What'cha Doin'?

Home , Ferb Fletcher, Perry the Platypus, Phineas and Ferb

What’cha doin’?

Moral actions in Disney’s Phineas and Ferb

K. Chittick // Grade: 7

MA Media Studies - Television and Cross-Media Culture Graduate School of Humanities, University of Amsterdam Date of completion - June 26, 2017

Supervisor Joke Hermes Second reader Sudeep Dasgupta Word count 17.613

[disclaimer] Without the supervision of the profound and lovely Joke Hermes, this would have NEVER been finished. I’m eternally in her debt because of her infinite believe in my capabilities [disclaimer]

Table of content

Introduction 3

Chapter one - Moral significance of popular children’s television 7

Chapter two – Children, television, and morality 11 2.1 A historical view of children’s television 11 2.2 Morally justifiable violence 15 2.3 Moral allegiance 15

Chapter three - Moral theory 18 3.1 The fragility of goodness 19 3.2 The development of moral reasoning 20 3.2.1 The highest stage of moral development 22

Chapter four – Phineas and Ferb 25

Chapter five – Candace 30

Chapter six – Dr. Doofenshmirtz 25

Conclusion and recommendations 39

Bibliography

Introduction

Growing up in a family of five with large age differences has always been interesting. Six years younger than my only older sibling, however nineteen years older than my youngest brother has made me experience childlike activities multiple times. One of the things that I enjoy much is that stay up to date about (new) media and how they play a part in the daily lives of my younger brothers. Watching an ‘old’ childhood movie together that is nostalgic for me yet a complete new experience for them, while getting disappointed that they don’t seem to enjoy it as much as I did. Me being confused about the attraction of online unboxing videos which they seem to enjoy greatly… We do also enjoy the same things, like some of the cartoons that are being made today. Phineas and Ferb is one of those cartoons that we all like to watch, and we do so together. The three of us sitting in front of the TV, while I encourage them to discuss what we are watching.

A comparison of us with the main characters of Phineas and Ferb is easily made. Me being the authoritative older sister Candace while they are the inventive similarly aged brothers Phineas and Ferb. While our carbox house in the backyard does not compete against their robot treehouses, and our small mentos experiments with different kinds of sodas shows no match for the growing elixir the cartoon brothers experiment with, we are able to relate to the social interactions between the siblings. I get often asked if I would also ‘bust’ them if they would race around in a home-upgrade of their bicycles like in the show. Why won’t their sister Candace just join them in their fun activities, like I often do? And of course they mention that snitching is not good and should not be done. At least, they remind me that that is something I have teached them when they tried to get the other one in trouble by telling on them for innocent playful behavior. This has got me thinking, especially since they are asking for answers I want to provide them with. I tell them to bust when the other is performing a dangerous activity where one can get hurt physically, and that in that case I would do the same. A lot, if not all of the activities of the cartoon brothers however is physically dangerous. Yet I agree with my brothers that even though that is the case, Candace should sometimes just let them be. But why? The activity of busting impacts and directs Candace’s daily life immensely. Moreover, her unclear motives to bust, which seem to be more habitual than carefully deliberated or reflected upon, complicates viewing her behavior as good or bad. To bust or not to bust becomes an objective of intention, an article of real live moral debate. Like that,

this children’s cartoon character prompted a debate about what is right or wrong behavior.

Seeing as only one of the characters of Phineas and Ferb already offered me an interesting conversation, I want to further analyse the social actions of the main characters for potential moral storytelling. Furthermore, what kind of moral messages are there to be found in a cartoon series that could be beneficial to the moral development of children? Through media, children can directly get in contact with a moral narrative they can interact with. According to a research performed by Statistic Brain in 2017, a US child spends on average 3.5 hours a day watching television. Through active observation and imitation of characters in television children learn complex social interactions like morality, as is stated by Albert Bandura in the Social Learning Theory. Bandura’s theory may be old yet it is not outdated, as it is still used, applied, and proven in research performed in recent research from 2017 (Arnas, İnceoğlu, & Oğul; Daalmans, Hijmans, & Wester; Richards & Calvert). What is considered a right or wrong interaction changes as children grow up. Jean Piaget observed that the criteria on which children initially approach morality is based on the concrete consequences of an action, and later in life determined on the intention of the actor to conclude right from wrong. These different stages of moral development correspond to different stages of cognitive development. This rough summary of Piaget’s cognitive development theory shows that different people, especially children, have different sets of cognitive tools to think about morality. Key here is that moral development is thus more about what we think, then finding the right moral values on how to live. Therewithal, the thinking of morality will be visible through good/evil actions. Lawrence Kohlberg elaborates on Piaget’s theory, and his debated moral development theory will be discussed later on. To link it all back to this thesis about what case can be made for the moral use value of Phineas and Ferb, a series that does not immediately suggests it has any, the concrete question that this research will aim to answer is;

What kind of moral messages are there to be found in Phineas and Ferb that could be beneficial to the moral development of children?

To answer the question, this research will do a critical reading of the main characters of the show with a focus on their social actions for a closer look of potential moral storytelling.

Method

Based on various theories and concepts about morality and moral development, with a focus on Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning developed in 1983, a critical reading of the main characters of Phineas and Ferb shall be conducted. Through this character analysis, this study will examine whether the moral thoughts of the characters behave like the moral stages as discussed by Lawrence Kohlberg, i.e. whether they allow for a moral learning curve. In order to answer the main question of this thesis, several scenes from the one-part episodes of the series have been selected. Episodes used are selected on the basis of supporting and portraying moral actions. This resulted in 45 episodes being included in this analysis. The 36 multi-part episode and two movies have not been included in the analysis as the setup of these differ from the formula used in the 187 other episode and are thus considered an exemption, both in setup and character activities. Access to the episodes of the show was made possible, as the entire series is available on Netflix. Additionally, plot summaries, titles, and episode numbers were found on a online wikia phineasandferb.wikia.com. The characters that are analyzed are chosen on basis of them being main protagonist/antagonist. As cultural studies is involved with understanding the processes through which societies come to terms about e.g. moral norms in community life, this study fits within cultural studies (“What is Cultural Studies?”). The television show contributes to everyday meaning making within the specific context of children’s social interactions which also provides attention to in-group power relations. This thesis is a start to resolve the lack of research that investigates the content of children’s television and its relationship with moral theory, as the two are definitely connected/intertwined.

The first chapter will frame this study of the popular animated children’s series Phineas and Ferb to contextualize the quest of searching for moral significance in children’s television. The second chapter will delve into the history of children’s media that shows how morality historically is connected with children’s television, and how Jason Mittel’s alignment helps explaining how moral actions performed by tv characters can be recognized and adopted by children. In the following chapter, the moral development theory of Lawrence Kohlberg will be elaborately discussed, as well as other moral (development) theories. In the chapters that follow, the actions and moral well being of the young brothers Phineas and Ferb, their sister’s

Candace questions of moral intent, and evil Dr. Doofenshmirtz distinction between good and evil will be analyzed and placed within the provided moral framework. In this analysis the actions and motives of the characters will be compared with moral theory as described in chapter three and other theories will be added as necessary.

Chapter one - Moral significance of popular children’s television

There is no other media content that is debated as much as children’s television, yet there is not much academic research that analyzes the programs themselves. The anticipated effects of children’s programs are far more interesting and discussed, as parents are afraid their children might be harmed by the content provided in television shows, and thus not interested in discussing the content itself. The bulk of popular television shows for children consists of fast entertainment with the use of simplistic characters and narratives, often accompanied by a lot of violence, distracting sounds, bright colors, and a fast-paced edit, possibly enabling harmful effects on children’s behavior, achievements, and health (Wilson et al.; Valkenburg). This is in stark contrast to educational media content, that curiously may use similar elements, however in such a moderate way to enable improvement in cognitive learning and academic skills of our children (Anderson; Bickham et al.). Popular ‘un-educational’ children’s media is hardly ever considered appropriate television. This research is however based on the nuanced position that all television is educational (Jane 231; Samaniego and Pascual 10) ‘with a direct relationship between television programs and children’s pro-social behavior’ (Punyanunt-Carter and Carter 51), despite the main intentions of the program makers. Joke Hermes discusses that the bigger appeal of certain (commercial) television for children by children ‘is suspicious as there is a deep distrust of the assumed instinctual drive of children towards all things sensational and bad’ (124). In other words, the content of television shows that are popular amongst children is automatically dubbed as negligible and is associated with negative effects without giving it a good glance. Hannah Davies elaborates on the hasty distrust of the television preferences of our (vulnerable and ignorant) children and states that the common notion is that without adult recommendation ‘children will choose to watch material that is not only morally damaging but also inherently lacking in cultural value’ (5). Hermes however states that ‘popular entertainment (too) has much to offer in terms of citizenship and reflection on life, whether as usable stories or as fictional rehearsal’ (123) that shows children lessons on how to become responsible citizens in today’s society. Indeed, virtuous moral actions ought to be found in belittled popular children’s programming. Lisa Kort-Butler affirms that children’s shows act as cultural primers for understanding later moral messages. Even though children might not be able to immediately grasp everything portrayed in the show, their ‘moral reasoning is sophisticated enough to detect and interpret moral

meanings’ which children are able to apply later in life in the right context (54). Thus, just by being exposed to a moral argument may impact moral development.

