Structural Antisemitism in Zootopia 2
Okay, before we even start, I have to say a few things:
This critique alleges that Zootopia 2 is structurally antisemitic. By “structurally antisemitic” I mean that the film blames a concrete other for the inadequacies of capitalism, a system that ought to be regarded as operating principally in an abstract, impersonal way. Capitalism is not rule by a shady cabal of capitalists with a particular demographic background, but the domination of humanity as such - including even the capitalists themselves, who are reduced to mere functionaries - by the imperative to accumulate capital. A concrete other does not necessarily have to be “the Jews” for a film to be structurally antisemitic, provided that there is some concrete other that is inserted into the role of “the Jews”. That said, in Zootopia 2, it does seem to be the case that the concrete other is indeed “the Jews” (for reasons we’ll get into). Structural antisemitism is not the only kind of antisemitism. Religious forms of antisemitism existed prior to capitalism and continue to exist. Rather, structural antisemitism is a distinctively capitalist kind of antisemitism, in that it can only arise in capitalist (or, at least, substantially commercial) societies. Moishe Postone is the theorist principally responsible for articulating this idea within the academy.
This piece should not be read as a defense or endorsement of the policies or behavior of the Israeli state. The Israeli state can be criticized without making antisemitic appeals. The contention is that Zootopia 2 does not merely offer a critique of the Israeli state but is structurally antisemitic. It is not principally about the foreign policy of particular nation-states. Instead, it explicitly features a cabal that is broadly responsible for everything wrong with civil and social life.
I do not blame any of the people involved in making Zootopia 2 for the critique I am about to make. I believe Zootopia 2 is a symptom of barbarized conditions. The film did not cause the conditions that gave rise to it and will not meaningfully alter these conditions in any way. I am making this critique solely for the purpose of drawing attention to the bad conditions under which we live. I am not looking to hold anyone “accountable” for these conditions. Indeed, I deny that such a thing is even possible.
Concordantly, I disavow and denounce any effort to harm the careers of anyone involved in Zootopia 2 on the basis of the critique I make here. Anyone who attempts to use this argument to “cancel” anyone is in fact participating in the very kind of thing I aim to critique, the blaming of a concrete other for the operation of capital.
With that having been said, here’s what you came for:
The Zootopia films are, self-consciously, allegories for modern, multicultural metropolises. They establish cultural divisions at the level of species - in the first film, the split was between the predators and the prey animals. These animals no longer eat each other, but some prey animals remember being hunted and retain a suspicion of the predators, while some predators remember hunting and retain a sense of superiority. Suspicion and pride must be overcome if they are to live together without reprisals. In this sense, the first Zootopia film occurs after Kojève’s end of history - the substantive conflict has already ended, and all that remains is for the predators and prey to finish recognizing one another as persons. Once this is achieved, the animals can have a party that never ends, fuelled by a Shakira song called “Try Everything” - because, in the end of history, failure has no consequences, no real stakes, outside of a loose subjective framework of “personal growth,” which means whatever you want it to mean. The first film came out in 2016 and expressed a desire for racial reconciliation within the framework of liberal democratic capitalism. It was very Obama.
In Zootopia 2, we discover that the mammals are living on stolen land. This land was stolen from the reptiles. If it was stolen then it had to have been stolen by someone. Who stole the land? It was a family of lynxes. It turns out that this family of big cats runs Zootopia. They pick who becomes mayor, and they make all the important decisions with regard to land use. It is because of this family that the city is corrupt, and this corruption manifests not just as racial tension, but in unjust economic arrangements.
So, it might seem that Zootopia 2 has a more radical critique, in so far as it expresses discontent with liberal democratic capitalism. But because the cause of the trouble is a powerful family that is defined principally in relation to its demographic identity, this discontent is limited to a complaint about corrupt elites, all of whom happen to belong to a particular concrete group - in this case, the large felines. Crucially, these large felines do not merely oppress the reptiles, they completely dominate the city from the shadows. Everything that is wrong with the city is in some way connected with them. They are portrayed as an internal enemy that stands in the way of Zootopia achieving its true essence. They run the metropole - they run what is, effectively, New York City - but they are also responsible for building settlements on land that once belonged to another group that is native to hot deserts.
One of the members of this family - voiced by Andy Samberg, who describes himself as a culture Jew - expresses an interest in helping the reptiles reclaim their homes. But he proves untrustworthy, ultimately acting as a spy for the lynxes. Where the first Zootopia was usually careful not to suggest that there is any particular animal group that is fundamentally untrustworthy, here the implication is that the big cats do not want to change. Instead, they use the idea that they might be interested in change to deceive others and get what they want. The characters trusted this lynx despite his family ties, but they should not have done so. They are revealed to have made a foolish mistake.
