Analysis of Mockery and Discrimination towards People with Disabilities in Cartoons: The Family Guy Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An interesting study, but at the moment the paper is very underdeveloped. My main issue is that it is assumed that Family Guy produce or reinforce negative representations of disability, when this is not necessarily the case. There are numerous articles within Disability Studies, which specifically focus on humorous representations of disability using both disabling and disability humour to demonstrate how humour can either be negative or can help to challenge problematic attitudes. For example, Pritchard’s (2021) paper analyses representations of dwarfism in Family guy and demonstrates how the humour is often directed at non-disabled people who mock people with dwarfism. There is a also a special issues of the Journal of Literary and Cultural disability Studies which has a few papers on representations of disability in animation (South Park and The Simpsons, which would be relevant).

The methodology is good, especially the quantitative aspect, but there is a lack of qualitative analysis. The scenes are described, but there is no analysis of their wider context and possible impact. Pritchard (2021) has actually analysed the scene mention from season 10, chapter, 6 and argues that it exposes problematic attitudes associated with dwarfism.

Whilst the paper is quite well written, there are some phases and sentences which are problematic. Line 28 – deformities are not ‘caused by disabilities’. Line 30 – should be ‘conjoined twins’ not ‘Siamese twins’. Also 

You provide a very interesting history of cartoons, however, I am not sure how the song (line 129-136) is relevant. Added to this, some information in the introduction is not relevant. Instead, I would advise you to draw on work within disability studies, especially humour and animation. Below, I have included the reference to a couple of useful papers, which i hope will be of benefit to you.

McKeown, S. and Darke, P. (2013) ‘Are they laughing at us or with us?’ Disability is Fox’s animated series Family Guy. In Mogk, M. E. (Ed) Different Bodies: Essays on Disability in Film and Television Jefferson: Mcfarland and Company, pp. 155-164.

Pritchard, E. (2021) “He’s Adorable”: Representations of People with Dwarfism in Family Guy. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies, 10 (3) 44-68.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, I would like to thank you for your effort and dedication in reviewing the article. Your comments and recommendations have been very useful to me and have also exposed me to new authors and theories that I will use in my future work. I will now respond to your points. I will answer in the singular because the three authors have agreed that the main author, will be in charge of it.

Point 1: My main issue is that it is assumed that Family Guy produce or reinforce negative representations of disability, when this is not necessarily the case. There are numerous articles within Disability Studies, which specifically focus on humorous representations of disability using both disabling and disability humour to demonstrate how humour can either be negative or can help to challenge problematic attitudes. For example, Pritchard’s (2021) paper analyses representations of dwarfism in Family guy and demonstrates how the humour is often directed at non-disabled people who mock people with dwarfism. There is a also a special issues of the Journal of Literary and Cultural disability Studies which has a few papers on representations of disability in animation (South Park and The Simpsons, which would be relevant).

Response 1: Indeed, re-reading my article, I agree with you that my conclusions implied that Family Guy projected negative and offensive humour. Although I still think that some gags are, due to their absurdity, and that depending on the socio-cultural context they will be interpreted in one way or another (thanks for the article by Pritchard (2021), among many other things, which introduced me to Hall's Reception Theory). To avoid this negative projection from the beginning, I have eliminated the literal quote from Puiggros et al., (2005) on page 4, and a sentence from line 578, page 15, which were the most likely to determine this negative view. I have also introduced throughout the text the different typologies of stereotypes and how they could be interpreted, for example, from line 188, page 4, referring to Pritchard (2021, 2017), Lockyer (2015) and Haller & Ralph (2003).

Point 2: The methodology is good, especially the quantitative aspect, but there is a lack of qualitative analysis. The scenes are described, but there is no analysis of their wider context and possible impact. Pritchard (2021) has actually analysed the scene mention from season 10, chapter, 6 and argues that it exposes problematic attitudes associated with dwarfism.

Response 2: At this point, I have used their recommendation of critical discourse analysis similar to that of Pritchard (2021) and McKeown, S. and Darke, P. (2013), although less detailed due to the review time. In addition, Pritchard uses critical and autoethnographic analysis, something we authors cannot do as we do not have a disability. I have replaced verbatim quotations after the inferential statistical data with discourse analysis of scenes that I have found representative. I have also introduced, in both mockery and discrimination, cases where stereotypes, apart from promoting a negative image, can also serve to claim disability as 'normality'.

Point 3: Whilst the paper is quite well written, there are some phases and sentences which are problematic. Line 28 – deformities are not ‘caused by disabilities’. Line 30 – should be ‘conjoined twins’ not ‘Siamese twins’.