Case Study

In his essay Phineas & Ferb: Children’s Television [“Children’s Television”] Jason Mittell rightfully argues for a closer look at the content of commercial cartoons, which aim to entertain instead of to educate, which is necessary to fairly evaluate the appropriability for children of said cartoons (57). An example of a condemned formulaic children’s program is the cartoon Phineas and Ferb [PnF], a highly popular and heavily commercialized cartoon aired between 2007 and 2015 on Disney Channel (IMDB). Mittell states that ‘in short, when critics dismiss children’s television as mindless, formulaic, hyper-commercialized pap,

Phineas and Ferb seems to fit the bill as a prime example’ (“Children’s Television” 57). Phineas and Ferb is one of Disney’s Channel most successful original animated series, and one of the few to reach (more than) 100 episodes (Bond). With 187 individual episodes divided over four seasons, 28 two-part episodes, one three part episode, one hour long episode, six specials, and two movies the series showed to be a massive success. The first episode was aired on August 17, 2007 and the last episode on June 12 2015, with a last special that aired later in the year on November 9 2017 (IMDB). Phineas and Ferb follows a fixed repetitive plot formula, with several catchphrases, often accompanied by a catchy song segment that addresses the activity of the day that is portrayed. The stepbrothers Phineas and Ferb refuse to give into a boring never ending summer break and get involved in either creating elaborate inventive things or doing crazy activities to battle their boredom. From building a rollercoaster, to discovering the Loch Ness monster, to getting a band together for their parents anniversary, and playing extreme ice-hockey. After Phineas states his catchphrase “I know what we are going to do today!” everyone comes into action. Their pet platypus Perry leaves to fulfill his mission as the secret spy “special agent P” by thwarting the evil wrongdoings of Dr. Doofenshmirtz who wants to take over the Tri-State, a fictional area they live in, with one of his many -inator inventions. Meanwhile their big teen sister Candace is occupied with both looking after her younger brothers and reporting wrongdoings to their mother and meeting with her friend Stacy or crush Jeremy. In some way, the evil plot of the show will collide with the boys activities so that the mother stays oblivious to the exciting and somewhat dangerous undertakings of her sons, despite the multiple (failed) attempts of Candace to “bust” her brothers in action. For example, when the boys build a

giant miniature golf course in their backyard in ‘Put That Putter away’ (1, 36), the Atomic-Leaf-Blower-inator of Dr. Doofenshmirtz spins the propellers of a windmill that is part of the course so fast, that the entire golf course is lifted off the ground and lands somewhere else in town before their mother sees it. The show then ends with the catchphrase ‘Oh there you are, Perry!’ stated by Phineas when the platypus comes back home after a successful secret mission, where the evil doctor himself is actually the one who foiled his own plan (which happens to be the case regularly). The next episode starts and ends in the same way, with only the activity of the day changing. This brief summary shows the repetitiveness of the show, which is appealing to children as they can easily understand the narrative. Mittell argues that:

“although critics would see such use of formula and repetition as markers of the show’s poor quality […] such an approach for storytelling focuses less on “what will happen” than “how will the story be told?” [which] is part of a larger trend of narrative complexity in television [.. ][that] demands that viewers pay attention to follow a complex narrative structure, contradicting the assumed role of commercial children’s television as bad objects” (“Children’s Television” 59, 60-4).

Its highly formulaic construction is what attracts the children in the first place (Mittell, “Children’s Television” 60), while it later functions as the reason to keep watching the show. It also reduces the attention that has to be given to the structure of the show so that they can focus on the characters, which makes this show a good research subject to investigate how the actions of the characters carry out a certain moral. While Mittells essay is certainly refreshing, it still neglects the actual content of the show (while deeming it quality programming), as it only focuses on the clear and fixed setup of the program. The question remains; what is being told to the children who watch, and is it wholesome in the way that it conveys any cultural and/or moral values? To answer that, this research will do a critical reading of the main characters with a focus on their social actions for a closer look of potential moral storytelling. Identification with the character in the show is crucial as social behavior is more likely adopted when the one being imitated is similar to oneself (Bandura). In children’s television, the main characters in the show allow for identification and/or alignment with the audience as their age roughly lies in same range as the demographic of the show. Add positive reinforcement, either vicarious through rewarding consequences for preferred social behavior

of the character in the show and/or the child in real life, and the child will likely imitate what they see (Punyanunt-Carter and Carter 53). Such generalisation are tricky yet handled with care as it is interesting to take into consideration. PnF implies that the distinction between good and evil is not as black and white as children, or adults, may think (Davies et al. 21), in showing children who resist adult culture by making it their own, bonding with other children, and displaying how good intentions and actions do not always end up well, while one bad deed does not instantly make you an evil person. The main characters of Phineas and Ferb will be analyzed to clarify how (unintentionally) actions serve as moral theory in practice in the predominantly commercial landscape of children’s media.

This chapter discussed the children’s cartoon Phineas and Ferb and offered a context in which a quest for moral significance in the show is motivated. The show is an example of concerns about a TV show that children find enjoyable notwithstanding a mature (dis)approval of the show. Heijmans and Mittell offered criteria as to why further analyse a shows like Phineas and Ferb to see beyond the initial condescending reaction when mentioning popular media for children, as it can be complex TV and (positively) significant in the daily lives of our children. The upcoming chapter will specifically look into how morality is interwoven within the creation of children’s television, in contrast to the overall moral significance of children’s television as is. It will also discuss violence in children’s media and the moral discussion that is connected to it in relation to mediated violence.

Chapter two – Children, Television, and Morality

A recapitulatory history on children’s’ television will show how morality played a part in the development of television for children. Children’s media in general always had the intention to teach children (moral) lessons in an amusing and appropriate way. Good always prevails evil, bad people will be penalized while right actions will be rewarded, and there is always an easy answer given for difficult moral questions. Through the actions of characters, viewers (in this instance children) are able to learn moral lessons from television. Jason Mittell’s focus on characters in “Characters”- with the complex differentiation between recognition, alignment, and allegiance - will clarify how identification can lead to confusing moral thought processes. This chapter will mainly discuss the history of children’s television produced in the

United States of America, as Phineas and Ferb is an American cartoon, created by the American writers and producers Dan Povenmire and Jeff “Swampy” Marsh. This Disney channel original animated series is a worldwide success and thus spreads American or ‘Western’ norms and moral worldwide. With approximately distributing 70% of the TV shows worldwide the US is the prime provider of programming (Fletchall), and houses the largest marketplace and broadcasters for children’s television (Westcott). These “universal” programs are often accompanied by cultural issues e.g. references and social norms, however animation seems to be one of the few genres to overcome this cultural barrier (Havens). The reach of this study is therefore limited to provide an elaborated analysis of the morality present in this American children’s show against a discussion of a historical framework of children’s television in the United States of America.

2.1 The history of children’s television The widespread introduction of television in the late 1940s, that gained a boost after the second world war because of the focus on leisure and shared experiences, commenced the distinction between a child audience and an adult audience within media. While certain radio broadcasts were considered to be ‘caring for both the soul of the individual child listener and for the morals and manners of the child population as a whole’ (Oswell 26), children were not a separate audience but rather addressed in the context of family (Oswell 21). BBC’s radio show Children’s Hour in 1922 could be seen as a progressive step towards media for children, however despite the name it did not get developed with a certain young demographic in mind in so more that it provided harmless entertainment for the entire family, using children as the

contact point (Bruce 186-187). TV for children initially followed the same focus. Early Western children’s television programming mirrored (commercial) radio broadcasts, motion pictures and comic books for children, along with matching social concerns about the relationship of harmful physical, emotional, and health effects between youth and the media. Norma Pecora states that early questions about television and children reflected in academic research got originated from social concern, and that these questions and concerns are still the same as today;

‘How much television do children view? What are the effects on children’s cognitive skills? What is the relationship among television, youth, and violence? What are children’s content preferences? What are the effects of advertising on issues of parental purchasing and brand loyalty?’ (Pecora 12)

As most questions was based on the available content, the conducted research provides a nice overview of the development of children’s television. Despite the similar development of the children’s shows on radio and television, where children’s television from the 1940s in the US can be best described as ‘family television’ for the whole family to watch together, television in contrast to radio eventually succeeded in addressing differently aged audiences. With this it is not implied that there was much television before the second world war, but the few hours of TV and even less TV especially for aimed at children didn’t address children per se. Television programs “for children” were created to attract families, to garner an audience that could be entertained by cheap programming during slow hours, and to demonstrate some kind of public-service (Pecora 7-8). Early on, television was seen as a potential to promote social good as people saw opportunities for television to educate and gathering. However, Sonia Livingstone mentions that ‘family television was more a popular ideal than an actuality’ (154) from the start, that eventually prompted individuality as well as youth culture after the second world war and thus had the complete opposite outcome than initially thought. After World War II, children’s television came up that was geared ‘both to construct a normative ethos for the child and to connect the child to an external world in an active form of citizenship and public participation’ (Oswell 49). What this meant is that shows were designed and produced to specifically persuade/attract children to become active members of society by showing them what to do, e.g. making art. This ‘ethos of participation’ was

successful, as it became an everyday activity that promoted social participation. However eventually the television shows tried to convince children (ironically through television) that they should spend their time more wisely than just passively watching a screen. By 1950, 27 hours of family-oriented children’s television was broadcasted weekly in the US (Bryant 95), in comparison to 2.5 hours a decade before (Pecora 8). To reach the children, programming was scheduled in the weekdays during lunch hour until the mid- to late 50s when saturday morning cartoons became popular. Children’s television programming was characterized by economic legitimacy through generating revenue locally (Bryant 50; Pecora 10). Either through filling up slow time slots with shows for children, or by creating a certain channel ‘flow’ (Bruce 185). Children’s television was driven by toy companies and the like as children turned out to be a profitable target audience to persuade them and their parents into buying products like toys, clothing and/or food for their ‘nagging’ children (Bruce 183). Children's television shows were either centered around products like Barbie and sugared cereal or dealt with a certain superhero which used a lot of violence and fast paced action (Bryant 41). Everything combined, the 1950s is considered to have been ‘the golden age of children’s television’ with television becoming the main leisure activity for children and families (Pecora 7-8). The trend continued in the 1960s with the arrival of color television and the discovery of cheap animation techniques by Hanna and Barbera at the end of the 50s. As children predominantly started watching cartoons on television, the belief arose in the Western world that animation was only for children. However research revealed that popular Western cartoons aimed towards children contained a lot of violence (Pecora 13-15), which lead to social concerns and turmoil as the danger of violence becoming normalized concerned adults. The violence in children’s shows was defended with the argument that it was presented within a moral framework and thus not that harmful (Reese in Oswell 145). That moral framework existed only of the hero winning all the battles, without discussing if the killing of the henchmen by the hero was an immoral act or not. Nevertheless, as long as the good guys would always win, their methods to defeat their evil enemies were unquestioned and the violence in the shows was accepted (for now). The lack of quality in children’s tv shows however didn’t go unnoticed and incited the production of shows designed to make a social change. Shows like Mr. Rodgers and Sesame Street do not only entertain and but also foster the intellectual and cultural development of children (Ball 2). Sesame Street for example used a strong visual style, fast-moving action, humor, and music as well as animation and

