What’cha doin’?
Moral actions in Disney’s
Phineas and Ferb
K. Chittick // Grade: 7 MA Media Studies - Television and Cross-Media Culture Graduate School of Humanities, University of Amsterdam Date of completion - June 26, 2017 Supervisor Joke Hermes Second reader Sudeep Dasgupta Word count 17.613 [disclaimer] Without the supervision of the profound and lovely Joke Hermes, this would have NEVER been finished. I’m eternally in her debt because of her infinite believe in my capabilities [disclaimer]Table of content Introduction 3 Chapter one - Moral significance of popular children’s television 7 Chapter two – Children, television, and morality 11 2.1 A historical view of children’s television 11 2.2 Morally justifiable violence 15 2.3 Moral allegiance 15 Chapter three - Moral theory 18 3.1 The fragility of goodness 19 3.2 The development of moral reasoning 20 3.2.1 The highest stage of moral development 22 Chapter four – Phineas and Ferb 25 Chapter five – Candace 30 Chapter six – Dr. Doofenshmirtz 25 Conclusion and recommendations 39 Bibliography
Introduction
Growing up in a family of five with large age differences has always been interesting. Six years younger than my only older sibling, however nineteen years older than my youngest brother has made me experience childlike activities multiple times. One of the things that I enjoy much is that stay up to date about (new) media and how they play a part in the daily lives of my younger brothers. Watching an ‘old’ childhood movie together that is nostalgic for me yet a complete new experience for them, while getting disappointed that they don’t seem to enjoy it as much as I did. Me being confused about the attraction of online unboxing videos which they seem to enjoy greatly… We do also enjoy the same things, like some of the cartoons that are being made today. Phineas and Ferb is one of those cartoons that we all like to watch, and we do so together. The three of us sitting in front of the TV, while I encourage them to discuss what we are watching.
A comparison of us with the main characters of Phineas and Ferb is easily made. Me being the authoritative older sister Candace while they are the inventive similarly aged brothers Phineas and Ferb. While our carbox house in the backyard does not compete against their robot treehouses, and our small mentos experiments with different kinds of sodas shows no match for the growing elixir the cartoon brothers experiment with, we are able to relate to the social interactions between the siblings. I get often asked if I would also ‘bust’ them if they would race around in a home-upgrade of their bicycles like in the show. Why won’t their sister Candace just join them in their fun activities, like I often do? And of course they mention that snitching is not good and should not be done. At least, they remind me that that is something I have teached them when they tried to get the other one in trouble by telling on them for innocent playful behavior. This has got me thinking, especially since they are asking for answers I want to provide them with. I tell them to bust when the other is performing a dangerous activity where one can get hurt physically, and that in that case I would do the same. A lot, if not all of the activities of the cartoon brothers however is physically dangerous. Yet I agree with my brothers that even though that is the case, Candace should sometimes just let them be. But why?
The activity of busting impacts and directs Candace’s daily life immensely. Moreover, her unclear motives to bust, which seem to be more habitual than carefully deliberated or reflected upon, complicates viewing her behavior as good or bad. To bust or not to bust becomes an objective of intention, an article of real live moral debate. Like that,
this children’s cartoon character prompted a debate about what is right or wrong behavior. Seeing as only one of the characters of Phineas and Ferb already offered me an interesting conversation, I want to further analyse the social actions of the main characters for potential moral storytelling. Furthermore, what kind of moral messages are there to be found in a cartoon series that could be beneficial to the moral development of children?
Through media, children can directly get in contact with a moral narrative they can interact with. According to a research performed by Statistic Brain in 2017, a US child spends on average 3.5 hours a day watching television. Through active observation and imitation of characters in television children learn complex social interactions like morality, as is stated by Albert Bandura in the Social Learning Theory. Bandura’s theory may be old yet it is not outdated, as it is still used, applied, and proven in research performed in recent research from 2017 (Arnas, İnceoğlu, & Oğul; Daalmans, Hijmans, & Wester; Richards & Calvert). What is considered a right or wrong interaction changes as children grow up. Jean Piaget observed that the criteria on which children initially approach morality is based on the concrete consequences of an action, and later in life determined on the intention of the actor to conclude right from wrong. These different stages of moral development correspond to different stages of cognitive development. This rough summary of Piaget’s cognitive development theory shows that different people, especially children, have different sets of cognitive tools to think about morality. Key here is that moral development is thus more about what we think, then finding the right moral values on how to live. Therewithal, the thinking of morality will be visible through good/evil actions. Lawrence Kohlberg elaborates on Piaget’s theory, and his debated moral development theory will be discussed later on.
To link it all back to this thesis about what case can be made for the moral use value of Phineas and Ferb , a series that does not immediately suggests it has any, the concrete question that this research will aim to answer is;
What kind of moral messages are there to be found in Phineas and Ferb that could be beneficial to the moral development of children?
To answer the question, this research will do a critical reading of the main characters of the show with a focus on their social actions for a closer look of potential moral storytelling.
Method
Based on various theories and concepts about morality and moral development, with a focus on Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning developed in 1983, a critical reading of the main characters of Phineas and Ferb shall be conducted. Through this character analysis, this study will examine whether the moral thoughts of the characters behave like the moral stages as discussed by Lawrence Kohlberg, i.e. whether they allow for a moral learning curve.
In order to answer the main question of this thesis, several scenes from the one-part episodes of the series have been selected. Episodes used are selected on the basis of supporting and portraying moral actions. This resulted in 45 episodes being included in this analysis. The 36 multi-part episode and two movies have not been included in the analysis as the setup of these differ from the formula used in the 187 other episode and are thus considered an exemption, both in setup and character activities. Access to the episodes of the show was made possible, as the entire series is available on Netflix. Additionally, plot summaries, titles, and episode numbers were found on a online wikia phineasandferb.wikia.com. The characters that are analyzed are chosen on basis of them being main protagonist/antagonist.
As cultural studies is involved with understanding the processes through which societies come to terms about e.g. moral norms in community life, this study fits within cultural studies (“What is Cultural Studies?”). The television show contributes to everyday meaning making within the specific context of children’s social interactions which also provides attention to in-group power relations. This thesis is a start to resolve the lack of research that investigates the content of children’s television and its relationship with moral theory, as the two are definitely connected/intertwined.
