“Disneyland exists in order to hide the fact that it is the ‘real’ country… Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real…” -Baudrillard
Of the criticism of Disney that we have examined and discussed, this is perhaps the one that I can get behind the most, though I see it more as something to be aware and cautious of than something to systematically see fault in; it all comes down to how is it used. The idea that Disney exists to make people more accepting of the values the American government wants them to accept is a bit far out, but the notion that Disney associates a certain set of values and morals with its brand of positivity and ideology, to the point that people often associate concepts like imagination and wonder with its name, is valid. Disney teaches people things in the imaginary world that they digest and return to the real world with, and the association is firmly planted. The idea of an "ideology blanket" used in an imaginary world to affect the real world is a concept seen not just with Disney and other theme parks, but with political operations as well; however, Disney benefits from brand loyalty with capitalism, where politicians benefit with power and often times sanctuary from the law, two very different end results (though it could be debated which is worse, if either).
Created an environment deemed to be imaginary means that people no longer feel like their have to look at it critically, and therefore become less aware of the messages and agendas that exist in these places. It's much easier, then, for Disney to implement acceptance of reality, while its guest have no idea that the "fiction in reverse" concept is at all. Morally grey areas do not have the consequences that they do in the "real" world, as we can see with the remaining presence of culturally insensitive characters and attractions that would be seen as problematic in the world outside. The idea that "the adults are elsewhere" is a powerful way to leave the idea of responsibility and consciousness at the entrance of the parks.
Of the criticism of Disney that we have examined and discussed, this is perhaps the one that I can get behind the most, though I see it more as something to be aware and cautious of than something to systematically see fault in; it all comes down to how is it used. The idea that Disney exists to make people more accepting of the values the American government wants them to accept is a bit far out, but the notion that Disney associates a certain set of values and morals with its brand of positivity and ideology, to the point that people often associate concepts like imagination and wonder with its name, is valid. Disney teaches people things in the imaginary world that they digest and return to the real world with, and the association is firmly planted. The idea of an "ideology blanket" used in an imaginary world to affect the real world is a concept seen not just with Disney and other theme parks, but with political operations as well; however, Disney benefits from brand loyalty with capitalism, where politicians benefit with power and often times sanctuary from the law, two very different end results (though it could be debated which is worse, if either).
Created an environment deemed to be imaginary means that people no longer feel like their have to look at it critically, and therefore become less aware of the messages and agendas that exist in these places. It's much easier, then, for Disney to implement acceptance of reality, while its guest have no idea that the "fiction in reverse" concept is at all. Morally grey areas do not have the consequences that they do in the "real" world, as we can see with the remaining presence of culturally insensitive characters and attractions that would be seen as problematic in the world outside. The idea that "the adults are elsewhere" is a powerful way to leave the idea of responsibility and consciousness at the entrance of the parks.
Comments
Post a Comment