As a rabbit, Judy has been told since childhood: Don’t dream!
The fox laughed at her dreams, and her parents tried to dispel her dreams, so all hope was pinned on the Zootopia, which claimed to be "everything is possible".
But what about the facts? When the chief of police was only willing to hand over the ticketing task to Judy, when she tore open the shrinking carrot snack box, the Statue of Liberty drifted away in New York Harbor. The fragmentation of the American dream, this is the first layer of the fable.
When Judy overcame the discrimination from the outside world and finally successfully solved the case and proved the narrowness of racial prejudice, he attributed the crime to the innate DNA of different races on the stage of the press conference.
People panic for a while. As a victim of species prejudice, Judy, who most strongly advocates species equality, at this time personally used the same prejudice to repeat childhood discrimination.
Only this time she became the perpetrator. In other words, even deep in the hearts of victims of discrimination, there may be deep prejudice against other species. Is the so-called discrimination itself a cognitive method deeply ingrained in everyone's ideology? In other words, is it unavoidable for humans to use Stereotype's type of thinking to recognize? This is the second floor of the fable.
The boldest stroke in the whole movie is the conspiracy of the deputy mayor of Sheep. Personally, I think it was this pen that made a simple "political correctness" cartoon leap into a critique that reflects on the power and the right to speak.
Sheep, herbivores, have always been on the weak side of the power structure. When the sheep, who has been on the weak side, has the right to speak, they must step on the other side to climb to the top.
What she wants is not "fairness" or "equality", but for reshuffling the cards and letting herself stand on top of power. After the victims of discrimination have vested interests, will they form a new discourse relationship against the new disadvantaged groups? Are we longing for "equal rights" and "rights", or "power"? This is the third layer of the fable.
Therefore, any disadvantaged group faces only two paths: fight for their own rights and fight for universal freedom and equality.
At this year's Oscars, the black host Chris Rock protested against the weakness of black actors while applying the stereotype of racial prejudice to Asians.
They sent us the most dedicated, accurate and hard-working representatives.
If anybody is upset about that joke, just tweet about it on your phone that was also made by these kids.
They sent the most serious, meticulous and hard-working representatives.
If you are dissatisfied with my joke, just post it online~ Anyway, the mobile phones are also made by these children.
Two issues are involved here.
(1) As a disadvantaged group in the past, blacks have finally won some status for themselves in decades of affirmative movement. Nowadays, some blacks have squeezed other minorities in various civil rights movements—becoming the most important people in the past. Detestable suppressor. The host who told Asian jokes at the Oscars was a typical "I already have the right to speak, now let me bully you".
This corresponds to the actions of the Mayor of Sheep. On the one hand, it is the revenge and overcorrection after the rise of the long-term disadvantaged group, and it is more the desire for “power” buried deep in human nature than the demand for “right”. Even at the cost of a new nightmare.
(2) When many Americans think of blacks, they are "high crime rates, well-developed limbs and simple minds", but when they think of Asians, they are "math, physics, nerds, and dog-eaters." Many people think that the former is intolerable "discrimination", while the latter is "bias." But how is discrimination and prejudice divided?
When people think that rabbits are "incapable of being a good policeman" and foxes are "cunning", what counts as discrimination and which counts as prejudice? And when Judy said that the DNA of carnivores had "barbaric" tendencies, the boundaries between discrimination and prejudice became more blurred.
There is actually only a fine line from the "factual description" of DNA differences to the "moral judgmental description" of differences in personality, ability, and character.
There is another extreme here. In the 21st season of "South Park", in order to maintain his personality (in fact, he is pursuing the so-called political correctness), the second dad gained sympathy from relatives and friends around him and advocated indigenous. In fact, he was a fan of Columbus, but For the so-called PC, the second dad kissed the Indian uncle twice during the DNA test (spit sampling). Later, when the people in the laboratory wanted to take anal sampling, something indescribable happened...Finally, the DNA detected that the second dad was actually on his body. There is a Neanderthal blood that is more than ordinary, and the second father began to hysterically yell: It is you modern people who murdered my ancestors, and I am the biggest victim! In fact, the amazing behavior of the second father is not because of the fact that the DNA difference implies the moral superiority brought by the typical victim mentality. Isn't this the typical attitude between Jews and Germans after World War II? From physiological differences to moral judgments, there are so many natural and artificial prejudices...
