The Disney Fetish

Seán J. Harrington

• Publisher: John Libbey Publishing
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780861967131
• eBook ISBN: 9780861969081
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Film History & Criticism

Long considered a figurehead of family values and wholesome adolescence, the Disney franchise has faced increasing criticism over its gendered representations of children in film, its stereotypical representations of race and non-white cultures, and its emphasis on the heterosexual couple. Against a historical backdrop of studio history, audience reception, and the industrial-organizational apparatus of Disney media, Seán Harrington examines the Disney classics through a psychoanalytical framework to explore the spirit of devotion, fandom, and frenzy that is instilled in consumers of Disney products and that underlie the fantasy of the Magic Kingdom. This compelling study demystifies the unsettling cleanliness and pretensions to innocence that the Disney brand claims to hold.

Part One:
The Homunculus

As stated, the first part of this book shall be given over to discussion and analysis of the artificial man, the alchemical homunculus. It shall endeavour to create an account of the homunculus as the core of engagement within the Disney apparatus, and the following chapters shall be structured by the creation of a homunculus as an analogy for Disney itself. Thus, the homunculus as a concept is the theoretical construction at the core of the subject’s engagement, and the analogical homunculus acts as a metaphor for the structure of part one itself, which seeks to provide a functional model of Disney with which to begin this study. To clarify:

1. The conceptual homunculus is the concept related to the cartoon body and is the essence of this body’s appeal to the subject. It is the homunculus as gratifying artifice and is central to the discussion of subsequent parts of this text.

2. The second homunculus referenced is a functional artifice. This functional artifice takes the homunculus as an analogy to structure Part One and thus the concept of ‘Disney’ within this text. This illustrative/analogical homunculus is both Disney as an object of study and the structure of Part One itself. It is a synthesis of a theoretical base and a biographical subject, intertwined with images from the screen.

The theoretical base of Part One thus functions as the foundation for situating the functional myth of Walt Disney, as progenitor of Disney as a socio-cultural institution. This mythic image of a biographical subject shall be combined with a thing of its creation. The boundaries between man and mouse (or even man, mouse and duck) are indiscernible in many critical texts (Schickel, 1968, Elliot, 1993, Watts, 1997). Most authors attempting pseudo-psychoanalytic accounts of Walt Disney’s life seem to agree that Walt strongly identified with Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. The identification with Mickey was thought to have been consciously pursued so as to enjoy the mouse’s popularity, but the duck’s similarities with the mythological Walt appear far more accidental and provocative. The purpose of this overlapping analysis of Walt, the Disney Company and its product (Mickey and Donald) is to emphasise their continuum within Disney as a homuncule object of study. Analysing a singular aspect of Disney in isolation omits the capacity for the Gestalt outcomes of a more encompassing study.

The composition of this homunculus is directly inspired by the Hibernator project by London Fieldworks (Gilchrist & Joelson, 2007). To illustrate the cultural pathogens initiated by the socio-cultural institutionalisation of Disney, London Fieldworks created an animatronic Disney chimera. This chimera was tripartite in both form and concept. The machine itself was built with a prosthetic face and head of Walt Disney, the torso and front legs of a realistic Bambi and the hind legs of Thumper the rabbit (see image on page 12).

The chimera was stationary and lifeless until it was connected to a small solar panel that powered its movements. It was then filmed moving against a green screen, after which animators set to work situating the chimera in a computer generated post-apocalyptic environment, set to a surrealistic biographical narrative. Thus the chimera (the hybrid of Walt and animated character) is put in context (of research, abstract theory) to create a concept called Hibernator. It is this concept which is instructive in addressing Disney as a cultural institution that is at its core pathogenic, mutant and transgressive. The psychoanalytic homunculus created herein shall take similar steps, fusing man, cartoon character and theory.