live-action short films to prepare young low-income children for school by teaching letters and numbers through repetition and modeling. Not only was (and is) the show a success, it pioneered the production of multiple educational television shows, which has led to numerous research to maximize the educational effects as the educational potential of television was not met yet (Pecora 15). During the 1970s as television shows continued to develop cognitive and academic skills of children alongside mindless and violent entertainment, Bandura’s social learning theory and Piaget’s cognitive development theory gained interest. Especially the possible outcome of aggressive behavior through social learning elicit research and concern, which in part led to the demand of regulating children’s television from the Action for Children’s Television [ACT] who started campaigning for regulations since 1967 and filed multiple petitions throughout the 70s (Pecora 17-20). Requests were made for age-specific content and limited advertising in children’s television, as well as less use of violence and conflict to attract the attention of children. Prosocial has become the catchphrase for the active child audience with live-action shows as an alternative to the violent cartoons. The new digital technologies that came up during the late 1980s and 1990s increased the amount of children’s programming and ability to control tv viewing, however the diverse range of programs did not increase being mostly homogenous pap. The arrival of commercial children’s networks like Nickelodeon, Disney, and Cartoon Network however did contributed to a great variety of children’s programs. These commercials channels were able to provide children with qualitative shows for 24-hours a day, often built around a character designed to sell merchandise (Bruce 280). With media available at an all time high, concerns of gender equality, obesity and violent video games increased the bulk of research on television’s role in society (Pecora 26-28). During the late 90s, the ACT was finally successful in setting some standards like the three-hour-rule. Television stations were required to provide at least three hours of quality educational programming, which they were able to provide because of the bulk of research conducted in the previous three decades. The start of the new millennium offered a widespread of media next to television. Yet out of the six hours daily spend on media, television still was responsible for most of the spent time next to video games and the internet (Pecora 33-4). According to Pecora, ‘children of the new millennium are considered both sophisticated consumers and technologically savvy’ (34) yet funny enough you don’t see that back in Phineas and Ferb who indeed are great engineers yet prefer to use their time to play with their friends and let their fantasies become realities.

2.2 Morally justifiable violence

When it comes to children’s television, there is often an overarching theme that revolves around right or wrong, true or false, good or bad/evil. This is also apparent in the development of television for children. Moral narratives that deal with good and bad are not just being used because children up until the age of twelve mostly think in that sort of dichotomies, but also because in the development of children’s television the simple good/bad distinction was an easy way to educate social conventions to children through television (Davies et al. 21). Violence was also a recurring part of the concerns and discussions about children and television. The question of morally justifiable violence still remains, and while a ban on violence in children’s media has been opted many times, the reality is that violent acts can still be found in children's television. Marina Krcmar and Mark Cooke examined how children view media violence and how their moral judgement is linked to it. Their results correspond to Piaget’s cognitive theory where punished aggression was seen as bad behavior by young children, while incited aggressive actions made a difference in older children deeming the punished action as rightful.

Dianna Murray-Close, Nicki Crick, and Kathleen M. Galotti went further and also investigated if children could recognize and would differentiate between different types of aggression. They differentiated between physical and relational aggression where ‘physical aggression involves harm to one's physical well-being (e.g., hitting, kicking, punching), relational aggression includes relationship damage such as the disruption of friendships or feelings of exclusion (e.g., ignoring a peer when you are mad at them)’ (347). Physical aggression was seen as worse than relational, however both types were recognized as different types of aggression albeit in different extent between girls and boys. This distinction in is important as relational aggression is expected to be more present in Phineas and Ferb than physical aggression. Both types are considered violent behavior and thus both types must be analyzed to give a good representation of good and bad moral activities within the show.

2.3 Moral allegiance

As stated before, this research is based on the nuanced position that all television is

educational ‘with a direct relationship between television programs and children’s pro-social behavior’ (Punyanunt-Carter & Carter 51). By reflecting on the characters and their actions it is claimed that PnF teaches children moral behavior. It does so through parasocial relationships, or as Mittell states through recognition, alignment, and allegiance (“Character” par. 10, 19, 21) which will be elaborated upon a bit further down. First, Rosaen and Dibble state how parasocial interactions increase the possibility of the viewer learning something from a character, and that parasocial relationships mostly emerge from identification with the character because of shared trades like age or gender (146-7). Since the age of the main characters is kept vague, identification takes place more people as comparison can be made freely with a larger audience than if it was specified. Parasocial relationship has a stigma however that Mittell explains as follows:

“While the notion of parasocial relationships between media consumers and on-air personalities, be they real-life celebrities or fictional characters, has often been pathologized as an unhealthy inability to distinguish between reality and media, it can instead be viewed as an active, participatory facet of media consumption, with fans choosing to engage with a media text and extend its reach into their own lives. (“Character” par. 16)”

In this case, a parasocial relationship can aid in transferring certain morals from the character to the child, which can result in (positive) moral development. Furthermore, the connection viewers create with compelling characters is often praised as is associated with an engaging scenario and storyline. Parasocial relationships are therefore not seen as negative delusional behavior, but as positive reinforcement of certain morals. To distant from the stigma the term ‘alignment’ as used by Mittell shall be used. For alignment to occur, viewers first have to recognize the different characters in a show, distinguishing the main characters from the extra’s and recurring characters and being able to identify characters with similar traits. Mittell argues that the simplistic repetitive nature of Phineas and Ferb trains children to become savvy consumers of narrative, which aids in determining the core characters of the show (“Children’s Television” 63). Not only does the shows formula rarely change but the characters in Phineas and Ferb rarely develop or grow which is not a rare occurrence within these kind of series. In this case the stagnation of a character's development aids in alignment with the characters, as the viewer spends a lot

of time with the character that results in a strong connection and provides a stable and clear access to their interior subjective state (Mittell “Character” par. 19). This is for instance done through providing backstories of the characters and by exterior markers like ‘appearance, actions, dialogue, and other sorts of evidence explicitly presented within the narrative discourse (Mittell “Characters” par. 20). It is exactly this what will be analyzed in this thesis that will provide the moral values of a character. Through the actions of and responses to a character's behavior we form an allegiance; ‘the moral evaluation of an aligned character where we find ourselves sympathetic to their beliefs and ethics, and thus emotionally invested in their stories’ (Smith in Mittell “Characters” par. 29). Allegiance is key in our moral judgment of characters and in imagining our own moral thought within our daily lives. As the show is more concerned with relationships than moral issues that drive the plot, allegiance will be of help. Since allegiance is not necessary to cue moral evaluation, it will definitely improve moral development within the child audience that has a close relationship with the characters.

In this chapter the moral panics surrounding children’s media use, specifically television in the US, has been historically discussed. Whereas children have formally been addressed by mass media within a family setting, television eventually distinguished an active children’s audience with animation being its frontrunner. Alongside research and development in educational media, mediated violence is heavily discussed and feared. The “educational blade” of television may cut on two sides as it could possible enforce negative behavior in children. Violence in children’s television is used by bad and good characters, which asks for a moral framework where the children are able to distinguish justifiable actions from senseless violence. The following chapter will provide a developmental moral theory to show how children learn to distinguish between good and bad behavior. Moral judgement however is also influenced by affiliation with certain characters, or allegiance with them as Jason Mittell would state. The extent to which characters and their actions are moral is therefore of importance to analyze and discuss, which will happen in the upcoming chapters.

Chapter Three - Moral Theory

Morality is related to principles of right and wrong in behavior and character, and is a social construct that always involves some kind of interaction. It is any notion that pertains to decision making about actions or people being right or wrong, good or bad. So when one thinks of the distinction between good and bad, one also thinks of a choice that has to be made. The moral choices and reasoning of an adult will, generally speaking, differ from that of a child. This has a lot to do with moral development that will be elaborated upon in an upcoming section of this thesis. What’s important now is that children are more guided from a materialistic, egocentric, and aggressive drive when making a choice, while adults take responsibility for their actions and are aware of the need of others. According to Friedrich Nietzsche moral actions ‘are judged by their origins (their motivations), not their consequences’ (32). Children however are still in a phase where (negative) consequences model their behavior and their moral judgement of others. If no negative consequence is registered, the act must not be that bad. As there are so many moral decisions to be made, children’s television programs may well prove helpful in showing how moral decisions are made by providing moral narratives. However many times there is not one right or wrong answer. While it may seem like there are only two answers, that between right and wrong, the answers are not at all dichotomous. Most of the time there are more options than just two, though the actual difficult question is not choosing from multiple choices, where one or more options is the right one. It is choosing between multiple morally wrong choices that raises the most conflict. An frequently used example of this is the ‘Trolley Problem’;

‘There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: 1. Do nothing, and the trolley kills five people on the main track. 2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the more ethical choice?’ (Foot)

Murder in itself is a morally wrong act where a certain amount does not impact the wrongness

of the act, whether it be one person or five, however one option may be morally better than the other one. On the basis of Greek tragedies, that constant provide us with similar moral conflicts, Martha Nussbaum elaborates on how everyone can become a ‘victim’ of performing a vile moral act.

3.1 The fragility of goodness

In her book The Fragility of Goodness Martha Nussbaums examines the effect luck can have on morality. Based on Greek plays she explains why certain bad things happen and why seemingly good people are sometimes the ones that commit horrible deeds. Nussbaum demonstrates that moral value is vulnerable to luck. She maintains, unlike Kantians who believe that whatever happens ‘the moral value of the good will remain unaffected’ (4) that moral values that are deemed good can become bad or wrong values. This has to do with luck. Luck is something that happens outside of the control of a person yet will most certainly affect their everyday moral actions. We cannot live without luck, as we cannot control everything, however there is beauty in that vulnerability of the human life. Furthermore we do not have to live at the mercy of luck because we have reason (Nussbaum 3). When it comes to a cartoon like Phineas and Ferb, luck is ever present, and thus also the use of reason to not let luck take control of a person. Instead of using reason, the characters of the show do live at the mercy of luck. The stories in which they are the protagonists show how without reason life almost collapses for certain characters. In the character evaluation chapters, this concept will be further elaborated. Through the controlling power of reason we can, to a certain extent, eliminate luck from the human life and live self-sufficiently. Nussbaum raises three issues that are at risk of providing contingent conflict of values. These are relationships between individual values, relationships themselves and our instinctual drive that includes emotions, feelings, and appetites that are crucial and necessary for a good moral human life (6-9). Nussbaum suggest to ‘master luck by simplifying our commitments to value’ that will minimize the risk of conflict between the three (9). The rational element that saves us from a life at the mercy of luck needs to be fostered in natural and social circumstances, as we are not born with the necessary adequate capacities. Lawrence Kohlberg explains a moral development theory that provides insight into how we develop those capacities.

