“These perspectives which endorse the primacy of animation as a specific and unique form of creative expression sit at an extreme from its position within the academic practice of Film Studies; [animation’s] perceived role as merely ‘children’s entertainment’; and its previously marginalized function as a television ‘schedule filler’. In the contemporary era, however, this is changing” – Paul Wells, “Animation and America”

Introduction

Animated television, despite the support of well respected media scholars such as

Jason Mittell and Sarah Banet-Weiser, still carries the stigma that because the bulk of it is

meant for children, it is undeserving of true scholarship. While much has changed in the

past forty years since scholars have begun to seriously study television in relation to

hegemony and ideology, animated television has not fully shared the bounty of this

newfound respect. In order to legitimize the field, many have made the choice to only

study adult animated shows such as The Simpsons, Family Guy, and other programs that

appear during primetime or carry ratings of TV-MA or TV-14. They cannot be fully

blamed though, since they are only following society’ss views on animation. However I

believe that like the rest of television, animated television made specifically for the target

audiences of 6-11 and 9-14 can be studied in terms of ideological value and hegemonic

compliance as defined by Louis Althusser and Stuart Hall. In fact in the past decade we

have seen more diversity in the portrayal of different ideologies and forms of

governments, specifically political ideologies, in American animated television shows. In

this essay, through close textual analysis of current animated television shows such as

The Legend of Korra compared to older shows, I will defend my conclusion that this push

back against the hegemony in America is good for children.

Before I begin, I must further explain my reasoning for choosing youth animated

television in America. The flexibility of animation allows, especially in the youth market,

different ideologies to be portrayed in unique ways. By not being directly linking to

reality in the way that live-action shows do, animated television can claim a defense of

fantasy when confronted about counter-cultural ideas. These shows also provide more

diversity in terms of genre. Most, if not all, popular adult animated shows are squarely

footed in comedy. While dramatic elements are present in most of these shows, they are

presented primarily as comedic entertainment. Children animated shows however, have

evolved to include dramatic shows in the genre of action-adventure. This is important

when discussing hegemony because the subject matter is taking itself seriously, thus

making it something to be taken seriously. Also, there are simply more animated shows

for children than live action. “Although its schedule includes live-action shows as well,

the majority of Nickelodeon’s programming has been animated” (Stabile, 66). There is

also the fact that in today’s market, we tend to see youth animation reach past its intended

audience. Shows such as My Little Pony and Adventure Time enjoy the viewership of

children, college students, and adults. Finally when I say “youth animated television in

America” I am referring to shows that can be physically animated anywhere, but whose

main script, voice acting, and distribution initially originates in America. I am also

excluding shows that were created for the internet, such as Bee and PuppyCat and

Bravest Warriors, but not shows that either began on television and ended up finishing

their run on the internet or shows that began on the internet but had the majority of their

episodes in television. This distinction is important because shows that do not rely on

airing time from major broadcasters, support from corporate advertising, and regulations

from the federal governments cannot be considered part of the ideological state apparatus

(ISA) that is television. While online animated shows have a greater capacity to be

countercultural due to their lack of regulation, this essay is primarily concerned with how

shows have changed ideologically within the constraints of television in the past few

decades.

History of The Public Good

As said before, television is an ideological state apparatus, under the

communications division (though I would also describe it as a cultural ISA as well). In

“Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays” Althusser wrote, “I shall call Ideological State

Apparatuses a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate

observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions”(Althusser). Though much

has changed since its inception, television comes from a history of being considered a

public good that needed to be regulated for the public interest. The FCC’s Public Service

Responsibility for Broadcast Licensees report, also known as the Blue Book due to the

color of the cover, came out in 1946 and affected first radio, then TV with guidelines on

what is considered good for the public interest. Though largely ignored, it paved the way

for stricter guidelines. Despite the best intentions of lawmakers, it can be assumed that

the term “public good” is almost synonymous with the term “hegemony” when a

government or big corporation uses it. The use of television to establish that the status

quo is normal and to deter any sign of deviance in society is what these laws were made

to do. The 1960 Programming Policy Statement officially defined both programs for

children and entertainment programming as two of 14 "major elements usually necessary

to the public interest" (Final Report of The Advisory Committee on Public Interest

Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters). This was followed by a statement in

1974 that specifically said that broadcasters needed to service children. However, this

would soon pass during the Reagan administration. In 1984 deregulation was enacted and

in 1988 Reagan vetoed a measure to constrict when children programming can be shown

and what can be shown. This however, did not change the base, nor the superstructure.

According to Carol Stabile, “by the 1980s, most animated programs were little

more than poorly drawn, glorified half-hour commercials for action figures and video

games. These shows included such notables as Care Bears, My Little Pony…”(Stabile,

78) . With the deregulation of cartoons, children’s television had to bow to a new master,

consumerism. TV shows such as G.I Joe were made to sell both toys and advertisements.

