Belief, Unbelief, and Rebelief in Santa Claus: A Theory of Cyclical Belief or a Belief Cycle an Introduction

Utah State University Utah State University

DigitalCommons@USU DigitalCommons@USU

All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies

5-2022

Belief, Unbelief, and Rebelief in Santa Claus: A Theory of Cyclical Belief, Unbelief, and Rebelief in Santa Claus: A Theory of Cyclical

Belief or a Belief Cycle an Introduction Belief or a Belief Cycle an Introduction

Steven G. Merrell

Utah State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd

Part of the American Studies Commons, and the English Language and Literature Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Merrell, Steven G., "Belief, Unbelief, and Rebelief in Santa Claus: A Theory of Cyclical Belief or a Belief

Cycle an Introduction" (2022).

All Graduate Theses and Dissertations

. 8483.

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/8483

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by

the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has

been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and

Dissertations by an authorized administrator of

DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please

contact [email protected].

BELIEF, UNBELIEF, AND REBELIEF IN SANTA CLAUS:

A THEORY OF CYCLICAL BELIEF OR A BELIEF

CYCLE: AN INTRODUCTION

Steven G. Merrell

A thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE

English

(Folklore)

Approved:

_________________________

Jeannie Banks Thomas, Ph.D.

Major Professor

_________________________

Lynne S. McNeill, Ph.D.

Committee Member

_________________________

Henri Jean-Francois Dengah II, Ph.D.

Committee Member

_________________________

D. Richard Cutler, Ph.D.

Interim Vice Provost

of Graduate Studies

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Logan, Utah

2022

ABSTRACT

Belief, Unbelief, and Rebelief in Santa Claus:

A Theory of Cyclical Belief or A Belief

Cycle: An Introduction

Steven G. Merrell, Master of Science

Utah State University, 2022

Major Professor: Dr. Jeannie Banks Thomas

Department: English

Every single person, no matter who they are; what they look or sound like; where

they are or come from in space and time; their sex, gender, and/or orientation; their age or

maturity; their culture; and/or their background, has one or multiple belief(s) and/or

belief system(s) of some kind. Such belief(s) may be temporary, transient, fleeting, or

long lasting. It/they may be superficial or deeply rooted. It/they may be (considered) or

seem rational or irrational. It/they may be encouraged or discouraged, romanticized or

pathologized. It/they may be conscious, subconscious, or unconscious; or such belief(s)

may exist somewhere in between. It/they may also vary in degree(s). Regardless of the

aforementioned designations, belief is a function of humans and the human condition.

When studying belief and belief systems, it is important to frame and contextualize the

culture and belief that is being examined.

Through Christmas movie case study examples depicting the widely spread

popular culture belief in Santa Claus, this thesis presents (an introduction to) a formulated

iii

theory of cyclical belief or a documentable cycle of belief consisting of the three primary

points that are belief, unbelief (with the subsidiary states disbelief and misbelief), and the

created, defined, and applied state rebelief. This thesis also illustrates the transition that

people make due to romanticizing and authoritative pathologizing (conditioning) attitudes

toward beliefs and behaviors. Although the case study examples are fictionalized, they

reflect characteristics and behaviors of people in reality/the real world more specifically

American popular culture.

(116 pages)

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Belief, Unbelief, and Rebelief in Santa Claus:

A Theory of Cyclical Belief or A Belief

Cycle: An Introduction

Steven G. Merrell

Every single person, no matter who they are; what they look or sound like; where

they are or come from in space and time; their sex, gender, and/or orientation; their age or

maturity; their culture; and/or their background, has one or multiple belief(s) and/or

belief system(s) of some kind. Such belief may be temporary, transient, fleeting, or long

lasting. It/they may be superficial or deeply rooted. It/they may be (considered) or seem

rational or irrational. It/they may be encouraged or discouraged, romanticized or

pathologized. It/they may be conscious, subconscious, or unconscious; or, such belief(s)

may exist somewhere in between. It/they may also vary in degree(s). Through Christmas

movie case study examples depicting the widely spread belief in Santa Claus, this thesis

presents an introduction to a formulated theory of cyclical belief consisting of the three

primary points that are belief, unbelief (with subsidiary points disbelief and misbelief),

and the created and defined rebelief and how people transition from one state to another.

DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to all those who believe simply for the sake of belief and

believing; to those whose belief is unconditional, unadulterated, and not pathologized; to

those whose belief is unaffected by skepticism, cynicism, materialism, naturalism, and/or

rationalism; to all those who help unbelievers or disbelievers to find belief or to

rebelieve; and to all those who believe again or rebelieve and gain wisdom.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I must acknowledge and thank my dear friend and mentor

Marsha Forsgren (English teacher, retired) who taught me my greatest lesson(s): to look

and see beyond to what is being said in a work and to not just focus on what is written; to

look past and/or through the black words on the white page to the colorful messages and

meanings placed within; and to analyze, interpret, and critically and freely think about

materials and situations for myself: to be a free and independent thinker who creates and

supports ideas without fear, that has aided me, my outlook, and my research both in my

academic and scholarly pursuits and my life.

I acknowledge and thank the past and present faculty and staff of Utah State

University—Uintah Basin campus as well as those departed who have helped me through

my undergraduate degree and helped me acquire the skills set(s) and knowledge needed

to succeed in my academic career. I especially acknowledge and thank Dr. Alan

Blackstock, John Barton, and Dr. Robert King (USU Tooele campus) not only for the

lessons and skills they taught me but for also recommending me to and for the Utah State

University School of Graduate Studies and the Folklore and American Studies,

specializing in folklore.

I acknowledge and thank the past and present faculty and staff of Utah State

University Main Campus for helping me through my graduate course(s), program, and

degree. I especially thank Dr. Jared Colton and Carol Hatch for their amazing support

through the graduate program and process.

vii

I acknowledge and thank my thesis committee members: Dr. Jeannie Banks

Thomas, Dr. Lynne S. McNeill, and Dr. Henri Jean-Francois Dengah II for their amazing

and fantastic advice on my thesis and theory. I especially thank Dr. Thomas for her

dedication and support through my thesis process and for Dr. McNeill with her “folklore

rocks!” attitude that helped make folklore exciting, engaging, and fun every time it

became overwhelming.

Finally, I thank and acknowledge my family and friends who supported me

through my graduate program every moment, time, and instances, that aspects, studies,

and life became most difficult. To one and all, thank you.

Steven Merrell

viii 
CONTENTS 
Page 
 
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii 
Public Abstract ................................................................................................................... iv 
Dedication ........................................................................................................................... v 
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi 
Contents ........................................................................................................................... viii 
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x 
Chapter I: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 
Observations and Research Questions .....................................................................2 
Literature Review.....................................................................................................4 
Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................14 
Goal and Objective ................................................................................................19 
 
CHAPTER II: IN THE BEGINNING… .......................................................................... 21 
CHAPTER III: BELIEF IN CONTEXT ........................................................................... 24 
Approaching Belief ................................................................................................24 
Types of Belief .......................................................................................................26 
Why Believe? .........................................................................................................29 
 
CHAPTER IV: CASE STUDY EXAMPLES .................................................................. 32 
 
Literal Belief ..........................................................................................................32 
 
The Year without a Santa Claus. 1974. Directed by Jules Bass and Arthur 
Rankin Jr. ...................................................................................................33 
The Santa Clause. 1994. Directed by John Pasquin. .................................36 
Santa Who?. 2000. Directed by William Dear. .........................................40 

ix 
The Polar Express. 2004. Directed by Robert Zemeckis. ..........................44 
Get Santa. 2015. Directed by Christopher Smith. .....................................49 
 
 
Figurative Belief ....................................................................................................53 
 
Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus. 1991. Directed by Charles      
Jarrott. ........................................................................................................54 
One Christmas. 1994. Directed by Tony Bill. ...........................................60 
 
Combination of Literal and Figurative Beliefs ......................................................64 
 
Miracle on 34
th
 Street. 1947. Directed by George Seaton. ........................64 
Miracle on 34
th
 Street. 1994. Directed by Les Mayfield. ..........................67 
 
Observed/Observable Patterns ...............................................................................72 
 
Final Thoughts .......................................................................................................76 
 
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 77 
Notes ................................................................................................................................. 80 
References ......................................................................................................................... 91 
Appen .............................................................................................................................. 101 
Notes ............................................................................................................................... 103 
 
   

x 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Page 
 
Figure 1: An Illustration of the Linear Connections of the Three Primary States of 
Belief that are or include “Belief,” “Unbelief,” and “Rebelief.” .........................................2 
 
Figure 2: An Illustration of the “Theory of Cyclical Belief” or “A Belief Cycle” 
Containing the Three Primary States of Belief that are or include “Belief,” 
“Unbelief,” and “Rebelief” and Direction of Transition .....................................................2 
 
Figure 3: An Illustration of the “Theory of Cyclical Belief” or “A Belief Cycle” 
that is Subdivided into Subsidiary Degrees, States, or Points Between the Three 
Primary States that are or include “Belief,” “Unbelief,” and “Rebelief” as well as 
Direction of Transition and a Division Line of “Belief” and “Unbelief” Termed 
“Axis-Fidei” .........................................................................................................................3 
 

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Every single person, no matter who they are; what they look or sound like; where

they are or come from in space and time; their sex, gender, and/or orientation; their age or

maturity; their culture; and/or their background, has one or multiple belief(s) and/or

belief system(s) of some kind. Such belief may be temporary, transient, fleeting, or long

lasting. It/they may be superficial or deeply rooted. It/they may be (considered) or seem

rational or irrational. It/they may be encouraged or discouraged, romanticized or

pathologized. It/they may be conscious, subconscious, or unconscious; or, such belief(s)

may exist somewhere in between. They may also vary in degree(s). The point is that

everyone has belief and everyone believes. However, belief—or rather the study of

belief(s) and/or belief systems—causes countless issues for scholars for a myriad of

reasons.

Belief, in itself, is elusive, evasive, and enigmatic: it is astronomical in scope. The

variables that influence, impact, affect, or alter belief is beyond count or measure. Every

culture, people, and society have a unique, diverse, and dynamic set of beliefs and/or

belief system(s); and, even within a given culture and belief system, each individual has

their own personal belief(s). Belief(s) become(s) even more perplexed, complexed, and

complicated when analyzing if a person or a people truly believe(s) their belief(s) or not.

For an example, the belief in Santa Claus is cultural and personal, and it becomes

complicated when analyzing if a person or people truly believe(s) in such a figure. The

belief in Santa Claus will be examined in greater depth further in this thesis. Still,

folklorists and scholars should not define or determine what a person or people

believe(s); that is up to the individual or collective to decide, determine, and define for

themselves. Still, within a structured context and set parameters, belief can be examined

and analyzed; and scholars and folklorists can define what belief is, what it does, and

why it is valuable and/or important.

Observations and Research Questions

From my observation, examination, and analysis, I noticed an interesting and

intriguing phenomenon that happens as people or persons mature: as people change,

many of their beliefs change as well. I noticed that there is a fluidity or continuum to

beliefs and/or belief systems. I noticed that although there are various types and degrees

(credence) of belief, there are three primary states that manifest and appear. I theorize

that an individual’s or a collective’s belief(s) is/are connected and there are three primary

states of belief that a person or a people can and do often experience and/or exhibit.

People generally start at a state of belief. As they mature, they transition to a state of

unbelief that I divide into disbelief and misbelief. As people continue to mature, they can

transition again to a state that I

term rebelief. Currently, rebelief does not

exist in an official lexicon, but I define and

set the term and state while applying it

within my theory of belief. Upon first

observation, it seems that these states of

belief are linear starting at point A (Belief)

transition to point B (Unbelief) and

transition to point C (Rebelief) as is shown

Figure 1

Figure 2

in Figure 1. However, what I noticed is that the transitions are not linear but recursive or

cyclical as shown in Figure 2.