The first chapter will frame this study of the popular animated children’s series Phineas and Ferb to contextualize the quest of searching for moral significance in children’s television. The second chapter will delve into the history of children’s media that shows how morality historically is connected with children’s television, and how Jason Mittel’s alignment helps explaining how moral actions performed by tv characters can be recognized and adopted by children. In the following chapter, the moral development theory of Lawrence Kohlberg will be elaborately discussed, as well as other moral (development) theories. In the chapters that follow, the actions and moral well being of the young brothers Phineas and Ferb, their sister’s
Candace questions of moral intent, and evil Dr. Doofenshmirtz distinction between good and evil will be analyzed and placed within the provided moral framework. In this analysis the actions and motives of the characters will be compared with moral theory as described in chapter three and other theories will be added as necessary.
Chapter one - Moral significance of popular children’s television
There is no other media content that is debated as much as children’s television, yet there is not much academic research that analyzes the programs themselves. The anticipated effects of children’s programs are far more interesting and discussed, as parents are afraid their children might be harmed by the content provided in television shows, and thus not interested in discussing the content itself. The bulk of popular television shows for children consists of fast entertainment with the use of simplistic characters and narratives, often accompanied by a lot of violence, distracting sounds, bright colors, and a fast-paced edit, possibly enabling harmful effects on children’s behavior, achievements, and health (Wilson et al.; Valkenburg). This is in stark contrast to educational media content, that curiously may use similar elements, however in such a moderate way to enable improvement in cognitive learning and academic skills of our children (Anderson; Bickham et al.). Popular ‘un-educational’ children’s media is hardly ever considered appropriate television. This research is however based on the nuanced position that all television is educational (Jane 231; Samaniego and Pascual 10) ‘with a direct relationship between television programs and children’s pro-social behavior’ (Punyanunt-Carter and Carter 51), despite the main intentions of the program makers.
Joke Hermes discusses that the bigger appeal of certain (commercial) television for children by children ‘is suspicious as there is a deep distrust of the assumed instinctual drive of children towards all things sensational and bad’ (124). In other words, the content of television shows that are popular amongst children is automatically dubbed as negligible and is associated with negative effects without giving it a good glance. Hannah Davies elaborates on the hasty distrust of the television preferences of our (vulnerable and ignorant) children and states that the common notion is that without adult recommendation ‘children will choose to watch material that is not only morally damaging but also inherently lacking in cultural value’ (5).
Hermes however states that ‘popular entertainment (too) has much to offer in terms of citizenship and reflection on life, whether as usable stories or as fictional rehearsal’ (123) that shows children lessons on how to become responsible citizens in today’s society. Indeed, virtuous moral actions ought to be found in belittled popular children’s programming. Lisa Kort-Butler affirms that children’s shows act as cultural primers for understanding later moral messages. Even though children might not be able to immediately grasp everything portrayed in the show, their ‘moral reasoning is sophisticated enough to detect and interpret moral
meanings’ which children are able to apply later in life in the right context (54). Thus, just by being exposed to a moral argument may impact moral development.
Case Study
In his essay Phineas & Ferb: Children’s Television [“Children’s Television”] Jason Mittell rightfully argues for a closer look at the content of commercial cartoons, which aim to entertain instead of to educate, which is necessary to fairly evaluate the appropriability for children of said cartoons (57). An example of a condemned formulaic children’s program is the cartoon Phineas and Ferb [PnF], a highly popular and heavily commercialized cartoon aired between 2007 and 2015 on Disney Channel (IMDB). Mittell states that ‘in short, when critics dismiss children’s television as mindless, formulaic, hyper-commercialized pap, Phineas and Ferb seems to fit the bill as a prime example’ (“Children’s Television” 57).
Phineas and Ferb is one of Disney’s Channel most successful original animated series, and one of the few to reach (more than) 100 episodes (Bond). With 187 individual episodes divided over four seasons, 28 two-part episodes, one three part episode, one hour long episode, six specials, and two movies the series showed to be a massive success. The first episode was aired on August 17, 2007 and the last episode on June 12 2015, with a last special that aired later in the year on November 9 2017 (IMDB). Phineas and Ferb follows a fixed repetitive plot formula, with several catchphrases, often accompanied by a catchy song segment that addresses the activity of the day that is portrayed.
The stepbrothers Phineas and Ferb refuse to give into a boring never ending summer break and get involved in either creating elaborate inventive things or doing crazy activities to battle their boredom. From building a rollercoaster, to discovering the Loch Ness monster, to getting a band together for their parents anniversary, and playing extreme ice-hockey. After Phineas states his catchphrase “I know what we are going to do today!” everyone comes into action. Their pet platypus Perry leaves to fulfill his mission as the secret spy “special agent P” by thwarting the evil wrongdoings of Dr. Doofenshmirtz who wants to take over the Tri-State, a fictional area they live in, with one of his many -inator inventions. Meanwhile their big teen sister Candace is occupied with both looking after her younger brothers and reporting wrongdoings to their mother and meeting with her friend Stacy or crush Jeremy. In some way, the evil plot of the show will collide with the boys activities so that the mother stays oblivious to the exciting and somewhat dangerous undertakings of her sons, despite the multiple (failed) attempts of Candace to “bust” her brothers in action. For example, when the boys build a
giant miniature golf course in their backyard in ‘Put That Putter away’ (1, 36), the Atomic-Leaf-Blower-inator of Dr. Doofenshmirtz spins the propellers of a windmill that is part of the course so fast, that the entire golf course is lifted off the ground and lands somewhere else in town before their mother sees it. The show then ends with the catchphrase ‘Oh there you are, Perry!’ stated by Phineas when the platypus comes back home after a successful secret mission, where the evil doctor himself is actually the one who foiled his own plan (which happens to be the case regularly). The next episode starts and ends in the same way, with only the activity of the day changing.