3.2 The development of moral reasoning

American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory of moral development in six

distinct stages. In his article The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment he claims that every higher moral stage is ‘more adequate than an earlier stage of

judgment according to certain moral criteria’ (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 630). The sixth and final stage of his theory is therefore the most fair and best moral stage. It is the only stage where moral structures are completely equilibrated, a stipulation set by several formalists since Immanuel Kant for a true rational moral judgment. Kohlberg discusses every stage of his moral theory, and the psychological preference of progressing to the next stage, to prove his philosophical claim that his sixth stage complies completely with this equilibrium. Stage six is therefore the most preferable objective moral stage. Moreover, Kohlberg argues that he not invented just one more moral theory, but that his line of thinking follows a natural universal structure of moral development (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 634). Kohlberg’s claim on universalism however is untrue as it only applies to Western societies. Furthermore, the separation between morality and social conventions also needs to be made and makes a universal moral development theory impossible as that differs between cultures (Turiel). Moreover, Kohlberg’s work is heavily criticized from a feminist perspective and thus again questioned on his “universal” claim, which shall be discussed later in this chapter. Kohlberg was inspired by the work of developmental psychologist Jean Piaget on children’s moral development. He expanded Piaget’s work and came up with a different theory that is known as the six stages of moral development. Table 1 shows all the (six) stages of Kohlberg’s moral theory (631-2).

Table 1: Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

Level One Stage 1: Punishment-Obedience Pre-conventional Morality Orientation

Stage 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation

Level Two Stage 3: Good Boy-Nice Girl Orientation Conventional Morality Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation

Level Three Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation Post-conventional Morality Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation

The six stages are defined on three levels: (1) pre-conventional morality, (2) conventional morality, and (3) post-conventional morality. The levels entail a generic state of moral consciousness that is held up against other people as morality always involves others. In the first pre-conventional level of morality, others introduce children of what is right or wrong/good or bad through physical or hedonistic consequences. At the conventional level, children start to adjust their actions to the expectations of others surrounding them to conform to the social system that is in place. It is not until the post-conventional level that the (meanwhile) adult develops a moral for itself. Moral values in this level are independently defined, apart from (group) authority, yet are heavily concerned with others. Each level has two stages that correspond with the way in which the levels interact with others. The stages that are associated with this first level, the punishment-obedience orientation and instrumental relativist orientation, entail that a child follows orders to avoid physical punishment. The sanctioning is unquestioned and adopted because children simply do not know any better, not because of respect for an underlying moral of the punishing authority. This kind of awareness does not occur until stage four. Turiel however undermines this claim as children in this stage do not only fear punishment, but are also able to recognize hurt they themselves inflict onto others. The second stage is centered on the ego of the child as they perform actions that satisfy their own need. Personal gain is often reached by making use of reciprocity actions where, simultaneously but not intentional, the need of the other is also satisfied.

The conventional level is divided in the two stages of good boy-nice girl orientation and the law and order orientation. In the third stage the child tries to please others by being ‘nice’ to gain their approval. The intention of an action becomes important as actions are morally judged by their motivations and not their consequences. During stage four right behaviors consist of doing one’s duty; what people are ‘ought to do’. This orientation is

focused towards authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. An adolescent understands why actions are right or wrong and respects the underlying morality of the law.

The social-contract orientation and universal ethical principle orientation are part of the final post-conventional level. These final stages are reached during adulthood. In stage five individual rights and reaching (democratic) consensus are key. Emphasis is laid upon the relativistic aspect of the law in favor of social utility. Personal values and opinions are taken into consideration to define right actions. The final and most important stage six, universal ethical principle orientation, encompasses abstract universal principles. What is right is defined by self-chosen ethical principles. These abstract principles are based on respect for others and ‘at heart, these are universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity, and equality of human rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons’ (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 632).

3.2.1 The highest stage of moral development

A moral equilibrium judgment requires role taking and justice or fairness. Stage six complies with this needed natural structure as it aims ‘at determining moral decisions and judgment on which all rational men involved in sociomoral action could ideally agree’ (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 635) [underlining self added]. For a judgment to be fair, all parties involved should be able to agree on the resolution. However as a moral judgment is made individually, one must be able to empathize with all parties through role taking. It is important to take into account that reversibility takes place. Kohlberg states that reverse fairness entails the concept on reciprocity (642). Each moral stage includes reciprocity action, though only in stage six can be spoken of a fair ‘ideal role taking’ where all claims can be maintained. The ‘Golden Rule’ of reciprocity, ‘i.e. putting yourself in the other guy’s shoes regardless of exchange of interests or values’ (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 642), starts to develop during stage three and evolves into a fair form of ideal role-taking in stage six. The requirements for ideal role taken are:

‘ 1. To imagine oneself in each person’s position in that situation (including the self) and to consider all the claims he could make (or which the self could make in his position). 2. Then to imagine that the individual does not know which person he is in the

situation and to ask whether he would still uphold that claim.

3. Then to act in accordance with these reversible claims in the situation’ [italics self added] (643).

Only a claim that still holds after ideal role taking in stage six is a fair and just claim as it eliminates the ego through a ‘veil of ignorance’ where every person is equal. Kohlberg shows that through this ignorant veil, where one does not know who he is in the story, people from different stages achieve the same moral solution as a person in stage six. These people seem to be prepared to sacrifice themselves when it turns out to be the fairest moral solution (644-5).

The universal ethical principle stage is therefore a morally better stage than its predecessor as it involves an extensive equilibrium as a result of the sequential processing of moral experiences. This process is ‘not based on teachings, ideologies or theories’ and therefore a natural universal structure in moral development (Kohlberg, Levine and Hewer 632-3). Kohlberg thus proves his claim that stage six is the most objective moral stage that is established through natural developments. Or not. Further research showed that only the first four stages of Kohlberg are universal and that his last two stages are culturally and socially dependent (Gielen & Markoulis). Since this research however is not looking into the highest moral stages but only makes use of the stages that children and young people can obtain, the theory of Kohlberg is still useful. Nonetheless, the belief that the moral stages are connected to certain ages is something this research criticizes. The connection of moral development to age would mean that at a certain age, people cannot grow anymore on a moral level. It is believed that people from any age could still be stuck in stage three by the age of 40 and that a teen of 19 might be able to reach stage six, as moral reasoning has more to do with the cognitive development than age. As mentioned before, his moral development theory is also heavily criticized from a feminist perspective. Namely, Kohlberg derived his theory by telling his (only male) participants a story about a man in need of medication for his dying wife without the proper means to legally obtain the medicine. This moral dilemma that Kohlberg uses is believed to be too far removed from real life experiences, which makes his results questionable. However this does not void the first four stages for being deemed universally correct. The main issue with the dilemma used is that men seemed to had little issue with answering what the “right” moral action would be. When Gilligan imitated Kohlberg’s research and included women, she

noticed that women asked for elaboration on the characters before answering. While the men had no problem with a certain detachment with the characters in the story thus giving an objective answer, women find it hard to not get attached to the characters of the story (Gilligan 73). Kohlberg’s theory thus entails that a right moral judgment is derived from a masculine moral development that is sophisticated, while feminine moral development is a failure and childish since it differs from male moral judgment to the extent that women’s judgment comprises empathy. Clinchy elaborates and states that this has to do with ‘men showing a “separate” pattern [in thinking] and women a “relational” pattern at every level of epistemological development’ (18). Empathy is universal but more common in the moral reasoning of women while it does not mean that men are better morally developed.

This chapter discussed Kohlbergs moral development theory and concluded that it may have some issues yet is useful for this research. The first four moral stages that are needed function as a good theory to juxtapose against the actions and moral reasoning of the main characters of Phineas and Ferb, at least for the male characters. In the following chapters, the four main characters of the show - Phineas, Ferb, Candace, and Dr. Doofenschmirtz - will be analyzed and held against the development moral stages of Kohlberg. Phineas and Ferb will be discussed in the context of learning right moral actions and how the consequences are similarly important. The female lead Candace could do with a more feminine approach to morality as offered by Gilligan, however Nussbaum’s moral dilemmas offer an interesting perspective on right moral choices. Whereas Dr. Doofenschmirtz may benefit from an anti-hero approach, his motivation and justification of evil actions show how a horrid upbringing does not per se lead to an evil person. The fitting theories will be elaborated upon in the corresponding chapters.

Chapter four – The brothers Phineas and Ferb

In this chapter the two main characters of the show, the title characters and stepbrothers Phineas Flynn and Ferb Fletcher, will be analyzed. In the show, as the protagonists, they are set as the good guys and as the only characters who are competent at anything. Whether it is becoming a one hit wonder in ‘Flop Starz’ (1, 4B), building an aquarium in their backyard for their pet goldfish in ‘Backyard Aquarium’ (2, 3A), busting a “monster” in ‘That's the Spirit’ (3, 22A), or help their sister with finding the perfect gift for her boyfriend Jeremy in ‘Cheers for Fears (4, 28A), they can accomplish anything. This duo has unique characteristics that complement each other. Even though their parents are present in the series, the boys miss a real authoritative figure that watches over them, causing the boys to be guilty of dangerous and irresponsible behavior on a daily basis. All in good fun of course, and with a childlike enthusiasm and naivety. Like in ‘Moon Farm’ (3, 7B) the boys bring cows to the actual moon to test if the moon's low gravity can turn cow's milk the best in the world to make the best ice cream with in after being inspired by a verse in a nursery rhyme. it is clear that they have good intentions and are capable of inventing whatever they put their minds to, however they also are extremely lucky in all their undertakings. They are doused in luck in ‘Where’s Perry?’ when a well placed jungle vine prevents them from falling from a cliff (3, 31B), however since everything goes well they are not aware of the horrible consequences that could occur.