Later on, I will go into more detail on what this means for ideology. In 1990 Congress

passed The Children's Television Act of 1990, which both limited the amount of

advertising companies could do for children shows, but also required a total of three

hours a week worth of educational material. However, the commercialism that came in

with the 1980’s stayed. So why is this history important in understanding the ideology in

animated shows? With the need to appease government regulations, advertisers that

prefer less controversy, marketing teams that prefer easy content to pull from, and parents

that expect ‘wholesome television’, creating shows that challenge these influencers is

incredibly unappealing and makes little sense when considering revenue. There are many

examples of American animated television shows acting as ISA’s to establish American

exceptionalism and democracy as natural, while painting other cultures and their

governments as strange and wrong.

Ducks and Soldiers

Generally, it was held that the political socialization of youth occurred primarily

in three places: in the family, where children and adolescents are seen to be influenced by

their parents' political beliefs; at school, where citizenship and patriotis are often included

in mission statements of American public schools (as well as in voluntary youth

organizations, such as the Boy Scouts); and in the media where information about official

politics and political figures is disseminated (Banet-weiser, Kids Rule).

Despite animation being regulated to a juvenile form of entertainment, or maybe

precisely because of its status as being for kids, it became an easy target for propaganda.

From the overt to the obscure, cartoons have been used to reinforce American politics

and ideology. Take the 1942 academy award winning short called “Der Fueher’s Face”

starring Donald Duck. Donald is forced to work in a factory, creating weapons for the

Axis in Nazi Germany. The eight-minute short includes a catchy tune deriding Hitler and

racist caricatures of the Japanese. The nightmare ends with Donald duck waking up in his

American flag pajamas to the image to the statue of liberty sitting on a windowsill with

American flag drape, and a tomato being thrown into the face of Hitler. This is but one

of many cartoons featuring Donald Duck as propaganda for the United States, fighting

Nazis, the Japanese empire, and the Russians. Other cartoons at the time, such as “

G.I. Joe is arguably one of the most memorable and financially successful cartoon

franchises to come out of the 80’s with six animated shows, two live action movies,

multiple video games, and more action figures than I am willing to list. It is easy to

ignore animated shows made during this time due to their consumerist birth. Many

scholars do. This would be an error in judgment though. By partaking in American

commercialism and neo-liberal ideas on war and work, G.I Joe and other cartoons from

the same time period created an era of cartoons worthy of study.

Yet the stories told by these series reveal much more about the

times in which they were created and watched and are of

importance because they hold significant meaning in relation to the

cultural and political contexts of 1980s' America. (Geraghtry, 291)

It is impossible to study the ideological representations in today’s animation without

studying the ideological representation of the previous generations of cartoons. G.I. Joe

acted within the ISA of television through the use of PSA’s (Public Service

Announcments) (Geraghtry, 299). With messages like standing ones ground, working as

a team, and the tagline “A real American Hero”, G.I. Joe created a fictional universe in

which the Joes instilled hegemony and protected the base and superstructure of American

culture by instilling core beliefs about right and wrong into children while attributing

these “good” beliefs to the U.S military. C.O.B.R.A, the main villains, are not an enemy

country like the villains were in the 1940’s propaganda shorts. No, they represented a

new type of enemy to America that worked more like to a company than a country. Much

like the enemies that America was facing in the Tanker War, the Invasion of Grenada,

and the Vietnam War, Cobra was a new type of enemy that America needed to vilify in

order to establish ideological superiority. Cobra is not a country, but a company. With

many toys to sell, G.I Joe had no reason to rock the boat and face the ire of advertisers

and the government. Other shows of the same era like CyberCOPS and Rambo: The

Force of Freedom also upheld the same American ideals as G.I. Joe. Both of these shows

suggest deference to The United States military and police systems, systems that defend

the American constitutional republic. Now, before we get to the modern era, we must talk

about the time period between the mid 90’s and early 2000’s.

The Radical 90’s

This next period of time can be mostly separated into three different divisions:

company driven shows (much like G.I Joe), artist driven shows, and Japanese animation.

Earlier I specified that I will not include Japanese animation into my analysis, but it

would be negligent to totally disregard their existence in American television due to their

effect on future American animated shows, in both art and in the showing of complex

ideological states. Japanese animation has been shown on American airwaves since the

1960’s with shows like Astro Boy, Kimba the Whire Lion and Speed Racer. Transformers

was already mentioned for its popularity in the 1980s. Robotech was an incredibly mature

show that found success commercially in America. However, I am pinpointing the 90’s

specifically for Japanese animation due to its overwhelming popularity during this time.

Licensing companies made specifically for acquiring, editing, and dubbing (replacing the

Japanese voice actors with American ones) came into prominence during this time.

