MovieChat Forums > Zootopia (2016) Discussion > What does Zootopia mean for our society?

What does Zootopia mean for our society?

posted 8 years ago by hookem-06915
5 replies | jump to latest

Zootopia is one of the most talked about movies in recent memory. Almost anyone who watches it knows that there's deep cultural meaning to it, but peopel have differing opinions about what this movie actually means for our society. It's truly polarizing. I'd like to explore a bit what this movie means and what its implications are in America.

First of all, what's the ideal being presented?

Clearly, the title is a play on words for utopia (ideal society). I believe that through this movie, Disney is making a statement as to what the ideal society is. Consider this from Judy's closing speech: "When I was a kid, I thought Zootopia was this perfect place where everyone got along and anyone could be anything." While she recognizes this is not reality, she clearly equates the "perfect place" with "anyone could be anything." Is this a true ideal? Think about the push in America today for tolerance and equality on all fronts. I would say that largely our culture embodies this same ideal. So does it work? Clearly, it didn't work in "Zootopia," as Judy alludes to at the end. But notice her solution: "The more we try to understand one another, the more exceptional each of us will be...Try to look inside yourself and see that change starts with you." So the way that we reach the ideal of a society where anyone can be anything they want is by understanding each other, looking inside ourselves, and recognizing that change starts with us as individuals. That's the logic of Zootopia; and it's the logic that America embraces today. The issue is oppression, and the answer is flourishing individualism.

Is this a legitimate solution?

First of all, I recognize that it is a legitimate issue. Oppression is not dead in America, and this is not acceptable for society. But is individuality really the legitimate solution? Is the ideal really a flourishing of the self. Notice the heroine's narrative: once she "throws off" all of the constraints that society puts on her, and encourages others to do the same (i.e. the fox) then they solve the issue and all is well. In other words, oppression is solved when everyone can just get along and tolerate each other. This raises a question, though: in the animal kingdom, isn't the natural tendency of the predators to feed on the prey? So clearly allowing the predator to be the truest version of himself would be a threat to Zootopia. So we're left with two solutions: either the animals are not a good allegory for the message, or the solution is faulty. I'm not saying that oppression is acceptable, but I am saying that this is certainly a faulty solution. What if the most authentic form of myself differs from the authentic form of someone else? According to Zootopia, I should recognize that something is oppressing me that is making me disagree and throw off whatever that is so I can rejoin the construct and "get with the program" in a sense. Zootopia is absolutely a system in which it demands that people submit to. This is why, for example, the construct of Christianity in America is being oppressed. If for one moment it disagrees with the Zootopic ideal, then the beliefs of Christians should be abandoned. Zootopia would see anything that constrains the individual as destructive. This, however is extremely oppressive. What if my ideal disagrees with someone else's? Then I must be wrong, right?

Then what is the legitimate solution?

The solution is not Zootopia, it's not individualism, and it's not this false view of tolerance. The individual is not the answer. We must recognize that we are part of a bigger story. The problem is when every person is the hero and king of his own little kingdom, then these kingdoms are bound to collide. I would submit that we must see ourselves as part of the grand narrative, and it's not Zootopia. We must recognize that we are not the hero, and neither is society. The problem is our individualism and the way to be free of that is to abandon this notion that I can be whatever I want and recognize that I am not the hero. Oppression itself rose out of individualism. The personal agenda of the oppressor conflicted with the personal agenda of the oppressed, and according to the logic of Zootopia, followed to its truest form, this cannot be rejected. The solution, then, is recognizing that the problem is that everyone of us wants to be the hero, but we must recognize that we are not all heroes. God is the hero, and we're a part of his story. The agenda is not our own, and we will see resolve if and only if we rid ourselves of our prideful individualism and submit to his way of doing things. I recognize that many people will disagree with this assertion, but to those who do I would ask, what is the solution? Because Zootopia is not it.

[–] FishFu 8 years ago

You raise an interesting point.

I will say that individualism has always been an ideal of America though as it promotes freedom (contrast to collectivism which does not), but I think what it means to be an individual has changed dramatically. Individualism used to apply to equal opportunity, but many are pushing for it to mean equal outcome.

People generally had similar aspirations at a time (The American Dream) and a humble respect for one's country, but now it's become a relativist stance to the point that people challenge any idea of societal conformity and call it oppressive; that having societal standards for how to conduct ones self are now bad things.

Also, I think the movie does bring up the failings of Judy's idealism. She admits that reality is messy and it's more complicated than a slogan. I find the message to be more general than that though, or at least in how it's being applied.

