Calling All Intellectuals-- Disney Senior Political Science Thesis

[Wick]

Hey guys-
I am a senior in college majoring in political science. I love Disney and I love politics; thus, for my senior thesis, I am attempting to bridge the two (hopefully the department chair will approve).
I will focus on the relationship between WDW (and Disney as a whole) and the state of Florida. I want to analyze the political link between Walt and his team with the 1967 Florida state legislature and how that link is maintained today. My hypothesis is that Disney used the Florida project (particularly with the original concept of Epcot, now manifested through Celebration) as a springboard to globalization. I want to analyze the relationship between Disney's activities in Florida and its implications worldwide, as Disney has now become a leading conglomerate wielding a strong international presence, joining the ranks of other major American companies abroad. Some questions to be investigated:

Does the Disney organization and its presence in Florida operate as a de facto state-within-a-state?
Is Disney a franchise-state? What were some of the political obstacles in establishing the Reedy Creek Improvement District...the city of Bay Lake... the city of Buena Vista...Celebration?
How has Disney modeled new urbanism with respect to community development?
How necessary was WDW to Florida in 1967? How necessary is it today?

Does Disney contribute to an American identity, or does it merely encompass a pre-existing one? How is this identity perceived on the global market? Positives and Negatives?
How has Disney contributed to globalization and the "McWorld" phenomenon?

Any suggestions/comments/thoughts/input will be greatly appreciated. I wanted to do something completely original with respect to political science, without straying too far from the impossible.
I have a laundry list of books to be used, but any titles I may not have come across would be awesome.

Thanks!

 

[zcasper]

Definitely checkout:

Walt Disney and the Quest for Community, Steve Mannheim, 2003
Vinyl Leaves, Stephen M. Fjellman, 1992

Vinyl Leaves is great for the socialogy perspective. Quest for Community dives into the details of Ready Creek.

Zach

 

[FutureMrsC]

I'd love to read it when you're finished! As for sources, I'm having trouble coming up with any at the moment ... but congrats, that sounds like a wonderful thesis and should be most interesting for anyone to read!

 

[vonpluto]

More Disney books than you can shake a library card at:

http://pizarro.net/didier/

You might consider contacting these guys:

http://www.state.fl.us/rcid/Bldg&Safety/Epcot Bks.htm

 

[Wick]

zcasper- I've got Vinyl Leaves, but that Quest for Community book sure is hard to come by! I ran some online searches of NYC public libraries and haven't found a copy anywhere. Amazon sells it for a pricey 60 bucks, which I'm willing to pay, but it takes 4-6 weeks for them to ship it out. I suppose I could wait that long but I'd rather not, especially since it seems like such a GREAT source.

FutureMrsC- Will gladly forward you a copy once I've got a decent draft! I'd love to hear some constructive criticism...

and Pluto- AWESOME links dude! those Epcot building codes are sure to be of great help.

 

[DancingBear]

Married to the Mouse by Folglesong goes extensively into the political angles of WDW's development. Folglesong's contention is that Disney (the company and Walt personally) used the premise of building E.P.C.O.T., a real city with real citizens, as the reason for getting the extraordinary powers which were granted by the legislation that created the RCID, even though they knew that they really weren't going to build it.

Disney contended that all of the powers that the RCID was being given had been given before to various special political districts, just not all at once to one district.

I think it's a very interesting study in ceding governmental powers to a private developer. I'm not sure I buy the argument of WDW being a springboard to The Walt Disney Company becoming a global conglomerate; seems to me that was a product of the Eisner era acquisitiveness.

 

[TheDogbots]

Good to see other scholars looking at Disney. I am a historian, but I have overlapped some of the questions you have asked in this post... thought I would briefly weigh in.

"Does Disney contribute to an American identity, or does it merely encompass a pre-existing one?"