Cartoon Network had Toonami, an anime late night block, while Kids WB would

consistently show anime throughout the week as well as during Saturday mornings. The

Fox Block and ABC Kids also showed anime during the prime Saturday morning block.

Most of these shows were edited to erase the nature of the Japanese culture. However,

many of the complex story lines and deep emotional character plots stayed the same and

would be an influence on western shows. As Carol Stabile says in her book, “Made for

television animation in Japan always assumed a high degree of possible maturity in its

audience as well as catering for its younger clientele, while in the US animation

represented a problem if it transgressed an easy positioning in a taken-for-granted

children’s market” (Stabile, 29). During this time period, Japanese shows were serious

competition for homegrown shows. Since the 90’s and early 2000’s, Japanese shows

have seen a great decline in being shown on television for children, with much of the

market shifting to older members of society who consume their shows online. While I

could probably write an entire book talking about how Japanese animation influenced

American animation, for the sake of brevity I will simply leave it at the fact that during

the 90’s and early 2000’s Japanese animated television shows found its biggest success in

the United States and significantly influenced many shows in the current era, including

The Avatar series, which will be the focus of my main examples. Besides the great

anime revolution, American cartoons were going through a renaissance on both the little

screen and the big screen. While Disney was creating some of its most successful movies,

Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon began to come into their own as powerhouses for

children animation. Much of this success is due to two factors: Cable television and

creator centered shows. With the rise of cable, television channels could form more niche

audiences and target children very specifically. “This practice presaged the logic of

narrowcasting that would predominate in the 1990s, as market segments were constituted

both by appealing to core groups of children and by driving away undesirable adult

audiences (Turow 1997)” (Stabile, 49). Ironic as it may seem, the freedom that made

cartoons in the 80’s generic and easily marketable for toys eventually gave rise to a new

generation of cartoons that were marked by creativity. The deregulation of the industry

allowed creators to explore artistic avenues that didn’t necessarily have anything to do

with the public good. Through the subscription and multi-tiered format of cable along

with DVD sales, toy sale and merchandizing did not have to carry almost all of the bulk

of the monetary aspects of shows. This is why shows that did not feature large ensemble

casts or easily sellable accessories could flourish. All of this led the way for Creator

driven shows, and the beginning of a diverse landscape of political ideologies.

With animation blocks such as “Nicktoons”, “What a Cartoon”, and “Cartoon

Cartoons”, animators where given a chance to expand their creative muscles. ““What a

Cartoon” premiered over 50 shorts that were given the chance to become full fledged

cartoons on Cartoon Network. With outside talent pitching show ideas, more diverse

shows were created. Powerpuff Girls, one of the many shows that came from this

animation experiment, continually challenged the idea of the patriarchal system in

America, as well as the effectiveness of elected officials. The town’s mayor is probably

one of the most incompetent individuals on the show, with his assistant taking up most of

the slack. While the main heroines work with the government openly, they have a direct

line to city hall and their identities are not secrets, they work as semi-vigilante agents that

can operate with or without the government and generally know better than the person

that was elected to serve as mayor. Codename: Kids Next Door, another product of this

era, has the premise of challenging the authority adults and the almost tyrannical system

that they have created. The democracy of America, and the world in general, is shown as

a caste system with adults at the top, teenagers in the middle, and children as the lowest

caste. Banet-Weiser highlights Nickelodeon as the progenitor of this trend by stating,

“By insisting on creator-driven animation in the licensed-toy

environment, Nickelodeon was seen as bucking the system," thus

highlighting the ethos of empowerment championed by the channel

at a historical and commercial moment where rebellious upstart

companies were quickly gaining cultural capital.( Banet-Weiser,

185)

A show like Samurai Jack, which is an art-house like show that focuses on a

character that is transported to a cyber-punk dictatorship dystopian future, would not

have been able to survive the 80’s, with its focus on anarchy and minimal dialogue.

However, the animation revolution of the 90’s and early 2000’s provided a perfect safe

haven for shows that were beginning to test the waters, contrasting political ideology in

mainstream animation for children. These shows served as the predecessors for the

animations of today that candidly buck the hegemony that reinforces the one sided

showing of the American political ideology.

It is important to emphasize that these divisions that I have defined are not hard

set. There is no definite date that one begins and another ends. The commercialism of the

1980’s does not magically disappear once 1995 begins. From 2010 until 2014 Hasbro

entered a joint venture with Discovery Communications and changed Discovery Kids to

The Hub. As head of programming, Hasbro switched most of educational themed

animated shows to Hasbro product themed shows such as The Transformers, G.I Joe, and

My Little Pony. If it was not for the upgrade in animation technology and modern pop

culture references, one could easily mistake that line up for being antiquated. Even after

Discovery Communications bought majority shares of the channel and changed the name

to Discovery Channel, many of the Hasbro inspired shows still exist. While there may be

less shows being created with the intent of only selling toys and merchandising,

merchandising still plays a very big role in the life of these shows. Likewise, not all

children animated shows made in the 1980’s were created simply for selling toys, nor

were the creators of these shows necessarily any less creative than creators now. Broad

strokes must be painted to classify general trends found in different periods of time, but it

can be dangerous to assume that every show in my designated eras is exactly the same.