Upon inspection of Figure 2, one notices that belief and rebelief join or connect at

the same point. The flow of the cycle starts at a point of belief (point A1) and transitions

to a state of unbelief (point B) that I divide into disbelief and misbelief. At this point in

the cycle, one can transition to a state of rebelief (point A2) and return to a state of

belief/way or level of believing that one once had or is similar to such. It should be noted

that I emphasis “can” because the transition from unbelief to rebelief is not automatic;

there are, however, some people who perpetually stay in a state of unbelief and do not

transition in regards to certain beliefs or subjects. While inspecting the model in Figure 2,

I noticed a few issues or problems arising.

One major problem present is the rate of

transition i.e., an instant or total/complete

transition to opposite states. Thus, I developed

my theory and cycle further as shown in

Figure 3.

In Figure 3, I divided the cycle into

degrees of transition that include the three

primary states. It should be understood that

the cycle of belief is relative. I also divide the cycle with a horizontal line that I term

“Axis-Fidei” that translates to “axis of belief” (trust or faith). The axis indicates if a

person is positioned more on the side of belief, descending or transitioning to the side of

unbelief, or reemerging or transitioning to the side of (belief) rebelief.

Figure 3

After observing such patterns of belief/behavior and formulating my theory/cycle

of belief, I established my research questions. Numerous questions arose through my

research, but the three primary questions that I ask are:

1. What is belief, unbelief, and rebelief?

2. Can I make a case for the encouragement of belief in popular culture or

illustrate the states and cycle of belief, unbelief, and rebelief in pop-

culture media?

a. In particular, can I make a case for the encouragement or

advocacy of a belief in Santa Claus in popular culture or illustrate

the states and cycle of belief, unbelief, and rebelief of Santa Claus

in popular culture media?

3. Why is rebelief or the return to belief important or what is its value?

a. Why is (simplistic childlike) belief undervalued or even

pathologized (in adults)?

To explain and clarify, question 3 and 3a are similar in meaning and intent; they go hand-

in-hand, but I present them as separate questions to address rebelief and belief separately

even though they meet at the same point in the cycle.

Literature Review

Before immediately addressing the previous scholars, scholarship, and literature

(of belief), it should be understood that each field of study and discipline from

philosophy to psychology, sociology, anthropology, human development, religious

studies, various other fields, studies belief and presents unique perspectives on the matter.

However, for the purpose of this thesis, I focus on the folkloric perspective and

folkloristic literature and scholarship. It should be further noted that there are countless

articles that mention belief and add to the ongoing conversation, but the literature herein

presented more-or-less connects to and/or influences the topic of belief and/or my

research. It should be finally noted that the following scholarship is presented

chronologically rather than alphabetically or in/by order of importance.

In 1982, David J. Hufford published the article “Traditions of Disbelief” in the

journal, New York Folklore.

Within is his article, Hufford addresses the aspects of

disbelief and states his thesis saying, “In this paper I shall suggest that we should

sometimes instead take a truly external point of view when considering folk belief and

folk religion, a view that is naïve as would be that of an ethnographer from, for example,

the planet Mars” (italics in original) (1982, 48). By that thesis, Hufford argues that when

approaching belief and disbelief, scholars should view it “as is” rather than placing

preconceived judgements on it. More-or-less, Hufford addresses that folk belief is often

influenced by the culture in which it is presented; so too, he argues that disbelief also has

cultural traditions meaning that a certain folk group or culture influences folk disbelief.

Hufford’s work influences my study and theory of cyclical belief because one of

the primary states of the cycle of belief is the state of unbelief that is divide into disbelief

and misbelief. By understanding the traditions of disbelief, I can approach various

subjects of belief or disbelief and analyze it according to the culture it is placed as well as

their reaction to it. That is to say that this article addresses that belief scholars should

understand that a disbelief may be as valid to one culture as a belief is to another culture:

the tradition of disbelief is as valuable as the tradition of belief. In connection to my

research in this thesis, the “traditions of disbelief” helps in understanding cultural

disbeliefs in Santa Claus as well as cultural beliefs.

In 1989, Gillian Bennett published the article “’Belief Stories’: The Forgotten

Genre” in the journal Western Folklore. As per the title, Bennett addresses the forgotten

genre of belief stories while addressing the reasons for scholars forgetting or ignoring the

genre as well as its comparison to belief legend. Bennett poses her thesis and states, “In

this essay I want first to make a case for the reintroduction of this phrase as a term for a

class of informal stories which 1) illustrate current community belief” (1989, 291). She

continues, “2) [T]ell not only of personal experiences but also of events which have

happened to other people” (Ibid.). She concludes, “[A]nd 3) are used to explore and

validate the belief-traditions of a given community by showing how experience matches

cultural expectations” (Ibid.). Throughout the article, Bennett analyzes a case study that

was recorded by Professor Ervin Beck of Goshen College, Indiana during the 1981-1982

academic year. She shows how six teenagers share personal stories (memorates) and the

belief, believability, or questions associated with such narratives.

Although Bennett’s direct argument does not directly affect my research in this

thesis per se, the aspect of belief or believability in a story does influence it. After

examining Bennett’s analysis of the case study, I am able to see how teenagers seem to

organically share belief stories and find common beliefs and experiences was well as the

aspect of questioning belief with peers. One part, in particular, that connects with my

research and theory of belief is the aspect of belief and transition of such. For example,

Bennett records one of the teens saying, “[The] trouble is most parents don’t believe

you…” (italics in original) (1989, 296). This hints at the state of unbelief in regards to

authority. Bennett also presents statements that illustrate the/a transition from disbelief to

belief: “’I didn’t use to believe, but now…’; ‘This was the thing that made me really

believe…’ Well, I’ve experienced it…’” (ellipsis and italics in original) (1989, 302). This

illustrates that aspect of transition via experiences. In connection with this thesis, after

experiences with “Santa Claus” one can rebelieve in such a figure. That will be examined

and addressed further in this thesis.

In 1996, Linda Dé gh published the article “What is a Belief Legend?”

in the

journal Folklore.

She presents her purpose and thesis; however, it is quite extensive with

all of its parts or components to fully list. Dé gh, basically, addresses what Bennett

presents in her article “’Belief Stories’: The Forgotten Genre” and argues that folklore

does not need to recognize “belief stories” and even “belief legends” as a genre; she

argues that belief legend/story is arbitrary and states, “[B]elief is inherent in all legends”

(1996, 34). She states, “[Belief is] the ideological foundation or core of the legend”

(Ibid.). She argues that belief or rather believability is essential for a successful legend,

story, narrative.

This article is helpful for my research not only in the analysis of my case study

examples for this thesis but for the approach to folk narratives and belief such as the

belief in the legendary figure, Santa Claus. It is useful in understanding that when a

legend, story, or narrative is told or shown, the teller and/or listener may or may not

necessarily/actually believe it (to be true), but possibility, believability, and truthfulness

is present. Again, that strongly connects with the legend and belief of Santa Claus. A

person may not actually believe in “Santa” but will tell, pretend, and/or perform the

legend to someone (usually a child) who they are trying to convince is real or true with

what I call “faux belief.” It is also helpful in understanding aspects of belief, disbelief,

and rebelief in the telling of a story or narrative from various cultures as well.

In 2000, Patrick B. Mullen published the article “Belief and American Folklore”

in the Journal of American Folklore. In his article, Mullen presents a profound argument

about the romanticizing and pathologizing of belief and behaviors within American

culture. He clearly states his purpose and thesis saying, “This article will not attempt to

cover the entire history of cultural representations of folk belief in American writing;

rather, I shall concentrate on the words of representative folklorists, anthropologists, and

sociologists who have studies belief from the late 19

century to the present” (2000,

119). Throughout his article, Mullen addresses the aspects of how belief and behavior

were and are viewed. Essentially, Mullen says that certain beliefs and behaviors are

romanticized up to a certain point within a certain culture, community, society, or folk

group; such is usually associated with on young children and deemed acceptable or

tolerable and even encouraged. However, if the same beliefs and behaviors are present

past the certain point, then the belief and behavior is pathologized and deemed

unacceptable, intolerable, and discouraged.

This article greatly influences my research because it addresses the aspect of why

people transition from belief to unbelief i.e., pathologizing attitudes and (re)enforced

behavioral conditioning. By understanding the aspect of pathologizing attitudes towards

belief, it is easy to see why belief in things such as Santa Claus are considered childish or

for little children. It is because older children do not want to get labeled, pathologized, or

even chastised for such belief and behavior past the cultural point of appropriate

acceptability or tolerance. Such romanticizing and pathologizing attitudes and behaviors

can be seen, documented, and/or illustrated in the case studies presented further in this

thesis.

In 2007, Diane E. Goldstein, Sylvia Grider, and Jeannie Banks Thomas

collaborated and produced the book Haunting Experiences: Ghosts in Contemporary

Folklore. Throughout the text, the authors make and present important observations and

claims regarding (supernatural) belief. In the introduction, readers discover the overall

purpose of the work. The text reads, “Haunting Experiences focuses on the dynamic

relationship in contemporary society between ghosts in folklore and ghosts in popular

culture” (italicized title in original) (2007, 4). Throughout the text, the authors examine

aspects of folk belief, popular culture, and the commodification of such belief especially

in relation to the supernatural. Folklore in relation to folk belief can remain as folklore

even though contemporary media: folklore can be presented as folkloresque

hypermodern folklore.

Although the whole work is influential, the “Introduction: Old Spirits in New

Bottles,” “Two: Scientific Rationalism and Supernatural Experience Narratives,” “Six:

The Commodification of Belief,” and “Conclusion: The ‘Spectral Turn’” are more so

influential to my research of belief. Similarly, much of supernatural experiences are

based on personal experiences and personal or cultural belief or what Hufford addresses

as experiential or cultural source hypothesis. Often times, people cannot prove or

disprove the existence of a supernatural or metaphysical existence, but skeptics often

scoff and pathologize people for such beliefs. However, that does not necessarily stop

people from believing such as with a belief in Santa Claus or other metaphysical beings

or things. The work also helps with the aspect of popular culture and its relationship to

folklore as per my research with popular belief as presented in popular culture media.

In 2012, Sabina Magliocco published the article “Beyond Belief: Context,

Rationality and Participatory Consciousness” in the journal Western Folklore. In the

article, Magliocco presents an argument and analysis of how people can believe

contradictory things simultaneously. She presents her claim, thesis, and purpose saying,

“In this paper, I want to use this contrast as a jumping-off point to critique the ways

folklorists and anthropologists have approach the issue of belief, and to suggest a

different, and I hope, provocative set of considerations drawn from my work in a variety

of cultural contexts” (2012, 7). She continues, “I am particularly interested in exploring

instances in which multiple, seemingly contradictory belief systems coexist within the

same individual—a situation characteristic of modernity and post-modernity” (Ibid.).

Basically, she argues and presents situations where people say they believe one thing but

then behave in a different way or believe and behave in different or contradictory ways to

their cultural belief (system), which shows an aspect of possible conscious or

unconscious belief and behavior or at least consideration of possibility/plausibility.

However, one can have conscious acknowledgment of contrasting/contradictory belief.

This article is useful for my research in the fact that people can have contradictory

beliefs, belief systems, and/or behaviors that coexist simultaneously. Connecting to a few

of my case study examples (Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus 1991 and Miracle on

Street 1994), contradictory belief can be seen in the belief in existence of God but

questioning disbelief in the existence of Santa Claus on the premises of present or lacking

physical/visible evidence; in a stretch, this could also connect to beliefs and disbeliefs

coexisting simultaneously i.e., secular and/or sacred beliefs. It can also address aspects of

cultural and personal beliefs coexisting simultaneously. Belief is not an absolute; it is a

continuum that changes, adapts, and/or evolves. This idea connects with Hufford’s

traditions of disbelief meaning that beliefs can contradict and coexist.