Thus the mythology of Walt shall be situated in a theoretical base of addictification, narcissism and perversion. This image will be blended with the cartoon character as fetishistic object. Only then will the functional artifice of ‘Disney’ be established for further exploration in Parts Two and Three of this text. From this point onward Walt Disney the biographical subject is refereed to simply by ‘Walt’, whereas the term ‘Disney’ shall refer to the functional artifice under construction; it is both Walt Disney the figure, Disney the company and Disney the cultural product. Disney is an object of study in itself, one that is composed of many often intangible parts.

Chapter 1

A Theoretical Context

The following theoretical framework that forms the basis of this discussion is constructed by synthesising several theoretical positions, and is composed of concepts from Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan, historian Christopher Lasch and several psychoanalytically oriented theorists: Susan Long and Rik Loose. The last three of these authors share a common field in their discussion of the socio-cultural changes that have occurred in Western countries in the course of the last century. These discussions aim to produce a theoretical diagnosis of society based on trends in contemporary culture and psychopathology. Each of these authors seem to suggest that the contemporary subject exists in a pathologised society, though each uses a different term and concept in making their diagnosis. It is suggested by Lasch, Long and Loose respectively, that the subject exists in a narcissistic, perverse and addictified society. It is the position of this research that all of these diagnoses are linked via a process that occurs between organisations, mass communication and the subject. These diagnoses represent different aspects of the same problem, one that has its origins in collective and individual fantasy.

The concept of a narcissistic society is best associated with Christopher Lasch’s text The Culture of Narcissism (1979). Lasch suggests that in the last half of the 20^th century wealthy Western nations have developed increasingly egotistical societies: “To live for the moment is the prevailing passion – to live for yourself, not for your predecessors or posterity” (Lasch, 1979, p5). Lasch posits that the success of the individual has become paramount, while that of the collective has become secondary. In these societies the subject interacts with others in an instrumental manner; the other becomes a tool for achieving one’s own gratification.

Narcissism, as Lasch uses the term, originates in Freud’s paper On Narcissism (Freud, 1914). In this text Freud proposes two types of narcissism: primary and secondary. Primary narcissism involves a libidinal investment in the ego, which in turn becomes objectified for the subject. Primary narcissism is an ego libido which operates internally for the subject, for whom the ego becomes gratifying in itself. In Lacan’s discussions of the mirror stage (Lacan, 1954b) he proposes that the ego becomes a fantasmatic façade that allows the subject to imaginarily constitute itself in the world, in order to create a sense of their body as a point of identification. This image is essentially dysfunctional as what is constituted is not a holistic image of the subject itself, but rather a reflection based on the other as mirror; it is the look of the other that enables to subject to consolidate their sense of self. Thus, the object of the ego libido is not the reflected image of the subject, but a fantasy image of the subject as a consolidated whole. The mirror stage shall be discussed in further detail in Chapter 4.

Secondary narcissism is a pathological state, marked by the withdrawal of libidinal investment in the social realm in favour of the ego libido. The ego becomes central to the subject’s sexual economy and offers a simplified gratification (Freud, 1914). The ego itself bears a similar role to a loved object, as both are attempts to cover up the subject’s own intrinsic lack (Lacan, 1954a). This lack is constituted when the subject is separated from the Other (as mother) in the Oedipus Complex and forbidden to return to this state by the Law of the father. In attempting to fill the gap left by the Other the subject will always desire something more, as there exist no adequate substitute that entirely encapsulates the Other. Thus, narcissism becomes a defence against this lack, as it seeks an internal solution based on a fantasy of the ego as an entirety in itself.

The Lacanian subject is defined by a lack that motivates desire and speech. Speech becomes a function of desire, as the capacity to enunciate a need directed at the Other. Desire is bound by the rules of language and language itself stems from the same roots as desire (Lacan, 1958b, p525). Thus, narcissism is a tendency to side-step the complications of desire in favour of an intra-subjective attempt to cover up lack. This expresses itself at a societal level as a highly competitive, selfish and individualistic culture. The collective, as expressed in the symbolic, becomes secondary and the individual’s need for gratification becomes paramount.