One can easily claim that the 1970’s deserve its own section, or that we are still in the age

of the 90’s. However, the purposes of this essay, a divide between the 90’s and the

present time must be made, no matter how fuzzy the line may seem to be.

The Modern Age

In this next section, I will now focus on the shows in this modern era. For this

study, I will focus on three shows and how they portray different political systems and

ideologies in both positive and negative lights. These show are: Avatar the Airbender

(2005), Adventure Time (2010), and The Legend of Korra (2012), which will make up the

bulk of the essay. I will break up the sections not by individual show, but by both

political ideology and governmental structure in order to better compare and contrast

these shows. While there will obviously be some overlap, since certain forms of

governments can have different political ideologies, I will try to divide it as cleanly as

possible. The importance of these shows having different views on these ideologies and

structures is that it allows children to be introduced to multiple forms of the same types of

governments, coercing them to see different views. The Legend of Korra is actually

divided into four books with each antagonist representing a different ideology:

Communism, theocratic environmentalism, anarchy, and fascism. The first topic that I

will cover will be the portrayal of monarchy. Each of these series portrayed monarchies

in different ways. These different portrayals show both the positive and negative aspects

of monarchial rule.

The Monarchy

First, I will begin with the most positive portrayal of monarchy. In the show

Adventure time, which has its main form of government as a monarchy, the world is

divided by different kingdoms ruled by Kings or princesses. Most of these kingdoms are

absolute monarchies. The Kingdom that is explored the most though is The Candy

Kingdom, ruled by Princess Bubblegum. Princess Bubblegum not only created the

Candy Kingdom, but she also created the Candy Kingdom. There are no advisors or a

parliament that she must listen to in order to make her decisions. Her world is literally the

word of god, and Candy’s subjects are shown time and time again to be too incompetent

to properly function without her guidance. In fact, there is strong evidence that Princess

Bubblegum runs a fascist regime that is based on an extreme utilitarianist stance. She

controls every aspect of her subjects’ lives. In the episodes “You Made Me” and “The

Cooler,” and “Nemesis” it is shown that Princess Bubblegum uses giant computers and a

wide array of surveillance cameras to view not just the candy kingdom and its people, but

also other kingdoms. When confronted on her spying by The Flame Princess of the

hereditary monarchy The Flame Kingdom in “The Cooler” Princess Bubblegum

exclaims, “I'm PB! I spy on everybody. No big D!”. This is said after we learn that she

created an elaborate plan to either destroy the Flame Kingdoms ancient weapons or kill

everyone in the Kingdom. In “Graybles 1000+” The audience is shown that in the future

she not only puts tracking devices in her citizens teeth, but she puts them all in stasis

chambers for an indefinite amount of time. There are many other examples of her

absolute rule, such as creating her immortal successor that has the ability to read minds

and control others, and cloning a subject after sacrificing them to save the kingdom. One

of the most interesting things about this is that she is rarely shown as being in the wrong.

The main character, Finn, has some reservations about her cloning her subjects, but only

voices his confliction to his friend Jake. The only other example is, as stated above, when

Flame Princess pointed out that she is “a bad person”. In fact, we later see that without

her, The Kingdom does not function well at all.

In the episode “Hot Diggity Doom,” the kingdom holds a vote to decide who

should be the Princess, in the fashion of an elective monarchy where each citizen votes.

Running against Princess Bubblegum, who barely pays attention to the election due to an

oncoming crisis and the belief that her creating the Candy Kingdom would give her an

automatic win, is a man by the name if King of Oo, a man who may also be in charge of a

cult like organization. The people vote for the King of Oo, despite his general lack of

knowledge. Already, an obvious change in leadership is signified when the King sings,

“There’s cheap healthcare, the work camp’s there, the general tone is laizze a faire”. The

Candy People do not show any concern. Princess Bubblegum notes how stupid the

candy people are, and their actions show that they cannot properly function under

anybody else but her, their god. The King is shown to be an idiot who is easily swayed

by his fellow con artist friend, Toronto. The next season shows him creating a despotic

rule that uses the candy people as items. It is shown that much of the military still

supports the rule of the princess and will listen to her over him. Ultimately, Princess

Bubblegum shows that his time as ruler of the Candy Kingdom only exists because she

allows it. In the episode “Taker Her Back”, she barges into the castle with her sick

friend. She screams, “Monarchies are not democracies!” and kicks him. The guards react

not by arresting her, but by asking her if they should listen to the King of Oo or not.

Later, after the Candy people revolt and burn the King Oo and Princess Crunchy takes

over in a power grab, Princess Bubblegum regains her throne.