In 2018, Amelia Mathews-Pett produced a Master’s Thesis at Utah State

University entitled, “’Full on Toy Story’: Exploring the Belief in Object Sentience in

Western Culture.”

In her thesis, Mathews-Pett argues for the acknowledgment of object

sentience as a folk belief. She presents cases of children whom believe that their toys

have sentience and such belief is influenced and encouraged by popular cultural works

(literature) and media. She also presents cases of adults who also exhibit a belief in object

sentience and resulting behavior such as talking to cars as if they or other such objects

can hear and have feelings. She uses an illustration to show or prove Mullen’s argument

of pathologizing attitudes: she uses a commercial depicting a lamp being discarded,

which affects emotions in audience viewers, but a person walks into the commercial and

addresses the audience to say that they are crazy for thinking the lamp has feelings (2018,

28). The labeling of being “crazy” effectively illustrates pathologizing attitudes towards

belief.

This research is quite influential to my research because it not only draws on the

aspect of Mullen’s argument of romanticizing and pathologizing attitudes but also

because it shows that people believe (in) certain things but end up either hiding their

belief and behavior or continuing the belief and behavior just in different ways i.e., the

belief in object sentience transfers from a toy to a machine. It shows that childhood

beliefs and behaviors do not just go away: it shows that people do not just “grow up” or

out of their beliefs and behaviors, exactly. Often times, people just bury or hide their

beliefs until they can share it with like believers or within safe spaces. In connection with

the belief in Santa Claus, people often conform and “stop” believing in Santa Claus and

refrain from saying that they belief if they do. Just the statement causes pathologizing

reactions. The aspect of pathologizing attitudes towards such belief in Santa are

illustrated in the case study examples that will be addressed further in this thesis.

In 2020, Benjamin Gatling published the article “There Isn’t Belief, Just

Believing: Rethinking Belief as a keyword for Folklore Studies” in the Journal of

American Folklore. In his abstract, Gatling states, “[B]eliefs are reified and abstracted

from social action; beliefs are systematized and explanatory of behavior; and beliefs are

rendered as universal, cross-cultural features of social life. This article argues that

reconceptualizing belief carries with it a decolonial justice imperative, and folklorists

should jettison belief as a key word of the discipline” (2020, 307). Throughout his paper,

he addresses aspects of belief and legends, belief and religious folklore, and belief and

knowledge. Ultimately, Gatling presents cases and situations where belief is ambiguous

and may not apply as a label or categorical genre and argues that the term belief should

be dropped as a keyword of folklore.

Parts of Gatling’s article are quite useful to my research of belief in the sense that

belief is relative and even subjective. Belief can also be used as a crutch-word or label by

the etic and placed onto emic aspects, practices, or performed behaviors. This connects to

Hufford’s statement, “What I know I know, what you know you only believe—to the

extent that it conflicts with my knowledge” (1982, 47-48). Hufford’s statement reinforces

the idea that to understand a culture and avoid ethnocentrism, one must see or understand

that culture from the emic not the etic view. Such views can connect with the cultural

traditions of Christmas and Santa Claus. Not everyone believes or behaves the same.

However, I also find some fault and pose some objection with Gatling’s argument and

article. Throughout the work, it seems that Gatling makes slight contradictory statements.

For example, he states, “I’m not arguing that beliefs don’t exist” (2020, 309) but later

states, “Of course, beliefs aren’t things” (2020, 321). It does not make sense to say that

belief exist but are not things. If the claims are not contradictory, they at least cause

confusion and are rhetorically ineffective. It is understandable that what gets labeled as a

“belief” in a culture may not actually be a “belief” within that particular culture; it

becomes an etic/emic labeling debate. However, belief(s) is/are (a) thing(s). Belief(s)

is/are a human function or mental conviction of something being seen or held as true.

Belief is no different than any of the human functions or emotions that can be and are

experienced. Even Gatling’s title is paradoxical or oxymoronic: “There Isn’t Belief, Just

Believing.” There cannot be an action/predicate without a subject/object/noun to base,

ground, or perform the action. His argument is understandable and even reasonable at

certain points i.e., folklorists need to rethink what is labeled as belief or to be cautious

when using the term, but much of folklore is based on belief. Elliott Oring addresses the

aspect of belief with Linda Dé gh’s argument: “Most legend scholars hold that legend has

some relation to belief; more specifically that legends involve a debate about belief

(Dé gh 2001:97). While this may be so, the problem is that almost everything entails

belief” (2012, 105). If it is “jettisoned,” much of folklore categorization would become

disarrayed. Still, to be fair, his argument poses points to consider with approaching belief

and belief studies. Therefore, this article is helpful to my research although one can find

objections within it.

Scope and Methodology

For this thesis, the scope and focus centers on the popular culture of the United

States or American popular culture. I specifically chose this culture to examine for this

introduction/thesis since it illustrates my theory effectively. It is also a culture that I can

examine from an emic rather than from an etic perspective. As stated, or alluded to, many

folklorists, such as Linda Dé gh, argue that belief must be experienced from within the

culture. The American popular culture also has influential impacts on the

popularity/popularization of Santa Claus. As for my methodology, I trace the states of

cyclical belief as they are manifest in the American popular culture, specifically within

movies about Santa Claus; such popular culture and movies provide examples of the

theory of belief especially with what I term rebelief or a return to belief in Santa. For an

example, a scene from the case study example Santa Who? 2000 directed by William

Dear depicts the aspect of belief and disbelief in Santa. The dialog goes:

Zach: “That’s not true. He really is Santa.”

Albright: “Zach—”

Zach: “If you take him away, there’ll be no more Christmas.”

Albright: “Will you stop with this Santa stuff. He is not Santa.”

Zach: “He is too.”

Albright: “He is not.”

Zach: “He is too.”

Albright: “He is not. He’s just a confused old man.”

[Claire intercedes and takes Albright out into the hall].

Claire: “It is not your place to yell at my son.”

Albright: “Well, someone ought to set him straight. Do you really think it’s health

to let him believe that amnesia victim is really Santa Claus?”

Claire: “And who are you to tell him what to believe? You afraid believe in

anything.”

Albright: “I was just telling him the truth.”

Claire: “Well, you didn’t have to rush him like that.”

Albright: “He’ll get over it. I did.”

Claire: “Oh, oh so that’s it. So, you’re taking your lousy childhood out on my

child.”

Albright: “What?”

Claire: “You didn’t get over it, Peter. You’re so stuck in your past; you can’t get

on with your future.”

What should be noted here is that Albright pathologizes Zach’s belief in Santa showing a

state of unbelief. Zach shows a state of belief. Claire shows support of Zach’s belief and

makes a profound statement that Albright is so conflicted himself that he cannot or

refuses to believe in “anything.” It should also be noted that Claire argues that Albright is

more-or-less crushing her son’s childhood because Albright had a negative childhood

himself and without a belief in something like Santa Claus, a childhood/life can be

“lousy.” However, Albright resolves his unbelief; and, by the end of the movie,

transitions to a state of rebelief. This case study will be examined again and in greater

depth later in this thesis.

In preparation to build and fortify a foundation for my theory, I looked at the

terms and concepts of belief, unbelief (disbelief/misbelief), rebelief, and the variously

common concepts such as faith, hope, knowledge, and trust that people often

synonymize, interchange, or associate with the term or concept of belief. Although, it

may seem unnecessary, arbitrary, or redundant to do so, it is important to understand the

base level of the concept to set and establish a foundation upon which my theory is built

and supported.

After establishing a foundation of conceptual understanding, I examine various

(types of) beliefs that people have. One belief or tradition that is popular with countless

people in the United States as well as around the world is the belief in Santa Claus who is

a major legendary figure in the study of folklore and is conservative yet dynamic.

Similar to folk tales and fairy tales that have direct/indirect messages, current

pop-culture movies/shows give similar messages whether directly or indirectly. Using a

statement from Tok Thompson and Greggory Schrempp, “Stories, more than anything

else, give us a sense of identity” (2020, 8). Based on that statement, it is arguable that

messages and even beliefs are conveyed and given to audiences that influence them on

various levels. In a wider inspection or scope of popular culture and media, there are a

number of children/family narratives (stories and movies) that present messages and

encouragements of belief that are similar but not limited to Christmas or Santa movies.

For example, the story of Peter Pan (literature, stage plays, and movies) encourages

audiences to believe in fairies, especially when Tinker Bell is poisoned. Whether one

believes in fairies or not, audiences get drawn into the narrative and even emotionally

feel something for the characters. In some adaptations, audiences are more-or-less

directly encouraged to clap their hands and/or say “I believe in fairies” to save Tinker

Bell such as in the stage play/adaptation as well as in the movie Hook (Spielberg, dir.

1991) and Peter Pan (Hogan, dir. 2003). It should be noted that the story of Peter Pan

literally illustrates the aspect of romanticizing and pathologizing belief and behavior i.e.,

it shows that Wendy has reached a point where she is forced to leave the nursery and

grow up. Another example of encouraged belief is found in DreamWorks’ Kung Fu

Panda when Master Oogway tells Master Shifu he “needs to” believe and actually makes

Shifu “promise” to believe (Osborn and Stevenson, dirs., 2008). The message of that

movie is to believe in the unlikely and even in oneself. It seems that the core message in

such media about belief is to look and see what is inside of others and oneself as well as

in the unseen. That theme and motif is present in the Santa Claus movies case study

examples. In the television show, The Magicians (based on book by Lev Grossman)

Margo Hanson and Quintin Coldwater have an important conversation about belief and

magic. Margo says, “There’s this thing about you, Q. You actually believe in magic.”

Quentin, with the context of being at a school for magicians, replies, “So does everyone.”

Margo responds, “No. We all know it’s real, but you believe in it. And you just love it,

pure and simple” (Tapping, dir. 2016). That conversation is important because it is one

thing to know something, but it seems another thing to believe (in) it. Even the

acknowledgment of people/skeptics ignoring children/the innocent and their truth(s)

is/are present in the cultural sensation, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

According to Albus Dumbledore, “A child’s voice, however honest and true is

meaningless to those who’ve forgotten how to listen” (Cuaró n, dir. 2004). This shows or

addresses the pathologizing or ignoring of beliefs by skeptics, doubters, as well as people

who have “forgotten.” This connects with the case study examples that address

remembering childhood and/or childhood belief in Santa Claus.

However, there are other aspects within contemporary movies that not only

encourage belief but encourage childhood/childlikeness/childishness to those who have

forgotten. In the movie Hook, audiences see Wendy as an old woman, and she tells the

Banning family, “There is one rule that must be obeyed while you are in my house. No

growing up. Stop, this very instant” (Spielberg, dir. 1991). Wendy also says to Peter

Banning, “Peter, don’t you remember who you are” (Ibid.) in reference to him being

Peter Pan. In the movie One Christmas, that will be analyze in more in depth later in the

thesis, Ms. Cornelia Beaumont says, “Now you just relax and be a child for as long as

you can be one” (Bill, dir. 1994). In Mary Poppins Returns, the Balloon Lady

asks a

grownup Michael Banks a very crucial question: The Balloon Lady says, “Have you

forgotten what it’s like?” Michael asks, “To hold a balloon?” The Balloon Lady says, “To

be a child” (Marshall, dir. 2018). This short conversation illustrates the aspect of an elder

seeing the value of children and childhood aspects.

The brief examples point out not

only the value of childhood, childishness, childlikeness but the belief(s) associated with

it. This connects to aspects of rebelief within the cycle.

With the previous discussion, examples/evidence, understanding, I look at pop-

media, folkloresque or hypermodern folklore, in connection with the commonly held

belief in Santa Claus; I look at Santa Claus pop-culture media/movies that influence

belief (in Santa).