This brief summary shows the repetitiveness of the show, which is appealing to children as they can easily understand the narrative. Mittell argues that:
“although critics would see such use of formula and repetition as markers of the show’s poor quality […] such an approach for storytelling focuses less on “what will happen” than “how will the story be told?” [which] is part of a larger trend of narrative complexity in television [.. ][that] demands that viewers pay attention to follow a complex narrative structure, contradicting the assumed role of commercial children’s television as bad objects” (“Children’s Television” 59, 60-4).
Its highly formulaic construction is what attracts the children in the first place (Mittell, “Children’s Television” 60), while it later functions as the reason to keep watching the show. It also reduces the attention that has to be given to the structure of the show so that they can focus on the characters, which makes this show a good research subject to investigate how the actions of the characters carry out a certain moral. While Mittells essay is certainly refreshing, it still neglects the actual content of the show (while deeming it quality programming), as it only focuses on the clear and fixed setup of the program. The question remains; what is being told to the children who watch, and is it wholesome in the way that it conveys any cultural and/or moral values? To answer that, this research will do a critical reading of the main characters with a focus on their social actions for a closer look of potential moral storytelling.
Identification with the character in the show is crucial as social behavior is more likely adopted when the one being imitated is similar to oneself (Bandura). In children’s television, the main characters in the show allow for identification and/or alignment with the audience as their age roughly lies in same range as the demographic of the show. Add positive reinforcement, either vicarious through rewarding consequences for preferred social behavior
of the character in the show and/or the child in real life, and the child will likely imitate what they see (Punyanunt-Carter and Carter 53). Such generalisation are tricky yet handled with care as it is interesting to take into consideration. PnF implies that the distinction between good and evil is not as black and white as children, or adults, may think (Davies et al. 21), in showing children who resist adult culture by making it their own, bonding with other children, and displaying how good intentions and actions do not always end up well, while one bad deed does not instantly make you an evil person. The main characters of Phineas and Ferb will be analyzed to clarify how (unintentionally) actions serve as moral theory in practice in the predominantly commercial landscape of children’s media.
This chapter discussed the children’s cartoon Phineas and Ferb and offered a context in which a quest for moral significance in the show is motivated. The show is an example of concerns about a TV show that children find enjoyable notwithstanding a mature (dis)approval of the show. Heijmans and Mittell offered criteria as to why further analyse a shows like Phineas and Ferb to see beyond the initial condescending reaction when mentioning popular media for children, as it can be complex TV and (positively) significant in the daily lives of our children. The upcoming chapter will specifically look into how morality is interwoven within the creation of children’s television, in contrast to the overall moral significance of children’s television as is. It will also discuss violence in children’s media and the moral discussion that is connected to it in relation to mediated violence.
Chapter two – Children, Television, and Morality
A recapitulatory history on children’s’ television will show how morality played a part in the development of television for children. Children’s media in general always had the intention to teach children (moral) lessons in an amusing and appropriate way. Good always prevails evil, bad people will be penalized while right actions will be rewarded, and there is always an easy answer given for difficult moral questions. Through the actions of characters, viewers (in this instance children) are able to learn moral lessons from television. Jason Mittell’s focus on characters in “Characters”- with the complex differentiation between recognition, alignment, and allegiance - will clarify how identification can lead to confusing moral thought processes.
This chapter will mainly discuss the history of children’s television produced in the United States of America, as Phineas and Ferb is an American cartoon, created by the American writers and producers Dan Povenmire and Jeff “Swampy” Marsh. This Disney channel original animated series is a worldwide success and thus spreads American or ‘Western’ norms and moral worldwide. With approximately distributing 70% of the TV shows worldwide the US is the prime provider of programming (Fletchall), and houses the largest marketplace and broadcasters for children’s television (Westcott). These “universal” programs are often accompanied by cultural issues e.g. references and social norms, however animation seems to be one of the few genres to overcome this cultural barrier (Havens). The reach of this study is therefore limited to provide an elaborated analysis of the morality present in this American children’s show against a discussion of a historical framework of children’s television in the United States of America.
2.1 The history of children’s television
The widespread introduction of television in the late 1940s, that gained a boost after the second world war because of the focus on leisure and shared experiences, commenced the distinction between a child audience and an adult audience within media. While certain radio broadcasts were considered to be ‘caring for both the soul of the individual child listener and for the morals and manners of the child population as a whole’ (Oswell 26), children were not a separate audience but rather addressed in the context of family (Oswell 21). BBC’s radio show Children’s Hou r in 1922 could be seen as a progressive step towards media for children, however despite the name it did not get developed with a certain young demographic in mind in so more that it provided harmless entertainment for the entire family, using children as the
contact point (Bruce 186-187). TV for children initially followed the same focus.
Early Western children’s television programming mirrored (commercial) radio broadcasts, motion pictures and comic books for children, along with matching social concerns about the relationship of harmful physical, emotional, and health effects between youth and the media. Norma Pecora states that early questions about television and children reflected in academic research got originated from social concern, and that these questions and concerns are still the same as today;
‘How much television do children view? What are the effects on children’s cognitive skills? What is the relationship among television, youth, and violence? What are children’s content preferences? What are the effects of advertising on issues of parental purchasing and brand loyalty?’ (Pecora 12)
As most questions was based on the available content, the conducted research provides a nice overview of the development of children’s television.
Despite the similar development of the children’s shows on radio and television, where children’s television from the 1940s in the US can be best described as ‘family television’ for the whole family to watch together, television in contrast to radio eventually succeeded in addressing differently aged audiences. With this it is not implied that there was much television before the second world war, but the few hours of TV and even less TV especially for aimed at children didn’t address children per se. Television programs “for children” were created to attract families, to garner an audience that could be entertained by cheap programming during slow hours, and to demonstrate some kind of public-service (Pecora 7-8). Early on, television was seen as a potential to promote social good as people saw opportunities for television to educate and gathering. However, Sonia Livingstone mentions that ‘family television was more a popular ideal than an actuality’ (154) from the start, that eventually prompted individuality as well as youth culture after the second world war and thus had the complete opposite outcome than initially thought.
