דיסני: תשעים שנה בחיפוש אחר המיתוס הארגוני

מסגרת מתודולוגית

מטרת המחקר: לעקוב אחר ההיסטוריה של The Walt Disney Company כרצף של שינויים בנרטיב התרבותי: לקבוע מתי ולמה כל נרטיב קם, כיצד החברה שידרה אותו לקהל, האם הקהל האמין בו ומה בדיוק הרס את האמון.

יחידת הניתוח: הנרטיב של החברה ותגובת הקהל אליו בתקופה נתונה. Disney נבחנת כשחקנית תרבותית המייצרת משמעות, לא כתאגיד המייצר מוצרים. נתונים פיננסיים משמשים רק כמדד ניתן לאימות האם רה-פיוז'ן התרחש או לא.

מנגנון מושגי

קודים בינאריים (Alexander) — כל תרבות מחלקת את העולם לשני צדדים: הקדוש (טהור, טוב, אמיתי, ראוי) והחולני (טמא, רע, שקרי, בלתי-ראוי). הזוג טעון רגשית ומוסרית, ודרכו אנשים מפרשים את כל מה שקורה סביבם.

פרפורמנס (Alexander) — פעולה חברתית שתוצאתה נקבעת לא באיכות התוכן אלא בשאלה האם הקהל האמין שהמבצע עצמו מאמין במה שהוא מבצע.

טקס (Alexander) — פרפורמנס חוזר שהפך ממוסד: הקהל יודע מה יקרה, יודע את תפקידו, יודע כיצד להגיב. עצם ההשתתפות בטקס היא מעשה של שייכות לקוד.

רה-פיוז'ן (Alexander) — הרגע שבו הגבול בין המבצע לקהל נמס: הצופה חדל להיות משקיף והופך למשתתף, רגשית וסמלית.

דה-פיוז'ן (Alexander) — הרגע שבו הגבול משוחזר: הקהל שוב בחוץ, רואה את התפרים ואת המבנה.

יהלום תרבותי (Griswold) — ארבעה קטבים שדרכם מתקיים כל אובייקט תרבותי: יוצר, אובייקט, מקבל, עולם חברתי. דה-פיוז'ן הוא תמיד שבר לאורך ציר מסוים, המאפשר אבחון מדויק של היכן הפרפורמנס נשבר.

האביטוס (Bourdieu) — מערכת תפיסה ופעולה שנרכשה דרך סוציאליזציה ופועלת אוטומטית; מסבירה מדוע לאנשים מאותה קבוצה יש "מפות עולם" דומות.

תרבות מיושבת (Swidler) — ההאביטוס עובד, אף אחד לא שם לב אליו, השאלה "למה אנחנו עושים ככה" לא עולה.

תרבות לא-מיושבת (Swidler) — ההאביטוס שבור או מאוים; מופיעים מניפסטים, הצהרות, משימות תאגידיות. אידיאולוגיה מווסתת במפורש — תמיד סימן לחוסר יציבות.

טענת טראומה תרבותית (Alexander & Eyerman) — ניכוס מוצלח של כאב אמיתי של אחרים כמקור לסמכות מוסרית עצמית.

נרטיב (Ricoeur & Alexander) — סיפור עם גיבור, נבל, קורבן ולוגיקה של אירועים המסבירה כיצד העולם פועל; התפקידים קבועים, אירועים ספציפיים מפורשים בתוך תפקידים שכבר התקבלו.

מסגור (Snow & Benford) — פרשנות מוכנה העונה על: מי אשם, מה לעשות ולמה אתה חייב לפעול עכשיו.

עבודת גבולות (Lamont) — בוררי איכות הקובעים מהו הקדוש לאורך שלושה צירים: מוסרי (ראוי/בלתי-ראוי), תרבותי (משכיל/בלתי-משכיל), סוציו-כלכלי (מצליח/שולי).

הספרה האזרחית (Alexander) — ספרה אוטונומית עם קוד בינארי משלה: דמוקרטי/אנטי-דמוקרטי, פתוח/חשאי, אוטונומי/תלוי. נוכחות בה מעניקה למוסד לגיטימציה מעבר לשדה התרבותי.

קבוצות נושאות (Alexander & Eyerman) — קבוצות חברתיות ספציפיות הנושאות ומשדרות את נרטיב הטראומה בתוך מוסד. המושג מסביר את מנגנון הפצת הנרטיב: לא "חברה" מופשטת אלא BERGs, ארגוני אקטיביזם, עובדים פרוגרסיביים.

תודעה איקונית (Alexander) — מצב שבו אובייקט תרבותי הופך לאיקון דרך מיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט חדל להזדקק להקשר כדי לשאת את משמעותו. דה-פיוז'ן הוא, בין היתר, הרס של מעמדו האיקוני של האובייקט.