As previously alluded to and aforementioned, a documentable pattern in these

movies is the motif of encouraging belief. Upon examination of such encouragement to

belief, I noticed that the (believing) characters in the story (usually [a child]/children or

possibly adult(s)) encourage the unbelieving or disbelieving characters to believe. I also

notice that human beings are influenced by what they see, hear, or are exposed to whether

directly or indirectly/subliminally. Thus, the encouragement of belief (or acknowledged

value of belief) seems directed not only to the characters in the narrative but to the

audience(s) as well. When the characters within the narrative are encouraging belief, the

message of belief or encouragement of such is also transmitted or communicated to the

viewers.

The last function of these movies is to not only tell/show a story or narrative that

is usually presented as escapism but to show that they reflect the function or transition of

people in society and culture i.e., my theory of people, behavior, belief, and such

transitions. Even though the movies are “fiction,” fictional, or fictionalized (staged) the

story and transitions that are presented reflect patters of culture, society, people, in

regards to a belief, unbelief, and rebelief: in the context of this thesis and examples, it

shows the belief regarding Santa Claus.

Goal and Objective

The goal and objective for this thesis is to formulate and establish a new theory of

cyclical belief or a belief cycle to the academy and field of folklore. I illustrate how belief

appears in states and is connected in a cyclical pattern or form and transitions through

states and degrees. As aforementioned, I theorize that people start at a (base) state of

belief. As they mature, they change by degrees to a state of unbelief. There is a point

where they can transition, again, to a state of rebelief. I apply this theory by examining

the commonly held belief in Santa Claus through the use and illustration of pop-culture

movies and its influence(s) on viewers, in particular, or the American popular culture.

My theory addresses the cycle of fluidity of belief, unbelief, and rebelief. Yet, a

minor objective is to address the pathologizing or outright criticizing of belief/rebelief by

skeptics/skepticism, cynics/cynicism, materialists/materialism, naturalists/naturalism,

and/or rationalists/rationalism as well as to address the importance of understanding the

value and the encouragement of belief/rebelief that is presented in my case study

examples of belief in Santa via Christmas movies. To briefly explain the previous

statement, I am not saying that people must or have to believe or that all people believe in

some, certain, or the same things. I address that there is value to/of belief/rebelief and

believing/rebelieving that is often based or grounded without evidence or rationality. I

address that such belief/rebelief and believing/rebelieving often gets criticized by

skeptics.

Much of the time, belief is belief: it is not found based on irrefutable facts,

evidence, or scientific aspects per se, but such unsupported belief is disregarded by

skeptical authority.

Simply stated, although skeptics and cynics may scoff at blind

belief, there is value to belief and believing ergo the aspects of rebelief or the return.

CHAPTER II: IN THE BEGINNING…

Without delaying the examination or presentation of the case study examples, it is

important and even crucial to address the definitions of such vast concepts. To understand

any concept and synchronize conceptual understanding and context, brief definitions are

examined to set a foundation to the theory. To summarize, the definition of “belief,” as

used in this thesis, is a mental conviction, proposition, persuasion, confidence of

something held to be true based with or without evidence or proof. To summarize,

“believe” is defined as the action of giving credit, credence, confidence, acceptance of

something or someone as true based with or without evidence or proof.

In this thesis, "unbelief” is defined as the absence, lack, or rejection of belief. To

summarize, “unbelieve” is defined as to discredit, disregard, not to think real or true, and

not to believe. To summarize, “disbelief” is the refusal of credit, denial of belief, seeing a

belief as not true, and/or rejection of belief. This should not be confused with nonbelief.

To summarize, “disbelieve” is defined as not to believe, hold something to not be true,

refuse credit, to deny the truth, not to believe. “Misbelief,” however, is different. To

summarize, “misbelief” is defined as a wrong, false, or erroneous belief. Readers may

ask, “Who gets to decide or determine what is a wrong, false or erroneous belief?” The

labeling of misbelief (wrong, false, erroneous) is usually determined by the status quo or

majority of a group or community and is usually enforced or upheld by an/the authority.

To examine, analyze, define, set, establish, and apply the terms “rebelief” and

“rebelieve,” I build the term and definition from the root(s), “belief/believe.” Since the

terms “belief” and ‘believe” are addressed and more-or-less defined as something held as

true (or real) and to hold something as true (or real) based or grounded with or without

evidence or proof, I attach the prefix “re-” to the existing root(s). According to the Online

Etymology Dictionary, the prefix “re-” is defined as, “[A] word-forming element

meaning ‘back, back from, back to the original place;’ also ‘again, anew, once more…’”

(“re-” n.d.). With that definition and understanding, along with the definition(s) and

understanding of “belief” and ‘believe,” I define “rebelief” (noun) as 1. An original or

previous/earlier state of mental conviction of truth based or grounded with or without

evidence, again. 2. Something held, regarded, credited as true or real, again. 3. That

which is rebelieved; that which is believed again. I define “rebelieve” (verb) as 1. (to)

believe again, again believe. 2. (to) once more believe; (to) believe once more. 3. The

return to an original or previous/earlier state of belief (one once had). 4. (to) believe

anew. In the application of the theory of cyclical belief, rebelief is an original or

pervious/earlier state or mental conviction of belief or belief system that one once had or

a thing that is again held as true based or grounded with or without evidence or proof;

and the action rebelieve is the return to an original or previous/earlier state or mental

conviction of belief that one once had, to again or once more hold or give credit or

credence to something as true based or grounded with or without evidence. It should be

noted that “rebelief/rebelieve” may consist of returning to an actual/literal belief and/or

way/level of (figurative) belief that one once had.

As aforementioned, belief (along with unbelief, disbelief, and misbelief and their

respective verbs or actions) often gets synonymized with other terms such as faith, hope,

knowledge,

and trust.

The terms may seem similar, but they have subtle nuanced

differences. Still, it is important to understand the terms, definitions, usages, and

applications of the concepts. However, the terms, definitions, and usages are only part of

the understanding. The terms and concepts also need to be put within context.

CHAPTER III: BELIEF IN CONTEXT

Again, quickly and without belaboring the subject, when approaching belief, it is

necessary to understand some of the aspects of belief in a given context. As Mullen

states, “As a genre of folklore, belief is an impossibly unwieldy construction because it is

so broad” (2000, 119). There are various level, types, degrees, attitudes, stances,

influences, and approaches to belief that it often times becomes overwhelming and even

muddled, mired, mingled, and mangled in complicated/complicating complexities. With

such understanding, a brief look and discussion about belief in context should be

examined and understood.

Approaching Belief

Although it may seem like one can just look at something i.e., a culture, a people,

a person, a performance, or behavior and determine a belief or a belief system, there is

much to the contrary. When approaching (a) belief or belief system, one must be careful

not to pose judgement or label it based on etic or ethnocentric views. In her text, Folklore

Rules!, Lynne S. McNeill addresses David Hufford’s “alternative explanations” for

supernatural folk belief: the cultural source hypothesis

and the experiential source

hypothesis

(2013, 57). Such approaches or explanations are important to understand,

but McNeill also gives a cautionary warning to students and scholars of belief. She says,

“If you’re out in the world collecting folklore and you run into people who begin telling

you stories of ghosts they’ve seen, aliens they’ve encountered, demonic possessions

they’ve witnessed, or creatures they believe are living on the edges of their community,

the single worst thing you can do is scoff at them” (2013, 60). McNeill gives an

interesting piece of advice when approaching belief: she basically says do not pathologize

a person, a culture, and their beliefs and behaviors even if it/they does/do not match or

align with one’s own.

This can apply to not only the supernatural but the fanciful such

as Santa Claus. If one (adults) says that they believe in Santa, people may judge them

before they have given their reasoning for such belief. It should be noted, one can address

beliefs and behaviors that present threat or harm to oneself or others without

pathologizing such, per se. However, the addressing of or refraining from addressing

such belief(s) and behavior(s) is up to the prerogative choice of the individual scholar.

The mindset is or should be, do no harm or let no harm be done.

In her article, Linda Dé gh makes a comment about how to approach and

understand belief. She states, “Evidently, ‘belief’ cannot be collected, only conjectured

[interpret or conclude based on opinion] by the culturally alien scholar. Belief is

invisible, inaudible, part of local heritage hidden behind acts and narratives” (1996, 36).

She continues, “It lives in the minds, not on the lips of people; it is a convention,

inherited and tacitly shared by a community’s membership, composed of individuals who

participate in shaping and internalizing the belief” (Ibid.). To use a metaphor, Dé gh

argues that beliefs are not like butterflies that can be caught in a net and pinned to a

board; beliefs are living things within the minds, lives, and beings of living people. They

have to be conjectured/interpreted and experienced from the people themselves. When

approaching the study of belief, it is important to understand that belief cannot be

dissected and put under a microscope for analysis, exactly. When approaching belief, it

must be experienced or understood within the context of its living or lived performance.

This connects with various beliefs and behaviors including those associated with the

belief in Santa Claus as is illustrated in the case study examples.

Types of Belief

Firstly, it should be understood that beliefs are not binary, meaning that people do

not either believe or not. In reference to binary belief, Helge Lundholm states, “Though

the above statements concerning the credulity of infants are based largely upon inference

and upon more or less dim reminiscence on the part of grown-up people, there is no

sufficient ground for doubting either their validity or generality…” (1936, 9). Beliefs are

formed and set by degrees or credence (Ebert 2012; Eriksson 2007; and Huber 2009).

People may hold on to certain beliefs and not so to others, and people change, adapt, or

alter their belief(s) i.e., beliefs adapt and change as is shown or addressed in my theory of

cyclical belief or the belief cycle. W.V Quine and J.S. Ullian use the metaphor of a web

saying core beliefs are held or placed at the center of the web and non-core or non-

essential beliefs are built from that center or core and stretch out to other parts of the web,

and some beliefs are even placed at the very edges of the web (The Web of Belief 1978).

To use the metaphor, as human mature and change, the web gets redesigned: the outlying

strands and connections get detached or reattached or altered in some way to strengthen

or reinforce/restructure the web. However, rarely do core or central beliefs get touched.

The web may also have to get redesigned when damage occurs. Such damage to belief

may be caused by challenges to set beliefs, acquires new knowledge, reevaluation of

existing belief, or similar challenging aspects. Still, going on the metaphor, some strands

of the web may grow old and brake off naturally. New strands may replace old or

broken/damaged strands and get connected to old anchors, new strands may be placed on

new anchors, or old strands may never get replaced. It is all a part of the complex system

of belief.

Of course, there is contextuality that also affect beliefs as well. It seems that there

are many contexts in which belief is presented; however, three main types are cultural,

social or situational, and individual. Beliefs in a cultural context means that a community,

people, group, or culture share a common belief in their belief system. Beliefs in a social

or situational context means that a belief can happen or change within a given moment or

performance depending upon the situation or circumstance. There is also individual belief

which is obviously a person’s personal belief in their given situation or circumstance. An

individual belief may differ from their cultural or culture’s belief as addressed by

Mathews-Pett (2018) and Magliocco (2012). Individual belief is also a part of what Jay

Mechling argues as “solo folklore” (“Solo Folklore” 2006), which is a folk group of one

individual.

One aspect or context of belief that often appears and is discussed/debated is

secular and sacred belief. This often gets muddled and mired in debate because what is

sacred or secular to one person or group may not be so to another person or group and

vice versa. Yes, people can believe in one thing and not the other i.e., secular and sacred

belief(s) is/are based on cultural traditions, but an individual can still have a personal

belief on the matter. Also, there is the aspect of a piece of folklore existing in both

secular and sacred views such as a figure of Saint Nicholas: to one person, group or

community, he is a sacred, saintly/religious figure; to person, group, or community

another, he is a secular symbol, commercialized and/or commodified figure. Discussions

between secular and sacred can be discussed but also tends to become heated based on

belief.

