The Political Economy of Disney

The Cultural Capitalism of Hollywood

Alexandre Bohas

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781137562371
• eBook ISBN: 9781137562388
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Politics & International Relations

© The Author(s) 2016

Alexandre BohasThe Political Economy of DisneyInternational Political Economy Series10.1057/978-1-137-56238-8_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Alexandre Bohas¹

(1)

Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France

End Abstract

The Need for a Cultural Political Economy of the Disney Company

A cultural political economy (CPE) of the Walt Disney Company ¹ could appear to be redundant or pointless. Previous studies have castigated this transnational firm for its supposedly standardised content and entertainment, while others have already depicted the activities of Hollywood corporations organised in a studio system which has remained incredibly stable despite structural changes. In addition, the Frankfurt School has considered that such cultural industries destroy art. ² However, there remain many unanswered questions, for which a CPE analysis of the Walt Disney Company is likely to provide answers.

The Disney firm has already been the subject of abundant literature which portrays it successively as conservative, sexist and mercantilist. Research hostile to its activities focuses on its consumeristic dimensions ³ but overlooks many other elements worth studying. Firstly, this kind of theoretical approach neglects its worldwide attraction. Such negative observations could explain a boycott of the company by consumers, which has not happened. In fact, researchers have produced subjective studies rather than employing audience data and feedback. In this respect, Thomas Doherty noted in his article entitled ‘The Wonderful World of Disney Studies’ that, ‘unlike the company’s consumer base, scholars have never much cuddled up to Walt and his friends, never wanted a souvenir photo with that guy in the Goofy outfit’. ⁴ Therefore they resort to oversimplifying schemes, such as propaganda and alienation, in order to explain this emotional attachment and devotion. Inspired by the methods used in cultural studies, the cultural perspective takes spectators’ feelings, emotions and opinions towards Disney characters and narratives seriously by examining rather than dismissing them outright.

Secondly, another line of research is the study of the motion picture sector where interdependent major companies compete with one another in the box office market. Looking at these organisations from a business perspective, researchers have missed a crucial change in the current Hollywood environment which makes Disney an ideal type. Indeed, they regard studios as everlasting behemoths in the mostly stable milieu of the studio system, even if structural changes have occurred. The studios are viewed as central and united. They remain central to audio-visual spheres since they control the crucial steps of financing and distribution and they appear all the more unified when they interact with one another abroad. Nevertheless, ongoing Hollywood trends continue to take place in the way major studios are functioning. ⁵ Changes have indeed transformed classical studios that were traditionally centred on movie theatres into entertainment companies where films are only one activity among many. Besides, the description of Hollywood as a predominantly stable entity does not explain its continuous success while other national movie sectors have collapsed. In this respect Disney forms an ideal type of current Hollywood, since it has never owned theatres and has never produced only movies. Based on the accumulation of ideational and material capital, Disney takes commercial advantage of the creative imageries and narratives of the studio’s output and the emotions that they cause among audiences. ⁶ The Disney Company has had long-lasting appeal among generations of audiences to which it has sold myriads of movies, products and activities. Thus, the result has been an exceptional concentration of resources which taken altogether comprises the basis for cultural capitalism.

Thirdly, studying the cultural dimensions of the Disney Company can appear nonsensical since the Frankfurt School regards this type of cultural industry as annihilating art. But the denial of an artistic dimension may also lead to one missing a reliance on creativity. Admittedly, this capitalist industry markets its goods on a massive scale, thus reducing their artistic aspect, but this in turn makes artistic renewal all the more necessary for the company to continue its expansion. The Frankfurt School also underlines the similarities existing between cultural industries and the rest of the economy, but these theorists take into account only hard-headed Hollywood business attitudes wherein films are produced only to entertain and to make money. Their analysis is limited to the standardisation of production, audience acquiescence and the corruption of art. In this study, these common beliefs about the motion picture industry will be questioned.