Sources

Primary: public statements by executives (earnings calls, conferences, interviews), corporate documents, release history. For de-fusion verification: Box Office Mojo, Deadline Hollywood, CNBC, Variety. For the infrastructural layer (DEI mechanisms, BERGs, DEF 14A, ESG pressure from institutional investors), see the companion report [Disney: DEI Transformation 2016–2026]; in this text, such data is mentioned in passing where necessary for understanding the sociological dynamics.

Known Limitations

The company's narrative is reconstructed from public performances; internal deliberations are inaccessible. Financial data can fix de-fusion post factum but cannot explain it unambiguously: box-office failure is always multifactorial. Attributing the "cause" of a code transition is always a partial reconstruction. The 2016–2022 period is described in disproportionate detail compared to earlier periods — a consequence of primary source availability. Corporate documents, public statements, and verified leaks from this period are far richer than for 1928–2004. The term "narrative" is used in two senses: strict (per Ricoeur & Alexander: a story with hero, villain, and victim) and broad (as a synonym for code or frame: "stewardship narrative," "representation narrative"). This terminological licence is noted deliberately.

I. The Original Code: American Civil Religion (1928–1966)

To understand the transitions Disney went through, one must start with a question rarely asked: what exactly made Walt Disney's company not merely a successful entertainment business but a cultural institution of a special kind?

The answer lies not in animation technology or marketing. It lies in the structure of the sacred. Walt Disney created not entertainment but a secular religion with its own sacred geography, its own rituals, and its own mythology. In 1955 he opened Disneyland [a] — a physical space organized around the castle as a sacred centre. A visit to the park is not a leisure activity but a family pilgrimage to a place where wonder is promised. A new animated feature is a ritual in Alexander's precise sense — a public, collective performance of the code that must produce emotional re-fusion.

The binary code of this period: innocent magic / the cynicism of the adult world.

The sacred is the preservation of the child's gaze in a world that destroys it. Snow White, Cinderella, Peter Pan exist in opposition to the adult profane world: death and cruelty are present in these stories (Bambi's mother is killed, Cinderella is enslaved), yet the sacred pole is the capacity to keep faith in wonder despite them. This is not escapism. It is an affirmation: reality contains something indestructible.

Quality arbiters. Boundary workשופטי איכות המגדירים את הקדוש לאורך צירים מוסריים, תרבותיים וסוציו-כלכליים (Lamont) in this period is concentrated entirely in one person — Walt himself. He personally reviewed every project, personally set the standard. The system's stability depended entirely on one man's life. As long as he lived, everything held. After his departure, it collapsed.

Post-war America needed a narrative that simultaneously acknowledged the horror endured and affirmed the meaning of continued existence. Disney did not ignore darkness; it offered a structure in which darkness could be overcome. This was cultural work restoring collective identity, not mere entertainment.

The ritual was performed through the theatrical release as a family event and through television after 1954. But the chief performer was Walt himself: his voice, image, and public persona were inseparable from what the company produced. He personally hosted the TV shows Disneyland (from 1954) and Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color (from 1961) [b]. The audience believed the performance in part because it believed the performer.

By the Cultural Diamondארבעה קטבים של אובייקט תרבותי: יוצר, אובייקט, מקבל, עולם חברתי (Griswold): complete alignment of all four axes. The creator believes the code because it is his own. The object embodies the code through a living form. The receiver accepts it. The social world (post-war America) provides ideal soil. Here lies a structural vulnerability that would manifest within a year of Walt's death in December 1966: when the performer departs, the entire system rests on form without content.

Civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander). Disney of this period occupied an exceptional place in the civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander) in Alexander's sense. The U.S. State Department used the company's films as instruments of cultural diplomacy during the Cold War: American creativity, family, and optimism were set against Soviet collectivism. Disney was not just entertainment but a public embodiment of what a democratic society means. This gave the code an additional source of legitimacy beyond the cultural field.

Iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander). Mickey Mouse achieved full iconic status in Alexander's sense: form and meaning fused to the point where mouse ears became a symbol of childhood and magic without any explanation. This is iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander): the object no longer needs context. It is precisely this iconic status that explains why the company survived periods of de-fusion: Mickey continued to carry meaning even when new films did not produce it.

II. De-fusion Without Replacement (1966–1984)

Walt Disney's death confronted the company with a problem that code theory describes more precisely than any managerial analysis: what happens to a performance when its original performer departs?