One, rather two, more type(s) of belief that should be understood is/are what John

Ronald Reuel Tolkien called/calls primary and secondary belief (“On-Fairy Stories”

2001; Light New Fires 2017), which closely connects to Linda Dé gh’s arguments of

belief and believability. According to Linda Dé gh, belief or rather believability is “the

ideological foundation or core of the legend” (1996, 34). Again, Tolkien argues similarly

in in his essay “On Fairy-Stories.”

Basically, what Tolkien says, in reference to

(literary) fairy tales, holds true and connection with Dé gh’s statements about belief and

legends of folklore: Tolkien argues that primary belief is when a person is presented

something as true and the person (literally) believes or accepts it as true; he says that

secondary belief is when a person is presented something as true but knows its false yet

still ends up being drawn in and suspends disbelief to believe it anyway, but once the

“spell” of belief or believability is broken, secondary belief disappears (Light New Fires

2017).

that also happens not just with literary works but with folklore ((folk) narratives)

as well. Even the belief in Santa Claus relies on legend believability and the suspension

of disbelief or secondary belief. The Santa Claus narrative can be so well told that even if

a person does not believe in Santa, they get drawn in anyway into the world of the

narrative.

Two more types of belief are literal and figurative beliefs. A literal belief is

similar to Tolkien’s primary belief. It is a belief that credits something literal as being

literally true or real. This can be seen in the case study examples when a person (child)

literally believes in a real or literal Santa Claus. Figurative belief is a belief in something

figurative or metaphorical. This type of belief can also be seen in the case study examples

where people (adults) belief in Santa Claus; but they do not believe in a literal Santa

Claus. They believe in what Santa stands for such as the spirit of Christmas, generosity,

benevolence, goodness, kindness, care…and the like. This can also be seen in the case

study examples. As alluded to, literal belief is similar to Tolkien’s primary belief, and

figurative belief can connect to his secondary belief. It should be noted that literal and

figurative belief can also extend to other things beyond Santa Claus and the case study

examples.

Why Believe?

When addressing the “why” or reason to believe, one can only really address that

for themselves. Each individual believes, and each individual has motive(s) for their

belief(s) or belief system(s) and even behavior(s) based on such belief(s) and/or belief

systems(s). However, there are some aspects to why people believe or why belief

happens. Philosopher David Hume regards belief as, “[A] superior force, or vivacity, or

solidity, or firmness, or steadiness” (italics in original) (1878, 398).

John Cottingham

states, “Believing generally appears to be something that occurs involuntarily, like

blushing or contracting the pupils of one’s eyes (2009, 8). It is true that belief(s) can be

influenced, but the function of belief or belief itself seems to be involuntary or what

Sabina Magliocco calls “emergent belief” (2012, 15) because it is a part of the human

function/faculty/condition. Still, in times of intense emotion or situation, people may

involuntarily believe and behave differently than they might do otherwise. Such belief

and behavior can be seen in the folk proverb or adage, there are no atheists in foxholes.

This is not to say that there are “no” atheists in foxholes but is saying that when faced

with something like (intense or savior) pain or death, people may involuntarily seek out,

pray, or even yell/cry (out) for God and/or His help when they might not do otherwise;

however, not everyone will do so. Sometimes when people do things in a situation and

are later asked about it, the person may say I don’t know. It is an unconscious,

involuntary reaction or response. Cottingham also addresses the aspect of risk and belief

and addresses Pascal’s Wager saying, “’What have you got to lose?’” (2009, 9). When

thinking about the reason to believe, risk or consequence seems to accompany the

question or thought/consideration. This also connects to Mullen’s pathologizing aspect of

belief meaning that the risk may be negative criticism, discreditation, chastisement, or

even reinforced conditioning. Of course, some beliefs risk nothing: nothing is lost by

believing. What they gain might be dream, fancy, hope, imagination, romance or

romantic notions of nature or the supernatural/metaphysical, wisdom, and the like. Of

course, that also brings in aspects of peoples’ want or wish to believe.

Cottingham brings up an important point about how belief works and the want or

wish to believe. He states, “In moments of personal crisis—illness, bereavement, acute

anxiety—one sometimes hears people utter phrases like ‘I wish I could believe in God.’

In saying this, the unbeliever is implicitly acknowledging that religious belief might bring

certain benefits—comfort, perhaps, or consolation, or a sense of security or hope” (2009,

7). The previous statement connects to Hufford’s statement about traditions of disbelief

and Mullen’s romanticizing/pathologizing of belief meaning that as much as a person

might think or want to believe a certain thing, their cultural traditions may interfere or

contradict with it. That aspect is actually illustrated/presented in the case study examples,

particularly in the Polar Express. Still, belief and want are interesting parts of their

function.

Similarly, to what Cottingham mentions and alludes to, Steve Volk also addresses

the aspect of wanting to believe in his work, Fringe•ology. Volk points out an instance of

a family patriarch whose father has passed away. It seems that the family members are

firm skeptics in ghosts and the paranormal or supernatural, but Volk states, “And while

his family seems to maintain an appropriate skepticism, he clearly wants to believe”

(2011, 2). That “want” is not wrong. As Sabina Magliocco states, “Belief is not the

opposite of reason: it is a state of conviction that is reached in different ways, with

different [or no] evidence” (2012, 11-12). She acknowledges people’s phrases or

comments such as, “It’s not true but I believe in it” (2012, 6) or someone (in regards to

the effects of sending/passing a chain letter) says, “’It’s not that I believe in the prayer or

the threat,’ he explained. ‘It’s that in that moment, I was so fearful of your sister’s fate

that I wanted to take no chances; I didn’t want to be able to reproach myself later for not

having done everything in my power to ensure her full recovery’” (2012, 16). There are

many people who have the idea that they know something is not “true” but they believe it

anyway or that something happens so traumatic that people approach what could be

called extreme levels just to cover the bases or to be safe in the face of possibility. They

may not believe in it, but they are willing to try it. Again, it comes down to what is

risked, what is lost or grained, and an individual’s reason(s) or motive(s) for belief or to

believe. Again, this/these aspect(s) connect to the part(s) of belief in Santa Claus in the

case study examples.

CHAPTER IV: CASE STUDY EXAMPLES

In approaching, examining, analyzing, and presenting the illustration and

application of the theory of belief or the belief cycle, the following Santa

Claus/Christmas movie case study examples are separated or divided into three thematic

genres or categories that include literal, figurative, and a combination of literal and

figurative belief. With each case study, I summarize the narrative and explain the major

plot of the movie for those who have not seen them, and I depict how my theory of

cyclical belief is illustrated or presented within them. It should be understood that the

following case study examples were selected, examined, analyzed, and are presented due

to their promotion and popularity. To explain, the following case study examples are

highly promoted, popularized, presented, and available, especially during the holidays.

They are regularly shown throughout the holiday season on television and streaming

services as well as heavily stocked in stores. Such movies are sometimes also bundled in

value packs to help promote exposure. And, although some of the movies may be getting

a bit older and may not be as popular as newly released movies, some of the case study

example movies are being considered “classics” for the holiday season.

Literal Belief

To briefly explain, this section or category addresses the overall message within

the movie i.e., the theme of this movie depicts a literal belief in a literal or real Santa

Claus. Although there may be minor themes weaved in the narrative, the major theme of

the movies is literal.

The Year without a Santa Claus. 1974.

Directed by Jules Bass and Arthur Rankin

Jr.

This movie or case example is a stop-motion animated (clay animation or

Claymation) Christmas television special. The basic plot and premise of this movie is that

Santa Claus begins to believe that the people, especially the children, of the world no

longer need, care about, or believe in him. Throughout the course of the movie, Santa

learns that people/children still care and believe. Even though this case example is a

children’s/family cartoon, it illustrates the theory of cyclical belief well.

There are a number of characters, scenes, and examples that depict the states and

cycle of belief; however, there are some that are stronger than others. One of the most

prevalent illustrations is the children on a schoolyard. When asked about Santa they all

exhibit the state of unbelief or disbelief. Ignatius Thistlewhite says, “[B]elieving in in

Santa Claus is for little kids.” This not only illustrates a disbelief in Santa Claus but also

pathologizing attitudes of acceptance of such belief.

The next example of the cycle of belief is also illustrated when Santa Claus meets

Ignatius Thistlewhite and his parents. This instance is important because Ignatius is a

school-age child who disbelieves in Santa Claus; however, his parents believe/rebelieve.

Under the name of Clous, Santa also says that he too believes in Santa Claus. In the

scene, there is a conversation and musical number regarding the belief or rebelief in

Santa. The dialog goes:

Santa: “You say my friends were asking you about Christmas.”

Ignatius: “Yeah. They wanted to know if we kids cared about Santa Claus and

all.”

Mr. Thistlewhite: “And, uh, what’d ya tell ‘em?”

Ignatius: “Heck, I don’t believe in Santa Claus anymore. That’s kid’s stuff. Isn’t

it?”

Santa: [Interior voice] “Just as I thought.”

Ignatius: “You don’t believe in Santa Claus, do you Dad?”

Mr. Thistlewhite: “Why, yes. As a matter of fact, I do.”

Ignatius: [To Santa] “How about you?”

Santa: “Me? Why, of course I do.”

At this point, there is song segment/musical number, and the song gives a powerful

message of belief that is delivered not only to everyone in the scene but to the

audience/viewers as well. The song/lyrics go(es):

Santa: “I believe in Santa Claus./Like I believe in love./I believe in Santa

Claus/And everything he does./There’s no question in my mind/That he

does exist./Just like love, I know he’s there./Waiting to be missed.”

Mr. Thistlewhite: “I believe in Santa Claus./But there was a time,/I

thought I had grown too old/For such a childish rhyme./He became a

dream to me/‘til one Christmas night./Someone stood beside my bed/With

a beard of white.”

[Mr. Thistlewhite voicing Santa in his memory] “’So you’re too old for

Santa Claus.’/He said with a smile./’Then you’re too old for all the

things/That makes a life worthwhile./For what is happiness but

dreams/And do they all come true? Look at me and tell me, son/What is

real to you?’”

Santa and parents: “Just believe in Santa Claus./Like you believe in

love./Just believe in Santa Claus/And everything he does.”

Santa: “Wipe that question from your mind./Yes, he does exist.”

Santa and Mr. Thistlewhite: “Just like love, you know he’s there/Waiting

to be missed.”

Voiceover: “Just like love, you know he’s there/Waiting to be missed.”

Ignatius: [A tear falls from his eye] “I guess, if you’re not too old to still

believe. Well, I guess, maybe…” [all laugh].

The scene explains and shows that Mr. Thistlewhite believed in Santa Claus when he was

a child but eventually stopped believing which shows a transition to unbelief, until “one

Christmas night” when he (had an experience) saw Santa Claus by his bedside and

learned/was taught to believe. Because he returned to belief, it shows the transition from

unbelief to rebelief. Through this scene, Ignatius transitions from unbelief to a

questioning substate. It is not quite clear on what degree he transitions to or whether he is

above or below the Axis-Fidei after the scene; but by the end of the movie, he makes a

full transition to rebelief. By the end of the movie, the people of Southtown, USA, and

the children of the world transition to a state of belief/rebelief and give Santa a

vacation/holiday. In acknowledging his presence/existance and granting him an official

holiday as well as actually sending him gifts, this shows a literal belief/rebelief

(transition) in a literal Santa Claus.

It should also be noted, early in the movie, Mrs. Claus sings a short musical

number entitled, “Anyone Can be Santa” or “I Could be Santa Claus.”

The message of

the song addresses the aspect that anyone can be Santa Claus. That motif or theme will be

addressed in further depth later in this chapter.

The Santa Clause. 1994. Directed by John Pasquin.

This movie or case example is a full-length feature that tells the story of how one

man, Scott Calvin, becomes the new Santa Claus after the old Santa falls off of Calvin’s

roof. However, no one, including Calvin himself, believes what happened to him or that

he is the new Santa Claus. It takes Calvin’s son, Charlie, to help not only the

adults/unbelievers to believe in Santa Claus but to help his father, Santa Claus, believe in

himself.

