ABSTRACT
In this chapter, I begin an examination of the writings of various authors on the Disney theme parks. The aim is to explore the kinds of issues that these authors see as deriving from the parks-what they have made of the parks. Inevitably, my own observations will intrude, but the main aim will be to concentrate on what others have seen as significant and interesting. The writers represent a very diverse group. We find those who are unabashed enthusiasts and those who are inveterate detractors. The latter tend to decry the world of Disney as kitsch, shallow culture, as when Apple writes of the post-Salk vaccine era of Disneyland leading to ‘a paralysis of taste’ (1983:166). For the novelist Julian Halevy, in Disneyland as in other Disney products everything has been ‘reduced to a sickening blend of cheap formulas packaged to sell’ and he felt ‘sadness for the empty lives which accept such tawdry substitutes’ (1958:511). The enthusiasts have often waxed lyrical about the imaginativeness and innovativeness of the parks, with architects frequently being at the forefront of such enthusiasm. But this has by no means been the only dimension on which commentators have differed. They have often varied in terms of the intellectual traditions with which they have been associated. In the commentaries on the parks we find a wide diversity indeed, including semiotics (Eco, 1986; Gottdiener, 1982; Mechling and Mechling, 1981), structuralism (Marin, 1984), postmodernism (Baudrillard, 1983; Fjellman, 1992; Stephanson, 1987), deconstructionism (Dennett, 1989), and analyses with fairly clear Marxist overtones (e.g. Bukatman, 1991; Wallace, 1985). Many other writers have exhibited no obvious theoretical commitments, preferring to reflect in a general way on the significance of the Disney parks. Thus, for King (1981) the parks represent ‘traditional values in futuristic form’, while for Moore (1980) and Kottak (1982) the visitor is a pilgrim. Still other writers have related the Disney parks to wider projects in which they are interested. Real depicts Disneyland as one of a number of forms of ‘mass-mediated culture’ in which various media ‘transmit in a mass manner from a single source to many anonymous receivers’ (1977:viii). Zukin (1991) depicts Disney World as an illustration of the operation of ‘landscapes of power’ in which the physical environment is underpinned by economic power. For Findlay (1992), Disneyland connects with his interest in ‘magic lands’, the innovations that he sees as having a profound impact on concepts of urban living after 1940. There is a further group of writings which seem to comprise fundamentally of observations about the parks but which have no obvious single theme or position. By far the most comprehensive and best treatment of the parks is Fjellman (1992), which is
specifically about Disney World. It weighs in at nearly 500 pages and represents the most significant analysis available. It draws on ideas associated with postmodernism and consumerism, which are coupled with detailed, travel-book descriptions of rides and attractions.