The one exception to the positive outlook on the monarchy is The Earldom of

Lemongrab, an earldom that is separate from the Candy Kingdom but still technically

underneath the rule of Princess Bubblegum. The Earl of Lemongrab, a failed experiment

of Princess Bubblegum, leads a dictatorship that reflects North Korea. However, I will

return to the earldom when I talk more about fascism. Adventure Time shows monarchies,

especially conservative absolute monarchies, as the superior form of government and

political ideology. Avatar the Last Air Bender and Legend of Korra, however, have a

very different outlook on Monarchy.

In the world of the Avatar series, there are two main states that use a monarchial

system: The militaristic absolute monarchy of the Fire Nation and the federal monarchy

of the Earth Kingdom. It should be noted though that the city of Omashu, while

technically under the rule of the Earth Kingdom, has its own monarch and tends to acts in

a totally autonomous nature. It is arguably the strongest city in the Earth Kingdom and

listens only to its own absolute monarch, which is King Bumi in Avatar: The Last

Airbender. Though very little time is spent in Omashu, it is one of the most positive

presentations of the monarchial system there is. The fire nation in Avatar: The Last

Airbender is shown as a complex system of governorships under the King. It is the main

antagonist of the series, wiping out the air nomads and conquering The Water tribes and

the Earth Kingdom. The empire consists of the mainlaind and multiple colonies made up

of conquered land. A clear class division is created, in which the fire nation citizens are

controlled mainly through IFA’s such as school and festivals that instill nationalism while

earth and water citizens are mainly controlled through RFA’s such as threats of working

in a camp and police brutality. Nationalism defines the Fire Nation. Pure fire nation

citizens are seen as unique and superior to others, part of their justification for their

imperialistic nature. An easy comparison to a real world example is War World Two era

Japan. Due to the size of both the Fire Nation and the Earth Kingdom, their systems

become more decentralized the further one gets from the capital where the leaders are.

Like the Candy Kingdom, both adhere more to a classical conservatism ideology, though

they have some liberal streaks to them. During the Legend of Korra, The Fire Kingdom is

scaled back in side and has a more benevolent and less militaristic leader. The Earth

Kingdom has a more problematic history with monarchs however.

As stated before, The Earth Kingdom is a Federal Monarchy. However, the king

is simply a puppet figure for the grand secretariat, who is also head of the secret police.

Ba Sing Se is a fascist state. Citizens in the main part of the city of Ba Sing Se are not

allowed to leave the city or know anything about the war. Even the King is kept in the

dark. Citizens who know anything about the war feign ignorance for fear of going to

Lake Laogai. Lake Laogai is a government brainwashing facility that is run by the grand

secretariat and his loyal secret police, kept secret from the military and the king. Groups

of citizens are brainwashed into believing they are the same person, to act as unwilling

spies. In season two episode fourteen he says,

Until now, you've been treated as our honored guests. But from now on,

you will be watched every moment by Dai Li Agents. If you mention the

war to anyone, you will be expelled from the city… What's most

important to his royal majesty is maintaining the cultural heritage of Ba

Sing Se. All his duties relate to issuing decrees on such matters. It's my

job to oversea the rest of the city's resources, including the military. …It is

the strict policy of Ba Sing Se that the war not be mentioned within the

walls. Constant news of an escalating war will throw the citizens of Ba

Sing Se into a state of panic. Our economy would be ruined. Our peaceful

way of life, our traditions would disappear. In silencing talk of conflict, Ba

Sing Se remains a peaceful, orderly utopia. The last one on Earth.

Though he is eventually taken out of power and the incompetent but benevolent king is

put in place, the next monarch leads as an absolute monarch who controls every aspect of

her citizens’ lives, raising taxes and forcing powerful benders to fight in her army. She is

eventually assassinated and after a brief time of anarchy and fascism, her successor

eliminates the monarchy all together. The Earth Kingdom can be compared to the Ming

Dynasty of China due to its use of a grand secretariat.

Unlike Adventure Time, most of the rulers in the monarchies of Avatar the Last

Airbender and The Legend of Korra are cruel and controlling. These shows are not

ambiguous about their stance on monarchies. What is slightly counter-hegemonic about

these shows is that they are willing to show both the positive and negative side of this

form of government and the ideologies that come with them. The youth audience is

forced to come to the conclusion that one form of government is not inherently good or

bad. They are also shown how easily government can be changed within one nation. This

is especially in the Legend of Korra.