It is important to note that the narcissist will always strive to maintain the Law, but despite this adherence to the Law their primary concern is getting what they want. The Law, Lacan (1953, p230) posits, is synonymous with the Law of the father and is central to the subject’s achievement of the symbolic function. The Law embeds the individual in language which provides a platform for discourse with the other. Law creates and shapes desire, and both operate within the realm of the symbolic. Through its subjective interpretation and internalisation into the super-ego, the Law restricts and imposes boundaries on the subject from within. While desire always seeks gratification, it does so within the confines of the Law. When desire transgresses the boundaries established by the Law the gratification that is had is not pleasurable, but painful. In the course of this text the Law will be frequently mentioned. ‘Law’ is capitalised to emphasise that it does not refer to a specific set of laws but rather a Lacanian conception of the Law of the father.

The term jouissance is used by Lacan to indicate an excessive form of gratification. The concept itself is opposed to pleasure and is used to describe a gratification that exists beyond the pleasure principle (the boundary established by the paternal metaphor); where pleasure becomes painful (Lacan, 1966, p694). The introduction of the subject into language is initiated by the Law of the father, which along with the pleasure principle imposes restrictions on the subject’s gratification. In a sense, it is a Law that forbids the subject to access the ‘too much’ of gratification. The narcissist’s drive for selfish gratification is supported by fantasy, which is intimately connected to desire (Lacan, 1958b). Fantasy is the imaginary stage upon which the subject can enact their desires and satisfy demands. Fantasy can be thought of as the “mise-en-scène of desire” (Cowie, 1984, p159); it represents the staging of wish fulfilments. It is a malleable psychical element that allows the subject to attain the object of their desire in an imagined entirety; the most basic of fantasies is that the Thing desire will in some way complete you.

A narcissistic society is a society defined by secondary narcissism. It is a society in which self improvement and individualism are of ultimate importance. In Lasch’s (1979) opinion, individualism has become the dominant and most problematic characteristic of American, and in turn Americanised Western culture. Individualism holds many positive connotations for Westerners, but it is essentially a prerogative for the subject to enjoy en masse but in isolation. Cinema is a particularly relevant institution within this dynamic. As Laura Mulvey (1975) notes, the darkened auditorium of the cinema positions the subject in a self-contained space where enjoyment of the object becomes visually accessible and voyeuristically gratifying. The distance between the viewer and screen allows for a very individual and private gratification. While the viewer is surrounded by others, the darkness enables an imagined privacy. The gratification of the viewer is no longer dependent on the others; the enjoyment is collective, yet isolated and alienated within the auditorium. The screen provides the illusion of connection to the Other (Other as the psychical schemata of otherness) from the comfort of the cinema seat. For the narcissistic society alienation becomes a paradoxical norm, in which the members of a population join in separate pursuits of individual gratification. This is closely related to Susan Long’s discussion of the role of perverse organisations (Long, 2008).

The argument made by Long (2008) in The Perverse Organisation is that contemporary society is mediated by perverse institutions. Perversion should not be confused with the more visible practices of individual perverts, but rather as a power-relation that exists between people. These institutions have developed a perverse logic that regulates interpersonal relations. It is within these relations that the subject’s personal gain becomes central, even when this gain is at the expense of others. This logic puts the primacy of the subject’s narcissistic gratification over the laws of social conduct. As this logic governs the institution, it provides the persons within the organisation a safe platform to engage perversely with each other.

In the context of perversion Long discusses what has now become the world’s most dominant organisational institution: the modern business corporation. In recent times corporate institutions have been seen to usurp the economic influences of religion, monarchy and in some cases democratic government (Bakan, 2004). The individual is forced to engage with corporations as consumer, and consumerism itself has become an integral part of Western society and culture. Without consumption of goods and technologies an individual cannot successfully engage with mainstream culture. Without this consumption the subject is left lacking in signifiers: the linguistic material the subject utilises in their engagement with the other.