After World War II, children’s television came up that was geared ‘both to construct a normative ethos for the child and to connect the child to an external world in an active form of citizenship and public participation’ (Oswell 49). What this meant is that shows were designed and produced to specifically persuade/attract children to become active members of society by showing them what to do, e.g. making art. This ‘ethos of participation’ was
successful, as it became an everyday activity that promoted social participation. However eventually the television shows tried to convince children (ironically through television) that they should spend their time more wisely than just passively watching a screen.
By 1950, 27 hours of family-oriented children’s television was broadcasted weekly in the US (Bryant 95), in comparison to 2.5 hours a decade before (Pecora 8). To reach the children, programming was scheduled in the weekdays during lunch hour until the mid- to late 50s when saturday morning cartoons became popular. Children’s television programming was characterized by economic legitimacy through generating revenue locally (Bryant 50; Pecora 10). Either through filling up slow time slots with shows for children, or by creating a certain channel ‘flow’ (Bruce 185). Children’s television was driven by toy companies and the like as children turned out to be a profitable target audience to persuade them and their parents into buying products like toys, clothing and/or food for their ‘nagging’ children (Bruce 183). Children's television shows were either centered around products like Barbie and sugared cereal or dealt with a certain superhero which used a lot of violence and fast paced action (Bryant 41). Everything combined, the 1950s is considered to have been ‘the golden age of children’s television’ with television becoming the main leisure activity for children and families (Pecora 7-8).
The trend continued in the 1960s with the arrival of color television and the discovery of cheap animation techniques by Hanna and Barbera at the end of the 50s. As children predominantly started watching cartoons on television, the belief arose in the Western world that animation was only for children. However research revealed that popular Western cartoons aimed towards children contained a lot of violence (Pecora 13-15), which lead to social concerns and turmoil as the danger of violence becoming normalized concerned adults. The violence in children’s shows was defended with the argument that it was presented within a moral framework and thus not that harmful (Reese in Oswell 145). That moral framework existed only of the hero winning all the battles, without discussing if the killing of the henchmen by the hero was an immoral act or not. Nevertheless, as long as the good guys would always win, their methods to defeat their evil enemies were unquestioned and the violence in the shows was accepted (for now). The lack of quality in children’s tv shows however didn’t go unnoticed and incited the production of shows designed to make a social change. Shows like Mr. Rodgers and Sesame Street do not only entertain and but also foster the intellectual and cultural development of children (Ball 2). Sesame Street for example used a strong visual style, fast-moving action, humor, and music as well as animation and
live-action short films to prepare young low-income children for school by teaching letters and numbers through repetition and modeling. Not only was (and is) the show a success, it pioneered the production of multiple educational television shows, which has led to numerous research to maximize the educational effects as the educational potential of television was not met yet (Pecora 15).
During the 1970s as television shows continued to develop cognitive and academic skills of children alongside mindless and violent entertainment, Bandura’s social learning theory and Piaget’s cognitive development theory gained interest. Especially the possible outcome of aggressive behavior through social learning elicit research and concern, which in part led to the demand of regulating children’s television from the Action for Children’s Television [ACT] who started campaigning for regulations since 1967 and filed multiple petitions throughout the 70s (Pecora 17-20). Requests were made for age-specific content and limited advertising in children’s television, as well as less use of violence and conflict to attract the attention of children. Prosocial has become the catchphrase for the active child audience with live-action shows as an alternative to the violent cartoons.
The new digital technologies that came up during the late 1980s and 1990s increased the amount of children’s programming and ability to control tv viewing, however the diverse range of programs did not increase being mostly homogenous pap. The arrival of commercial children’s networks like Nickelodeon, Disney, and Cartoon Network however did contributed to a great variety of children’s programs. These commercials channels were able to provide children with qualitative shows for 24-hours a day, often built around a character designed to sell merchandise (Bruce 280). With media available at an all time high, concerns of gender equality, obesity and violent video games increased the bulk of research on television’s role in society (Pecora 26-28). During the late 90s, the ACT was finally successful in setting some standards like the three-hour-rule. Television stations were required to provide at least three hours of quality educational programming, which they were able to provide because of the bulk of research conducted in the previous three decades.
The start of the new millennium offered a widespread of media next to television. Yet out of the six hours daily spend on media, television still was responsible for most of the spent time next to video games and the internet (Pecora 33-4). According to Pecora, ‘children of the new millennium are considered both sophisticated consumers and technologically savvy’ (34) yet funny enough you don’t see that back in Phineas and Ferb who indeed are great engineers yet prefer to use their time to play with their friends and let their fantasies become realities.
2.2 Morally justifiable violence
When it comes to children’s television, there is often an overarching theme that revolves around right or wrong, true or false, good or bad/evil. This is also apparent in the development of television for children. Moral narratives that deal with good and bad are not just being used because children up until the age of twelve mostly think in that sort of dichotomies, but also because in the development of children’s television the simple good/bad distinction was an easy way to educate social conventions to children through television (Davies et al. 21).
Violence was also a recurring part of the concerns and discussions about children and television. The question of morally justifiable violence still remains, and while a ban on violence in children’s media has been opted many times, the reality is that violent acts can still be found in children's television. Marina Krcmar and Mark Cooke examined how children view media violence and how their moral judgement is linked to it. Their results correspond to Piaget’s cognitive theory where punished aggression was seen as bad behavior by young children, while incited aggressive actions made a difference in older children deeming the punished action as rightful.
Dianna Murray-Close, Nicki Crick, and Kathleen M. Galotti went further and also investigated if children could recognize and would differentiate between different types of aggression. They differentiated between physical and relational aggression where ‘physical aggression involves harm to one's physical well-being (e.g., hitting, kicking, punching), relational aggression includes relationship damage such as the disruption of friendships or feelings of exclusion (e.g., ignoring a peer when you are mad at them)’ (347). Physical aggression was seen as worse than relational, however both types were recognized as different types of aggression albeit in different extent between girls and boys. This distinction in is important as relational aggression is expected to be more present in Phineas and Ferb than physical aggression. Both types are considered violent behavior and thus both types must be analyzed to give a good representation of good and bad moral activities within the show.