The company attempted to reproduce the code and failed precisely because it treated the task as reproducing form rather than living performance. The logic was as follows: Walt created certain elements — castle, princesses, family values, musical animation. If one continued producing similar elements, the code would continue to work. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how binary codes operate. A code is not reproduced through imitation of form but through a living performance that produces emotional fusion. Without an authentic performer, the copy becomes a ritual without belief.

The result: eighteen years of technically correct but lifeless films. The Rescuers (1977), The Fox and the Hound (1981), The Black Cauldron (1985) — pictures reproducing every hallmark of Disney animation yet producing not a single moment of re-fusion. The audience did not actively reject them; it simply did not believe them. By the early 1980s, the company had fallen from the leadership of the genre it had created.

Rupture along the creator ↔ object axis: ritual without belief

This is a de-fusion of a special type: the performer has departed, the object is emptied. Form survives, content has evaporated. De-fusion without narrative replacement differs from de-fusion with a competing narrative in that it is quiet: the audience does not say "we are against"; it simply stops coming. This is why the company fails to see the problem for so long — the outward form is preserved. Here: eighteen years of quiet decline without a single public scandal.

Civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander). In this period the company lost its active place in the civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander). The Cold War still continued, but Disney no longer positioned itself as its cultural participant. It became merely a nostalgic brand, making no claim to democratic values and not attacked from that position. The absence of civil-sphere presence was protective: no claim, no target.

Iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander). Mickey retained iconic status as memory, but new objects did not achieve it. The Rescuers, The Fox and the Hound, The Black Cauldron remained merely films. Not a single character of this period entered the cultural vocabulary of a generation. This is the symptom of de-fusion without replacement: iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander) is not destroyed — it simply is not reproduced.

III. Renaissance: Importing a Living Code (1984–2004)

When Michael Eisner (new CEO) and Jeffrey Katzenberg (head of film production) arrived at the company in 1984, they confronted what corporate language called "brand degradation." Sociologically more precise: the company had lost the capacity to produce re-fusion. The question was not "how to make better animated films" but "how to restore the viewer's sense of experiencing something sacred."

Code-shift frame. Eisner reframed the problem not as "we are making bad films" but as "we have lost our connection to living mythology." This was a diagnostic shift: the fault lay not with a specific director or budget but with the loss of the source. The solution followed from the diagnosis: find a living cultural code already producing re-fusion elsewhere and transfer it. This is exactly why they hired Broadway composers Alan Menken and Howard Ashman — people carrying a living, working code from their own professional milieu.

Katzenberg's decision was non-trivial. He did not attempt to recreate Walt's code; he imported a new, already functioning cultural code from another domain. The Little Mermaid (1989), Beauty and the Beast (1991), Aladdin (1992), The Lion King (1994): these are musicals posing as animated films. Their logic, structure, and mode of producing emotion were transferred from Broadway, where the binary code had long been established and functioning. The Broadway code was settledההביטוס פועל באופן בלתי נראה; השאלה «למה אנחנו עושים כך» אינה עולה (Swidler) by that point; Eisner and Katzenberg simply transplanted a working mechanism into a new form.

The binary code of the Renaissance: transformation through self-acceptance / rejection of self for others' approval.

Ariel insists on being herself despite her father. Belle chooses the unconventional Beast over conformist Gaston. Simba rejects his identity and must return to it. This is the archetypal individuation narrative — universal enough to work across cultural and generational boundaries. Conservatives read The Lion King as a story about responsibility and tradition. Progressives read it as a story about overcoming trauma. Both readings worked simultaneously because the code did not require choosing. The abstractness of the sacred turns out to be the condition for broad re-fusion. It is precisely this principle that will be violated in the next transition.

Quality arbiters. Boundary workשופטי איכות המגדירים את הקדוש לאורך צירים מוסריים, תרבותיים וסוציו-כלכליים (Lamont) shifted from one person to a professional community: critics, the awards context, Broadway as a source of legitimacy. A New York Times review and an Oscar nomination became the new signals of the sacred. This was a more resilient system because it did not depend on a single performer. But the arbiters were outside the company, creating a new vulnerability: the company did not control the standard.

By the Cultural Diamondארבעה קטבים של אובייקט תרבותי: יוצר, אובייקט, מקבל, עולם חברתי (Griswold): restoration of all axes. The creator (Menken, Ashman, Clements, Musker) believes the code because they brought it from their own professional milieu. The object embodies the code through a living musical structure. The receiver recognizes the archetype. The social world (America 1989–1994, a period of cultural optimism after the Cold War) provides resonant soil. All four axes aligned; re-fusion was restored.

Civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander). Renaissance films appealed to the civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander) through the universal individuation narrative. Freedom to be oneself despite external pressure is a civic value, not merely an aesthetic one. Disney became a symbol of American cultural optimism after the collapse of the USSR — not through explicit declaration but through the fact that its stories entered the global cultural vocabulary. This was settledההביטוס פועל באופן בלתי נראה; השאלה «למה אנחנו עושים כך» אינה עולה (Swidler) presence in the civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander): not declared, simply existing.

Iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander). New icons emerged: Simba, Ariel, Belle, Hakuna Matata as a cultural formula. But their iconic status was structurally more vulnerable than Mickey's: it depended on the continued cultural relevance of the films. Mickey became an icon untethered to any specific narrative. Simba remained an icon of a specific story. This is the difference between a first-order icon and a second-order icon — and it will explain why the Iger era would require a fundamentally different approach.

IV. Franchise Mythology: Other People's Codes as Strategy (2005–2016)

Bob Iger replaced Eisner in October 2005 [1] and inherited a company in a state of new de-fusion. The animation Renaissance had dried up for the same reason as Walt's code: the living performers had dispersed. Katzenberg left Disney in 1994 after a conflict with Eisner and founded DreamWorks [c]. Howard Ashman, the author of the Renaissance's musical language, had died in 1991 [d]. Disney's own animation had degraded again. Iger did not attempt to reproduce the existing code. He changed the unit through which the code operates.

His key observation: the audience falls in love not with a film but with a mythological universe. A single film is only one performance of the code. A universe is a code that is performed endlessly, in different formats, across generations.

Code-shift frame. The problem was reframed: not "how to do better" but "whose codes already work and how to control them." Diagnosis indicated that Disney produced hits only where it controlled living mythological systems. Solution: buy the systems outright. The rationale for shareholders and the public was built through a stewardship narrative: "these stories are too important to leave without proper care." This is why every acquisition was accompanied by a public ritual of transfer: George Lucas personally "handed over" Star Wars; Steve Jobs "entrusted" Pixar. This was not PR but a performance of the transfer of the sacred.

The acquisition strategy is described in detail in the companion report [Disney: DEI Transformation 2016–2026]. Pixar in 2006, Marvel in 2009, Lucasfilm in 2012 [1a]. Each acquisition was a performance of the transfer of the sacred: Disney was not buying production capacity; it was buying codes that had already produced re-fusion with vast audiences. Star Wars is American space mythology with its own rituals: midnight queues, quotes as identity language, May the Fourth. Marvel is a modern pantheon of heroes with a branching mythology of relationships, deaths, and resurrections. Iron Man, Darth Vader, Mickey Mouse: objects in which form and meaning fused to the point where separating them was impossible. Iger understood that he was purchasing not characters but the audience's iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander).

The binary code of this period: fidelity to the mythological universe / betrayal of the source.

The profane is indifference to the source — producing content as mere commodity. This is precisely why replacing Tim Allen with Chris Evans in Lightyear (2022) provoked such a reaction. The Toy Story audience had known Buzz in Allen's voice for twenty years. Replacing him without explanation meant violating what was considered inviolable. By the old code, this was betrayal of the source. By the new code, it was a normal casting decision. But the new code had not yet taken root, so the old objection carried more weight.

Quality arbiters. Boundary workשופטי איכות המגדירים את הקדוש לאורך צירים מוסריים, תרבותיים וסוציו-כלכליים (Lamont) shifted to fandom: Comic-Con, Reddit, YouTube analysts became arbiters of whether new content was "worthy" of the universe. A fundamental shift: the arbiters were no longer professional critics but the consumers of mythology themselves. They were more demanding about canon but less sensitive to political content. These arbiters were the first to signal de-fusion in the next period, through their reaction to Strange World and Lightyear.

The ritual reached its most developed form: midnight queues, cosplay at premieres, collective viewing as a cultural event. Avengers: Endgame grossed $2.798 billion in 2019 [2], but more important than the financial side was that collective viewing was discussed as a significant personal event even by those who had never before been interested in superhero cinema. This is re-fusion in its maximal form.

By the Cultural Diamondארבעה קטבים של אובייקט תרבותי: יוצר, אובייקט, מקבל, עולם חברתי (Griswold): the beginning of a crack along the creator ↔ object axis. The audience was maximally engaged. But a large corporate structure was producing content with decreasing authenticity from the perspective of fandom arbiters: every canon-altering decision was discussed as potential betrayal. This crack would become visible in the next period, when a change of code itself was added to it.

Civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander). Iger's acquisitions expanded Disney's presence in the civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander) to an unprecedented scale. Captain America literally embodies civic values; his narrative is built around the opposition of democracy and authoritarianism. Star Wars carries the Rebellion vs. Empire code, read as democracy against tyranny. Marvel created a new type of civic hero: not state-sponsored but personal — a person who takes responsibility for the common good. This was settledההביטוס פועל באופן בלתי נראה; השאלה «למה אנחנו עושים כך» אינה עולה (Swidler) presence in the civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander): no one declares that Marvel upholds democratic values, but everyone understands it.

Iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander). The Iger era generated the greatest concentration of iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander) in company history. Mickey, Darth Vader, Iron Man, Captain America existed simultaneously as icons of different generations. The MCU created a fundamentally new type of iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander): distributed, where the icon is not a single object but the universe as a whole. The system's strength and its fragility were inseparable: the destruction of any element was perceived as a threat to the entire iconic structure.

V. The Crack in the Settledההביטוס פועל באופן בלתי נראה; השאלה «למה אנחנו עושים כך» אינה עולה (Swidler) Code: How #OscarsSoWhite Created the Conditions for a Narrative Shift (2014–2016)

Iger's strategy had created a specific trap: the greater the place Disney occupied in the civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander), the more vulnerable it became when the public consensus shifted. Disney became the target — not other studios — precisely because, unlike Warner Bros. or Universal, it had deliberately positioned itself as an institution with a universal cultural mission rather than merely a commercial enterprise. The growing crack along the creator ↔ object axis (fandom reacted ever more sharply to decisions altering official canon) amplified this vulnerability from within.

A settledההביטוס פועל באופן בלתי נראה; השאלה «למה אנחנו עושים כך» אינה עולה (Swidler) code requires no explanation. It operates as invisible habitus. Disney in 2010–2015 produced content without declaring any code — simply doing what it had always done.

But a settledההביטוס פועל באופן בלתי נראה; השאלה «למה אנחנו עושים כך» אינה עולה (Swidler) code can contain exceptions that at some point become visible. The Hollywood code of "universal storytelling" contained an implicit assumption: the universal storyteller is a white English-speaking male. This was an invisible default structure, not a political assertion.

In January 2016, after the Oscar nominees were announced for the second consecutive year without a single actor of colour in the major categories, the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite made this structure visible [3]. What had previously been perceived as the default norm was reframed as a collective trauma demanding an institutional response. This was a classic cultural trauma claimניכוס כאב אמיתי של אחרים כמקור לסמכות מוסרית עצמית (Alexander & Eyerman). Disney responded institutionally: in February 2017 the company appointed Latondra Newton to the newly created position of Chief Diversity Officer [4a]. The D&I initiatives of this period laid the foundation for the transformation of the following five years.

The company had already been moving toward greater diversity (Moana and Zootopia were released in 2016), but the logic remained within the old code: expand the range of represented characters without changing who tells the story. This was an attempt to broaden the sacred without altering its structure. #OscarsSoWhite posed a different question: who has the right to tell? This was a claim to the right to perform the ritual, not merely to its content.

Here the unsettledההביטוס שבור או מאוים; מניפסטים והצהרות מסמנים חוסר יציבות (Swidler) period begins. Ideology becomes visible and spoken. This is itself a signal of instability. Settledההביטוס פועל באופן בלתי נראה; השאלה «למה אנחנו עושים כך» אינה עולה (Swidler) culture needs no declarations. When a corporation begins explaining what its values are, this is a sign that the values are no longer self-evident.

Civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander). #OscarsSoWhite shifted the conversation from the aesthetic to the civic register: the question was no longer about film quality but about who has a voice in public culture. This is the civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander) in Alexander's sense.

Iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander). Pressure on iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander) began before Disney officially adopted the new code. The revision of classic films through content warnings on Disney+ (2020) was an intervention in established iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander): Disney was attempting to reimagine the meaning of objects whose form and meaning had already fused for several generations of audience. This created tension before the period of active transformation even began.

VI. Attempting a New Code: Representation as the Sacred (2016–2022)

Structure of the New Code

The attempt to establish a new binary code did not begin with an official decision. It began as a series of gradual shifts, each appearing local and tactical, but collectively producing a structural replacement of the sacred.

The old sacred pole: fidelity to the mythological universe / universal storytelling. The new one: representation / belonging / authentic storytelling. These are different codes, not an extension of one. The old code was about the content of stories. The new one was about the right to tell them and who sees themselves reflected.

Frame of the new code. The CDO's and Disney management's interpretation: who is to blame, what must be done, and why act now.