Approaches, Concepts and Methodologies

A CPE perspective implies the use of specific concepts and methodologies which provide a better grasp of cultural facets of the Disney phenomenon. We will refer to sociological concepts and cultural studies but also to world-economy theories which adopt a global focus on the Disney Company. All these approaches fit in an institutional analysis of the Disney phenomenon which considers the company as much as it does the consumers-spectators, ⁷ including their cultural, economic and social interrelationships and interdependences.

Such a study supposes that one considers the intersubjective dimensions of culture and their reproduction through peoples’ behaviour: social practices always include culture even if the latter cannot be reduced to them. ⁸ Taking inspiration from the works of Jessop and Sum as well as Best and Paterson, we maintain that culture can be regarded, on the one hand, as an agglomeration of routines, living practices and rituals and, on the other hand, as ideational, that is a system of meanings and ‘webs of significance’ ⁹ in Geertz’s words, and as defining identity/difference relations, rationality and ethics. ¹⁰ Bourdieu’s sociology of habitus ¹¹ and Giddens’ structurationist concept of practical consciousness ¹² will be instrumental in accounting for culture which exists as a social fact only through individuals’ practices and discourses.

However, looking at the ideational sphere leads to specific methodological concerns. First, one should adopt an internal view on fundamentally social facts which are grounded in specific contexts, experiences and practices. Second, one should focus on people’s everyday routines because these spaces turn out to be major ones. They are likely to reveal the most entrenched knowledge and practices of people. Third, Gramsci-inspired concepts, such as bloc, formation and material/semiotic co-evolution, lead to a neglect of the functioning proper to the ideational sphere and the possibility that it can lastingly diverge from material spheres. In fact, the assumption of a co-evolution underlies a submission of either the material or the ideational spheres. To the contrary, I will argue that if material and ideational spheres co-construct the world, they evolve differently.

Practices, narratives and imageries will be observed from a power perspective and their ‘variation, selection and retention’ ¹³ in combined material and ideational worlds will be identified. This book will follow Strange’s knowledge structure, defined as ‘what is believed (and the moral conclusions and principles derived from those beliefs); what is known and perceived as understood; and the channels by which beliefs, ideas and knowledge are communicated’. ¹⁴ Although reductive of the ontological importance of knowledge, ¹⁵ it places emphasis on the field of knowledge as an ever-evolving result of power arrangements and a contributor to structural power in an interwoven and interactive interplay with all non-knowledge structures. In addition, Strange’s concept leads us to denaturalise culture by considering the means by which it is adopted and altered, to what extent it is shared and how it influences people’s behaviour. This process indicates the ability to mould others’ interests and preferences which ensure one’s domination. ¹⁶ In other words, this should be viewed as ‘meta-power’ ¹⁷ or ‘intransitive power’ ¹⁸ which shapes not only people’s identities but also the issues themselves in order to obtain the ‘chance to be obeyed’. ¹⁹

Since Disney narratives and imageries give firms a sociocultural competitive advantage which enables them to prevail in markets, sectors and social trends, Hollywood contribution to American power is regarded as structural through the formation of ‘perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they [the people] accept their role in the existing order of things’. ²⁰ This dimension refers to a set of practices and fields broader than politics strictly speaking, which tend to exert a structural power in favour of America. ²¹ Generally the cultural dimension remains neglected in International Political Economy even though numerous research studies in International Relations have dealt with the subject by using constructivism. ²² When it is approached, it is all too often either assimilated from the beginning with a form of imperialism or minimised as regards power. In this respect, Joseph Nye’s soft power obscures this underlying stake. ²³

Besides, Braudel’s world-economy, ²⁴ which conceptualises a preponderance ²⁵ of markets free of state control, gives theoretical insights for the study of the Disney Company at the global level. ²⁶ This concept introduces a hierarchically organised world ordained around a central cluster, making it possible to think of the Disney force outside nationally-based and state-centred references. ²⁷ Furthermore, all Hollywood films,...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. A Capitalism of World Entertainment
• 3. The Rise of Entertainment Economy: A Disneyisation of Hollywood
• 4. A Vulnerable Civilisation of Leisure
• 5. A Shallow Structuration of Hollywood Narratives
• 6. Conclusion
• Backmatter