2.3 Moral allegiance
educational ‘with a direct relationship between television programs and children’s pro-social behavior’ (Punyanunt-Carter & Carter 51). By reflecting on the characters and their actions it is claimed that PnF teaches children moral behavior. It does so through parasocial relationships, or as Mittell states through recognition, alignment, and allegiance (“Character” par. 10, 19, 21) which will be elaborated upon a bit further down. First, Rosaen and Dibble state how parasocial interactions increase the possibility of the viewer learning something from a character, and that parasocial relationships mostly emerge from identification with the character because of shared trades like age or gender (146-7). Since the age of the main characters is kept vague, identification takes place more people as comparison can be made freely with a larger audience than if it was specified. Parasocial relationship has a stigma however that Mittell explains as follows:
“While the notion of parasocial relationships between media consumers and on-air personalities, be they real-life celebrities or fictional characters, has often been pathologized as an unhealthy inability to distinguish between reality and media, it can instead be viewed as an active, participatory facet of media consumption, with fans choosing to engage with a media text and extend its reach into their own lives. (“Character” par. 16)”
In this case, a parasocial relationship can aid in transferring certain morals from the character to the child, which can result in (positive) moral development. Furthermore, the connection viewers create with compelling characters is often praised as is associated with an engaging scenario and storyline. Parasocial relationships are therefore not seen as negative delusional behavior, but as positive reinforcement of certain morals. To distant from the stigma the term ‘alignment’ as used by Mittell shall be used.
For alignment to occur, viewers first have to recognize the different characters in a show, distinguishing the main characters from the extra’s and recurring characters and being able to identify characters with similar traits. Mittell argues that the simplistic repetitive nature of Phineas and Ferb trains children to become savvy consumers of narrative, which aids in determining the core characters of the show (“Children’s Television” 63). Not only does the shows formula rarely change but the characters in Phineas and Ferb rarely develop or grow which is not a rare occurrence within these kind of series. In this case the stagnation of a character's development aids in alignment with the characters, as the viewer spends a lot
of time with the character that results in a strong connection and provides a stable and clear access to their interior subjective state (Mittell “Character” par. 19). This is for instance done through providing backstories of the characters and by exterior markers like ‘appearance, actions, dialogue, and other sorts of evidence explicitly presented within the narrative discourse (Mittell “Characters” par. 20). It is exactly this what will be analyzed in this thesis that will provide the moral values of a character.
Through the actions of and responses to a character's behavior we form an allegiance; ‘the moral evaluation of an aligned character where we find ourselves sympathetic to their beliefs and ethics, and thus emotionally invested in their stories’ (Smith in Mittell “Characters” par. 29). Allegiance is key in our moral judgment of characters and in imagining our own moral thought within our daily lives. As the show is more concerned with relationships than moral issues that drive the plot, allegiance will be of help. Since allegiance is not necessary to cue moral evaluation, it will definitely improve moral development within the child audience that has a close relationship with the characters.
In this chapter the moral panics surrounding children’s media use, specifically television in the US, has been historically discussed. Whereas children have formally been addressed by mass media within a family setting, television eventually distinguished an active children’s audience with animation being its frontrunner. Alongside research and development in educational media, mediated violence is heavily discussed and feared. The “educational blade” of television may cut on two sides as it could possible enforce negative behavior in children. Violence in children’s television is used by bad and good characters, which asks for a moral framework where the children are able to distinguish justifiable actions from senseless violence. The following chapter will provide a developmental moral theory to show how children learn to distinguish between good and bad behavior. Moral judgement however is also influenced by affiliation with certain characters, or allegiance with them as Jason Mittell would state. The extent to which characters and their actions are moral is therefore of importance to analyze and discuss, which will happen in the upcoming chapters.
Chapter Three - Moral Theory
Morality is related to principles of right and wrong in behavior and character, and is a social construct that always involves some kind of interaction. It is any notion that pertains to decision making about actions or people being right or wrong, good or bad. So when one thinks of the distinction between good and bad, one also thinks of a choice that has to be made. The moral choices and reasoning of an adult will, generally speaking, differ from that of a child. This has a lot to do with moral development that will be elaborated upon in an upcoming section of this thesis. What’s important now is that children are more guided from a materialistic, egocentric, and aggressive drive when making a choice, while adults take responsibility for their actions and are aware of the need of others.
According to Friedrich Nietzsche moral actions ‘are judged by their origins (their motivations), not their consequences’ (32). Children however are still in a phase where (negative) consequences model their behavior and their moral judgement of others. If no negative consequence is registered, the act must not be that bad. As there are so many moral decisions to be made, children’s television programs may well prove helpful in showing how moral decisions are made by providing moral narratives. However many times there is not one right or wrong answer. While it may seem like there are only two answers, that between right and wrong, the answers are not at all dichotomous. Most of the time there are more options than just two, though the actual difficult question is not choosing from multiple choices, where one or more options is the right one. It is choosing between multiple morally wrong choices that raises the most conflict. An frequently used example of this is the ‘Trolley Problem’;
‘There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: 1. Do nothing, and the trolley kills five people on the main track. 2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the more ethical choice?’ (Foot)
of the act, whether it be one person or five, however one option may be morally better than the other one. On the basis of Greek tragedies, that constant provide us with similar moral conflicts, Martha Nussbaum elaborates on how everyone can become a ‘victim’ of performing a vile moral act.
3.1 The fragility of goodness
In her book The Fragility of Goodness Martha Nussbaums examines the effect luck can have on morality. Based on Greek plays she explains why certain bad things happen and why seemingly good people are sometimes the ones that commit horrible deeds. Nussbaum demonstrates that moral value is vulnerable to luck. She maintains, unlike Kantians who believe that whatever happens ‘the moral value of the good will remain unaffected’ (4) that moral values that are deemed good can become bad or wrong values. This has to do with luck. Luck is something that happens outside of the control of a person yet will most certainly affect their everyday moral actions. We cannot live without luck, as we cannot control everything, however there is beauty in that vulnerability of the human life. Furthermore we do not have to live at the mercy of luck because we have reason (Nussbaum 3). When it comes to a cartoon like Phineas and Ferb , luck is ever present, and thus also the use of reason to not let luck take control of a person. Instead of using reason, the characters of the show do live at the mercy of luck. The stories in which they are the protagonists show how without reason life almost collapses for certain characters. In the character evaluation chapters, this concept will be further elaborated.