The film does not make it immediately obvious that the lynxes are “the Jews”. There is, as far as I can tell, no overtly antisemitic imagery or tropes. But the big cats play the role “the Jews” play in Nazi ideology - they are the shady cabal that is in fact concretely responsible for the problems of life under capitalism.
Why, then, do I say at the top that Zootopia 2 is not merely structurally antisemitic, but that it does indeed seem to be the case that the concrete other is, specifically, "the Jews”? We know that the lynxes are not just playing the role of “the Jews” but that they are specifically “the Jews” because of the way the reptiles are characterized.
The reptiles clearly represent Palestinians rather than, e.g., Amerindians. The reptiles were not just ejected from their homes historically, they continue to be ejected in the present day, losing more and more of their land to mammalian settlements. The mammals also alter the terrain, burying the old reptilian cities in snow - akin to Israeli terraforming efforts. The reptiles’ houses contain some architectural features familiar from western depictions of Islamic cities - lots of domes and curves.
It turns out that the mammals have stolen the reptiles’ intellectual property, failing to credit them with important scientific and civilizational achievements. It even turns out that the first cosmopolitan metropolis was founded by the reptiles. Before New York City, there was Baghdad. Before Aquinas and Scotus, there were al-Farabi and Averroes. The reptiles are not noble savages; they are the original bearers of advanced civilization.
The lynxes are not merely stand-ins for the Israeli state, however. Because the lynxes have their paws in everything - they control the mayor of the city, even though the mayor is not one of them - there is no part of the world of Zootopia that is outside their control or influence. They are not leading a feline ethno-state; they are spearheading a cosmopolitan project. Many other animals are controlled by them or live in fear of them. They are not embraced by these animals out of nationalist (or otherwise plausibly Zionist) commitment. Rather, they are tolerated because the other animals believe it is impossible to effectively oppose them.
Of course, the films’ heroes prove the doubters wrong. When the heroes prevail, as of course they must, there is another party fuelled by Shakira. The lyrics return to the familiar end of history themes - the residents of Zootopia are “wild” and “cannot be tamed”, the “only reason” they are here is to “celebrate”, and their only goal is to “hold onto this moment” and “keep the music playing.” But they will now do this with the reptiles, who are invited to join in.
After this song concludes, the credits shift back to the film’s suite, which incorporates many elements familiar from Middle Eastern music (see 2:32).
The implication of Zootopia 2 is that if not for “the Jews”, i.e., the big cats, there would be a pure capitalism which would incorporate “the Muslims”, i.e., the reptiles. There is nothing fundamental to capitalism which obstructs this, only the ill will of a group of bad actors who refuse to empathize with those they dispossess and oppress. These bad actors rule not through their own might, but by deceiving and manipulating other groups. They are conspirators, not the direct bearers of state power.
Why is Zootopia 2 like this? Between the fall of the Soviet Union and 2008, it was possible to frame international political conflict principally as a consequence of a process of intersubjective recognition that was all but complete, which needed only a little managing here and there to ultimately be successful. But after the global economic crisis of 2008, it became harder to deny that there is a problem with the global economic system. Yet, because the Soviet Union failed (first as an attempt to go beyond the nation-state as a form and then as a nation-state of the old type), socialism is in disgrace, and no other comprehensive alternative to capitalism has emerged. Without a real alternative, the recognition that the there is a problem with the system must somehow find a way to affirm the system within which it remains inextricably bound. It can only do this by structural antisemitism, i.e., by identifying a scapegoat group that stands in the way of what would otherwise be a pure capitalism. Because critics of capitalism have been unable to articulate a compelling alternative and because the manifest badness of the situation makes it impossible to surrender the critique, the critique cannot disappear and it cannot generate anything other than new forms of structural antisemitism.
As a consequence of the Gaza War, this structural antisemitism is increasingly not merely antisemitic by analogy. The Gaza War makes this structural antisemitism visible as antisemitism by making it literally the case that “the Jews” are once again the scapegoat. But this is a contingent feature of the present situation. Before too long, some other group will fall into this role. When that happens, calling the phenomenon “structural antisemitism” will strike most people as a bizarre exaggeration. Indeed, that may be how you feel about this piece - it may not have been convincing for you. But I do think this is going on and has been going on with an increasing intensity since 2008, and because of the seriousness of this matter I feel it would not be right for it to go unsaid. It is nobody’s fault. It’s just a symptom of the barbaric situation in which we now find ourselves. That situation must somehow change, and not merely at the level of elite circulation. And yet, The Way is Shut, so there is more of this to come, unfortunately. Eheu!