Throughout the movie, there are several instances, scenes, and characters that

illustrate belief, unbelief or disbelief, and the transition to rebelief. For the sake of

brevity, the main characters are examined. When audiences are introduced to the main

characters, it becomes evident that Scott Calvin is divorced from his ex-wife Laura who

has married Neil Miller. Because of custody/parental rights, Calvin gets holiday

visitations with Charlie. Through the dialog and conversation, audiences learn that

Charlie was bullied at school for believing in Santa Claus, which is a common occurrence

for school-age children. Neil, who is a psychiatrist, explained to Charlie that Santa Claus

is a “frame of mind” instead of an “actual person.” Thus, Charlie exhibits unbelief or

disbelief in Santa Claus because of his challenge of belief and authoritative influence.

After of his personal experience of going to the North Pole, over the course of the movie,

Charlie transitions to a state of rebelief and fully believes that his father is Santa Claus.

He illustrates a full cycle of belief.

Calvin exhibits unbelief or disbelief in Santa Claus; however, he presents a faux

or romanticized belief in Santa Claus for Charlie’s sake. Throughout a series of

circumstances, Calvin ends up becoming the new Santa Claus. As he is flying to the

North Pole, after delivering the rest of the Christmas presents, he says, “Merry Christmas

to all and to all a good night; and in the morning, I’m getting a CAT scan,” which alludes

to the aspect of altered mental state, function, faculty.

When he (and Charlie) gets to the North Pole, he engages in conversations with

the elves, in particular Bernard the head elf, that addresses the aspect of belief in Santa

and Christmas. The dialog goes:

Calvin: “What if I don’t wanna do this?”

Bernard: “Don’t even kid about a thing like that!”

Calvin: “Why not? What if I don’t buy into this Santa Clause thing? What if I

choose not to believe it?”

Bernard: “Then there would be millions of disappointed children around the

world. You see, children hold the spirit of Christmas within their hearts. You

wouldn’t want to be responsible for killing the spirit of Christmas now would you,

Santa?

Something to note or mention about that conversation is that children believe in Santa,

but Santa must believe in the spirit of Christmas or else “kill” the belief that resides in

children. It seems that one relies on the other: that reasoning extends to an authroty’s

belief influencing an inferior’s belief and vice versa.

Calvin has another important conversation with Judy, another elf at the North

Pole, in regards to addressing belief. The dialog goes:

Judy: “Santa?”

Calvin: “Scott Calvin.”

Judy: “You look distressed.”

Calvin: “Distressed? I’m way past distressed.”

Judy: “Why’s that?”

Calvin: “I’m talking to an elf. And I stopped believing in Santa Claus a long time

ago.”

Judy: “That’s not surprising. Most grownups can’t believe in magic. It just…sort

of grows out of them.”

Calvin: “Look, You’re a nice little elf.”

Judy: “Thanks.”

Calvin: “But this is a dream. I mean, this is fabulous. Is that a polar bear directin’

traffic down there? I see it. But, I don’t’ believe it.”

Judy: “You’re missing the point.”

Calvin: “What is the point?”

Judy: “Seeing isn’t believing. Believing is seeing. Kids don’t have to see this

place to know that it’s here. They just…know.”

This conversation is quite important to understand the aspect of the belief cycle. Judy

explains that most grownups cannot or do not believe in magic because they “grow out”

of it. She also addresses the aspect of believing and seeing and vice versa, which is often

a materialists’ argument against unsupported, nonevidential belief. As alluded to, Calvin

believed in Santa when he was a kid but stopped believing. That illustrates a transition

from belief to unbelief. Over the course of the movie, Calin transitions to rebelief and

believing in Santa Claus. Thus, he makes a full cycle of transition of belief. It should also

be noted that Calvin’s belief is also metaphorical: for Santa to believe he is Santa, it is a

metaphor for one to believe in oneself.

Laura and Neil also illustrate the cycle of belief. Throughout the movie, they, like

many adults, exhibit the state of unbelief. In fact, Neil illustrates the skeptical view of

seeing and believing to Charlie and tries to debunk the Santa narrative with logic and

rationale.

One scene depicts not only the pathologizing attitudes towards belief but their

own transitions to unbelief. The dialog goes:

Neal: “Honey, the man is delusional.”

Laura: “Okay, okay. So maybe I’m having second thoughts, kind of. I just—I

mean, what was so bad about Charlie believing in Santa?”

Neal: “Well, he’s a little old. Oh, come on, Laura. Don’t you remember when you

stopped believing in Santa Claus?”

Laura: “I was Charlie’s age, I guess. I wrote Santa a letter every week that year.

Well, okay. You know, maybe—maybe not every week. But—. Boy, I really

wanted a ‘Mystery Date Game.’ Do you remember those? No. Of course, you

don’t. You know, no one does. I don’t even think they make them anymore, but.

Well, anyway Christmas morning came and—. Oh, I got dozens of presents. I got

everything. Except, ‘Mystery Date.’”

Neal: “I was three, and it was an Oscar Mayer Wienie Whistle. Christmas came.

No Wienie Whistle. And, that’s when I stopped believing.”

Laura: “You were three?”

Neal: “Yeah.”

Within that scene, audiences not only see the pathologizing attitudes of being “too old” to

believe in Santa Claus but when and why Laura and Neil stop believing. Both of them

wanted a certain present and did not get it for Christmas. They, therefore, drew on what I

call “superficial conclusion”: since Santa did not give or bring them what they wanted,

then he is not real and does not exist. It should be noted that Neil and Laura (along with

other adults in the movie) more-or-less ignore Charlie and his claims that his father is

Santa Claus. Over the course of the movie, Calvin is able to show them that he is Santa

Claus; and by the end of the movie, both Laura and Neil make a full transition to a state

of rebelief. In fact, when Neil tells Charlie that he was right, Charlie responds by saying,

“You were just denying your inner child.” That draws on the idea that adults have an

inner child that often times gets suppressed or repressed due to pathologizing or

conditioning. That “inner child” motif appears in other examples as well.

Santa Who?. 2000. Directed by William Dear.

This movie or case example is a full-length feature that tells the story of Santa

Claus getting amnesia from hitting his head after falling from his sleigh and his journey

to remembering who he is. While Peter Albright and his girlfriend, Claire, think that

Santa is just an old man and try to reunite him with his family, Claire’s son, Zach, has to

help everyone believe that Santa is the real Santa as well as to help Santa remember who

he is and to believe in himself.

There are several examples, scenes, and characters that exhibit states or aspects of

belief within this movie, but the focus of analysis centers on the main characters. At the

beginning of the movie, audiences are introduced to a young boy named Peter Albright

who has been left at an orphanage by his father. They see him writing a letter to Santa

Claus that reads, “Dear Santa, you are the greatest. All I want is a happy Christmas with a

family who loves me. Love, Peter Albright.” Young Albright exhibits a state of

(childlike) belief in Santa; but when he learns that his father is not coming for him and

watches Sister Greta put his letter into the fire (because of her cultural tradition), Albright

transitions to a state of unbelief because of disappointment and challenge to belief.

Audiences learn that that is the Christmas when he stops believing in Santa.

Twenty-five years later, Albright ends up meeting Santa Claus who has gotten

amnesia from landing on Albright’s car and hitting his head after falling from his sleigh

on a pre-Christmas ride. Over the course of the movie, Albright has his beliefs challenged

not only by Santa but by his girlfriend’s son, Zach. Something that is important to note is

Santa’s conversation with Albright about children and their belief.

Santa: “It seems like it’s such a fun time.”

Albright: “Well it can be, I guess.”

Santa: “What is so special about this time?”

Albright: “You’re asking the wrong guy.”

Passerby: “Merry Christmas, Santa.”

Santa: “Everyone seems so friendly.”

Albright: “Because of what you’re wearing, Nick.”

Santa: “So happy.”

Albright: “Well not everyone” [referring to people arguing on the sidewalk.]

Santa and Albright talk about families, commitments, and children.

Santa: “You don’t like children?”

Albright: “No I like them fine at someone else’s house.”

Santa: “Their no different from you and me. They’re just like us; it’s just that

they’re smaller. But, they’re wiser.”

Albright: “Wiser?”

Santa: “They see things we no longer see.”

Albright: “How do you know so much about kids?”

Santa: “I don’t know. But it sounds good, doesn’t it?”

It is compelling how an elderly figure speaks of the wisdom of children and how it is not

noticed by authoritative adults/grownups: the conversation illustrates childlike belief and

seeing things like Santa Claus is a wisdom or even ability that children (can) have but

many adults/skeptics forget or ignore. Seeing and believing or believing and seeing is a

common motif or theme that plays in many of the examples.

Another statement that is important addresses remember the past/inner selves and

beliefs. Santa says to Albright, “Maybe we both need to remember who we used to be.”

This alludes to the idea of returning to something (a state, belief, self, knowledge) that

one once used to be or have. Eventually, by the end of the movie, Albright has his

skeptical beliefs challenged when he reads the letter he wrote to Santa when he was a

child at the orphanage: the letter he watched Sister Gretta place in the fire. It is found in

the sleigh which causes Albright to consider that Santa is the real Santa. Over the course

of the movie, he makes a full transition from belief, to unbelief, to rebelief. Audiences

can even watch and see when Albright has his revolution after reading his letter and

passes over the Axis-Fidei. At one point, Albright tells Zach that he/you (Zach) was right

and he/I (Albright) was wrong.

As stated, Claire’s son, Zach, is a major influence in the movie. Regarding the

basis and reality of Santa, Zach exhibits the state of belief throughout the movie. No

matter how many of the adults or authorities try to tell him that Santa is not the real

Santa, Zach argues that he is. The person Zach argues with the most, as previously

shown, is Albright; and their conversations illustrate their states of belief/unbelief. Zach

even says, “You wouldn’t recognize the real Santa if you saw him come right down your

chimney.” Albright says, “For God’s sake Zach, there isn’t any real—proof that he’s

Santa.” As they look at Santa and the group of children that freely gathers around him,

they see a picturesque scene of “Santa Claus,” and Zach says, “What more proof do you

need?” That depicts the simplistic reasoning and rationale of many children. Again, this

conversation shows Zach’s belief and Albright’s unbelief/disbelief as well as his

pathologizing attitudes towards belief.

Throughout the movie, Claire does not really exhibit a belief or disbelief in Santa

Claus. Like most adults, she disbelieves that Santa is the real Santa, but it seems that she

believes in the goodness of Santa Claus and of people. She is also supportive of her son’s

belief in Santa Claus. However, after seeing the magic of Santa, she seems to transition

and truly believe Santa is the real Santa Claus.

Santa himself is an interesting character and example of belief because he knows

that he is Santa Claus but cannot remember that he is, and he has to rediscover that

people believe in him; and to an extent, he learns to believe in himself. In this instance,

unlike The Santa Clause, Santa does not believe he is Santa because he has amnesia

rather than self-denial. However, over the course of the movie while interacting with the

children of the city and Zach and Albright in particular, he regains his memory and

transitions from doubt/unbelief that people do not believe and appreciate Santa/him to a

belief that they do. Audiences can see the moment when Santa regains his memory and

has a revelation as he passes over the Axis-Fidei. Also, similarly to the previous case

example, The Santa Clause, the aspect of Santa regaining his memory and

remembering/believing/knowing that he is Santa Claus is a metaphor for belief in oneself.

The Polar Express. 2004. Directed by Robert Zemeckis.

This movie or case example is a full-length animated feature that is based on

Chris Van Allsburg’s 1985 same titled children’s book. It is the story of a boy who no

longer believes in Santa Claus but ends up having an experiential adventure on a magical

train ride to the North Pole and learns to believe along with way.