Through the controlling power of reason we can, to a certain extent, eliminate luck from the human life and live self-sufficiently. Nussbaum raises three issues that are at risk of providing contingent conflict of values. These are relationships between individual values, relationships themselves and our instinctual drive that includes emotions, feelings, and appetites that are crucial and necessary for a good moral human life (6-9). Nussbaum suggest to ‘master luck by simplifying our commitments to value’ that will minimize the risk of conflict between the three (9). The rational element that saves us from a life at the mercy of luck needs to be fostered in natural and social circumstances, as we are not born with the necessary adequate capacities. Lawrence Kohlberg explains a moral development theory that provides insight into how we develop those capacities.
3.2 The development of moral reasoning
American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory of moral development in six distinct stages. In his article The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment he claims that every higher moral stage is ‘more adequate than an earlier stage of judgment according to certain moral criteria’ (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 630). The sixth and final stage of his theory is therefore the most fair and best moral stage. It is the only stage where moral structures are completely equilibrated, a stipulation set by several formalists since Immanuel Kant for a true rational moral judgment. Kohlberg discusses every stage of his moral theory, and the psychological preference of progressing to the next stage, to prove his philosophical claim that his sixth stage complies completely with this equilibrium. Stage six is therefore the most preferable objective moral stage. Moreover, Kohlberg argues that he not invented just one more moral theory, but that his line of thinking follows a natural universal structure of moral development (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 634). Kohlberg’s claim on universalism however is untrue as it only applies to Western societies. Furthermore, the separation between morality and social conventions also needs to be made and makes a universal moral development theory impossible as that differs between cultures (Turiel). Moreover, Kohlberg’s work is heavily criticized from a feminist perspective and thus again questioned on his “universal” claim, which shall be discussed later in this chapter.
Kohlberg was inspired by the work of developmental psychologist Jean Piaget on children’s moral development. He expanded Piaget’s work and came up with a different theory that is known as the six stages of moral development. Table 1 shows all the (six) stages of Kohlberg’s moral theory (631-2).
Table 1: Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
Level One
Pre-conventional Morality
Stage
1:
Punishment-Obedience
Orientation
Stage
2:
Instrumental
Relativist
Orientation
Level Two
Conventional Morality
Stage 3: Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation
Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation
Level Three
Post-conventional Morality
Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle
Orientation
The six stages are defined on three levels: (1) pre-conventional morality, (2) conventional morality, and (3) post-conventional morality. The levels entail a generic state of moral consciousness that is held up against other people as morality always involves others. In the first pre-conventional level of morality, others introduce children of what is right or wrong/good or bad through physical or hedonistic consequences. At the conventional level, children start to adjust their actions to the expectations of others surrounding them to conform to the social system that is in place. It is not until the post-conventional level that the (meanwhile) adult develops a moral for itself. Moral values in this level are independently defined, apart from (group) authority, yet are heavily concerned with others. Each level has two stages that correspond with the way in which the levels interact with others.
The stages that are associated with this first level, the punishment-obedience orientation and instrumental relativist orientation , entail that a child follows orders to avoid physical punishment. The sanctioning is unquestioned and adopted because children simply do not know any better, not because of respect for an underlying moral of the punishing authority. This kind of awareness does not occur until stage four. Turiel however undermines this claim as children in this stage do not only fear punishment, but are also able to recognize hurt they themselves inflict onto others. The second stage is centered on the ego of the child as they perform actions that satisfy their own need. Personal gain is often reached by making use of reciprocity actions where, simultaneously but not intentional, the need of the other is also satisfied.
The conventional level is divided in the two stages of good boy-nice girl orientation and the law and order orientation . In the third stage the child tries to please others by being ‘nice’ to gain their approval. The intention of an action becomes important as actions are morally judged by their motivations and not their consequences. During stage four right behaviors consist of doing one’s duty; what people are ‘ought to do’. This orientation is
focused towards authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. An adolescent understands why actions are right or wrong and respects the underlying morality of the law.
The social-contract orientation and universal ethical principle orientation are part of the final post-conventional level. These final stages are reached during adulthood. In stage five individual rights and reaching (democratic) consensus are key. Emphasis is laid upon the relativistic aspect of the law in favor of social utility. Personal values and opinions are taken into consideration to define right actions. The final and most important stage six, universal ethical principle orientation, encompasses abstract universal principles. What is right is defined by self-chosen ethical principles. These abstract principles are based on respect for others and ‘at heart, these are universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity , and equality of human rights , and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons ’ (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 632).
3.2.1 The highest stage of moral development
A moral equilibrium judgment requires role taking and justice or fairness. Stage six complies with this needed natural structure as it aims ‘at determining moral decisions and judgment on which all rational men involved in sociomoral action could ideally agree’ (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 635) [underlining self added]. For a judgment to be fair, all parties involved should be able to agree on the resolution. However as a moral judgment is made individually, one must be able to empathize with all parties through role taking. It is important to take into account that reversibility takes place.
Kohlberg states that reverse fairness entails the concept on reciprocity (642). Each moral stage includes reciprocity action, though only in stage six can be spoken of a fair ‘ideal role taking’ where all claims can be maintained. The ‘Golden Rule’ of reciprocity, ‘i.e. putting yourself in the other guy’s shoes regardless of exchange of interests or values’ (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 642), starts to develop during stage three and evolves into a fair form of ideal role-taking in stage six. The requirements for ideal role taken are:
‘ 1. To imagine oneself in each person’s position in that situation (including the self) and to consider all the claims he could make (or which the self could make in his position).
situation and to ask whether he would still uphold that claim.