Phineas Phineas is the genius behind most of their daily activities. He has a triangle-shaped face, red messy hair, and the same orange striped shirt and blue pants as an outfit. His age is unknown, though it is believed that he is around eight and ten years old. He is very talkative, a leader, and super positive. Phineas has two catchphrases, or running gags, that demonstrate his leadership and talkative nature (insomuch that he has the most catchphrases in the show). The first is ‘I know what we are going to do today!’, upon which all the other characters get into action. Phineas is the brain, the leader. Ferb is the muscle who can turn all his crazy ideas into reality. In the first (pilot) episode ‘Rollercoaster’ (1, 1A), Phineas decided that he wants to design their own amazing rollercoaster in their

backyard and together with Ferb he gets it done. His intention is none other than to have a fun and interesting summer break, and not a boring vacation as is stated on the radio in the beginning of the episode. Since there is no malice in his intentions, how can his activity be morally wrong or bad? When he is questioned in the same episode if he isn’t a bit young to be a rollercoaster engineer, his other catchphrase or running gag comes up as he answers it with “Yes. Yes I am’. This shows how aware Phineas is about his young age and unique brain. He’s unaware however that his sister is always trying to tattle about their dangerous activities to their mother and believes that she merely wants to inform mom about their fun and interesting undertakings. Even in ‘Flop Starz’ (1, 4B) when Candace says to him “That’s it! I’m gonna tell mom”. Phineas replies with “Ok. Tell her what?”. He’s very unaware of the consequences of their activities, and even admits to that in ‘Cranius Maximus’ (3, 45B). This lack of consequences of certain actions is not good for the moral development, as Kohlberg’s pre-conventional level makes clear that children learn good from bad actions through fear of punishment or realization of hurt to others. Phineas clearly shows that he is unable to experience either outcome and thus still in the first stage of the pre-conventional level. His state cannot be blamed on only himself as it is clear that he lacks an authoritative figure. Even though their mother is home almost every day, she goes of to friends, spa days or dates and leaves her children home alone. His sister Candace does try to be an authoritative figure but fails miserably. Phineas could be defined by the second stage of Kohlberg because of his unawareness of the big crush his friend Isabella has on him. Everyone knows that she loves Phineas accept for him. It is only in one of the final episodes that he finds out that she liked him all this time (‘Act Your Age’ 4, 47). Phineas’ ego has been in the way, meaning that he was only busy with satisfying his own needs; ridding himself of his boredom. However if you look at other episodes, you know that Phineas is very helpful as he uses his time to help friends in their tasks (‘Unfair Science Fair’ (1, 46A); ‘At the Car Wash’ (2, 16B); ‘Bad Hair Day‘(3, 12A)). What is also notable is that Phineas is never aggressive or violent. In ‘Raging Bully’ (1, 5B) he is challenged to a thumb wrestling fight by the bully Bufford and he only accepts to stand up for his bullied friend Baljeet and in the hopes to stop Buffurd from bullying other/more people. His violence in this case is justified as he has good intentions and was provoked to join a violent solution. This is one of the rare occasions in which Phineas shows violent behavior. He’s also very oblivious to aggressive behavior and only shows himself raising his voice and becoming angry at Candace in ‘Summer Belongs to You’ (2, 54) when

he yells ‘Get on the trike!’ and Candace immediately obliges as it is something Phineas normally does not resort to.

Ferb Ferb is the quiet brother who can literally create anything. His head is shaped like the letter F that seems to have no other function than coincidentally matching with his name, and he wears a high purple jeans with belt and light yellow shirt. His messy hair has a green color. His age is unknown but estimated to be around between eight and ten years old, just a little bit younger than Phineas. Ferb rarely speaks. In the first episode ‘Rollercoaster’ (1, 1A) their friend Isabella asks Phineas if he ever speaks and Phineas answers that Ferb is more ‘A guy of action’. His actions do speak louder than words, where he could be seen as a voice of morality. He only speaks when he has to and barely shows any emotions, but when he does it has a lot of impact! It is difficult to share any instances that demonstrate his moral actions as he mostly follows Phineas without questions. He does not show any form of violence, however is seen as capable of defending himself when threatened (‘Raging Bully’ (1, 5B). Ferb is just as oblivious about his moral wrongdoings as is his mother about their actions. As stated by Kohlberg, in the first stage of moral development, children like Ferb are taught what is right or wrong through physical or hedonistic consequences. This will model their (future) behavior accordingly. As Ferb however never gets caught while behaving wrongly, thus never having to face any negative consequences, he has no incentive to stop their dangerous actions.

In the episode ‘Phineas and Ferb Get Busted!’ (2, 1) Candace is finally successful in her attempt to reveal the fearless actions of her brothers to their mother. Linda is obviously shocked when she sees the boys driving a modified version of her station wagon that can now fly. Her shock quickly turns into anger upon which the boys get severely punished and are send to a reformatory school for their own safety. There the boys receive even more punishment when they are showing signs of creativity and imagination that might lead to dangerous situations. At first Phineas and Ferb try to go against their punishment but soon enough the sanctioning they receive are unquestioned and adopted as they do not know any better than to listen to authority, or getting punished when not. This behavior aligns with the description of the first punishment-obedience level by Kohlberg.

At the end, the episode reveals to be a dream of their pet platypus Perry but it gets the message of listening to authority very well. This does question the moral development of the boys activities and their position as good guys, however it seems they are so by accident and/or mere luck, or just by being the title characters of the show. In only one episode do the boys do seem to show that they are capable of listening to authority, however it is hardly the ordinary moral universe of the show. The musical montage of the episode however involve the lyrics ‘Don’t say imagination is morally wrong’ where they sing about their creativity being crushed. Without authority, without an adult, the moral universe of the show revolves around the children themselves and what they find important - an infinite amount of creativity and having fun. Every episode allows them to enjoy themselves because of their own imagination, where every enjoyable act involves helping others, or not inconveniencing others. In the pre-conventional moral level of Kohlberg, the ego of children is central in a way that they perform certain actions that satisfy their own needs as well as the need of another, if not incidental. In PnF the boys help out their friends multiple times, like in the episode ‘The Baljeatles’ (2, 15) where they help their friend Baljeet by forming a rock band and in ‘The Return of the Rogue Rabbit’ (4, 21) when they help the fireside girls with setting up a puppet show. In helping them they have solved their problem of thinking what they can do that day. While it fits Kohlberg’s second stage of instrumental relativist orientation (632), it is worth mentioning that these examples actually work the other way around as the starting point is helping the other and not themselves. Phineas and Ferb are portrayed as friendly guys however, good intentions aside, they are naive and oblivious to the (good) consequences of their actions. Reciprocity is not meant in the way of ‘I scratch your back and you scratch mine’ but as an action that fulfills the needs of two individual partners. This makes them amoral if they are not assuming responsibility. In the episode ‘Split Personality’ (2, 39), the boy’s molecular ray accidentally separates their sister in two beings with two different personalities. One ‘romantic’ and one ‘busting’ Candace. A romantic Candace whose sole goal is to flirt with her crush Jeremy, and a busting Candace whose main objective is to convince their mother of her brothers wrongdoings, yet this time without her constant struggle between the flirting intervening with busting and vice versa. While the boys had other plans for that day, they have to change their plans to find a way to put her back together so that they won’t get busted when their parents come eye in eye with two separate Candaces. It seems that they are motivated not because they want to help their sister, but because they do not want to get busted. This is emphasized

by Phineas stating that if the molecular splitter doesn’t disappear when everything is over, that they themselves should destroy it, focusing more on their wrongdoing than the bad consequence it had on Candace. Furthermore, what is funny about said episode is that you do not actually cheer for them to succeed, as Candace deserves a break and now has a fair shot for busting her brothers. In the next chapter this issue will be further elaborated, however for now it raises the issue that allegiance with the two brothers misses. Allegiance with Phineas and Ferb is established through the characters surrounding them, their friends who constantly praise them and ask for their help which they always offer being kind characters, and all the luck that they have in safely enjoying their endeavours. You do not cheer for them to succeed as you already know that they will, nor do you actively wish they would fail their mission as they do not show any sign of evil in them. The actions of Phineas and Ferb do not make us emotionally invested in their stories, however the story does provide pleasure as the formula focuses on how they will have yet another awesome summer day and not what will happen that day.

Chapter five – Candace

Candace Flynn is the older sister of Phineas and Ferb. During the summer break she spends her time by either trying to get the attention from her crush Jeremy or is spending time with her friend Stacy. Most of her time however she is occupied with “busting” the crazy activities of her younger brothers to their oblivious mother. She fails (almost) every time, arriving only seconds late to show their mom what is going on, however that does not stop her from trying again and again on the following days. She looks like a candy cane, with red hair, white skin, a red top, a white skirt, red socks, and white shoes. Tall and skinny without any body curves, Candace is visibly older yet still childelike. Candace is the only female lead character of the show and as such, the analysis of Candace in this chapter also discusses how violence is presented differently between boys and this particular girl. Candace is also the most interesting character in a narrative and in a moral sense; after all the main question every episode is to bust, or not to bust.

To bust is to violently disrupt, to catch someone in the act of doing something wrong (Oxford American College Dictionary). The character of Candace completely revolves around this act of busting her brothers and the word is repeated multiple times in the series, at least once every episode. Whether it is in ‘Leave the Busting to us!’ (1, 26) where Candace gets help from a local television channel to bust her brothers, in ‘Phineas and Ferb get Busted’ (2, 1) where she finally is able to bust them to their mother however it later turns out to be a dream, ‘Candace gets Busted’ (2, 65) when she gets busted herself for having a small get together that turns into a raging party resulting in Candace getting grounded, or ‘Last train to Bustville’ (3, 4) where she decides to give up on busting her brothers, at least for that one episode. As mentioned before however, Candace also joins in on her brothers activities, either by choice as she believes it is the best way to bust her brothers like in ‘Bowl-R-ama Drama’ (1, 33) or by accident in ‘Lawn gnome beach party of terror’ (1, 2) where she becomes the queen of the beach and enjoys it so much that she forgets to bust her brothers to their mom (which alerts the mom that something is wrong so she goes back home fast however everything disappears before she gets there as usual). To bust or not to bust is the moral question that is central in every episode and drives the moral universe of the show.