I actually just wrote a term paper on that, well almost, I stopped with Walt's death because it was more about him then the company, but still it is the same until he dies pretty much. I came to the conclusion that yes, Disney did have a great impact on American culture and identity. For example, so many Americans had "Uncle Walt" as a role model every afternoon. I am not at home, but when I get home I will send you via PM the sources i used for this paper...

I have also looked at the multiculturalism behind epcot... I think that it may have some useful sources for you too, and will send that bibliography along also.

I don't know if you would find much use out of any of my other papers on Disney... but I will send you my complete bibliography. Maybe there is something you don't have already on there.

Make sure to contact the archives, I am sure they would be more then willing to help you.

 

[Jason71]

Not sure it is still in print, but definitely try to find Team Rodent by Carl Hiasaan (yes, the same guy who writes crime novels). A non-fiction book detailing WDW's relationship with FL--a breezy read, but still well-cited and should have a good biblography.

 

[DancingBear]

I misspelled the name of the author of Married to the Mouse, it's Foglesong.

 

[kpm76]

Married to the Mouse is the definitive political piece to read. You should also consider THe Unofficial Disney Companion by Zibart and Inside the Mouse.

Also, the following question "How has Disney modeled new urbanism with respect to community development?" may lead you astray. That is a huge question - a thesis on its own. You might want to condier the question is a bit of a simpler term - How and why did Disney do what it did to get the "Florida Project" off the ground? - instead of what they did after it was off the ground.

However, the creation and function of an essentially corporate owned municipal district within the borders of an otherwise free state is an interesting question as well.

Have fun with it!

 

[ChrisFL]

Married to the Mouse by Folglesong goes extensively into the political angles of WDW's development. Folglesong's contention is that Disney (the company and Walt personally) used the premise of building E.P.C.O.T., a real city with real citizens, as the reason for getting the extraordinary powers which were granted by the legislation that created the RCID, even though they knew that they really weren't going to build it.

So you're saying that they set up RCID even though they knew they weren't building E.P.C.O.T. the city? I seriously doubt that. From everything I've read, the city was fully planned to be built, but Walt's death, plus some other uncertanties left Disney unsure if they could do it.

 

[Wick]

Hey guys! All your info has been great and reading it from other Disney fans surely keeps me focused. I have already assembled a large collection of books and scholarly articles (about 20 in all) dealing SOLELY with Disney (other parts of my bibliography will derive from general political science texts). I acquired Married to the Mouse via amazon on a next-day order after I concluded it would be essential to my paper. I'm about half way finished reading it and it is FASCINATING (so much so that I've contacted Dr. Foglesong thru his university email).

Dogbot- I am particularly interested in papers you have written- please PM me when you get a chance!

Kpm76- I totally see your point. The chairperson of politial science at my college expressed the same notion when I presented my idea. Your perspective helps me stay focused on the real task at hand- a thesis paper, not a book.

Also...

So you're saying that they set up RCID even though they knew they weren't building E.P.C.O.T. the city? I seriously doubt that. From everything I've read, the city was fully planned to be built, but Walt's death, plus some other uncertanties left Disney unsure if they could do it.

According to research and evidence supported by Foglesong in Married to the Mouse, it seems as though Epcot as a true residence (in its original form) may have been an honest attempt by the Disney team at first, but later rolled back (even while Walt was still alive). Walt had expressed the serious problem of democracy and voter control in the potential city of Epcot.

 

[DancingBear]

So you're saying that they set up RCID even though they knew they weren't building E.P.C.O.T. the city? I seriously doubt that. From everything I've read, the city was fully planned to be built, but Walt's death, plus some other uncertanties left Disney unsure if they could do it.

Foglesong points to internal discussions, and in particular to a notation which Walt himself made where he crossed out "residents" (or maybe the word was "citizens") and wrote in "guests," to indicate that Disney never really intended to have real full-time voting citizens.

I don't know of any plans for E.P.C.O.T. that went very far past the conceptual stages--certainly it wasn't "fully planned" in the sense that developers would use the term.