3. Then to act in accordance with these reversible claims in the situation’ [italics self added] (643).
Only a claim that still holds after ideal role taking in stage six is a fair and just claim as it eliminates the ego through a ‘veil of ignorance’ where every person is equal. Kohlberg shows that through this ignorant veil, where one does not know who he is in the story, people from different stages achieve the same moral solution as a person in stage six. These people seem to be prepared to sacrifice themselves when it turns out to be the fairest moral solution (644-5).
The universal ethical principle stage is therefore a morally better stage than its predecessor as it involves an extensive equilibrium as a result of the sequential processing of moral experiences. This process is ‘not based on teachings, ideologies or theories’ and therefore a natural universal structure in moral development (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 632-3). Kohlberg thus proves his claim that stage six is the most objective moral stage that is established through natural developments. Or not. Further research showed that only the first four stages of Kohlberg are universal and that his last two stages are culturally and socially dependent (Gielen & Markoulis). Since this research however is not looking into the highest moral stages but only makes use of the stages that children and young people can obtain, the theory of Kohlberg is still useful. Nonetheless, the belief that the moral stages are connected to certain ages is something this research criticizes. The connection of moral development to age would mean that at a certain age, people cannot grow anymore on a moral level. It is believed that people from any age could still be stuck in stage three by the age of 40 and that a teen of 19 might be able to reach stage six, as moral reasoning has more to do with the cognitive development than age.
As mentioned before, his moral development theory is also heavily criticized from a feminist perspective. Namely, Kohlberg derived his theory by telling his (only male) participants a story about a man in need of medication for his dying wife without the proper means to legally obtain the medicine. This moral dilemma that Kohlberg uses is believed to be too far removed from real life experiences, which makes his results questionable. However this does not void the first four stages for being deemed universally correct. The main issue with the dilemma used is that men seemed to had little issue with answering what the “right” moral action would be. When Gilligan imitated Kohlberg’s research and included women, she
noticed that women asked for elaboration on the characters before answering. While the men had no problem with a certain detachment with the characters in the story thus giving an objective answer, women find it hard to not get attached to the characters of the story (Gilligan 73). Kohlberg’s theory thus entails that a right moral judgment is derived from a masculine moral development that is sophisticated, while feminine moral development is a failure and childish since it differs from male moral judgment to the extent that women’s judgment comprises empathy. Clinchy elaborates and states that this has to do with ‘men showing a “separate” pattern [in thinking] and women a “relational” pattern at every level of epistemological development’ (18). Empathy is universal but more common in the moral reasoning of women while it does not mean that men are better morally developed.
This chapter discussed Kohlbergs moral development theory and concluded that it may have some issues yet is useful for this research. The first four moral stages that are needed function as a good theory to juxtapose against the actions and moral reasoning of the main characters of Phineas and Ferb , at least for the male characters. In the following chapters, the four main characters of the show - Phineas, Ferb, Candace, and Dr. Doofenschmirtz - will be analyzed and held against the development moral stages of Kohlberg. Phineas and Ferb will be discussed in the context of learning right moral actions and how the consequences are similarly important. The female lead Candace could do with a more feminine approach to morality as offered by Gilligan, however Nussbaum’s moral dilemmas offer an interesting perspective on right moral choices. Whereas Dr. Doofenschmirtz may benefit from an anti-hero approach, his motivation and justification of evil actions show how a horrid upbringing does not per se lead to an evil person. The fitting theories will be elaborated upon in the corresponding chapters.
Chapter four – The brothers Phineas and Ferb
In this chapter the two main characters of the show, the title characters and stepbrothers Phineas Flynn and Ferb Fletcher, will be analyzed. In the show, as the protagonists, they are set as the good guys and as the only characters who are competent at anything. Whether it is becoming a one hit wonder in ‘Flop Starz’ (1, 4B), building an aquarium in their backyard for their pet goldfish in ‘Backyard Aquarium’ (2, 3A), busting a
“monster” in ‘That's the Spirit’ (3, 22A), or help their sister with finding the perfect gift for her boyfriend Jeremy in ‘Cheers for Fears (4, 28A), they can accomplish anything. This duo has unique characteristics that complement each other. Even though their parents are present in the series, the boys miss a real authoritative figure that watches over them, causing the boys to be guilty of dangerous and irresponsible behavior on a daily basis. All in good fun of course, and with a childlike enthusiasm and naivety. Like in ‘Moon Farm’ (3, 7B) the boys bring cows to the actual moon to test if the moon's low gravity can turn cow's milk the best in the world to make the best ice cream with in after being inspired by a verse in a nursery rhyme. it is clear that they have good intentions and are capable of inventing whatever they put their minds to, however they also are extremely lucky in all their undertakings. They are doused in luck in ‘Where’s Perry?’ when a well placed jungle vine prevents them from falling from a cliff (3, 31B), however since everything goes well they are not aware of the horrible consequences that could occur.
Phineas
Phineas is the genius behind most of their daily activities. He has a triangle-shaped face, red messy hair, and the same orange striped shirt and blue pants as an outfit. His age is unknown, though it is believed that he is around eight and ten years old.
He is very talkative, a leader, and super positive. Phineas has two catchphrases, or running gags, that demonstrate his leadership and talkative nature (insomuch that he has the most catchphrases in the show). The first is ‘I know what we are going to do today!’, upon which all the other characters get into action. Phineas is the brain, the leader. Ferb is the muscle who can turn all his crazy ideas into reality. In the first (pilot) episode ‘Rollercoaster’ (1, 1A), Phineas decided that he wants to design their own amazing rollercoaster in their
backyard and together with Ferb he gets it done. His intention is none other than to have a fun and interesting summer break, and not a boring vacation as is stated on the radio in the beginning of the episode. Since there is no malice in his intentions, how can his activity be morally wrong or bad? When he is questioned in the same episode if he isn’t a bit young to be a rollercoaster engineer, his other catchphrase or running gag comes up as he answers it with “Yes. Yes I am’. This shows how aware Phineas is about his young age and unique brain.