Without Candace, there would be no moral conflict as she has to choose between acting right or wrong. However the act of busting itself is dubious, as it is unclear whether that is a good or a bad thing. Busting is like tattling on your sibling or friend, which is often thought as a bad thing to do. Children are told to abide to the rules and if they notice someone not following them they tattle or bust, which is good. Since tattling is often about being noticed on how good one knows the rules thus receiving attention, or is about putting others in a negative spot (e.g. because of revenge) the intentions of tattling/busting are important to incorporate into whether the behavior of busting is right or wrong. The intentions of Candace however are completely unknown. The character values of Candace show that she is in the conventional level two of Kohlberg where she serves as an authoritative figure for her brothers. She is the antagonist of the show as she always tries to thwart the activities of her brothers, the main character/protagonists Phineas and Ferb, by busting their activities to their mother. She often has to choose between busting her brothers or spending time with her friends where busting gets the better hand of her. Her heart is at the good place and she tries to make the right choice when she has to choose between busting and spending time with friends, but it is shown to be a very difficult choice/decision for her. In ‘Happy Birthday, Isabella’ (4, 19B) she waits for the situation to get really dangerous before trying to bust her brother to their mother, which shows that her actions are not morally wrong because her intentions are good. Candace shows violence a lot of the time, being more verbally violent/aggressive and not physical which is quite typical for females/girls in cartoons (Luther & Legg). Since morality in children’s television is easiest shown through violence, either physical or emotional, it is quite clear that, she is the real moral center. You do pity Candace in her endless quest to bust her brothers and you find yourself cheering for her to once win, while another time hope for her to fail and just let the brothers have a good time. She often also joins the activities and enjoys it, when she doesn't think too much about the physical dangers and sometimes asks her brothers to help her with a bad hair day with one of their devices (‘Bad Hair Day’ 3, 12). Candace’s deep motivation seems to be concern. She does care for her brothers, as her busting tendencies come forth out of love and her not wanting her brothers to get hurt. However her reasons for busting her brothers are often unclear, and in the first episode is seems that she is out for revenge when she says ‘I’m watching my brother and step-brother. And they never get into trouble, ‘cause mom never catches them. One of these days though…’ referring to her getting busted once before and her brothers never

(‘Rollercoaster’ 1, 1). In ‘Traffic Cam Caper’ however she has to choose between saving a disk with video evidence of all her brothers crazy inventions, or saving her brother Phineas from falling from a bridge. She chooses her brother. She’s an anti hero. Allegiance with her has mostly to do with a sibling relationship, or teenage relationship. As the brothers are competent in their undertakings, Candace is mostly not. It is clear that the adults in the show are unable to really amend to something, and as Candace is in the stage between adulthood and child stage her activities are divided., despite her best efforts. She has some malicious actions, an evil laugh, and a dire need of recognition from their mother. She is insecure in her relationship with Jeremy, which shows that she needs affirmation. Older sister, feeling of duty. I her attempts to take care of her brothers is often the one who gets hurt in order to protect them, while her brothers not suffering anything at all.

Martha Nussbaum discusses the ‘moral dilemma’ in her book The Fragility of Goodness as an issue caused by luck that creates an impeded relationship between values. As we are not able to live without luck, as we cannot control everything, limiting our values may pose a solution to the moral dilemma, however Nussbaum also states that this will impoverish our lives (6-7). The less core values you have, the less moral dilemma’s you will encounter as making a choice will be easier in picking the one thing you truly care about versus picking between several issues that are all important to you. This means that for Candace, who values friendship and love but also “busting” her brothers, a moral dilemma is an everyday occurrence. It is exactly these moral dilemmas that give the show its strength and moral learning moments. Her moral values however are affected by those dilemmas that may result in Candace having to perform a horrible deed. The tension between the two values however is often central in the narrative of Candace. The episode ‘The Lemonade Stand’ (2, 32) her best friend Stacy makes her choose between either being her friend or busting her brothers. As Candace forgets that she and Stacy made an appointment to go to the mall together in order to bust her brothers, Stacy breaks her friendship. This tears Candace apart but she eventually chooses to spend the day with her friend and, for that day, not focus busting her brothers. In another earlier mentioned episode (‘Split Personality’ 2, 39) a molecular separator ray splits Candace into two personalities. One Candace is infatuated by romance and focuses on her crush Jeremy, while the other Candace is set on busting her brothers. This episode reveals just how much these values are a part of Candace and how they are always clashing. The episode ‘Phineas and Ferb-Busters!’ (2, 29) however doesn’t generate conflict

between her two values as she works together with her friends Stacy and Jenny in busting her brothers. As Nussbaum states, using reason is one way of eliminating moral dilemma. In this episode the argument being made is that teamwork makes everything possible, even busting her brothers. By taking a moment and thinking about how she could incorporate spending time with her friends with her busting needs, it shows how her two values aren’t always in conflict but can complement each other. Instead of letting everything depend on one’s luck, reason might offer a solution, eliminating any dilemma between choosing her friends and busting her brothers. On rare occasions Candace herself decides to give up on busting her brothers. In the episode ‘Last Train to Bustville (3, 2) Candace gives up her urge to bust her brothers. Letting her urge go provides much happiness, she even sings a song about being relieved, however it doesn’t last long as she still tries to bust her brothers to their mother She fails once again however only this time she made just one attempt to bust them instead of multiple times. Other times, instead of busting her brothers, Candace joins them in their fun activities. In ‘Lawn Gnome Beach Party of Terror’ (1, 2) Candace enjoys a beach party where she is named queen of the beach after she wins a limbo contest and at the beach party her relationship with her crush Jeremy is improved, in ‘Cheer Up Candace’ (2, 20) her brothers cheer her up with one of their inventions called the “Mix and Mingle Machine” after Jeremy cancels a date, and in ‘Tree to Get Ready’ (1, 23) she has fun with her brothers when they battle each other in a their own tree house robot fight. When positioning Candace within the moral development theory of Kohlberg, it becomes clear that she belongs within the conventional level. Her urge in busting her brothers belongs within the law and order orientation stage, where doing one’s duty in society influences behavior (Kohlberg 631). For Candace this means that she must try to bust her brothers whenever they behave badly. While it is never really revealed why Candace wants to bust her brothers, her need for control might be the reason (Wikia < http://phineasandferb.wikia.com/wiki/Candace_Flynn>). Candace busting her brothers is such a huge part of her that it also can be argued that her busting her brothers is a bodily desire, as it affects her body, and as such is not a free or moral right action. In ‘Split Personality’ (2, 39) the appearance of Candace differs between busting and romantic Candace. As this is a cartoon this is done to visually emphasize the differences between the two, however her whole movement changes as well which might indicate busting being an instinct she acts upon. We do know that she has troubles choosing

between busting and maintaining friendships (The Lemonade Stand’ 2, 32) but at the same time she is able to sometimes not give into her urge. Candace’s’ motivation to act appropriately seems internally motivated and not acting upon it results in punishment as she often feels worthless and incompetent in her own eyes. Given that sign of ‘self-respect’, as Kant calls it (In Gardner 312), it should be concluded that Candace is a virtuous character. However this is only half of what could make her reach the highest good in life; being virtues and happy at the same time. These two are often not connected as doing what is right/virtuous does not always makes us happy, as is shown in ‘Phineas and Ferb’s Quantum Boogaloo (2, 17). An adult Candace travels back in time to bust her brothers and succeeds, however her success alters the future which is turned into a dystopian society where Dr. Doofenshmirtz rules, so she has to travel back in time again to stop her future self of busting the boys. Candace might turn out to be the bad character of the show, as relatively her moral shows to be more aggressive in comparison with other (male) characters like the evil Dr. Doofenshmirtz. The doctor is the force of evil in the show and will be analyzed in the next chapter. While the viewer recognizes Candace as one of the good characters and Dr. Doofenshmirtz as the bad/evil guy, these characters do share allegiance despite not being aligned with the characters because of pity. You cheer for both Candace and Dr. Doofenshmirtz to once be successful in their pursuits and in the few occasions that it does happens you are happy and relieved. This does not last very long as Candace busting her brothers almost always has negative consequences, except for Dr. Doofenshmirtz.

Chapter six – Dr. Doofenshmirtz

The source of evil in the show is the evil doctor Heinz Doofenshmirtz. His goal is to rule the Tri-State Area however Special Agent P, the pet platypus of Phineas and Ferb who is a secret spy, always foils his evil plans. You recognize him immediately as the bad guy of the show because of his appearance and the fact that he multiple times voices that he is evil. However just stating something does not mean that he actually is ‘evil’ as will become clear later on. He has a hunched back, wears a laboratory coat, has messy brown hair, a scowl on his face, an evil laugh, German accent and a happy ‘evil’ jingle. Becoming aligned with this character is not that as hard as it would seem as he also voices his reasons behind every evil plan that often creates an allegiance with him because of his sad backstory that pulls you into the story. In this chapter the actions of the evil Doofenshmirtz are analyzed and placed within moral theory.

As the personification of evil doctor, Heinz doofenshmirtz offers evil activities in the show. In the first episode introduced as an evil character that wants to take over the fictional Tri-State area, he is shown not to be a real danger. His evil lair is always announced through a catchy fun cheery tune, thus making him less dangerous just through music. His evil plans often involve personal annoyances that come from childhood traumas. He’s incapable of succeeding and in the few occasions that he does succeed, his evil thinking seems not that evil at all. He’s not competent at all in anything accept failing. His evil wrongdoings seem more like a scream for help/attention and shows the range of being evil. His motivations lay mostly in his upbringing where unsupportive parents “forced” him into being evil, because he already seemed unable to do anything good/right. His sad backstory provides empathy and you root for him to win! That he is not truly evil is seen in him stopping his sidekick robot Norm when it succeeds in taking over the city by force in ‘Norm Unleashed’ (3, 54) when the robot uses weapons to destroy everyone in his way however Doofenschmirtz gets mad and tells him that physical harm is not the way. Doofenschmirtz also has a soft side when it comes to his relationship with his daughter and he is trying his best to be a good father. This is best present in ‘Dude, we’re getting the band back together’ (1, 22) where he throws a surprise birthday party for his daughter Vanessa and in ‘This is your backstory’ (3, 61) where he recreates all

his horrible memories however it seems he does also have good memories of bringing up his daughter. On Kohlberg's level he is close still to level one and the kids (competence level), he’s even bad at being evil unlike his younger brother who is good in everything and loved and praised. despite his awful upbringing he turned not really evil. Unlucky as fuck. Positions himself as the victim, instead of seeing that he himself is mostly responsible for his misfortunes. relationship with his brother also bad because of himself (episode of art), example of what happens when he does win, or so it seems… A lot of violence in his fightin with Perry, or Agent P. His evilness is mostly stated, number three enemy of ocwa, but not real in whatever. Hangs on to repetition/tradition. Expects to fail almost. Connected because of empathy. To be evil you got to have a sad backstory and boy does he have one! His horrible childhood has its origin in his unloving parents, which made him pursuit an evil life. In the episode ‘This Is Your Backstory’ (3, 61) some painful events from his pasts, like how keeps disappointing his father, his failed love life, and his parents sending him away are being told. Other background information, like that Heinz was raised by ocelots, is revealed in monologues he always holds when he explains his wrongdoings, which often makes the viewer emphasize with him. Most of his evil behavior stems from his childhood, however not all as in ‘Elementary, My Dear Stacy’ (2, 6), his evil plan is to steal the Big Ben because he is too busy to be bothered with going to the mall to buy a new clock. While most evil characters have a tragic backstory, the question is if you need to become evil after a horrible childhood? Does one bad deed make you a bad person? This might give an explanation as to why Doofenshmirtz commits horrible deeds, however he was never was the one in the past who behaved badly. With only little upbringing from his parents, Heinz grew up without any supervision on his moral development. Almost each backstory about his childhood made clear that his parents abused and neglected him, mentally as well as physically. This insight in his childhood makes clear that he had no other option than to become an evil doctor, as he has only been reprimanded for what we would call good behavior, like giving a warning when a building is burning down (“At the Car Wash” 2, 12). Nevertheless, Doofenshmirtz tries his best at being a good father for his teenage daughter Vanessa. For example, in ‘Dude, We’re Getting the Band Back Together’ (1, 22) he’s putting together a birthday party for his daughter. He also tries to redeem himself from past failures like in the episode ‘Tip of the Day’ (2, 7) where he invents a “Read My