Response 3: Indeed, as you rightly point out, in line 28 I made a mistake in the order of the words when I meant to say just the opposite: it is not that disability causes deformities, it is that some types of deformities may (or may not) cause disability. In reference to conjoined twins, this is possibly due to a cultural linguistic difference. For example, in Spain, the term "conjoined twins" is not commonly used, but "siameses or siamese twins". But I have no problem modifying the term in the text.

Point 4: You provide a very interesting history of cartoons, however, I am not sure how the song (line 129-136) is relevant. Added to this, some information in the introduction is not relevant. Instead, I would advise you to draw on work within disability studies, especially humour and animation. Below, I have included the reference to a couple of useful papers, which i hope will be of benefit to you.

Response 4: As for the song from "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", I have no problem removing it from the text either. I only used it as a reinforcement of an argument, but it was dispensable, as were other literal quotations that I have eliminated from the text.

In the introduction, I include so much information about history because, as an anthropologist, I like to put my subject matter in context. In fact, although I have removed some parts, I have included other references. I hope this is not a problem. I have also included, as recommended, a section on humour, disability and animation.

Concluding remarks:

Apart from this explanatory letter, I am including the manuscript in Word format with change control enabled (I hope there are no formatting problems and you can see them). The parts in red are the ones removed and the green ones are the ones included. The most important changes have focused on the introduction, including the section on humour and disability; on the results section, with the critical analysis of the discourse; and on the conclusions, which have been reformulated to adapt it to the new changes. I'm sorry that at first I seemed to consider the series as negative, but on the contrary, I consider myself a fan of Family Guy, The Simpsons, Futurama, South Park, American Dad... and I even know some of the dialogue by memory.

I hope that, following these changes, you will consider the manuscript for publication.

I thank you again for your work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Is an interesting subject and correctly worked and analyzed.
The methodology is adequate, and the structuring of the work is consistent with the methodology and objectives.
except for minor corrections that may be indicated by other reviewers, I recommend its publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your review and for considering my article for publication with minor changes. As the other reviewer did ask for major changes, I will now describe the main contributions:

1- Firstly, references to Family Guy reproducing only negative stereotypes have been removed. This is based on Hall's Reception Theory, for whom, depending on the socio-cultural context to which one belongs, stereotypes will be received in one way or another.

2- Contributions have been introduced in the introduction, such as a specific section on humour, animation and disability, while literal quotations that might not be entirely relevant have been eliminated.

3- After the inferential statistical analysis, the literal quotations were removed and a critical discourse analysis of 3 examples of mockery and 3 examples of discrimination, not all of them negative, was introduced.

4- Finally, and taking into account the changes, the conclusions have been reformulated, introducing that, although the series is aimed at an adult audience, children and adolescents also watch it, and it is therefore necessary for both public and private institutions to commit to media literacy and criticism of audiovisual content.

I hope that, following these changes, you will continue to consider our article for publication. Please find attached the manuscript in Word format with track changes and comments. I hope that there are no problems with the formatting and that you will be able to view them correctly.

Also on behalf of my colleagues, I thank you again for your work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There are some good improvements to this paper, but revisions are still required before it is considered for publication. One of the main issues is proof reading. There are a few typos and writing errors that need addressing. I understand that it is written in the author's second language, but it just needs editing to make it clearer. 

Line 72 mention '(all disabilities)' when this is not the case. I would say this is unachievable and clearly not the case in the paper. For example, there are other disabled characters not analysed, such as greased up deaf guy and the professor in an electric wheelchair.  Perhaps, a range of disabilities is more accurate.

Pritchard is a woman, please don't assume that an academic is male. If in doubt look them up or refer to them as 'they' or 'them'.

25 - Careful not to homogenise disability. Not all disabled people have been used as a source of entertainment. 

35 - dwarfs were also considered monstrosities and funny. 

37 - the line 'not only of the people, but also of the Victorian court' is very unclear

44 - should be 'for' not 'of'

191 - should be, 'to become disabled' 'not to a get a disability'

Looney Tunes predates The Simpsons and included disabled characters such as Porky pig, which makes the claim that The Simpsons was the first cartoon after Disney to include them wrong. 

The Family Guy' does not sound correct. 'Family Guy' is acceptable.

358 - please include a footnote or a sentence to explain that midget is an offensive term (Pritchard, 2019)

The first analysis, Joe not being able to take the tour also highlights companies not willing to provide access. I think this is a good example of social commentary. 

360 - the term 'chair-bound' is problematic. 

337 - serious, not 'seriel'

400 - what is 'peestraw'?

What do you determine as direct and indirect discrimination? How is this determined? Could it not be subjective? 

422 - Also uses a very stereotypical disability.

'Tea-peter' - Needs more emphasis on how it is exposing problematic attitudes, but also constructing disability as problematic. 

 

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf