When I first started reading "Applying for the Position of Princess: Race, Labor, and the Privileging of Whiteness in the Disney Princess Line," I questioned
Condis’s argument. She argues that white princesses achieve princesshood by
freeing themselves from labor, whereas princesses of color continue to live in
a life of labor even once they are princesses.
I immediately began listing all the princesses in my head
and their statuses as laborers. Cinderella, Aurora, and Snow White all freed
themselves from forced labor. That was easy; they support Condis’s argument
because they are the first-wave princesses, so no surprises there. Ariel has
never worked a day in her life, and neither has Belle, Jasmine, or Pocahontas. The
only princesses that do any form of work are Mulan and Tiana. Furthermore,
Tiana is the only one that explicitly labors as a goal. Her dream is to open
her own restaurant, and she explicitly works hard toward it. Upon my own
conclusions, I did not agree with Condis’s argument…not until I started reading
her explanations. Even then, she hasn’t fully convinced me.
Condis starts out with her definition of Disney’s definition
of princesshood (so many definitions). She defines “princess” in terms of the
first-wave princesses: beautiful, young, and white women who live lives of
romance and leisure. The problem I have with this definition is that, while it
is accurate for the traditional perception of princess, it is only accurate for
the traditional princess. It assumes the definition of princess is static. Who
is to say that the definition of princess has not changed over the years? Or at
least Disney’s definition? I definitely think that Disney’s definition of
princess has changed over the years.
Condis then begins to examine each Disney princess and their
labor statuses. She quickly concludes that the Cinderella and Snow White work
against their will, and only after they are freed from their labor are they
princesses. She makes an interesting point about Aurora, however. Aurora is
raised without a need to work, but meets her demise when she pricks her finger
on a spinning wheel, which Condis claims is a symbol of labor. This confines
her to a comatose state, comparable to being enslaved by labor, and must be
freed by a prince, which instills her princesshood. I can buy that argument because
the spinning wheel always seemed arbitrary to me, and that explanation gives it
meaning.
However, I find fault with Condis’s explanations of Ariel
and Belle’s statuses. Condis claims that Ariel rebels against her father
because she doesn’t want to work as a singer in the royal concert, and in the
end, Triton releases her from working “as a representative of the merfolk
government” (31). I think this is a stretch. Nowhere in the film does Ariel
have a “job.” Her singing is not a job; it is her identity. She is good at it
and enjoys it. Furthermore, Triton’s motives for not wanting Ariel to leave
were not because he wanted her to work in their “merfolk government.” It is
clearly a father-daughter relationship. The closest relation to labor in The Little Mermaid I can think of is in
Sebastian’s song, “Under the Sea,” when he sings “up on the shore they work all
day, out in the sun they slave away,” referencing human life above the sea.
This could point to the expectation that mermaid princesses, and princesses in
general, should not be laboring, but Condis doesn’t even bring this point up.
I also have a problem with Condis’s explanation for Belle.
She claims that it is Belle’s job to tame the Beast, and she rejects that job
until it becomes easy for her, i.e. when she falls in love with him. That
statement just seems wrong to me. First, it is never a woman’s job to change
someone. Second, doesn’t the curse place the burden of work on the Beast? He is
supposed to be the only looking past surface looks and changing himself, not
Belle. Plus, I think it’s very fair to dislike someone who is rude to you and
your father. Therefore, Ariel and Belle’s characterizations as disliking labor
fall.
Lastly, Condis’s analyses of the four princesses of color
irk me. Her dismissal of Jasmine as whitewashed has some basis of truth, but
she is still clearly of color and doesn’t like to labor, so to me, Condis’s
argument is a cop-out to not deal with Jasmine’s clear opposition to her overarching
argument. As for Mulan, I somewhat disagree with the statement that Mulan
rejects feminine labor for masculine labor. I don’t think it’s as direct of a
causation as Condis seems to put it. Mulan doesn’t immediately switch out one
for the other; rather, through her love for her father, she realizes she can
escape feminine labor through masculine labor as an alternative. I do agree
that this point supports Condis’s argument that the princesses of color enjoy
labor. However, in the end, Mulan still rejects working in the government and retreats
to a life of leisure at home.
The greatest point that Condis convinced me of is Pocahontas’s
continuity of labor. I had never viewed Pocahontas as a laborer, but Condis’s
evidence of her athletic body, the scene of her picking corn, and her new position
in place of her late mother, convinced me that she did do work. Furthermore,
she chooses to stay behind and care for her tribe, another form of labor,
instead of living a leisurely, white life with John Smith.
I also fully agree with the argument about Tiana, but I
wonder how much of this is coincident. Both diversification and emphasis on
actively taking charge of your own life are on an upward trend. Maybe, just
maybe these two ideas are at a crossroad and show up in the same movie. I am
interested to see what Moana brings
to this debate about labor.
No comments:
Post a Comment