The movie also shows her working within the functions of the pre-existing society. The standards aren't lowered for her simply because she is small. A promotion of the individual would be to lower the standards to fit her needs. She is given a guarantee of equal opportunity by being allowed to enter the police training, but not equal outcome if she can't participate by a standard.

[–] loki-mir 8 years ago

I don't understand what you mean wirh heroism and God. You digress a bit, maybe. First of all sure there's a conflict between ideal utopia and reality, but it's not an essential theme as film enters the main plot. If there is a morale there many will easily say open your eyes, reality is a race for survival: no. Wrong. Morale there could be that we have to fight against an unjust reality and strive to be as close to a utopia as we can be (but utopias are communist talk and that's baaad). The important morale drawn cleverly from animals is that evolution means that biology doesn't control us anymore, that we are in control of our lives and actions and are responsible for them individually. For example here in Europe many say romanians are all the same, males drink, females are not to be trusted around someone else's husband, and often these and other people do "their typical" jobs: philippinos are good housekeepers, most romanian women are hired to take care of elders.

The film simply, and justly, negates all stereotypes, the racist connection that DNA=Behavior, while only conscience=behavior. Which btw also Shrek sort of did in the 2nd episode.

and ofc the war on stereoptypes (racist AND sexist) still rages on and unfortunately will for long. I am 37 years old, i'm a school teacher, and i really hope kids will defeat stereotypes; it seems Disney fiercely counts on it by waging direct war on them with these beautiful products (not to mention they make huge bank!)

[–] SuperBobster 8 years ago

What does it mean for our society?

It means another piece of top notch animation and story telling that brings joy and entertainment to millions.

[–] matt_shade 8 years ago

First of all, I recognize that it is a legitimate issue. Oppression is not dead in America, and this is not acceptable for society. But is individuality really the legitimate solution? Is the ideal really a flourishing of the self. Notice the heroine's narrative: once she "throws off" all of the constraints that society puts on her, and encourages others to do the same (i.e. the fox) then they solve the issue and all is well.

Society doesn't put constraints on people (you're social or you're not, if you're not you're deliberately distancing yourself from society), civilization does. Being civilized means constrained.

In other words, oppression is solved when everyone can just get along and tolerate each other. This raises a question, though: in the animal kingdom, isn't the natural tendency of the predators to feed on the prey?

Yes, but the point is the animals of Zootopia are no longer the animal kingdom just like humans are no longer simply another species of primates. The Stone Age lasted ca 3.4 million years and ended ca 5,000 years ago.

So clearly allowing the predator to be the truest version of himself would be a threat to Zootopia.

Except they were drugged. Even a rabbit went savage under the influence of the drug.

So we're left with two solutions: either the animals are not a good allegory for the message, or the solution is faulty.

Your interpretation of the intended basic message of the story is faulty.

According to Zootopia, I should recognize that something is oppressing me that is making me disagree and throw off whatever that is so I can rejoin the construct and "get with the program" in a sense. Zootopia is absolutely a system in which it demands that people submit to.

No, according to Zootopia judging people by the idea of "It's their nature!" is inaccurate and leads to a lot of problems (Nick Wilde) and giving people the chance to follow their dream/heart/individual nature can lead to greatness (Judy Hopps).

That's the idea but the city of Zootopia is not "demanding people submit to it" unless you consider that's what Judy Hopps is doing to the elephant selling icecream.

This is why, for example, the construct of Christianity in America is being oppressed. If for one moment it disagrees with the Zootopic ideal, then the beliefs of Christians should be abandoned. Zootopia would see anything that constrains the individual as destructive. This, however is extremely oppressive. What if my ideal disagrees with someone else's? Then I must be wrong, right?

Inaccurate about what? Your ideal at the moment is your ideal at the moment.

The solution is not Zootopia, it's not individualism, and it's not this false view of tolerance. The individual is not the answer. We must recognize that we are part of a bigger story. The problem is when every person is the hero and king of his own little kingdom, then these kingdoms are bound to collide. I would submit that we must see ourselves as part of the grand narrative, and it's not Zootopia. We must recognize that we are not the hero, and neither is society.

We "must" nothing. Mankind could have gone extinct 3 million years ago and the universe would have carried on without us.

God is the hero, and we're a part of his story.

Which god? Again, mankind is ca 3.4 million years old and homo sapiens sapiens ca 200,000 years old. We've invented a lot of deities over the millennia.

Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706

[–] greyhelm-91337 8 years ago

You're taking a silly movie, where animals that live by killing others magically don't need to any more, way too seriously. A pretty terrible analogy for Disney to use actually.