Working in Disney World
Welcome to the happiest place on earth, otherwise known as hell. Imagine entering a place where the air smells like fresh homemade cookies, the lush green trees are shaped like animated characters, and the sidewalks are always squeaky clean. The employees or “cast members” appear to be clean-cut, happy, wholesome, all-American people. This is the image Walt Disney World provides for its guests. But what goes on behind the scenes at Disney? Until a person has worked for the “big mouse” she won’t be able to understand the torture that can go on for employees. I’ve been in that Disney “cult,” part of the “wonderful world of Disney.”
I started working for Walt Disney World, in the parades department, when I was sixteen years old. I was hired to be a fur character (such as Chip, Dale, Suzy, and Perla) in Spectro Magic, the night parade. While I finished up my character training, Disney made me a dancing dragonfly in Spectro Magic, a step above fur. Soon I was training to play the face characters Mary Poppins and Ariel (the Little Mermaid).
Shortly after that, my employment was terminated due to “scheduling problems.” I could have gotten my job back, but I decided not to. I realized that Disney was not the place for me. But while I was still employed, I found it hard to comprehend the different attitudes and treatment of people within the character department, and I still do. Although all of the characters got paid the same $6.50 an hour, depending on their specific jobs they were either treated like paupers, princesses or kings.
Let’s start with the “paupers,” the fur characters. All of the people in the characters department had to start out as fur. To get hir...
... middle of paper ...
...r, when we were all a part of the same character “family.” Most face and fur characters won’t even acknowledge each other when they pass by in the tunnels. When I became a dancer and face character, my friends with whom I had gone through fur training wouldn’t even say hello to me anymore.
It’s pretty sad when I dream of the “happiest place on earth” and it turns into a nightmare. Disney acts as a drug that affects people’s perceptions on life. People would quit college and their well paying jobs just to join the Disney “cult.” I have friends back in Orlando who didn’t go to college just so they could keep their employment. I’d rather not be dehydrated, sweaty, and in a clique just so I can work for the “big cheese.” Walt Disney World is like the apple for Eve--- it looks intriguing, but there’s something not right about it, and in the end it’s evil.
Based on the article ‘Compatibilism’ written by W.T. Stace, he explained about the reconciliation between free will and causal determinism. He tries to reconcile both of these by adopting a compatibilist view of freedom. Firstly, it says that free will is related with morality which means if one is absent, so the other. We appear to be free, however, determinism suggests that every actions that we did are determined by previous events that happened to us that we have no control over it.
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
The Consequence Argument is an argument that concludes a hypothesis to be true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion, or a manipulation of one’s emotion in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. There are two sides in the Consequence Argument, compatibilism and determinism. Free will is the ability to either perform or restrain from actions based upon one’s decision. In the free will debate, Peter van Inwagen, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, takes on a compatibilist view by establishing that freedom can be present or absent in situations for any reasons, and that if determinism is true than one’s
With alcohol, dream-like states and moments of bliss are achieved. Although there is concrete evidence lacking, it is common to believe that seventeenth century Iroquois used alcohol as a shortcut to visions and dreams. [note—disorderly] Through intoxication, Iroquois would achieve an out of body experience. Unlike the Jesuits, who spent much time observing and interacting with the Iroquois, the Iroquois did not regard the temporary loss of conscience as an act of impiety. By getting outside the normal human physical order they would get inside the spiritual order and ultimately more in touch w...
Presently, Disney known for its mass media entertainment and amusement parks technically bring warm feelings to many children and some adults. Personally, Disney elicits magical fantasies that children enjoy and further encourages imagination and creativity. For decades Disney has exist as an unavoidable entity with its famous global sensation and reach. Furthermore, Disney is a multibillion dollar empire with an unlimited grasp on individuals and territories. An empire per se, since they own many media outlets, markets, shops, etc., you name it they got it. However, the film Mickey Mouse Monopoly presents an entirely new perspective on the presumed innocence projected in Disney films. This film exposes certain traits Disney employs and exclusively portrays through its media productions, specifically cartoons for directing and nurturing influence beginning with children. Mickey Mouse Monopoly points out camouflaged messages of class, race, and gender issues in Disney films that occur behind the scenes intended to sway viewers towards adopting Disney values.
They considered drunkenness ‘degrading to free me’ and questioned the motives of those who would offer a substance that was so offensive to the senses and that made men foolish. Most Native people who did drink alcohol were reported to show ‘remarkable restraint while in their cups’. Most drank alcohol only during social or trading contact with whites. Although drinking patterns since colonization grew almost exponentially, since 1975, drinking patterns among Native Americans have remained constant.( Alcohol 3)
Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a compatibilist argument in "Freedom and Necessity".