This entire movie and plot are based on the premise of belief, and the entire case

example or movie is an illustration of the cycle of belief. Although there are several

instances and characters that illustrate the states of belief and the belief cycle, the focus is

centered on the main character who is credited and named “Hero Boy.”

At the beginning of the movie, Hero Boy exhibits unbelief or disbelief in Santa

Claus. Rather, it is arguable that he is not in a full-state of unbelief/disbelief but is

questioning his beliefs with rationale and logic and is under the Axis-Fidei. Through a

conversation between Hero Boy’s little sister, Sarah, and their dad, audiences learn that

Hero Boy used to fully believe in Santa Claus (like most children) but is doubting, and it

might be the last Christmas that he believes in Santa before the magic or spirit of

Christmas is gone. Audiences also learn that the parents present a faux or romanticized

belief for Sarah’s sake as well as for Hero Boy.

Over the course of the movie and the adventure on the Polar Express, Hero Boy

makes slow transitions from unbelief or a substates/sub-degrees of unbelief to degree

degrees above the Axis-Fidei to rebelief. During the train ride to the North Pole, Hero

Boy meets a hobo, who turns out to be a ghost riding on the train. Their conversation

addresses interesting aspects about belief and the questions Hero Boy has. The dialog

goes:

Hero Boy: “What about Santa?”

Hobo: “Santa?”

Hero Boy: “Isn’t he the king of the North Pole?”

Hobo: [Pulls a Santa hat from his coat] “You mean this guy? Ho, ho, ho, ho,

ho…. What exactly is your persuasion of the big man since you brought him up?”

Hero Boy: “Well, I—I want to believe. But—.”

Hobo: “But, you don’t wanna be bamboozled. You don’t wanna be led down the

primrose path. You don’t wanna be conned or duped, have the wool pulled over

your eyes. Hoodwinked. You don’t wanna be taken for a ride, railroaded.” [The

hobo extinguishes his fire]. “Seeing is believing. Am I right?”

Hero Boy: “What about this train?”

Hobo: “Well, what about it?”

HeroBoy: “We’re all really are going to the North Pole, aren’t we?

Hobo: “Aren’t we?”

Hero Boy: “Are you saying that this is all just a dream?”

Hobo: “You said it kid. Not me. So, let’s go find that girl. One other thing. Do

you believe in ghosts?” [Hero Boy shakes his head]. “Interesting.”

That conversation gives important clues to Hero Boy’s placement in the cycle of belief. It

is obvious that he is questioning and “wants” to believe, but he does not want to be

criticized or pathologized. It also addresses the seeing/believing motif as well as aspects

of the paranormal and supernatural. That conversation corresponds with a later

conversation that Hero Boy has with the conductor. The dialog goes:

Conductor: “Year ago, on my first Christmas Eve run, I was up on the roof

making my rounds when I slipped on the ice myself. I reached out for a hand iron,

but it broke off. I slid and fell, and yet, I did not fall off this train.”

Hero Girl: “Someone saved you?”

Conductor: “Or something.” [He looks at the Hero Boy]

Hero Girl: “An angel.”

Conductor: “Maybe.”

Hero Boy: “Wait. Wait. What did he look like? Did you see him?”

Conductor: “No sir. But sometimes seeing is believing. And sometimes the most

real things in the world are the things we can’t see.”

To note, Hero Girl is another child who is on the train who exhibits the state of belief and

does not transition over the course of the movie. The conversation addresses the aspect

that the hobo addressed i.e., seeing and believing: believing and seeing.

That conversation also connects to a short scene where the Hero Boy walks

through a train-car full of broken toys on the way back to his own passenger-car.

Towards the end of the aisle, Hero Boy passes a marionette puppet being operated by the

hobo on the roof that says, “You are just like me, my friend. A scrooge! Ebenezer

Scrooge. North Pole, Santa Claus, this train…it’s all a bunch of humbug. A bout of

indigestion. Oh, yeah, I know what you are. You’re a doubter. A doubter. You don’t

believe. You’re a doubter. You don’t believe.” That scares the boy for obvious reasons,

but it also fully addresses that Hero Boy may end up like Scrooge i.e., a doubter,

disbeliever, or skeptic.

Over the next scenes, the boy transitions above the Axis-Fidei

but not quite to the full state of rebelief/belief.

Eventually, the train gets to the North Pole, and Hero Boy waits to hear the sound

of the sleigh bells. As they are brought out by the elves, he can seem them moving, but he

cannot hear them. As he watches, he noticed that one bell comes untied and flies through

the air and lands at his feet. He picks it up, shakes it next to his hear but only hears air

passing through an empty/hollow bell/shell. He says, “Okay. Okay. I believe. I believe. I

believe.” The boy shakes the bell again and can hear it ring. He then hears a voice behind

him ask, “What was that you said?” The boy turns around and sees Santa Claus. The boy

says, “I believe…I believe…I believe…that this is yours” and hands Santa the bell. That

is an important moment in regards to the cycle of belief because unless he truly believed

or rebelieved, he could not hear the bell.

After the boy gets picked to receive the first gift of Christmas, he asks Santa for

the bell from the sleigh; however, it falls out of a hole in the boy’s pocket. When he

discovers that he lost the bell, he sinks into sadness and even despair. However, when he

opens up his presents the next morning, Santa has returned the bell to the boy. When he

shakes the bell, he can still hear it ring that again shows his full transition in the cycle of

belief.

Something that is important to note is that when the parents ring the bell, they

cannot hear anything. The dialog goes:

Mom: “Oh, what a beautiful bell. Who’s it from?”

Boy: “Santa.”

Mom: “Santa? Really?” [Shakes the bell but cannot hear it ring]. “Oh, that’s too

bad.”

Dad: “What’s this?” [Shakes the bell but also cannot hear it ring]. “Broken. Sorry

about that, sport.”

At those comments, Hero Boy looks at them because they say that they believe, but they

cannot hear the bell which shows their exhibition of (faux) unbelief/disbelief or not

full/true belief in Santa and/or Christmas spirit/the spirit of Christmas.

Hero Boy’s voiceover narration makes a last comment before the end of the

movie, which also illustrates/addresses the transition of children from belief to unbelief.

He says, “At one time, most of my friends could hear the bell. But as years passed, it fell

silent for all of them. Even Sarah found, one Christmas, that she could no longer hear its

sweet sound. Though I’ve grown old, the bell still rings for me. As it does for all who

truly believe.” The bell is a test for true belief in Santa Claus and shows that when

children stop believing and can no longer hear the bell is when they have transition from

belief to unbelief, but it also shows that whoever (like Hero Boy) can hear the bell either

believe or have returned to belief or transition to rebelief and rebelieve.

At the end of the move as the credits roll, there is a song entitled “Believe” that

gives messages of the transition of belief. The song goes:

Children sleeping/Snow is softly falling/Dreams are calling/Likes bells in

the distance/We were dreamers/Not so long ago/But one by one/We all

had to grow up/When it seems the magic slipped away/We find it all again

on Christmas Day/Believe in what your heart is saying/Hear the melody

that's playing/There's no time to waste/There's so much to

celebrate/Believe in what you feel inside/And give your dreams the wings

to fly/You have everything you need/If you just believe/If you just

believe/If you just believe/If you just believe.

It addresses how children believe but “one by one” all “grow up.” But, no matter

how old someone gets or how much a person matures, the magic or

(re)enchantment can be found on Christmas Day. Even though people mature and

transition from belief to unbelief, one day a year, people can transition or suspend

disbelief and rebelieve in Santa, magic, and to just be childlike/childish.

Get Santa. 2015. Directed by Christopher Smith.

This movie or case example is a full-length feature where Santa gets arrested and

seeks the help of a man by the name of Steve Anderson who saw Santa when he was a

child. Anderson no longer believes in Santa, but his son, Tom, does. Anderson and Tom

have to help get Santa out of prison before it is too late and Christmas gets cancelled. In

the process of helping Santa, Tom helps his father believe again or rebelieve while also

building a bond between father and son.

Like the previous examples, this movie has a number of examples, scenes, and

characters that depict and illustrate the cycle of belief, but the primary illustration is with

the main character Steve Anderson; however, it takes the help of his son, Tom, to help

him rebelieve. At the beginning of the movie, audiences discover that Anderson and his

ex-wife, Alison, are divorced, and Alison is living with a man named Tony. This sets up a

difficult dynamic for their son, Tom who lives with his mother and Tony. Audiences

watch as Tom writes a letter to Santa and puts it in the unlit fireplace. This illustrates that

Tom exhibits a state of childhood belief not only in Santa but a cultural tradition. As he

runs back up the stairs, the letter magically flies up the chimney and flies on the wind to

find Santa.

Later that night, Tom hears a sound outside and goes to investigate. He goes into

the garage and sees a man dressed as Santa Claus. Instead of avoiding the stranger, Tom

engages a conversation. The dialog goes:

Tom: “Are you the real Santa?”

Santa: “Why, yes.”

Tom: “Shouldn’t you be in Lapland? Sorting out everyone’s toys?”

Santa: “Sorting out toys, working out flight paths, feeding reindeer, loading,

stowing, sticking, labeling, cladding, packing, ribboning, wrapping, and that’s

before I even think about turning the Northern Lights on.”

This shows a trusting belief of a child towards a stranger and his word without any proof.

In the next scene, audiences see Anderson sitting at home, and he gets a phone call from

Tom saying that Santa needs help. Over the course of the scene, audiences see Tom’s

belief in Santa and Anderson’s disbelief in Santa. However, they see his understandable

misbelief (based on dramatic irony i.e., audiences know the stranger is Santa) that Santa

is a stranger; or, to use a colloquial phrase, “a creeper”

trying to mess with his son,

Tom.

Eventually, Santa gets arrested for trying to get his reindeer out from an animal

shelter/pound. Over the next couple of scenes, Anderson gets to spend a day with Tom,

but Tom gives Anderson an ultimatum to go see and help Santa or he will go back home.

The dialog goes:

Anderson: “I’m sorry about last night. So, do you want to go and see Father

Christmas? What do you say we swing by Harrod’s?”

Tom: “Santa’s in prison.”

Anderson: “What? No, no. We can’t go see that old fruitcake from last night.”

Tom: “He’s not a fruitcake.”

Anderson: “Well, he’s definitely a few fries short of a happy meal.”

Tom: “He’s Santa.”

Anderson: “Look, Tom, I can’t get us into prison. To go and see him. It’s not

possible. I’m sorry.”

[Tom starts getting out of the van].

Anderson: “No, wait, wait, wait, there might be a way.”

Tom gets back into the van. Immediately, audiences see Anderson and Tom at the prison,

and Anderson bribes the guard to see Santa. They sit at a table and wait for him.

The

conversation in the scene is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it shows the

skeptical and even sarcastic attitude of Anderson toward Santa, but it also shows the

unwavering belief of Tom. Tom does not require proof or evidence that Santa is who he

says he is. He trusts whole heartily. It illustrates pathologizing attitudes about Santa being

crazy and possibly on drugs or needing medication. It also illustrates the pathologizing

expectation of grownups to stop believing in Santa i.e., Anderson’s statement, “I’m

thirty.” However, Santa also explains that Anderson was “once seven” and says, “Deep in

your heart, you know who I am.” Even though through the conversation Santa stirs up

Anderson’s repressed emotions from his childhood that no one else would know,

Anderson continues to think that Santa is “a nut bag.” However, audiences can see an

instant response in Anderson when Santa talks about his past. It does not necessarily

constitute a transition of belief, but a wearing down or softening of disbelief. At that

point, Anderson exhibits unbelief and disbelief in Santa Claus, but he is persuaded to go

with Tom and look for the sleigh.