Anarchy and Freedom

In this section I talk about both Anarchy and the idea of freedom in general

because while only The Legend of Korra has a character that is outright anarchistic, there

are characters that show an aversion to government, or at least being underneath a

governmental rule. The third season of legend of Korra features the antagonist Zaheer,

the leader of a section of an anarchist group known as The Red Lotus. His organization

strongly believes that the world does not need nations or the avatar to exist. His

militaristic nature leads to chaos on the Earth Kingdom after he assassinates the Queen by

sucking the air out of her lungs. He also successfully paralyzes Korra. I use antagonist

rather than villain because the show portrays him, like all of Legend of Korra’s main

villains, as a wise individual with a strong sense of justice. Even when she disagrees with

his method, Korra is forced to see the merit of his philosophy. Although Korra knew that

the Queen of the Earth Kingdom was harming her citizens and that the president of

Republic City was a cowardly politician, she had very little agency to act on her sense of

justice. Zaheer claimed to stand for the people, and followed through by killing the

Queen. This nuanced view of showing Zaheer to have moral superiority over the main

character makes the viewer question what ideology is most effective by having Korra

question the same thing. His words do not reflect the posture of a blood crazy terrorist,

but a wise revolutionist. With phrases such as, “True freedom can only be achieved when

oppressive governments are torn down”, and “You think freedom is something that you

can give or take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is just as essential as air and

without it, there is no life”, Zaheer is put in the category of anti-hero. This is truly

counter-hegemonic, because a convincing individual directly contests the American

ideology of patriotism. While America may not be as oppressive as the Earth Kingdom,

it certainty teaches that a government is needed for a functioning society. With the

exception of the Revolutionary War any sign of a possible violent revolution, like with

many members of the black power movement, is condemned. Even though he ultimately

loses the fight, he succeeds in making Korra doubt herself and what she stands for. He is

even redeemed in the next season when he helps her spiritually heal. By allowing him to

be shown as a sympathetic figure and a teacher for the main character without having him

compromise his beliefs, his anarchist ideology is given even more credence. By never

having to admit that his core beliefs were wrong, Zaheer’s ideology is never completely

disregarded as evil or incorrect by the creators.

Neither of the other shows have such a strong defense of, nor even showing of

anarchy. The closest thing that Avatar:The Last Airbender has are the air nomads, a

group of individuals that Zaheer bases his more violent ideology on. In Adventure Time,

which highly favors the idea of the monarchy, characters such as Finn and Jake live

outside of any specific kingdom. They are autonomous in nature and mostly do what

they want. However, they have sworn allegiance to Princess Bubblegum and

consequently the Candy Kingdom. They support the monarchial system, even when they

choose to physically live outside of it. The character Lemonhope, much like Zaheer, is

enamored with freedom and acknowledges that being tied to any specific nature takes

away freedom. However, his focus is more individualistic. When told by Princess

Bubblegum that he is supposed to free his fellow lemon people from the fascist regime of

the Earl of Lemongrab, he refuses to be responsible for the earldom. Even staying in the

Candy Kingdom after being rescued from the earldom is too restrictive, and he leaves. He

screams, “I don't have to do anything that I don't want to. They set me free, and free

means I decide what I do, not them and not you”. Unlike Zaheer, his dislike of

government or authority is not a righteous indignation. He is an anarchist for not

recognizing any government or government official, like Princess Bubblegum, as his

leader. Even when he eventually saves the earldom, it is done to ease his guilt. He

promptly refuses to live with Princess Bubblegum and rebuild the earldom, instead opting

to travel. Lemonhope is closer to a libertarian than an anarchist, since his aversion of

government comes from the limited individual freedom that society and governments

place on people. However, his choices are never shown to be inherently wrong. While

Princess Bubblegum shows some frustration and disappointment because she believes

that he is shirking his responsibility, his decision to roam around is accepted by everyone.

While it is true that two core American ideologies are self-determinism and individuality,

they are only seen as positive qualities when they exist within the state. Lemonhope is

counter-hegemonic because his belief system both goes against the idea of sacrifice for

one’s country and because it is shown as a viable ideology for someone to have.

Communism, Socialism, and Fascism

I decided to put these three together due to the fact that they mostly exist in just

Legend of Korra. The only true existence of fascism in these show is in the form of the

Earldom of Lemongrab, as I stated earlier. The Earl uses a reconditioning chamber on the

Pup Gang when in the episode “You Made Me” they refuse to follow his orders,

electrocuting the children at an extremely high voltage. His catch phrase is

“Unacceptable”, an exclamation that he screams whenever something is not happening to

his liking. He eventually finds Princess Bubblegum’s candy life formula and creates his

earldom full of lemon people, people that he enslaves. He eventually eats the clone

companion that the princess made for him due to the possibility of opposition. The

creators make sure that it is obvious that he is fascist, even going as far as having a short

propaganda film made. Unlike the other forms of governments that have been discussed,

fascism is shown to be inherently wrong. Lemongrab has no redeeming qualities and

actually has to be deposed by Lemonhope so that Princess Bubblegum can make him less

tyrannical.