Mind”-inator that will delete the memory of an embarrassing video in which he roller skates into a toilet. His actions show that although he’s gone through such a horrid youth, you don’t have to be an evil person as some of his actions reveal that he is still a sweet fragile child. Furthermore, Doofenshmirtz his relationship with his arch enemy special agent P, otherwise known as Perry the Platypus, shows weakness. In the episode ‘Road to Danville’ (3, 58) Doofenshmirtz and Perry are lost in the desert. While he initially leaves Perry behind and goes back to the city alone, he eventually goes back into the desert to save Perry as well. It also happens the other way around, in that Perry rescues Doofenshmirtz from falling to his death in ‘Spa Day’ (2, 16) when Heinz falls from a building by diving after him and using a parachute so that they land safely. Their relationship is a friendly one even though Perry is responsible for most of Doofenshmirtz plans becoming failures. While Heinz may seem purely evil, his relationship with Perry seems to deny that statement. As said before, Doofenshmirtz provides a backstory to all his inventions and evil plan that should justify his actions. This should make the viewer emphasize with Heinz, which would turn him into an anti-hero according to Jason Mittell (“Character” par. 46). It is important to note that this is not done to gain empathy from the viewer but to add more depth to the character. The moral evaluation of the evil doctor does makes us sympathize with him, however he always situates himself as the victim while he regularly own is the reason for his pain. This can be seen in ‘Tip of the Day’ (2, 7) where he released an embarrassing video of him singing while roller-skating into a toilet. Nonetheless he wants to take his embarrassment/anger out on the other. As Doofenshmirtz is an adult, his actions are supposed to be found in the highest post-conventional level of Kohlberg’s moral development theory. As personal values and opinions are used in defining right actions, or in Doofenshmirtz case in justifying his evil actions, it does seem that Heinz in facts portrays the highest level (Kohlberg 632). However he is far from the highest stage. Doof’s actions are rash and childish, which probably has its origin in his poor upbringing, revealing very egocentric characteristics that are found in the second stage/first level of Kohlberg’s moral development theory. What does it mean to be truly evil? While Doofenshmirtz continuously states that he is evil, his constant failure and catchy jingle ‘Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated’ might make you think otherwise. The clumsy antagonist also has his (accidental) success and heroic moments, like in the episode ‘Backyard Hodge Podge (4, 3) in which his technology improves examinations of the ophthalmologist’s (much to his own annoyance) which is seen as a good

deed instead of something evil, or when he saves the earth in ‘Phineas and Ferb Save Summer’ (4, 29) by fighting his evil colleague Rodney and destroying his –inizor. Doofenshmirtz however is the number three evil enemy according to O.W.C.A. as is stated in ‘Last Day of Summer’ (4, 48), however it is not stated how that is decided, nor how many enemies there are in their list. His actions are relatively evil compared to the other main characters in the show however are again relatively tame when compared to other evil colleagues that occasionally disturb the peace in Danville. This is shown in that Doofenshmirtz helps defeating his evil “friends” in episodes like ‘Phineas and Ferb Save Summer’ (4, 29) or in ‘Where’s Perry? Part two’ (3, 31) after his Ultimate-Evil-Inator ray turns the otherwise good intern Carl evil. Yet it also becomes clear when you look at other enemies that his archenemy Agent P has to face. In comparison with Dennis the Rabbit, a former O.W.C.A. agent who has gone rogue and captures Perry in ‘No More Bunny Business’ (2, 16) or when compared with Mitch, an alien who tries to take control over the entire galaxy in ‘Meapless in Seattle’ (3, 22). It seems that Doofenshmirtz is relatively not that evil in the PnF universe, but still performs evil actions nonetheless. This subchapter started off with the question of what it means to be evil of which the show does not provide a definitive answer. Yes Doofenshmirtz is evil but what PnF show is that evil, and with that morality, should always be seen in its context. It introduces relative morality. Morality is relative in that there is no absolute evil or absolute good, as different perspectives provide valuable insights in determining what is right or wrong. This is furthermore invoked when morally troubling characters are juxtaposed with other ambiguous evil characters (‘Characters’ par. 46).

Conclusion and recommendations

In this thesis it is claimed that the actions portrayed by the main characters in Phineas and Ferb serve as moral theory in practice. Potential moral storytelling derives from the actions of the characters which function as a learning object as they can be found in correlating levels of the moral development theory by Lawrence Kohlberg. These moral messages could be beneficial to the moral development of children. By reflecting on the characters and their actions viewers are made aware of morally wrong actions through either physical or mental punishment. The main moral conundrum of the show is found in the busting of the boys Phineas and Ferb by their older sister Candace. The busting aspect of the show proves a moral microcosm where the personal moral dilemmas of Candace reveal the complexity of moral decision making. Kohlberg’s different levels of moral development provide a framework of moral deliberation, however it does not offer a way to solve her dilemma. Nussbaum shows how the dilemma is a learning moment as Candace has to choose between two rights or wrongs. There is no clear answer and every episode she has the difficult task of moral decision making. Her general response of choosing to bust gets us emotionally invested in the story. Allegiance in this case works in evaluating our own daily moral decisions in choosing between doing the right thing in spite of personal losses as is the case with Candace. She either fails as an authoritative figure by not busting or loses community/loyalty in her relationship with her brothers (and other) by busting them to their mother. Moral development is then enforced through allegiance. Furthermore, the unpredictability of Candace is interesting as it gives the character more depth and forced the viewer to continue deliberating moral alignment. What actually happens in the show is that not only intentions, but also motivation, and consequences are taken into account in moral decision making. Starting of course with Candance with unknown motivations to bust her brothers and offering different moral perspectives as her intentions for busting differs each episode from malevolence to jealousy, and sincere concern. The consequences for her also differ however match her intentions for the episode. Is she trying to be mean, she suffers a lot. If she shows concern, she is often met with a fun or positive outcome, albeit not the actual busting of her brothers. All the background information of Dr. Doofenschmirtz does not just create allegiance, it also exposes reasons to act evil or good. The intentions of his wrongdoings however are to receive

attention for the wrongdoings that he has suffered in his life. Doofenschmirtz is often not prepared for the consequences of his actions and at a loss when he succeeds since it does not provide him with the needed attention. The boys Phineas and Ferb problematize consequences of certain moral actions by questioning if an action is still morally right when no responsibility is taken for the (albeit positive or negative) outcome. They have kind intentions and are motivated by boredom, an unlimited amount of creativity, and helping others. All characters have different starting points yet all provide the same way towards allegiance through their social interactions with others. Morality is a social construct thus it is not strange that moral allegiance arises from these social connections. Rosalind Gill and Christina Scharff discuss how females are the ones who have always been responsible for moral decision making (7). In the case of Phineas and Ferb it is of course one of the few girls who is responsible for this as well. Talking about Candace of course, she is a prime example of neoliberal feminism where ‘To a much greater extent than men, women are required to work on and transform the self, to regulate every aspect of their conduct, and to present all their actions as freely chosen’ (Gill & Scharff 7). The men, or boys, in the show all have a partner, Phineas and Ferb supporting each other and Dr. Doofenschmirtz and Agent P, whereas Candace is often alone in her pursuits and most definitely in her moral decision making. The boys are anti-heroes themselves as they are constantly lucky and not ‘saving the day’ on their own abilities. Phineas and Ferb’s actions show how without authority and/or punishment dangerous behavior develops. The actions of Candace make clear that certain moral values can conflict with one another and that people are capable of making them work together through reason. The constant failures of Doofenshmirtz introduce moral relativity where different perspectives offer new meanings of good and evil. By presenting this in a fun cartoon Phineas and Ferb is not only an object of moral theory in practice, but a popular and effective object as well. Starting from a nuanced position that all television is educational, it is first explained how children’s television and morality are related by giving a brief history of children’s television. It then becomes clear that a certain moral, that of defining good and bad behavior, has always played a part since the beginning of producing television for children. By discussing certain examples of good and bad behavior, it is made clear that the motivations that underlie actions are what define what is deemed good or bad behavior. The difference in part of expressed aggression also reveal interesting conclusions, as both were present in the series as well as a difference in violent behavior between girl and

boys. It is interesting to see how much actions in a seemingly random commercial television show for children show any kind of morality. It shows that narrative, despite its intentions (so opposite moral actions), can provide to be helpful aids in moral development. Especially a tv program like PnF where the format is well known and more attention can be given into the actions and thought that drove them to perform said actions. Limitations of this research have to do with the discussion of the moral development theory of Kohlberg. The last two levels of his theory are dismissed in this research however not because of the results following this research. His theory was already deemed incomplete yet is still used as the latter “highest” levels are not of concern for this research. This research could also not provide any additions or improvements for his last two stages. Other shortcomings of this research involve not taking into account the longer stories that are provided in either hour-long episodes, multi-part episodes, and movies. Furthermore, it is recommended to do an audience research to see to what degree children pick up on the moral themes that are presented in the show.

Works Cited

Anderson, Daniel R. "Educational television is not an oxymoron." The Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science 557.1 (1998): 24-38.

