The Bear That Wasn't by Frank Tashlin

(see youtube link for this cartoon short to the right)

When I originally read this book, I was hit on so many levels. There are so many connections that can be made to the text. One could use it to talk about man's encroachment on animals and their natural habitats (leading to global warming, pollution, etc) i.e., violating their social responsibility as living creatures of the planet. The people in the story fail to acknowledge the fact that they have destroyed the ecosystem that the bear once resided in. Instead, they choose to scold him for not doing as everyone else and for questioning authority. I often wondered why they didn't just kick him out of the company rather than go through so much effort to get him to conform? What if the story had been reversed - where the factories were encroached upon by the nature? Would the animals then ask the humans to leave or conform?

From a graphic design, media or visual arts point of view, one could talk about alignment, proximity, repetition, contrast. There are points throughout the story where image alignment tells a story without the need for words and vice versa. There are times when alignment allows for the expression of emotion. Similarly, the proximity of the text to the images is interesting. In the opening pages, it reads like a normal storybook, but later there are points where the words are on separate pages from images or where the text overpowers the images it shares the page with. Quite obviously, the repetition of his not being a bear serves to eventually "break" him; therefore, visually this is a required element. Similarly, the repetition and contrasts in the offices of the levels of management work to emphasize the disparities of the social classes. Lastly, the dark-light (black & white) contrast serves to emphasize 2 underlying themes of the book - The first is that man is destroying nature; therefore, stripping the Earth of its beauty and color. The second point being that when you strip a person (or in this case, a bear) of their ability to self-identify, you take away their ability to be seen in their natural beauty and spendlor (think of the film, "Pleasantville." The characters' color, in that case, were returned when they were finally able to free their minds and be themselves).

Perhaps more connected to the work of Facing History, it can be used to start a discussion on identity and belonging. The cartoon short reminds me of the Peanuts/Charlie Brown or one of those 70's cartoons with all the psychedelic flowers and backgrounds (which were often used as a critique of the prevalence of drugs during that time). Perhaps this effect works for the story because in a way the bear functioned in an altered state of mind much like someone who might have used a psychedelic substance! In any case, his identity was determined by someone else (the various levels of mgmt in the company that had encroached upon his natural habitat). The conformity is instant in the cartoon (the bear immediately starts drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes like the other workers). It's as though the bear had no issue taking on the vices of the working class, but didn't want or accept the work until the president took him out to the zoo and the circus. The question I did have is why did he keep the cigarette in his mouth the whole time?

I came away thinking that the "powers that be" failed to see people (in this case, the bear) as they are or that society would rather label you than to let you self-identify (think of the census) or have a knowledge of self. Perhaps, in today's education, there's more a move towards pluralism or multiculturalism, but there still seems to be fear of anyone who expresses pride in their individual distinct group if they are considered a minority. Society, in general seems to celebrate this pluralistic view of America because it's a way to focus on the positive, but it also seems to be a defense mechanism to keep us from talking about the real painful issues in our history. Similarly in The Bear that Wasn't, by continuing to not listen or not hear his pleas of individuality, they could repeat their ideology and ultimately, force him to assimilate.

The questions I continue to have are:

1. Why does the bear accept his role as a man?
2. Where does the bear go every night when the factory closes? Or is the story suggesting that the factory never closes?
3. What makes him come back to his senses (revert back to his natural state of freedom and individuality as a bear)?
4. How can this be connected to texts like Novum Organum by Francis Bacon or The willie lynch letter or the communist manifesto?
5. Does society celebrate conformity?

Interesting Tid-Bits...

• the cartoon leaves out the circus bear sequence
• the foreman and different levels of mgmt don't look like the same man; whereas, in the book, it basically looks like the same person who ages, gets more wrinkles, loses his hair and gains weight as his rank is increased