Lessons and labels: The world of Horrid Henry.

• onesamirr
• Nov 30, 2024
• 3 min read

As a child, the cartoon always fascinated me with the high- adrenaline, comedic sub plots. It revolves around the character Henry and his rule- breaking antics. He consistently challenges authority figures like his parents, teachers etc. The show also explicates a comparison of different sorts of children like Henry with his Younger goody-two shoes brother, Peter. Now that I look back on the intricacies and even the wider message of the show, I realise that there is a long list of issues that we must address given that we consider Media as a form of pedagogy.

To begin with, the show labels each character with a single adjective in the name. Henry as the troublemaker is labelled as “Horrid”. The little, obedient brother is named “Perfect Peter”. The neighbourhood kid is called “Moody Margret”, other characters like “Stuck-up Steve”, “Sour Susan” are all exhibiting this single personality trait in their roles throughout the entire show. Stuart Hall describes “Language” as a primary mode of representation in a culture; “Representation through language is therefore central to the processes by which meaning is produced.” Although Hall encapsulates more approaches in his understanding of language for example gestures, sounds etc., his emphasis is on the meaning and its ‘ability to signify’. Correspondingly, with direct adjectives to describe each character, the idea that all of them are being defined in these descriptions is clear. The existence of them is reduced to these single personality traits. The first and most important impact therefore is that it creates a black and white lens for children to view individuals as. In the name of simplification and comedy, this show is creating unrealistic interpretations that are far from the truth. Contrasting this with my personal experience, throughout pre/middle school, I assumed that people can be understood in reducible attitudes. The ability to humanise and understand individuals as complex beings shaped by their circumstances, rather than labelling them with a single description was definitely something I learned as I grew up. Not to assert that only this one show created my style of interpretation, but to recognise it as an important influence in developing this kind of thinking pattern is important.

In the same realm of discussion, we can also bring up the conversation about disability and stereotypes. With an understanding of disability as some form of impairment (physical or psychological), we can categorise the moody, rebellious nature of Henry as somewhat of an emotional problem. His mischievous behaviour is only a result of his parents’ conduct towards him. They reinforce his defiance by tagging him as their “difficult” child. Out of frustration and the lack of empathy from his parents, he ultimately accepts his stigmatisation as a nuisance. We can connect the social model of disability considering that it is only the people around him who construct this persona for him where he begins to consider himself as someone with inherent internal, psychological problems.

This show can be a great example to learn the importance of critical media literacy in children. Jeff Share has reflected on the urgency of this matter and the need for children to learn to question their sources of learning. It is only when they learn to counter and question that they can grow and evolve instead of internalising whatever messages are fed to them.