Arnas, Yaşare Aktaş, Seval Ördek İnceoğlu and İrem Gürgah Oğul. "Gendered Hate Speech in Cartoons: A Critical Discourse Analysis." Developments in Educational Sciences. Eds. Recep Efe, Irina Koleva, Emin Atasoy and Ïsa Cürebal. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski

University Press, 2016. 612-622.

Ball, Samuel. The First Year of Sesame Street: An Evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1970.

Bandura, Albert. "Social learning through imitation." Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Ed. Marshall R. Jones. Oxford: University of Nebraska Press,1962. 211-274.

Bickham, David S., John C. Wright, and Aletha C. Huston. "Attention, Comprehension, and the Educational Influences of Television." Handbook of Children and the Media. Eds. Dorothy G. Singer and Jerome L. Singer. Thousand Oaks, London and New Dehli: Sage

Publications, 2001. 101-119.

Bond, Paul. “Disney gives 'Ferb' pickup, major push.” Hollywoodreporter.com AP, 7 June 2009. Web. 26 May 2017.

Bruce, Amanda Lynn. Creating Consumers and Protecting Children: Radio, Early Television

and the American Child, 1930-1960. Diss. (Ph.D Thesis). Stony Brook University, ProQuest: New York, 2008.

Bryant, J. Alison. "Understanding the children’s television community from an organizational network perspective." The Children's Television Community. Ed. J. Alison Bryant. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. 35-55.

“Bust.” Oxford American College Dictionary. Web. 14 June 2017.

Clinchy, Blythe McVicker. "Beyond Subjectivism” Essay for the Department of Psychology. Wellesley College: Massachusetts, n.d..

Daalmans, Serena, Ellen Hijmans, and Fred Wester. "From good to bad and everything in between: An analysis of genre differences in the representation of moral nature." Journal of

Media Ethics 32.1 (2017): 28-44.

Davies, Hannah, David Buckingham, and Peter Kelley. "In the worst possible taste: children, television and cultural value." European Journal of Cultural Studies 3.1 (2000): 5-25.

Fletchall, Ann. "US television travels abroad: Global TV and the formatting trend." Mediated

Geographies and Geographies of Media. Eds. Susan P. Mains, Julie Cupples and Chris Lukinbeal. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2015. 111-126.

Foot, Philippa. “The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect.” Oxford Review 5 (1967): 5-15.

Gardner, Sebastian. Routledge philosophy guidebook to Kant and the Critique of pure reason. London and New York, Routledge, 1999.

Gielen, Uwe P., and Markoulis, Diomedes C. “Preference for principled moral reasoning: A developmental and cross-cultural perspectives.” Cross-cultural Topics in Psychology. Eds. Adler, Leonore Loeb, and Uwe Peter Gielen. Westport, CT and London: Greenwood publishing group, 2001. 73-87.

Gilligan, Carol. In a different voice. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Havens, Timothy. "Universal childhood: The global trade in children's television and changing ideals of childhood." Global Media Journal 6.10 (2007): n. pag.

Hermes, Joke. Re-reading popular culture. Malden, MA, Oxford and Victoria: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Internet Movie Database, imdb.com/title/tt0852863/?ref_=ttep_ep_tt. Web. 21 Jul. 2016

Jane, Emma A. "“Gunter's a Woman?!’—Doing and Undoing Gender in Cartoon Network's

Adventure Time." Journal of Children and Media 9.2 (2015): 231-247.

Kohlberg, Lawrence, Charles Levine, and Alexandra Hewer. Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. Contributions to Human Development 10 (1983): .n pag.

Kort-Butler, Lisa A. "Justice League? Depictions of justice in children’s superhero cartoons."

Criminal Justice Review 38.1 (2013): 50-69.

Livingstone, Sonia. "Half a century of television in the lives of our children." The ANNALS of the American academy of political and social science 625.1 (2009): 151-163.

Luther, Catherine A., and J. Robert Legg Jr. "Gender differences in depictions of social and physical aggression in children's television cartoons in the US." Journal of children and media 4.2 (2010): 191-205.

Mittell, Jason. “Characters.” Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Television

Storytelling. Media Commons Press, 24 Mar. 2012. Web. 11 Jul. 2016.

---. "Phineas & Ferb: Children’s Television." H ow To Watch Television. Eds. Ethan

Thompson and Jason Mittell. New York and London: New York University Press, 2013.

56-64.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the genealogy of morals and ecce homo. Ed. Walter Kaufmann. New York and Toronto: Vintage Books, 2010.

Nussbaum, Martha Craven. The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Oswell, David. Television, Childhood, and the Home: A history of the making of the child

television audience in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press Oxford, 2002.

Pecora, Norma. "The changing nature of children’s television: Fifty years of research."

Children and television: Fifty years of research. Eds. Norma Pecora, John P. Murray and Ellen Ann Wartella. Mahwah, New Jersey: 2007. 1-40.

Piaget, Jean. The moral Judgement of the Child. London: Routledge, 1999.

Punyanunt-Carter, Narissra Maria, and Stacy L. Carter. "What Do Children Learn About

Prosocial Behavior from the Media?." Journal of the American Academy of Special Education

Professionals (Fall 2009): 51-56.

Richards, Melissa N., and Sandra L. Calvert. "Media characters, parasocial relationships, and the social aspects of children’s learning across media platforms." Media Exposure During

Infancy and Early Childhood. Eds. Rachel Barr and Deborah Nichols Linebarger. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2017. 141-163.

Samaniego, Concepción Medrano and Alejandra Cortés Pascual. "The teaching and learning of values through television." International Review of Education 53.1 (2007): 5-21.

“Television Watching Statistics - Statistic Brain.” 2017 Statistic Brain Research Institute, publishing as Statistic Brain. May 23, 2017. www.statisticbrain.com/television- watching-statistics/

Valkenburg, Patricia Maria. Beeldschermkinderen: Theorieën over kind en media.

Amsterdam: Boom Onderwijs, 2002.

Westcott, Tim. "Globalisation of Children’s TV and Strategies of the “Big Three.” Children,

Young People and Media Globalisation. Yearbook. Eds. Ulla Carlsson and Cecilia von Feilitzen. Göteborg: Nordicom, 2002. 69-76.

“What is Cultural Studies?” Cultural Studies at UNC, 13 June 2017, http://culturalstudies.web.unc.edu/resources-2/what-is-cultural-studies/

Wikia. “Phineas and Ferb Wikia”. . Web. 21 Jul. 2016.

Wilson, Barbara J., et al. "Violence in children's television programming: Assessing the risks." Journal of Communication 52.1 (2002): 5-35.

Media (in alphabetical order)

“Act Your Age” Season 4, Episode 47. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 9 February 2015 (US).

“Attack of the 50 Foot Sister” Season 2, Episode 5. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 21 February 2009 (US).

“At the Car Wash” Season 2, Episode 12. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 11 July 2009 (US).

“Backyard Aquarium” Season 2, Episode 5. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 1 May 2009 (US).

“Backyard Hodge Podge” Season 4, Episode 3. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 9 April 2013 (US).

“Bad Hair Day” Season 3, Episode 12. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 24 June 2011 (US).

“Bowl-R-ama Drama” Season 1, Episode 33. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 12 July 2008 (US).

“Candace Gets Busted” Season 2, Episode 65. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 11 February 2011 (US).

“Cheer Up Candace” Season 2, Episode 20. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 24 October 2009 (US).

“Cheers for fears” Season 4, Episode 28. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 1 November 2013 (US).

“Cranius Maximus” Season 3, Episode 45. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 4 May 2012

(US).

“Dude, We’re Gettin’ the Band Back Together!” Season 1, Episode 21. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 8 March 2008 (US).

“Elementary, My Dear Stacy” Season 2, Episode 6. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 28 February 2009 (US).

“Flop Starz” Season 1, Episode 8. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 1 February 2008 (US).

“Happy Birthday, Isabella” Season 4, Episode 19. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 12 June 2013 (US).

“Last Day of Summer” Season 4, Episode 48. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 2 March 2015 (US).

“Last Train to Bustville” Season 3, Episode 2. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 7 March 2011 (US).

“Lawn Gnome Beach Party of Terror!” Season 1, Episode 2. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 28 September 2007 (US).

“Leave the Busting to Us” Season 1, Episode 26. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 19 April 2008 (US).

“Meapless in Seattle” Season 3, Episode 22. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 6 April 2012 (US).

“Moon Farm” Season 3, Episode 7. Phineas and Ferb. D isney Channel. 29 April 2011 (US).

“No More Bunny Business” Season 2, Episode 16. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 1 August 2009 (US).

“Norm Unleashed” Season 3, Episode 54. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 20 July 2012 (US).

“Phineas and Ferb-Busters!” Season 2, Episode 29. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 27 February 2010 (US).

“Phineas and Ferb Get Busted” Season 2, Episode 1. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 16 February 2009 (US).

“Phineas and Ferb save Summer” Season 4, Episode 29. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 9 June 2014 (US).

“Phineas and Ferb’s Quantum Boogaloo” Season 2, Episode 17. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 12 October 2009 (US).

“Put That Putter Away” Season 1, Episode 31. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 10 August 2008 (US).

“Raging Bully” Season 1, Episode 6. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 4 February 2008 (US).

“Road to Danville” Season 2, Episode 58. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 14 September 2012 (US).

“Rollercoaster” Season 1, Episode 1. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 17 Augustus 2007 (US).

“Spa Day” Season 2, Episode 16. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 1 August 2009 (US).

“Split Personality” Season 2, Episode 39. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 1 October 2010 (US).

“Summer Belongs to You” Season 2, Episode 54. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 6

August 2010 (US).

“The Baljeatles” Season 2, Episode 15. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 25 July 2009 (US).

“The Lemonade Stand” Season 2, Episode 32. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 14 June 2010 (US).

“The Return of the Rogue Rabbit” Season 4, Episode 21. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 11 July 2014 (US).

“Tip of the Day” Season 2, Episode 7. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 7 March 2009 (US).

“That’s the spirit” Season 3, Episode 22. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 7 Octobre 2011 (US).

“This is Your Backstory” Season 3, Episode 61. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 2 November 2012 (US).

“Traffic Cam Caper” Season 1, Episode 32. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 12 July 2008 (US).

“Tree to Get Ready” Season 1, Episode 23. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 22 March 2008 (US).

“Unfair Science Fair” Season 1, Episode 46. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 20 March 2009 (US).

“Where’s Perry? (Part Two)” Season 3, Episode 31. Phineas and Ferb. Disney Channel. 24 August 2012 (US).