The first antagonist that Korra fights is Amon, a masked figure who stands for the

common man. There is a clear difference in class in Republic city between those who can

bend the elements and those who cannot. Amon begins to create unrest and holds rallies

calling for equality, equality than can be achieved through his unique ability to take away

bending abilities. This puts him in direct opposition with Korra, one of the most prolific

benders alive due to being the avatar. During a speech he exclaims,

For centuries, benders have possessed an unnatural advantage over

ordinary people. But thankfully, modern technology has provided us with

an opportunity to even out the playing field. Now, anyone can hold the

power of a chi-blocker in their hand. My followers and I will not rest until

the entire city achieves equality. And once that goal is achieved, we will

equalize the rest of the world! The Revolution has begun!

His followers, The Equalists, support Amon. Amon represents a communist

revolutionary due to his wanting to eradicate inequality and the use of advanced

technology in lieu of bending. Unlike in older cartoons where Communists are seen as

evil and completely wrong, Amon and his follower are shown to have valid opinions that

force the heroine to reassess her stance on the issue. Even though Amon ended up being

exposed as a bender, the points he made about inequality in Republic City were still

accepted as true. The fact that the two main leaders ended up being benders that used the

nonbenders and that the non-benders never saw any lasting change reinforces the idea

that the nonbenders were truly second class citizens. Korra’s last villain, however,

succeeded in establishing a government.

The final antagonist, Kuvira, comes into power after Zaheer disposes of the Earth

Queen and is captured. She is made the temporary leader of Ba Sing Se by the world

leaders after brings order to the city. She eventually attempts to reunite all of the Earth

Kingdom under her rule as The Great Unifier, a task that she eventually succeeds in. It is

difficult to define Kuvira because her ideology could be considered both fascism and

National Socialism, which is a more extreme version of fascism. To make things even

more difficult, she begins her rule as something more akin to a socialist. The rise of the

Earth Empire is very similar to the rise of Nazi Germany. Kuvira took a war-wrecked

nation and raised it on the ideology of fierce nationalism. While some towns and cities

joined her willingly, she would force others to become part of her nation. Her rationality

is that the Earth Empire must stay together as the best nation. Non-native Earth Empire

citizens and native citizens that opposed her were forced to work in camps and attend

reeducation camps. Her goal is to regain the former glory of the Earth Empire, even

attacking other nations that were on lands that used to be part of the Earth Kingdom

during Avatar: The Last Airbender. Race is very difficult to define in this world, but

each nation has very distinct racial features. As she becomes more radical and secure in

her position, she makes a very distinct differentiation between ethnically Earth Empire

citizens and non-ethnic citizens. She transforms as a leader. What is counter-hegemonic

about her portrayal is that just like with other antagonists in The Legend of Korra, she is

not viewed as a simply a villain. By having her speak truths, her ideology is validated

somewhat. In her speech during the episode “The Coronation” she exclaimed

I learned that the idea of a royal family passing a title from one generation

to the next was archaic, and that technology and innovation should be

what drives a nation forward. It was the pathetic rule of kings and queens

that caused the Earth Kingdom to descend into such incredible disarray.

It's taken me three years to get it back on track, and there is no way I will

allow it to slip back into the dark ages. I'd like to make an announcement

to the world: the Earth Kingdom is no more.

Her statements were true. The monarchs of the Earth Kingdom were either incompetent

or cruel in nature. Wu, the prince who was about to be crowned when she interrupted

him, was at the time pampered and inept. Everybody, including Korra, recognized that

the prince would have made an awful leader and that Kuvira had single handily brought

the Earth people back from ruin. Even if she eventually came in direct opposition with

Korra and Republic City and her forceful tactics deemed cruel, the writers did not make

her a one-dimension character nor did they totally dismiss her ideology. By making her a

righteous savior with legitimate concerns about and love for her home country, her belief

system that centers on nationalism and collectivism are allowed to be just as valid as

American ideologies.

The Will of the People

The United States is technically a “constitution-based federal republic [with a]

strong democratic tradition” (The World Factbook). This basically means that while the

people can choose others who will vote for their wants and needs, the concerns and safety

of those in the minority are considered despite what the majority may decide. The

primary rules of the government are determined by a constitution. In a pure democracy,

those in the minority of any given situation have very little, if any, protection against the

will of the majority. For this section, I am including institutions in which the general

population have the ability to peacefully elect their leader(s). This is different from a

society where the majority of their people may adore the leader(s), but ultimately do not

have the ability to decide when and if they leave office. In Adventure Time, societies

with this type of government are for the most part non-existent or frowned upon. The one

time that there was an election in the Candy Kingdom, it was proven that the people were

not smart enough to choose their own leader correctly. In the episode “Hot Diggity

Doom” Peppermint Butler told Princess Bubblegum that, “…I feel that you must

campaign. The candy people are real dumb”. She then responds, “This dumb election.