From "women have fertility" to "women are not suitable to be business leaders", how many of these are natural constitutional differences, and how many are the differences that have been instilled in us by the long-term social mindset?
Going back to the two paths mentioned above: pursuing your own rights, pursuing universal freedom and equality.
The former appeals to politics, while the latter requires the ideological enlightenment of the entire society.
The question facing the first path is: if each ethnic group/individual has the ultimate goal of pursuing individual rights, will the ethnic group that has obtained the rights become the next sheep to abuse power? Please note that rights and power are two concepts.
Take the black movement as an example. For some blacks, striving for racial equality was only the initial slogan. After they worked hard and tasted the sweetness, the direction of the movement was no longer racial equality, but to fight for equality between blacks and whites, and other races should Those who are discriminated against are still discriminated against. When the banner of Black Lives Matter was planted everywhere in the United States, All Lives Matter has been accused of being politically incorrect in refusing to face racial discrimination.
The second way is much more difficult. After all, talking about enlightenment has become a street mouse, and everyone is shouting!
Tsk tusk tusk, all universal values are the product of Western-centrism colonial thinking.
"Everyone lives by themselves", but the rigid thinking in their bones is the main framework for many people to understand the world. These people inevitably love to label: women are irrational, southerners are shrewd, post-90s all love selfies, artists are mentally abnormal, Virgo There is a habit of cleanliness...Everyone has a tendency to put others in a stereotype, but the more you fully understand human nature, the more you can understand the inevitability of human nature and all the possibilities of freedom with openness.
However, Foucault tells us that without power, there is no right to speak. People who do not have the right to speak have no real spiritual freedom. What they obtain is only the knowledge defined by those who have the right to speak. Therefore, they have no right to define themselves, and they can only live under what others define themselves. Therefore, rights and power cannot be separated.
This truth has been demonstrated very clearly in the history of feminism for more than 200 years. As a woman "defined" under the dominance of patriarchal discourse, she has no right to refute society's stereotypes of herself, and she also unconsciously identifies herself with such stereotypes. Therefore, the phrase "a woman must marry a good man is successful" is not a man imposed on a woman, but a man and a woman are taught, believed, and maintained together to continue.
The only thing that can break this chain is the guarantee of rights. Only with equal rights to education and work can we have the right to speak, achieve spiritual and personality independence, and have due power.
Correspondingly, the ideological emancipation of racial equality is inseparable from rights. The job opportunities and educational opportunities that the blacks fight for are to make up for the power differences brought about by their class differences. Only with jobs and the right to speak can we talk about eliminating discrimination.
So what white people want is fairness, and what black people want is equality. Because if rights are fairly distributed according to power, then black people will never make their heads.
But the problem is that when black people fight for equality, they actually want more equality. Equality cannot be achieved without power, and equality cannot be guaranteed with power. This is truly an eternal contradiction.
The ideological realm required by universal equality is too high, and the desire for power itself in human nature is far stronger than the universal freedom that most people can understand in the ideological realm. A simple and inappropriate example is that if everyone has the opportunity to accept bribes in their power, it is hard to guarantee how many people will commit crimes.
Therefore, the reason why the second path is difficult and difficult is that apart from the vested interests' reluctance to break the class barriers, the ills of human nature itself is also a major factor.
Judy and the deputy mayor of Sheep are both formerly disadvantaged ethnic groups. When the deputy mayor of Sheep found out that he had been exposed, he still told Judy that we are on the same boat and hoped to win over Judy. In the end, without Judy's credit, the deputy mayor of Sheep would not be brought to justice.
In my understanding, this film gave a tentative answer after reflection: Maybe the affirmative movement should go hand in hand with the emancipation of mind and the equality of rights. Only by recognizing the freedom and equality behind the differences can power serve freedom and equality instead of using power to create more discrimination.
View more about Zootopia reviews
