Ron Burgundy, Dorfman and Mattelart

Reading the article by Dorfman and Mattelart was extremely frustrating in my opinion. In past CMC courses we have read articles about Disney before and the supposed harm that it is causing to the minds of our youth. I have agreed with points made before in those articles as critics have discussed the dangers of the “history” that Disney tries to teach that is extremely inaccurate and so can portray an inaccurate reality of the past. However this article focused on the content of the Disney comics, etc. and I feel wrongly states various assumptions about the purpose behind such pieces. Dorfman and Mattelart at first seem to have a positive view on the effects of Disney and their ideals on children, which are later mocked and meant to be factious. They make such statements such as “Disney thus establishes a moral background which draws the child down the proper ethical and aesthetic path” which is something I happen to agree with in the purpose of the work (124). Later though they attempt to show how this is really the domination of the corrupt adult over the naïve child as they try and forcibly project their desires for a utopia and innocence on their offspring. According to the authors “in juvenile literature, the adult, corroded by the trivia of everyday life blindly defends his image of youth and innocence” (127). Why is it in this article that the authors are supposing every individual lives a “trivial” and “corrupt” life, which is only escaped and justified through projecting ideals of innocence and fantasist on their children through Disney media? I think this terribly underestimates and devalues the amount of good people in the world today, and presupposes certain assumptions on their behavior that could be extremely false. For example, when I think about Disney media from my childhood I do not fantasize about a magical world that is less corrupt and full of innocence that I can escape to but rather a happy youth filled with memories of my parents spending time with me. Why can it not be supposed that a father reading a Disney story to a child is not for his own selfish pleasures of concealing the “guilt arising from his own fall from grace” but in order to spend quality time with his child reading something that is appropriate for both parties and often teaches a moral lesson that we would want all children to understand (127)? According to these authors no such thing occurs in this type of act, instead it would demonstrate “adult values projected onto the child” (126). I do not understand why projecting positive moral values and moral lessons through such literature is wrong in a parental standpoint. Other factors from the outside media and world are significant in the socialization of a child and reveal bits of reality to the child to help him or her develop their own system of values, etc. Why is it wrong then that a parent should want to provide their child with a positive set of ideals to counter negative ones that they may be experiencing by other means. I do not believe this to be blinding a child to the harshness of reality but aiding them in their socialization and helping to guide them towards a wiser path. All in all I found this reading extremely frustrating as it assumed a certain standpoint of the adult child relationship in exposing children to such Disney literature while completely ignoring other factors that could, and in my mind do, prevail.