For centuries philosophers have debated over the presence of free will. As a result of these often-heated arguments, many factions have evolved, the two most prominent being the schools of Libertarianism and of Determinism. Within these two schools of thought lies another debate, that of compatibilism, or whether or not the two believes can co-exist. In his essay, Has the Self “Free Will”?, C.A. Campbell, a staunch non-compatiblist and libertarian, attempts to explain the Libertarian argument.
Compatabilists are the people who consider free will is compatible with determinism. They believe that if certain minimal conditions of voluntariness are met, actions of a person are freely chosen, notwithstanding that they are predetermined. They argue that even if the actions are predetermined, people are free in other ways that are enough to consider them blameworthy for their actions. Whatever the forces that determine an action (biology, social conditions, upbringing, god whatever) does not cripple our ability to act according to our free will. The compatibilist attitude is in vogue since a long time the forces that determine the action (role of determinism) have been evolving since then but the basic idea, the fact that we do a particular thing even though we don’t really choose what we want to do, we do only as we choose to do. This is put in a better way by T.M Scanlon ‘ Even If our attitudes and actions are fully explained by genetic and environmental factors, it is till true that we have these attitudes and that our actions express them.’ According to Fried this is the ‘indigestible common core of compatibilism’ that we are blameworthy for doing what we could not help but do. Fried argues that blaming a person for doing something which one cannot help his action is indigestible. Fried argues this by a hypothetical situation in which the driving force of an action is replaced by a result (which still is determinism, but of a different type). For this she gives an example of a bus driver who did his job with care and prudence but on one particular day when he is going on accustomed route. A child dar...
Free will is the ability for a person to make their own decisions without the constraints of necessity and fate, in other words, their actions are not determined. Determinism is the view that the initial conditions of the universe and all possible worlds are the same, including the laws of nature, causing all events to play out the same. Events are determined by the initial conditions. Two prominent positions advocated concerning the relation between free will and determinism are compatibilism and incompatibilism. In this essay I shall argue that compatibilism is true. Firstly, I shall explain what compatibilism is and consider possible objections and responses to the theory. I shall then examine incompatibilism and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and argue that compatibilism is a stronger argument and, as a result, show why it is also true.
“Are we free agents? Can we be responsible for what we do” (Strawson 225) This is the issue that Strawson brings to light in his essay. He begins to explain the notion of free will and responsibility in a compatibilist’s view. They believe that free will and determinism are compatible
P. F. Strawson was an English philosopher that fought strongly for the idea of compatibilism. Compatibilist see that libertarian free will and hard determinism are extremely different and there must be a compromise. Free will says that a human's actions are freely decided by the agent, while hard determinism argues that all past events will determine what is to come in the future. Compatibilism believe that in a mix of both libertarian free will and hard determinism. This is also known as soft determinism. The ideology of compatibilism says that both an action is determined, that is, that it must happen, but it can also be self-determined. But, where do we draw the line? What parts of our life are determined for us? What actions do we decide? These are all questions that come up for those who argue against
The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions are on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by Necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event are because of some prior cause. This causation may be by an external driving force, such as a divine power, or simply a chain of events leading up to a specific moment. The problem is then further divided into those believing the two may both exist, compatibilism, or one cannot exist with the other, incompatibilism. In his work, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume presents an argument for the former, believing it is possible for both Free Will and Necessity to exist simultaneously. This presentation in favor of compatibilism, which he refers to as the reconciling problem, is founded on a fundamental understanding of knowledge and causation, which are supported by other empiricists such as John Locke. Throughout this paper, I will be analyzing and supporting Hume’s argument for compatibilism. I will also be defending his work from select arguments against his theory. Because causation and both conditions for human freedom exist, Hume is able to argue everything is determined and Free Will is possible.
In the debate regarding liberty (i.e. free-will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism), Hume places himself firmly in the compatibilist camp by arguing that both notions can be reconciled. Though some of the arguments he presents in the Enquiry are unconvincing, Hume nonetheless still contributes to compatibilism by defining free-will and determinism in such a way as to avoid the logic of the incompatibilist position.
They include: excellence in leadership, excellence in casting, guest satisfaction, financial results, and repeat business (Coverly, 2013). As it pertains to leadership excellence, Walt Disney is cognizant of the fact that communication is indeed the key driver and foundation for a collaborative culture within the company. Therefore, in this regard, the company encourages the cultivation of collaboration by essentially creating an enabling environment where ideas are spoken without fear of favoritism. Hence, Walt Disney promotes the use of positive language as part of its strategy of fostering leadership and collaboration. The use of positive language lays a basis for the realization of excellence in casting as one of the company’s policies. It is necessary to note that according to Coverly (2013), Walt Disney does not refer to its staff as employees; rather, the company classifies them as casts within the whole business arena. This concept, as Coverly (2013) continues to elaborate, emanates from the cognizance by the company that each employee has an intrinsic and unique role to pay within the company. As such, it is more natural to refer to them as casts, rather than the traditional “employee” notation. This strategy is very influential in generating and sustaining employee motivation which stems