Walt may have truly believed in E.P.C.O.T., but I think it's not unreasonable to think that a lot of the Disney folks found that whole idea daunting in the least. But they didn't hesitate to use Walt's E.P.C.O.T. film in their presentations to politicians and others.

 

[Another Voice]

Okay – so I’ve trying to find the time to write a thought-out, well written answer to the questions, but I just can’t get a break. So here are some scatter shot comments:

Epcot wasn’t designed as a housing track. From the beginning it was a tourist destination and the “center” of the Disney World development. Its residence were to be employees at Disney facilities and employees at the showcase industrial park. It wasn’t a “city” were anyone could just buy a house and move to – it was a demonstration project. The best analogy I can come up with are those fake villages that sprout up around ski lifts. Sure, you can rent “condos” and there’s a “town” with shops restaurants and some people actually “live” there, but it’s still not a real, growing, living city.

The idea of Disney World’s industrial park is, in a lot of ways, just like Silicon Valley. It was going to be a place were businesses and capital could come together and work closely with each other. Plus it had a eager test market right next door, Epcot. This is an idea that’s become very successful, from high tech to bio-tech these kinds of “incubators” are popping up all over the country. Imagine what could have happened with a forty-year head start.

From what I’ve read of the company history and what I’ve been able to pick up, there are four distinct phases in the development of Disney World/Epcot. Phase One was Walt. He was very determined on the idea of a large scale development in Florida. He cared mostly about Epcot; the theme park was just the tourist attraction to fund everything. Walt himself always wanted to move onto the “next project”. Having done a theme park, he really wanted to take the concepts and ideas he developed at Disneyland and apply them to the “real world”. In my opinion, he also wanted a legacy as a real innovator – not a guy who drew a cartoon mouse. Epcot was his way of leaving something permanent, important and living.

But Walt died very soon after planning had begun. The people that followed him wanted to continue the original plans, but they doubted their ability to pull it off. So they did want any bureaucracy does – they punted. They focused first on the theme park section of the development and told themselves they’d get to the rest “later”. They made some side attempts at smaller Epcot-like projects: there was a plan for several industrial pavilions at one time, Epcot’s downtown “World Showcase” was redesigned as a second park, and the Disney Village was constructed as a vacation home and condo development – but the company got cold feet and opened it up as a hotel.

The third phase began when Disney got regained some of its confidence and returned to a much better financial position. But at the same time the company grew more financially conservative. While the company wanted to expand, it no longer wanted to risk everything on a single project – Walt was a risk taker, Card Walker wasn’t. The idea for Epcot remained around, but it was revised. Instead of residents, each guest was to be a “temporary citizen”. A lot of WDW had already been constructed with Epcot-style innovations and technologies. The idea was to simply expand the entire property along those lines. The overriding goal was that Walt Disney World was to serve as an example of what was possible to achieve.

But much like the real Epcot, this idea was cut short. The management of Disney was thrown out by Roy E. Disney and Michael Eisner was hired to run the company. Eisner hated the theme parks. He never got their appeal and looked down upon the people who went there. Instead of WDW being a giant project, it was nothing but a profit center in his vast media empire – or more accurately it was a marketing tool to promote his more lucrative and interesting movies & television divisions. In particular Eisner passionately hated EPCOT Center. One of his first acts was to try and sell the park (he was eventually talked out of it). The only goal of WDW was to return as much cash as possible to Corporate – demonstrations, innovation and other [I can’t use the term Eisner used] was eliminated. WDW became just another tourist spot.

More to follow.

P.S. There are two more books that should be mentioned, but I’ll have to dig them out first. One is a detailed analysis of EPCOT (I think it was a PhD disteration). It corrects a lot of the errors found in Married to the Mouse. The second is another scholorary work that looks specifically at Disney’s impact on American culture. The thesis is that Disney helped America in the mid-20th Century make the transition from a rural society into an urban/suburban one. The book argues that Disney was able to express key element of the American rural identity and then modify them over time to fit an urban and industrial lifestyle.