It's...barely even legal…And even being legal, I mean, I made everyone. I made their

homes. The candy people are mercurial, but they're not dillweeds”. The general sentiment

by most of the main characters is that the people should not have the power to decide

their leader and this is validated when the King of Oo, the winner of the election, is

shown to be both incompetent and selfish. The people were swayed by a campaign that

was a mix of praising the candy people and insulting the princess, something very similar

to American politics. Liberalism and democracy are a burden and ultimately harm the

people in Adventure Time. The only other example in which any form of democracy is

shown to exist is in the episode “Paper Pete”. In this episode Mildwin corrects Finn by

saying, “I'm not a king; I was democratically elected”. Finn quickly dismisses this by

calling that adorable. Not much is really known about how his people elect officials or

make laws, but they are the main antagonists for most of the episode until Finn brokers a

peace agreement between them and the Pagelings. For Finn, the protagonist of the show,

not only is a monarch the automatically assumed form of government, but also

democracy is just a novelty form of government that is not taken seriously. The Legend

of Korra has a more positive look on the democratic system though.

In The Legend of Korra there are many forms of democracy. The Southern Water

Tribe elects their chief. The United Republic of Nations, which was created at some

point between Avatar The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra, used to be a republic that

was governed by officials from the four nations. This however was eventually shown to

be a problem similar to ones that Americans had before The American Revolution.

Having the other nations govern the state, especially with all the representatives being

benders, was seen is inappropriate and the council was disbanded then replaced with a

president that was elected by the people. As a candidate, he received generous funds

from one of the richest people in the Republic City, the capital of The United Republic of

Nations. While the democratic state tends to be seen as mostly positive, the audience is

shown Korra coming in direct conflict with bureaucracy and politics. When people

disapprove of Korra’s decision to keep the gate to the spirit world open, the president

banishes her from the city to appease the people. After Korra saved someone who almost

fell off of a bridge, the president said “So is this the deal now, we have a crisis every

other day because of you? I order you to leave this city, you’ve caused nothing but

trouble since you’ve arrived”. Instead of dealing with the changes of the city, he shifted

the blame onto Korra. However, after she defeated Zaheer, he welcomes the wheelchair

bound Korra back into the city. He remarked after she left though were “ With the world

getting more and more dangerous, we need the Avatar now more than ever. Who will

protect us while she’s in a wheelchair”. His position as an elected official meant that his

decisions were based partially in how he assumed the public wanted him to act. The

ideology of accountability is very present in the republic system as it applies to elected

officials. His electability was one of his main concerns, which clouded his judgment

some times, despite his best intentions and genuine love for his state. Just like with the

other political ideologies and systems of governments in the show, Legend of Korra

chooses to be as impartial as they can with their representation of democracy. It is left to

the audience to interpret their own beliefs about democracy.

Conclusion

In my opinion, it is impossible for a show to be completely impartial or counter-

hegemonic when it is presented on a major television channel. No matter what the

creators may try to present, the bottom line for the companies that own the channels is

keeping their customers satisfied in order to create profit. However, the world that we

live in is connected due to technology and international affairs. As America embraces

different ways of thinking, the shows that are presented to the youth will imitate that

progression. Animated television has the benefit of being distinctly separate from reality

in a way that live action shows do not. Thus, they are allowed to push what is allowed to

be shown more than live action shows. The variety that this freedom provides give

children the option to explore different ideas and ways of existing, allowing them to

come to their own conclusion about the world they live in and the government and

ideologies that surround them as American citizens. Two of the core ideologies that

define the American way are freedom and individualism. Both of these require options to

choose from. One cannot be truly free or an individual if they are only given one choice. I

can think of nothing more American than allowing children to see the both the positives

and negatives of many different ways of living and thinking.

Works Cited

Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review,

1972. Print.

Banet-Weiser, Sarah. Kids Rule!: Nickelodeon and Consumer Citizenship. Durham: Duke

UP, 2007. Print.

"Charting a Course into the Digital Era." (1994): I-161. Web.

"Country Comparison to the World." Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence

Agency, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2015.

Geraghty, Lincoln. "Drawn to Television: American Animated Sf Series of the 1980s."

Science Fiction Film & Television 3.2 (2010): 287-300. Project MUSE [Johns

Hopkins UP]. Web. 17 Dec. 2015.

Konietzko, Bryan. Avatar The Last Airbender. Dir. Michael Dante DiMartino.

Nickelodeon. N.d. Television.

Konietzko, Bryan. The Legend of Korra. Dir. Michael Dante DiMartino. Nickelodeon.

N.d. Television.

Stabile, Carol A., and Mark Harrison. Prime Time Animation: Television Animation and

American Culture. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Ward, Pendleton, and Larry Leichliter, dirs. "Adventure Time. Cartoon Network. N.d.

Television.

Wells, Paul. Animation and America. New Brunswick N.J.: Rutgers U, 2002. Print.