The idea of cultural imperialism expressed in film has no doubt been an issue at the forefront of cultural imperialism debates for a long time, but it was not until reading the Cartwright and Goldfarb article on Disney’s health education films in Latin America, that I was able to come to terms with the idea that this kind of cultural imperialism was taking place at the hands of everyone’s favorite mouse. I suppose this idea was never very far from reach, but my inner child and subsequent attachments to some of my favorite films and childhood memories were simply drowning out the possibility that those who brought you wholesome classic films such as, Beauty and the Beast and the Lion King could take part in such nonsensical practices. On the other hand however, one could easily argue that these practices did not so much consist of unethical or imperialistic messages, as they did promote and teach those in seemingly primitive rural circumstances about the importance of sanitation and cleanliness in suppressing a whole slew of preventable illnesses.
According to the most basic dictionary definition of the term, cultural imperialism is the imposition of a foreign viewpoint or civilization on a particular culture or people. With this definition in mind, there is no doubt that the actions Disney took between the years 1942- 1945 in its production of educational shorts for Latin America were indeed the epitome of what we know to be culturally imperialistic practices. The Disney educationals were part of a joint effort by Disney studios and the US government to, “ …Teach the fundamentals of social science free from religious or political influence”(Cartwright and Goldfarb, 170). However, far from teaching free of cultural influence or bias, these films manage to fix intently on the private bodies and domestic lives of the subjects these films and constitute a discrete set of colonialist imaginings and desires. Essentially, the families in the films are characterized as innately lazy and ignorant, thus the Latin American subjects and families are held individually responsible for their own states of disease and poverty, as opposed to addressing the real issues which included a lack of sufficient infrastructure and development on the part of these nations own governments. The strategy used in these shorts are no doubt pedagogically linked to an association of illness and poverty with particular bodily “customs,” where as health and prosperity are linked with Western scientific standards of hygiene.
When drawing an a specific example of , “When Cleanliness Brings Health,” it was stealthily demonstrated when comparing the clean family to the dirty family that many of the characteristics of the clean family were indeed reflections of middle class America. The clean family for example, had an abundance of multi-colour dishes sitting on a shelf, plenty of food, smiling faces, and a hard working nuclear family. The dirty family on the other hand were shown in ripped worn clothing, cooking on the floor, their faces covered, and the family appeared very sad with slow moving darker animation. In a sense these cartoons were indeed a good way of disguising imperialism because it made the films in a sense, more playful and less offensive. This format also allowed for the hiding of “shameful faces” and the use of the large animated hand reaching in and correcting things that the dirty family did wrong. It was almost as if there was some kind of metaphorical control in use, where someone bigger was needed to reach in and help correct what was being done wrong. According to Whitney, “…moving pictures constitute one of the best mediums to foster understanding and more friendly relations between peoples.”(Cartwright and Goldfarb, 173)
In thinking about the many factors that surround issues of cultural imperialism I can not help but think back to a separate and no less crooked example where in 1946 America again utilized motion pictures to aid jointly in justification of evacuation and downplaying the dangers of nuclear testing and the future wellbeing of the people of Bikini Atoll in French Polynesia. As the narrator states, “Bikini Atoll, a dot on the map of the mid-Pacific, was destined to become a focal point for the eyes of the world!” (Trupp, 104). This film made it look as if these people were nomadic thus pleased to be helping out their Friends in America, when in reality they were being forcibly displaced.
Essentially, in its Latin American oriented productions, Disney promoted health along the lines of a merit system structure where health rewards labour, and illness is a punishment for laziness. While the entertainment films of the time were regarded as an important part of winning the attention of the popular audiences, the educationals were a more overt means of controlling and conforming political views, as well as individual and community cultural practices across Latin American cultures (Cartwright and Goldfarb, 177). Aside from this though, a critic such as myself may be forced to ask, what were some of the benefits of these educational shorts? Was there a marked improvement in health and wellness? And although these films were made under a less than noble pretense of economic and political influence did the benefits of the so called “soft power” outweigh the costs in any way?
Whatever the answers may be in terms of improving the lives of those which the Disney films touched, I am reluctant to give in and say that “Soft Power” is really soft at all. Instead I propose that, the shorts produced by Disney were the epitome of culturally imperialistic films with an ulterior motive than promoting the wellbeing of those they were made for, and were instead critically harmful to the opinion of self which Latin Americans held.
Sources:
Cartwright, L. and Golgfarb, B. “Disney Discourse: Producing the Magic Kingdom.” Routledge, 1994.
Trupp, P. “Rings of Fire.” Sea of Dreamers: Travels with Famous Ocean Explorers. Fulcrum Publishing, 1998.