 

[All Aboard]

The second is another scholorary work that looks specifically at Disney’s impact on American culture.

This one?

 

[DancingBear]

P.S. There are two more books that should be mentioned, but I’ll have to dig them out first. One is a detailed analysis of EPCOT (I think it was a PhD disteration). It corrects a lot of the errors found in Married to the Mouse.

That would be interesting to see; I remember as I read that book thinking that a few things seemed to be not quite right.

 

[Another Voice]

The book about EPCOT:

Walt Disney and the Quest for Community by Steve Mannheim.

http://www.amazon.com/Disney-Quest-...f=sr_1_33/002-2288177-2170460?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

[Wick]

Ah, yes, I've been desperately trying to get my hands on the Mannheim book. Seems as though it would take about six weeks to order through amazon though.

On a positive note: Dazzled by Disney by Janet Wasko arrived today (via eBay). I skimmed thru it and it appears it will be just as useful as MTTM.
Will keep you all posted.

 

[Another Voice]

The social history book on Disney is The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life by Steven Watts (http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Kingdom...=pd_bbs_1/002-0058869-5963264?ie=UTF8&s=books )

The book’s closing is the single best “words of advice” for anyone studying Walt, The Company and their impact on us:

In the middle of Snow White and the Seven Drarfs, Dopey, whose inability to talk only enhances his expressive powers, picks up a large diamond from the underground mine and stares into it. He reacts with childlike wonder as his face, reflected on the jewel’s brilliant planes, fragments into a dozen facets.

This image suggests the difficulty of coming to terms with Walt Disney: when you hold him up for observation, may things appear, depending on the angle of sight. But regardless of where you stand, ultimately this legendary figure must be seen as a major architect of modern American culture. As the United States ascended into a great power and prominence in the middle decades of the twentieth century, a sparsely educated but highly imaginative Midwesterner emerged as perhaps the preeminent interpreter of its fantasy life.

The result — an idealized version of America rendered in Walt Disney’s magic kingdom — may be deemed simply silly or contemptible, as some have done, or enchanting and reassuring as many more have decided. Like most dreams, however, it is probably best described as simultaneously delightful and distressing, evocative and unsettling.

.

The single most important thing to keep in mind, I my opinion, is the difference between Walt Disney Productions and The Walt Disney Company. “Productions” implies a work, an effort. Walt was a showman, he was a creator. What “Disney” made during that time was his vision; Walt offered up his dreams and his fantasies to the public as best he understood himself and what people wanted to see. Disney of that time was the work of an artist.

The last twenty years saw The Walt Disney Company. As impersonal as “Company” is, so too did the company become. While there were individuals who tried to act as artists, as individual dreamers, overall the company became a manufacturer of products. In place of personal efforts, it products became corporative and mass produced. Walt had an innate trust and confidence in the American people. That allowed him to risk and to dream and to lead. The people that created The Company felt themselves superior to their audience. They sought only money and could only achieve it through pandering.

With the loss of respect and connection to the public, The Walt Disney Company lost its soul. While The Company can market a billion dollar movie and convince thousands to trade shiny pins, - in the end all they really do is to convince people to consume.

But they can no longer capture the real heart of America.



P.S. ‘Dazzled’, seems like it’s one of the standard “Disney is a metaphor for the evilness of western capitalism” books that takes old papers about "policital economy" and subsitutes "globalization" and ends up with little to do wtih Disney.

 

[DancingBear]

P.S. ‘Dazzled’, seems like it’s one of the standard “Disney is a metaphor for the evilness of western capitalism” books that takes old papers about "policital economy" and subsitutes "globalization" and ends up with little to do wtih Disney.

Yeah, like "Inside the Mouse," which is a clumsy attack on consumerism.