Who is to blame: the very principle of the "universal storyteller" as a hidden form of privilege, excluding certain voices from cultural space. What must be done: systematically change whose voices tell stories and who is represented in them. Why now: "to be on the right side of history" — precisely this formula recurs in corporate memos of the period. Latondra Newton, appointed Chief Diversity Officer in February 2017, formulated the operational objective: "Our intent is that every person sees themselves or their life experience represented in a meaningful way" [4]. This is a description of the new sacred pole. The code no longer served entertainment or mythological fidelity — it served to mirror the audience back to itself.

How the code was embedded institutionally through BERGs, DEF 14A, character trackers, and GLAAD SRI is described in detail in [Disney: DEI Transformation 2016–2026]. The sociological point here: by 2021 the code had moved from the declaration phase to the phase of embedded incentives — DEI metrics carrying the highest weight among non-financial indicators in the executive compensation system [5]. The code no longer required ideological conviction, only financial rationality.

Carrier groupsקבוצות חברתיות הנושאות ומשדרות נרטיב בתוך מוסד (Alexander & Eyerman). The new code spread within the company through specific carrier groupsקבוצות חברתיות הנושאות ומשדרות נרטיב בתוך מוסד (Alexander & Eyerman), not through abstract "corporate decisions." Outside, external activist organizations (GLAAD, HRC) applied pressure: they legitimized demands and set standards. Inside, progressively minded employees transmitted the narrative within teams; BERG members picked it up and created bottom-up pressure. The CDO provided the institutional framework binding everything together. This carrier-group configuration explains why dismantling the formal infrastructure (renaming BERGs, the CDO's departure) is not equivalent to dismantling the code itself: the carriers remained.

Quality arbiters. Boundary workשופטי איכות המגדירים את הקדוש לאורך צירים מוסריים, תרבותיים וסוציו-כלכליים (Lamont) shifted to external institutions: GLAAD Studio Responsibility Index, HRC Corporate Equality Index, institutional investors via ESG ratings. A fundamentally different arbiter configuration: they stood not within the cultural field (critics, fandom) but outside it (activist organizations, financial structures). The fandom arbiters of the previous period had not disappeared; they continued evaluating content by their own criteria. A competition of arbiters with incompatible quality standards emerged — one the company could not resolve in favour of one side without losing the other.

Cultural trauma claimניכוס כאב אמיתי של אחרים כמקור לסמכות מוסרית עצמית (Alexander & Eyerman). In Disney's positioning of its transformation, the mechanism of appropriating collective trauma is clearly visible. CEO Bob Chapek's memorandum after George Floyd's killing (June 2020) embedded the company in the racial-trauma narrative through a formula of collective responsibility [5]. The Reimagine Tomorrow platform (September 2021) was built around the image of people who "didn't see themselves" in cultural space — i.e., the trauma of invisibility. The very name "Reimagine Tomorrow" presupposes that the existing state requires reimagining. The institution positioned itself as the guardian and healer of trauma.

This produced a specific tension. A company with a market capitalization exceeding $200 billion was claiming proximity to the suffering of marginalized groups. The gap between the performer's economic power and the declared vulnerability cannot be closed. If the audience perceives it as strategic positioning rather than authentic performance, re-fusion is impossible. This is exactly what happened.

Iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander). The new code attempted to create icons through institutional mandate: the first openly gay protagonist, the first lesbian couple in Pixar, the first Black Ariel. Each release was positioned as a historic milestone. But iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander) cannot be administratively assigned. It arises when form and meaning fuse in the audience's mind — not when the company announces the fusion. Not a single character from this period achieved iconic status comparable to previous eras. Ethan Clade, the lead of Strange World, remained trapped in a single failed film.

Simultaneously, the new code was attacking existing iconic consciousnessמיזוג צורה ומשמעות: האובייקט נושא משמעות ללא הקשר (Alexander). Replacing Buzz Lightyear's voice was not merely a casting decision: it was an intervention in an iconic object whose form and meaning had already fused for the audience over twenty years. This is why the reaction was disproportionate to what seemed like a technical decision.

Why Re-fusion Was Not Fully Achieved

The new code was established institutionally: declarations, infrastructure, external ratings, financial incentives. But re-fusion requires perceived authenticity — something infrastructure cannot produce.

The problem was that the new code was vulnerable on both sides. The audience that valued the old code perceived the new one as its replacement. The audience the new code targeted perceived its performance as insufficiently authentic — which is precisely why in March 2022 Pixar employees wrote an open letter about the "systematic blocking" of same-sex relationships in films, i.e., de-fusion from within [6].

The code was established without a sufficient cultural foundation, and this is precisely why it collapsed along multiple axes simultaneously. The Broadway code of the Renaissance worked because it rested on an already existing, living cultural experience. Re-fusion cannot be produced by administrative decree. An order can create infrastructure, but not the audience's belief.

