The Lion King is Patriarchal? Critical Theory, Here We Go Again... | BreadBusting #13

Welcome to BreadBusting, where we attempt to examine the problematic ideas that come out of BreadTube, and the ideology of Breadism more generally. Basically, it's like Myth Busting, but for Breadism. We also talk about BreadTube adjacent phenomenon, that is, things that fans of BreadTube also happen to like or support, or have a strong opinion on.

The release of the remake of Disney's Lion King, coming 25 years after the original release, was greeted with excitement in many places. This is especially true of people around my age, many for whom back in 1994 The Lion King was one of their first movies. But just like everything in 2019, the culture wars are threatening to devour and ruin this classic too. In the wake of the remake, some feminists have raised concerns about The Lion King being supposedly patriarchal. Now, I can hear the trouble brewing, and screams of 'not again' from everyone. Most of us probably don't want another round of the good old SJW vs anti-SJW stuff that most people are probably tired of hearing about by now. Especially not to ruin a childhood classic.

But is The Lion King patriarchal? Let's examine some of those claims. The first claim is that lions are matrilineal, thus a realistic story about lions should feature a matrilineal society. Since The Lion King doesn't do this, it must be assuming patriarchal values. The second claim is that The Lion King features very few prominent female characters, especially by contemporary standards. But then, I think you need to understand that The Lion King is based on Shakespeare's Hamlet, which means that it's not meant to accurately reflect lions in nature, and it's not going to reflect 21st century pop culture feminism's standards either. As many have argued, forcing it to do either of these things would probably destroy the plot. Thinking about it from another angle, if The Lion King is problematic, then Shakespeare is problematic, and that is a stance that would go against many generations of literary consensus. Besides, there were no 'Lion King is patriarchal' complains back in 1994. Therefore, the idea that The Lion King is patriarchal and problematic reflects some very recent change in the perspective of some sections of society, and it's a fundamental change that goes against both the social consensus of many generations past, and even the social consensus of a time as recent as the 1990s.

I guess this shows that, the worries of many people that contemporary wokeness is out to destroy some aspects of our long-standing shared culture, can be seen as a valid concern, at least to some degree. As I often say, I totally support human rights and social justice as it is traditionally defined, but I have several major problems with the 'woke' ideology. One of those problems is the Critical Theory worldview, a worldview that informs a lot of the so-called 'woke' discourse, and also many of the common BreadTube perspectives. For those who are unfamiliar with such jargonistic terms, Critical Theory is an approach to examine society based on the belief that change is needed to liberate people from oppression, and that philosophical theory should not just examine society but should provide the needed change. Sounds noble, right? It's not so simple, though.

The problem is, if we always look at things from this viewpoint, we end up assuming that things are oppressive way too often. Instead of only seeing oppression when people actually complain there is oppression, those who see things through Critical Theory glasses see the potential for oppression in almost every situation. There are several pitfalls with this approach. Firstly, this creates a strong tendency to justify the dismantling and destruction of whatever culture we have. This is further compounded by the fact that Critical Theory culture often incorporates elements of Antonio Gramsci's theory of Cultural Hegemony, which further paints existant culture in an inherently bad light. We end up with an attitude that everything is bad, everything is problematic. We end up in a state of effective cultural nihilism, which is not healthy for either individuals or society as a whole. Secondly, the focus on critiquing existing things channels our energy into being against what is there, rather than looking to create what is not yet there. We need to remember that, most human rights advances in history have come during times of positive imagination, not times of negative introspection. For example, if feminists feel that The Lion King doesn't reflect their narrative or their ideals, they are welcome to create something like The Leopard Queen for example. To heavily focus on critique is to waste energy that could be channeled into more creative and constructive activities. Finally, the collective anxiety generated from destroying the things that people used to value, the things that used to connect us as a community, leads to increased conflict and weakens the social fabric. This eventually brings political instability, which risks descending into complete chaos. Students of early 20th century political history would know how dangerous that can be.

That's all for today. I'll be back next time to discuss another big idea. Subscribe if you want to follow our story. The transcripts are available on my website. And remember to resist the hive mind and stay individualistic. The world depends on it.