On Neo-Gastonism

 Neo-Gastonism is an ironic political philosophy that idolizes the character Gaston from the 1991 Disney movie, Beauty and the Beast, in which Gaston is portrayed as the protagonist. Obviously, no one thinks Gaston is the unironic hero of the story, rather it is more of a commentary on how both Belle and the Beast are unlikeable and villainous. The idealized version of Gaston is often portrayed as akin to the similar looking Brom Bones from the 1949 Disney short, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. 

Gaston is, by far, not the most innocent of Disney characters. For example, Governor Radcliffe from Pocahontas does nothing wrong, and is in complete agreement with his crew until the climax of the movie, when he mistakes the Chief Powhatan’s sparing of John Smith as a trap. The English crew were literally singing about “Killing savages,” on their voyage across the Atlantic.

The evil of the Beast should be obvious. He takes Belle’s father, Maurice, prisoner, abuses his staff, holds Belle prisoner, and essentially forces Belle to fall in love with him. Although the Beast does improve a little throughout the movie, any freedom he gives Belle is dependent upon Belle falling in love with him. Granting the prisoner freedom after she develops Stockholm syndrome is not freeing the prisoner. 

Belle’s character is obnoxious, although she is merely unpleasant to be around, rather than an active criminal, like the Beast. The movie opens with Belle singing about a, “Little town, filled with little people.” Belle literally sings a song about how she is better than everyone else in her community. The town people do find her behavior eccentric, but just eccentric. She is receiving no hostility or even correction for her elitist behavior.

What other Disney princess has that elitist attitude? Could you imagine Ariel or Snow White having that attitude? Such elitism is very middle class and social climber coded, the actual aristocracy does not resent the lower classes.

Gaston does not do anything to Belle that the Beast does not also do. Gaston is pushy, while the Beast holds Belle prisoner. Gaston tries to imprison Maurice with bad motives, the Beast actually holds Maurice in a prison cell. Gaston is a bully, while the Beast is outright abuse to his servants. True, Belle does fall in love with the Beast, but that is only after the Beast violates Belle’s boundaries. If Gaston had an emotional support dungeon-maiden, perhaps she could have improved him. 

In essence, violating Belle’s boundaries is only bad when Gaston does it. When the Beast does it, it is either justified because Maurice committed trespassing (by being invited in by the staff of the castle) or it is forgiven because Belle falls in love with the Beast afterwards. The moral of the story is the Beast isn’t obliged to follow the rules, while Gaston is. Women’s boundaries only apply against whomever Gaston represents, not who the Beast represents.

Gaston represents both the stereotypical alpha-jock of the town and the man that Belle has to settle for, while the Beast represents the “sensitive man” who is actually far more violent than the alpha-jock. The Beast represents both the Revenge of the Nerds fantasy and the monster-boyfriend fantasy, while Gaston represents the best plausible man Belle can obtain, but is still not good enough for her. 

Both Gaston and the Beast represent mergers of apparently contradictory archetypes. This is probably what makes the story most uncanny. Who even does the Beast represent? Perhaps we are simply reading too much into this. The contemporary reader is tempted to view the Beast as someone who has hacked the social norms, and figured out a way to ignore the personal boundaries of women by acquiring the right victim-statuses.

But the movie was produced over 30 years ago, when societal norms were somewhat different. Maybe it is a case of protagonist-centered morality, in which the protagonist’s bad deeds are swept under the rug in the interests of telling the story. After all, the story can’t happen if Belle isn’t forced into the Beast’s castle.

However, Gaston really does not contribute to the story. The story of Beauty and Beast in one of those two characters coming to love each other. The story has no necessary antagonist, as the conflict is between the Beauty and the Beast. Gaston’s arc only serves to make the Beast look worse, by drawing attention to the Beast’s crimes. The Beast’s imprisonment of Belle and sense of entitlement to Belle’s affections is highlighted, rather than downplayed, by Gaston being condemned for doing the same thing.

It is Gaston’s irrelevance to the story that takes the protagonist-centered morality to another level. The movie does not merely sweep the protagonist’s bad deeds under the rug, it actively goes out of its way to say that the Beast is allowed to do things that would be a crime for a normal man.

This is the true basis of Neo-Gastonism: the Beast represents a man who is free to violate the law and social norms, so men rightly identify with his adversary, Gaston. Gaston rightly rallies the village against the lawless monster-boyfriend. Despite committing the same crimes as the Beast, in that context, Gaston represents the forces of order coming to destroy the monster.

I don't think the story intends to say, unironically, that there is a type of man who is free to violate women’s boundaries. However, the Beast does have real life parallels. Perhaps the Beast represents the drug-lord, a rich but antisocial man with minions who has the effective power to flaunt the law. Maybe it is a Revenge of the Nerds fantasy, in which the Beast is a stand-in for the entitled “nice guy.” Maybe the Beast represents the trans-lesbian who feels entitled to female romantic attention.

At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter exactly who the Beast represents, but that the Beast exists as a class of outside-the-law monster-boyfriend. Such a person is a villian by nature, and the person who rallies civilization against such a villain is a natural hero, despite personal failings. 

Additionally, it is important to separate the concept of a hero from that of a saint. The hero is not necessarily a nice man, or even a virtuous man. Rather, the hero is the man, who through his own strength and bravery, overcomes the enemies of society. His courage and other martial virtues are worthy of emulation, but his life as a whole may not be. He is not a saint to be copied in all things, but a man who does necessary great deeds for society.