VII. De-fusion: Anatomy of the Rupture

Disney's de-fusion did not happen in a single moment. It developed through several parallel processes, each constituting a rupture along a separate axis of the Cultural Diamondארבעה קטבים של אובייקט תרבותי: יוצר, אובייקט, מקבל, עולם חברתי (Griswold).

Rupture along the creator ↔ receiver axis: box office

The financial data of 2022–2023 is not the cause of de-fusion but its publicly verifiable symptom.

Creators were producing content within the value logic of the new code. Receivers were not confirming re-fusion. When the "creator ↔ receiver" axis ruptures, the cultural object ceases to function as ritual and becomes a commodity that people do not buy.

Methodological honesty is required: causation is not established. Strange World flopped in part due to minimal marketing. Lightyear competed with Top Gun: Maverick and Jurassic World Dominion on the same weekend. Counterexample: The Little Mermaid (2023), with a Black lead actress, grossed $569 million [9] and directly refutes the simplistic formula "DEI = failure." Financial data describes a pattern; it does not explain it exhaustively.

The pattern nonetheless exists and contrasts with 2024, when Inside Out 2 ($1.698 billion), Deadpool & Wolverine ($1.338 billion), and Moana 2 ($1.01 billion) [10] gave Disney the status of the only studio with three billion-dollar films in a single year. Deadpool & Wolverine contained direct irony about "woke culture" as part of its narrative. The gap between 2022–2023 and 2024 is too large to explain by the quality of specific screenplays alone.

Rupture along the object ↔ social world axis: the leak

On March 29, 2022, Christopher Rufo published recordings of an internal Disney Zoom meeting [6]. By March 30 the publication had garnered approximately 2 million views. Disney did not publicly dispute their authenticity.

Disney's public code: "we tell authentic stories for everyone." The backstage code, exposed by the leak: Latoya Raveneau speaks of a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" [6]; Karey Burke formulates the goal of "minimum 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities" [6]; Allen March describes a character tracker for "canonical trans characters, canonical asexual characters, canonical bisexual characters" [6].

Along the object ↔ social world axis: the cultural object's perceived values came into conflict with the values of a significant portion of the social world in which the object existed. For DEI supporters, the leak was not a scandal but a confirmation: the company was actually doing what it had promised. For sceptics, it was proof that the public talk of "authentic stories for everyone" was cover for targeted ideological work. When the audience sees strategy where it expected sincerity, re-fusion is impossible. The leak did not create de-fusion. It exposed and publicly documented it.

Rupture along the creator ↔ object axis: the performer without belief

January–March 2022. Florida passes HB 1557, banning discussion of sexual orientation in elementary schools. CEO Chapek remains silent for several weeks. The Hollywood Reporter writes, citing insiders, that he is "less willing to take political positions" than his predecessor [11]. Then employees walk out; Iger publicly condemns the law on Twitter. Chapek reverses 180°: announces cessation of funding for politicians who supported the law.

Along the creator ↔ object axis: the performer did not believe in the code he was performing. Walt had no doubts about the code. For Chapek, the code was a function of pressure, not conviction — and this was visible. The audience stops believing when it sees that the performer does not believe.

The competing frame: how DeSantis hijacked the narrative

In parallel, a competing frame formed on Governor DeSantis's side. Both frames appealed to the civil sphereספרה אוטונומית עם קוד דמוקרטי / אנטי-דמוקרטי; נוכחות מעניקה לגיטימציה (Alexander) in Alexander's sense: Disney spoke the language of inclusion as a democratic value; DeSantis spoke the language of parental rights as a democratic value. Both claimed the sacred pole of the same system. This is precisely why the conflict was so intense: it was not a clash of different value systems but a contest over who correctly speaks on behalf of one.

Who is to blame: not Hollywood in general but specifically Disney, imposing ideology on parents against their will. What must be done: strip the company of its privileges, dissolve the Reedy Creek Improvement District (the special tax district Disney had controlled since 1967). Why now: protecting parental rights.

This frame was accepted by a significant portion of the audience faster than Disney could offer a counter-narrative. Disney lost not the arguments but the frame of interpretation. After that, all its actions were read within someone else's frame. This is the classic framingפרשנות מוכנה מראש: מי אשם, מה לעשות, למה לפעול עכשיו (Snow & Benford) mechanism: whoever establishes the frame first wins, because all subsequent responses from the opponent occur within its logic.

Institutional de-fusion: DealBook Summit

On November 29, 2023, at the DealBook Summit, sitting CEO Bob Iger stated: "Creators lost sight of what their No. 1 objective needed to be. We have to entertain first. It's not about messages" [12].