There is an increasingly dependency on external institutions for social interaction. Telecommunications companies provide the means with which the individual can communicate with friends and family, via telephones and the internet. That is not to say people lacked contact with their friends and family before the invention of telecommunications, yet now people are wholly dependent on corporations that facilitate and provide communication services. Social relationships have become dependent on technologies which are owned, distributed and made accessible by corporate institutions. Thus the corporation’s influence goes beyond the realm of economics: it influences the subject’s engagement with the Other, yet despite this access to many new forms of communication, contemporary society has become increasingly defined by its alienation and mass isolation (Schickel, 1968).

Joel Bakan (2004) suggests that this enforced symbiosis between consumer and product is the result of the creation of vast mega-corporations, whose influence is entirely inescapable. These companies have absorbed many other subsidiary businesses and form corporate empires. These conglomerates are so vast that it becomes nearly impossible for consumers not to engage with them. This becomes evident in the assimilation of most forms of mass media and mainstream news reporting by umbrella organisations such as News Corp. or Time-Warner. It is claimed by some that fewer than a dozen corporations control all American news and television stations (Giroux, 2000). This invites the question: if contemporary corporate organisations mediate society and these organisations are theoretically regulated by perverse logic, what are the consequences for the Lacanian subject as a consumer? Before discussing Long’s conception of the perverse organisation, it is necessary to relate a psychoanalytic understanding of perversion.

The concepts of perversion and the ‘pervert’ are best understood as a dynamic between people. A neurotic or psychotic person can take on a perverse role in relation to another person, or indeed an organisation can fulfil a perverse role in relation to the persons that interact within it. At the base of the perverse is the transgression of the Law through the corruption of an other. The pervert’s relation to the other is defined by a lack of mutuality, a need to gratify the self at the other’s expense. Although this is similar to the subject’s relation with the other in secondary narcissism, it is different in respect of the pervert’s relation to the Law. The pervert positions him or her self as the object of the drive: the provider of the other’s jouissance (and vicariously the Other’s jouissance). As mentioned, jouissance is by its nature transgressive, corrupt and painful; the perverse position is thus inherently sado-masochistic.

The pervert disavows the Law of the father, acknowledging the Law but simultaneously denying its existence. The pervert is embedded in the realm of language and as such is dependent on symbolic relations and thus desire. But the pervert also acts as if the Law that structures desire is not present (Andre, 2006). The pervert suffers a splitting of the ego much like the narcissist, yet what is at stake is not self-love but rather a drive toward gratification in the absence of the Law, coexisting with an awareness of symbolic interactions and subservience to the Law of the father (Long, 2008). The other is an accomplice for both the narcissist and the pervert, but the other takes on a different role in perverse and narcissistic scenarios. The narcissist requires that the other be a mirror to reflect back an image of their being, to facilitate a transient sense of a completed self, while the pervert requires the other to help satisfy their fantasies (of being object of the drive, enabler of jouissance). Where these two structures converge is that both the narcissist and the pervert seek self-sufficiency in their relation to gratification, in which the other is instrumentalized.

The pervert’s relation to fantasy is particular in both its fixity and enunciation. While neurotics will sheepishly hide their fantasies, the pervert needs to vocalise a fetishistic scenario in an attempt to corrupt the other. As Serge Andre (2006) notes, it is impossible to separate perversion from fantasy. Indeed all fantasy is basically perverse in that it disavows the Law as embodied in the paternal metaphor. Fantasy is fixed to a simplistic goal, and serves to guard against anxiety (Dor, 1999). The root of this anxiety lies in the subject’s castration, which becomes a great ordeal for the pervert. Castration is here not the literal act but rather a metaphoric and psychical process. In the Oedipus Complex the child is bound to the mother in an incestuous union. This mother does not have to be the biological or legal mother (the Real mother), rather she i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part One The Homunculus
• Part Two The Regressive Apparatus
• Part Three The Hybrid Utopia
• References, Filmography, Studios, Digital Rights
• Index