Thoughts on "Unlearning the Myths That Bind Us"

Is this an acceptable depiction of a teenage girl or does it promote something unhealthy?

Linda Christensen builds off of the idea that children's stories and cartoons provide a "secret education" that shapes the perceptions children have about themselves and others.  She argues for an analysis of these shows to peel back what the "secret education" the shows give to children really is.  She emphasizes looking at what categories of humans are involved, what categories have what roles and what characteristics, how the different categories are portrayed, and what message might a child take away from the portrayals.  She also further argues for people to take action and bring attention to these subtle messages to the those who have more control, i.e the parents of the children who watch these shows, the writers, directors, and producers who have say in the content, the stations who show these shows ect.

My problem with promoting this idea of looking for inequalities, social injustices, and inadequate moral messages in cartoons is that it is ultimately based off of and focusing on your own interpretations first and foremost.  Sure, cartoons of the 40's will surly have caricatures of people's races that would not be acceptable by anyone today and anyone today can be justified for interpreting them as offensive.  However, watching "Duck Tales" and walking away with the idea that the show "teach[s] children that money is the only important thing in life" is just forcing a hidden message that does not exist.

Can people purposely instill a hidden takeaway in what they create or purposely portray things in a certain way to try to convince people that certain people are a certain way?  Yes people can.  But I do not think it is an intellectually healthy thing to start with that assumption and then look for the messages.  If you start with the assumption that there is a hidden message you can always find a hidden message.  That is why I do not support this approach.  Look at the whole story and characters as individuals first before you think there might be a sinister message.
 
 For example, if a black person is portrayed in a story as a gangster it does not necessarily mean the take away is "this promotes the idea that all black people are gangsters" it just shows that a black person can be a gangster.  That does not say much else about the character.  This is a lot different then a story that explicitly states that all black people are gangsters and shows that all black people in the story are irredeemable, selfish, gangsters. I think you would be justified to have the take away that the story "promotes the idea that all black people are gangsters" if the story was like that.

I know people will perhaps argue with "but this is what children take away from these portrays" I would argue that you don't necessarily know this.  If you ask a child what they thought about a tv show or cartoon you, unless you are feeding them answers, will probably just get the basic plot or funny moments from that show.  Here is an interesting question:  how much of what we think of the past is a product of beliefs we developed later on?  Perhaps when watching "Kim Possible" as a child you just focused on the action, comedy, or social relationships but now that you are older and, perhaps, have adopted the idea that society is forcing a certain image on you, you take away from "Kim Possible" that the show instilled in you an insecurity in your hips.  Perhaps it did.  Perhaps it did not.  But you can certainly use what you believe now to convince yourself of what influenced you in the past even if that was not necessarily the case.

That was just an example of a case of making something about your past true by simple believing it to be true.  I would love to talk more about this concept but I am running out of space.  I just want to say I see instances of being able to do this to myself.  I could pick an instance of something happening in my past, attach a belief that I have developed now to it, and come to the conclusion that I am a certain way because of that certain thing happening even though that may not necessarily be the case but I could certainly convince myself of that and no one would be able to argue against it as long as I believe it to be true.

Anyways,  I want to bring up an instance of an example of a hidden intention/message that people argue about and see what my mostly female class viewing it with "secret education" in mind think of it:

Here is the Disney retelling with animation of old "StarWars scenes":

Disney retelling of Luke, Han, and Chewy rescue of Leia

VS.

Actual scene of Leia rescue (start at 3:13) and Actual scene of Leia and Luke bridge sequence

Here is a question for class:  Can an interpretation be made for why the cartoon displays the scene the way it does?  If yes do you care/should people care?  Why or why not?