This is a code performer announcing that he had been performing the wrong code. Such a statement is impossible without prior de-fusion: a CEO publicly disqualifies his own performance only when it is obvious to him that the audience no longer believes. This is not the cause of de-fusion but its public acknowledgement.

VIII. Rollback and the Present

Rollback as a new unsettledההביטוס שבור או מאוים; מניפסטים והצהרות מסמנים חוסר יציבות (Swidler) period

De-fusion has been publicly documented, the code rejected — but settledההביטוס פועל באופן בלתי נראה; השאלה «למה אנחנו עושים כך» אינה עולה (Swidler) culture has not returned. The years 2022–2026 are a new unsettledההביטוס שבור או מאוים; מניפסטים והצהרות מסמנים חוסר יציבות (Swidler) period with the opposite sign. Previously Disney loudly announced a new code. Now it announces its cancellation with equal volume: Iger at DealBook Summit, "Talent Strategy" replacing "Diversity & Inclusion" in the executive bonus system, the disappearance of the words "diversity" and "inclusion" from the SEC annual report. The form has changed; the logic is the same: still unsettled.ההביטוס שבור או מאוים; מניפסטים והצהרות מסמנים חוסר יציבות (Swidler) The company has not yet found a code that works without announcements.

The open question about the code

As of March 18, 2026, the CEO is Josh D'Amaro (former Chairman of Disney Experiences); President & Chief Creative Officer is Dana Walden [13]. D'Amaro is an operational leader with expertise in parks and consumer products — not a cultural architect of code. Walden is responsible for content, but her public statements during the appointment period contain no formulation of a new sacred pole. This does not mean a new code has been found. It means the question remains unanswered.

The infrastructural layer (BERGs renamed but not eliminated; the CDO position vacant but not abolished; a continuing 100/100 rating in the HRC Corporate Equality Index [14]) is described in [Disney: DEI Transformation 2016–2026]. Settledההביטוס פועל באופן בלתי נראה; השאלה «למה אנחנו עושים כך» אינה עולה (Swidler) culture returns not through administrative decisions but through living performances producing re-fusion. In 2026 Disney is in a structurally similar position to 1967: no new performers, no established code, the old code's infrastructure partially preserved. The difference is that in 1967 Broadway already existed as a living code — one only needed to find it. What constitutes the equivalent of Broadway today is unknown. Observation horizon: 2027–2028 content.

IX. Structural Conclusion

The history of Disney as a sequence of binary codes reveals several persistent patterns.

First. A settledההביטוס פועל באופן בלתי נראה; השאלה «למה אנחנו עושים כך» אינה עולה (Swidler) code is sustained by living performers who believe in it because it responds to a real demand from the audience — not by infrastructure. Walt did not invent the code from nothing; he sensed the post-war need for a narrative of overcoming darkness and embodied it. Three times in ninety years the company lost its code-bearers and three times experienced de-fusion. Walt died — the code collapsed. Katzenberg left, Ashman died — the Renaissance dried up. The performers of the representation code were convinced by financial incentive, not belief — and the audience felt it.

Second. Re-fusion returns only through the import of a living code that already responds to a real demand — not through the reproduction of form. Walt drew on real post-war need. Eisner did not copy Walt: he brought in Broadway, which already responded to a living cultural demand. Iger did not copy Eisner: he bought Marvel and Star Wars, universes with ready-made re-fusion. The attempt to establish a code through institutional mandate (2016–2022) was the only case in which the company tried to produce a code top-down without a real cultural foundation — and the only case of double de-fusion.

Third. The more specific the sacred pole, the narrower the audience of re-fusion. The codes of Walt, Eisner, and Iger left room for different readings: conservative and progressive found different stories in The Lion King, and both were right. The representation code named specific groups as sacred and specific practices as profane. Choosing sides became mandatory: part of the former audience turned away, and the new audience did not arrive in sufficient volume to compensate.

Fourth. The shift of quality arbiters precedes the shift of code. Whoever decides what is sacred effectively determines the code. Every transition began with the prior arbiters losing their monopoly: from Walt to Broadway critics, from critics to fandom, from fandom to GLAAD and institutional investors. This is not a consequence of code change but its precondition.

Fifth. Each successful exit from de-fusion came through a different mechanism: Walt created the code from personal experience, Eisner imported Broadway, Iger bought ready-made universes. None of these paths is directly reproducible: the circumstances were unique each time. This means searching for "the right path" is futile. What one must search for is a living code that already responds to a real demand right now.

All five patterns point in one direction: re-fusion cannot be engineered, but conditions for it can be created. Disney has done this twice. The question of 2026: will D'Amaro and Walden find a living code that already responds to a real demand — or will they once again attempt to reproduce form.