences which can shape long standing ideologies/cultures in the generations to come.
Thanks for your post and for coming back to our discussion in class. Your reflections do an excellent job of recognizing that our task as literary critics is to examine Disney (and Dorfman and Mattelart’s essay!) as a “cultural object.” As scholars, it can often be unproductive to base our analyses on value judgments, because that lens can make it more difficult for us to approach our object of study with clarity. What’s more, intentions can be a bad indicator of effects–a company with only profit-seeking intentions may very well create a product that produces an important cultural critique, in the same way that an artist or entity with good intentions can inadvertently create a work that has negative implications for society. One of our tasks as critics will be to recognize our likes/dislikes/judgments and validate those, but to then set those aside or at least distance ourselves from them so that we can analyze literature without bias. My strategy on this front is to evaluate a text in two ways: First, I consider a text as objectively as possible from my stance as a critic. I take into account form, content, affect, context–many of the things we’ve been discussing in class–without turning to the question of ethics. Then I return to the text after this somewhat “cold” appraisal of its content, and I ask ethical questions that more closely resemble our conversation about representation and ideology in Disney. This is a long comment (that I’ll likely bring into our class discussion on Tuesday) that is meant to recognize that there is no easy answer to this question, but I’m glad we’re thinking about it this semester. Thanks for your post, Milena!