He’s unaware however that his sister is always trying to tattle about their dangerous activities to their mother and believes that she merely wants to inform mom about their fun and interesting undertakings. Even in ‘Flop Starz’ (1, 4B) when Candace says to him “That’s it! I’m gonna tell mom”. Phineas replies with “Ok. Tell her what?”. He’s very unaware of the consequences of their activities, and even admits to that in ‘Cranius Maximus’ (3, 45B). This lack of consequences of certain actions is not good for the moral development, as Kohlberg’s pre-conventional level makes clear that children learn good from bad actions through fear of punishment or realization of hurt to others. Phineas clearly shows that he is unable to experience either outcome and thus still in the first stage of the pre-conventional level. His state cannot be blamed on only himself as it is clear that he lacks an authoritative figure. Even though their mother is home almost every day, she goes of to friends, spa days or dates and leaves her children home alone. His sister Candace does try to be an authoritative figure but fails miserably.
Phineas could be defined by the second stage of Kohlberg because of his unawareness of the big crush his friend Isabella has on him. Everyone knows that she loves Phineas accept for him. It is only in one of the final episodes that he finds out that she liked him all this time (‘Act Your Age’ 4, 47). Phineas’ ego has been in the way, meaning that he was only busy with satisfying his own needs; ridding himself of his boredom. However if you look at other episodes, you know that Phineas is very helpful as he uses his time to help friends in their tasks (‘Unfair Science Fair’ (1, 46A); ‘At the Car Wash’ (2, 16B); ‘Bad Hair Day‘(3, 12A)).
What is also notable is that Phineas is never aggressive or violent. In ‘Raging Bully’ (1, 5B) he is challenged to a thumb wrestling fight by the bully Bufford and he only accepts to stand up for his bullied friend Baljeet and in the hopes to stop Buffurd from bullying other/more people. His violence in this case is justified as he has good intentions and was provoked to join a violent solution. This is one of the rare occasions in which Phineas shows violent behavior. He’s also very oblivious to aggressive behavior and only shows himself raising his voice and becoming angry at Candace in ‘Summer Belongs to You’ (2, 54) when
he yells ‘Get on the trike!’ and Candace immediately obliges as it is something Phineas normally does not resort to.
Ferb
Ferb is the quiet brother who can literally create anything. His head is shaped like the letter F that seems to have no other function than coincidentally matching with his name, and he wears a high purple jeans with belt and light yellow shirt. His messy hair has a green color. His age is unknown but estimated to be around between eight and ten years old, just a little bit younger than Phineas.
Ferb rarely speaks. In the first episode ‘Rollercoaster’ (1, 1A) their friend Isabella asks Phineas if he ever speaks and Phineas answers that Ferb is more ‘A guy of action’. His actions do speak louder than words, where he could be seen as a voice of morality. He only speaks when he has to and barely shows any emotions, but when he does it has a lot of impact! It is difficult to share any instances that demonstrate his moral actions as he mostly follows Phineas without questions. He does not show any form of violence, however is seen as capable of defending himself when threatened (‘Raging Bully’ (1, 5B).
Ferb is just as oblivious about his moral wrongdoings as is his mother about their actions. As stated by Kohlberg, in the first stage of moral development, children like Ferb are taught what is right or wrong through physical or hedonistic consequences. This will model their (future) behavior accordingly. As Ferb however never gets caught while behaving wrongly, thus never having to face any negative consequences, he has no incentive to stop their dangerous actions.
In the episode ‘Phineas and Ferb Get Busted!’ (2, 1) Candace is finally successful in her attempt to reveal the fearless actions of her brothers to their mother. Linda is obviously shocked when she sees the boys driving a modified version of her station wagon that can now fly. Her shock quickly turns into anger upon which the boys get severely punished and are send to a reformatory school for their own safety. There the boys receive even more punishment when they are showing signs of creativity and imagination that might lead to dangerous situations. At first Phineas and Ferb try to go against their punishment but soon enough the sanctioning they receive are unquestioned and adopted as they do not know any better than to listen to authority, or getting punished when not. This behavior aligns with the description of the first punishment-obedience level by Kohlberg.
At the end, the episode reveals to be a dream of their pet platypus Perry but it gets the message of listening to authority very well. This does question the moral development of the boys activities and their position as good guys, however it seems they are so by accident and/or mere luck, or just by being the title characters of the show. In only one episode do the boys do seem to show that they are capable of listening to authority, however it is hardly the ordinary moral universe of the show. The musical montage of the episode however involve the lyrics ‘Don’t say imagination is morally wrong’ where they sing about their creativity being crushed. Without authority, without an adult, the moral universe of the show revolves around the children themselves and what they find important - an infinite amount of creativity and having fun. Every episode allows them to enjoy themselves because of their own imagination, where every enjoyable act involves helping others, or not inconveniencing others. In the pre-conventional moral level of Kohlberg, the ego of children is central in a way that they perform certain actions that satisfy their own needs as well as the need of another, if not incidental. In PnF the boys help out their friends multiple times, like in the episode ‘The Baljeatles’ (2, 15) where they help their friend Baljeet by forming a rock band and in ‘The Return of the Rogue Rabbit’ (4, 21) when they help the fireside girls with setting up a puppet show. In helping them they have solved their problem of thinking what they can do that day. While it fits Kohlberg’s second stage of instrumental relativist orientation (632), it is worth mentioning that these examples actually work the other way around as the starting point is helping the other and not themselves. Phineas and Ferb are portrayed as friendly guys however, good intentions aside, they are naive and oblivious to the (good) consequences of their actions. Reciprocity is not meant in the way of ‘I scratch your back and you scratch mine’ but as an action that fulfills the needs of two individual partners. This makes them amoral if they are not assuming responsibility.
In the episode ‘Split Personality’ (2, 39), the boy’s molecular ray accidentally separates their sister in two beings with two different personalities. One ‘romantic’ and one ‘busting’ Candace. A romantic Candace whose sole goal is to flirt with her crush Jeremy, and a busting Candace whose main objective is to convince their mother of her brothers wrongdoings, yet this time without her constant struggle between the flirting intervening with busting and vice versa. While the boys had other plans for that day, they have to change their plans to find a way to put her back together so that they won’t get busted when their parents come eye in eye with two separate Candaces. It seems that they are motivated not because they want to help their sister, but because they do not want to get busted. This is emphasized