Over the course of scenes and the movie, Tom and Anderson find the reindeer and

eventually find Dasher who leads them to the sleigh. After they find the sleigh, they end

up going to “Lapland” and into “Elf City” through a set of slides and shoots at a

place/structure called “Hermes’ Tower.” When they end up in the forest on the edge of

Elf City and meet Santa’s elves who show them the overlook to the village, Anderson

says, “I never thought it was real, not even when I was a boy.” That statement is

important because it shows that even when children believe in Santa Claus, they might

not believe all of the narrative completely.

Over the course of the adventure with Tom, Anderson slowly transitions from

unbelief, passes over the Axis-Fidei and exhibits rebelief. Eventually, the elves hitch up

the last (retired) reindeer to the old sleigh, and Anderson and Tom go to rescue Santa

from prison. After a number of scenes, Santa breaks out of prison and all of the characters

(Santa, Tom, Anderson, Alison, Tony) meet up, Anderson tells Alison that Santa is the

real Santa; thus, it illustrates his transition to rebelief.

In the last scene of the movie, Santa talks to Tom and says, “About your letter,

you asked me to stop your dad from letting you down. That’s not the sort of wish I can

grant.” Tom says, “But, my wish was granted.” Santa responds, “But not because of me,

it was because of you. Sometimes adults aren’t quite as grown up as you’d hope. But

what children teach them is love.” This statement is important because it illustrates how

children can teach adults not only to believe but to love, trust, have faith, and hope. Also,

in the last scene, the police arrive to arrest Anderson and Santa, but Santa makes a final

statement about belief and Anderson in particular.

He says, “Let it be known for the

record that Steve and Thomas Anderson have saved Christmas for the world entire. You

can’t take that away from them, even if you can take away their freedom. Don’t worry.

Sometimes adults find it hard to accept the magic of Christmas. But, when they

experience it with their own eyes, even the coldest hearts warm.” That statement

addresses aspects that because adults rely on their senses to understand and believe in

things, when they see/experience something, they can change: when adults see

something, they can believe or rebelieve in it. After seeing Santa fly away, the police

decide not to arrest Anderson, and they appear overcome with the Christmas spirit.

Figurative Belief

To briefly explain, this section of the case study examples examines the presented

overall theme of figurative belief within the movies. Although there may be slight aspects

of a possible literal belief, the overarching theme or message is a figurative or even

metaphorical belief in Santa Claus meaning that although they present the topic of belief

in Santa Claus, the focus is more on the essence of Santa rather than the person or

personification, per se.

Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus. 1991. Directed by Charles Jarrott.

This movie or case example is a full-length television special that is based on the

1897 newspaper editorial in the New York Sun addressed to eight-year-old Virginia

O’Hanlon in response to her letter regarding Santa Claus. The movie also presents the

story of Francis P. Church, the author of the news editorial. Although the movie is based

on the historical news editorial, some of the names and events were fictionalized. The

movie presents varying aspects of cyclical belief. As alluded to, the movie presents two

main story lines or plots, O’Hanlon’s story and Church’s story. The two main characters,

Virginia O’Hanlon and Church, help each other to understand who Santa Claus is, his

existence, and his reality.

Although there are a number of scenes and characters that illustrate the cycle of

belief in this movie, the main characters illustrate the states and cycle of belief directly.

When audiences first see Virginia O’Hanlon, she is playing jump-rope with her friends.

This scene depicts a common occurrence of school-age children. While the girls are

playing, two older girls mock and pathologize Virginia’s (and her friend Maria’s) belief

in Santa Claus. The dialog goes:

Julie: “[E]verybody knows there’s no such thing as Santa Claus.”

Virginia: “That’s not true.”

Maria: “Virginia’s right.”

Girl: “Well, how would you know? Have you ever seen him? What’s he look like,

Virginia? I mean in real life? Ever see him?”

Julie: “Sure she has. We all have. There’s that one on the street corner last year,

ringing a bell, and asking for money.”

Maria: “Virginia means the real Santa Claus. The one who eats the cookies and

milk we leave him.”

Julie: “Your parents do that.”

Girl: “Julie’s right.”

Maria: “No she’s not. Of course, there’s a real Santa Claus. And of course,

Virginia hasn’t seen him in real life.”

Julie: “Well how can you believe in something you can’t even see?”

Virginia: “I believe in God even though I can’t see him.”

That conversation, again, illustrates a common occurrence where older children

pathologize younger children and their childlike beliefs. Virginia and Maria exhibit the

state of belief within the cycle, and the older girls exhibit a state of unbelief. Something

that is quite important to note is Virginia’s last statement because it brings in an aspect of

secular and sacred belief based or grounded on visible proof or the lack thereof. Because

of the mocking attitudes from the older girls, Virginia asks her father if Santa Claus is

real. He advises her to ask or consult The Sun newspaper and says, “If you see it in The

Sun, it’s so.” Virginia takes her father’s advice.

After a number of senses, audiences are introduced to Francis P. Church who

exhibits a state of unbelief. He not only exhibits disbelief in Santa Claus but exhibits

disbelief in the goodness of the world. Audiences learn that he lost his wife and child the

year before and has taken up drinking to numb his pain. After a number of scenes, the

chief editor and printer of the paper, Edward P. Mitchell receives Virginia’s letter and

assigns Church to answer it. The conversation between the two is quite profound. The

dialog goes:

Mitchell: “This might be the toughest assignment I’ve ever given you.”

Church: “Big?”

Mitchell: “Very big.”

Church: “Important?”

Mitchell: “Very important.”

Church: “Is this dangerous?”

Mitchell: “Could be.”

Church: “You mean you don’t know?”

Mitchell: “I know you’re the man to do this job.” [He hands Church a piece of

paper].

Church reads the letter, and the audience can see what is written. The letter reads, “Dear

Editor, I’m eight years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa

says ‘If you see it in the Sun, it’s so.’ Please tell me the truth. Is there a Santa Claus?”

And, it is signed Virginia O’Hanlon. The dialog continues:

Church: “Is this your idea of a joke?”

Mitchell: “No, it’s my idea of an assignment.”

Church: “I write editorials, remember. That’s what I get paid for.”

Mitchell: “I know what you get paid for. This is going to be an editorial.”

Church: “Mitch, you said it yourself. Crime, corruption, controversy, that’s what I

write.”

Mitchell: “Not this time. Besides this is controversial.”

Church: “Why don’t you give it to that female reporter you hired?”

Mitchell: “Because I want to give it to you.”

Church: “I don’t know anything about this.”

Mitchell: “Oh, Frank even you were a kid once.”

Church: “Yeah, it took me a lot of year to get over it.”

Mitchell: “Nobody ever gets over it. Frank, if you can answer this question, then

you’ll have answered a lot of other questions as well.”

Church: “You just may not like my answer.”

Mitchell: “I’ll take that risk. Frank, maybe, just maybe, when all of your other

editorials have been forgotten, when all the issues of today are resolved. A

hundred years from now when there are new issues to be considered. Some kid

will still be asking this same question. And you Frank P. Church will have already

written the answer.”

Church: “And you, Edward P. Mitchell will print what I write?”

Mitchell: “You write it, Francis; I’ll print it.”

That conversation is quite important because Church says that he does not know how to

answer the questions because he is not a kid, but Mitchell says that he was a kid once.

Church responds that it took him a long time to “get over it” and grow up. That

statement/conversation mirrors the same aspect of “growing up” and “getting over”

childhood as presented in the case study example Santa Who? (2000). Again, this shows

that Church exhibits a state of unbelief. After a number of scenes, Church looks inside of

himself and at the world around him and is able to see the goodness that is present. He

sees the spirit of generosity and care that people show to each other, especially around

Christmas time/the holiday season. He finds his answer.

In the last scene, Virginia’s father is reading the paper and reads on the front page

the answer to Virginia’s letter. It goes:

O’Hanlon: “’Is there a Santa Claus? We take pleasure in answering at once and

thus prominently the communication below expressing at the same time our great

gratification that its faithful author is numbered among friends of The Sun. Dear

Editor, I’m eight years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.

Papa says, if you see it in the Sun, it’s so. Please, tell me the truth. Is there a

Santa Claus?’ And, it’s signed Virginia O’Hanlon.”

Virginia: “Papa, what does it say?”

O’Hanlon: “’Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by

the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think

that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds,

Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of

ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless

world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of

truth and knowledge. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly

as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and

give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world

if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias.

There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable

this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The

external light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished. Not

believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get

your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch

Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would

that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those

that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the

lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can

conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

[Church’s voiceover] You tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the

noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest

man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could

tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain

and view the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all

this world there is nothing else as real and abiding. No Santa Claus! Thank God!

he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten

times ten thousand years from now, [O’Hanlon’s voice] he will continue to make

glad the heart of childhood.”

For over a hundred years, that same letter has been read to countless children. It

addresses not only the belief in Santa Claus, but it addresses belief as a whole. It

addresses the simplicity or innocence of childlike belief as well as the unseen and effects

of skepticism.

Within the last scenes of the movie, audiences see the transition of Church from

unbelief to rebelief. He does not necessarily rebelieve in Santa Claus the same (way) as

children, but he believes in the goodness and generosity of Santa Claus. Audiences also

see the validation and affirmation of Virginia’s belief in response to the answer to her

question. Virginia does not necessarily transition to a state of unbelief within the cycle

exactly, but she does start to question her beliefs and searches for an answer when she

finds it in the Sun.

One Christmas. 1994. Directed by Tony Bill.

This movie or case example is based on Truman Capote’s 1983 same titled short

story. It depicts the narrative of a young man/child/boy, Buddy, who leaves his cousin’s

home in Alabama to go and live with his father in New Orleans, Louisiana. Buddy’s

beliefs are challenged when he moves away, and such challenges cause turmoil in his life.

Over the course of the movie, several of the characters in the story have to evaluate what

they believe.

Although there are a number of characters in this story, the primary or main

character, Buddy, fully illustrates the cycle of belief. However, other characters illustrate

the states of belief as well. In the beginning of the movie, Buddy has been living with his

cousin in Alabama and has been sheltered for his entire life but goes to live with his

father in New Orleans. Because he has been sheltered, his beliefs are challenged. Things

are not what he thought they were or would be like, especially with his father.

Eventually, Buddy befriends a boy named Toby who directly challenges Buddy’s

belief in Santa Claus. The dialog goes:

Buddy: “Santa’s real, you know. He’s as real as you and me.”

Toby: “Nah.”

Buddy: “How come you think he’s not?”

Toby: “Because I asked for a radio two years in a row, a big one with flashing

lights and dials and get clear to St. Louis, and I didn’t get it.”

Buddy: “Maybe he had a good reason for not bringing it to you.”

Toby: “It’s a good reason alright. He don’t exist.”

In that conversation, Buddy exhibits the state of belief where Toby exhibits the state of

unbelief. It is also important to note that Toby uses the classic argument of “superficial

conclusion” of not getting what he wanted as proof that Santa is not real and does not

exist.

Buddy’s beliefs are challenged further when he finds “Santa’s” gifts hidden under

his father’s bed. The dialog goes:

Toby: “Do you get it now?”

Buddy: “I saw him wrapping these yesterday.”

Toby: “I tried to tell you. There is no Santa Claus. They all lie. They just don’t

think we’ll ever find out. Better pick those up before he finds out you’ve been

looking in there.”

Buddy: “I hate him. I hate him.”

Buddy transitions from belief to unbelief; however, because his beliefs (not only about

Santa Claus but most of what he has been told and believes) has been challenges so

strongly, he ends up not knowing what to believe or whom to trust. He gets so

frustrated/upset and runs out of the house and into the middle of the street during a

rainstorm. As he is running away in a frantic panic/frenzy, he almost gets hit by a car

owned by the city’s socialite, Ms. Cornelia Beaumont. Because he is wet from the rain,

she takes him to her mansion to dry off and warm up but ends up teaching him a lesson

about belief. The dialog goes:

Ms. Cornelia: “I never had any children of my own. Frankly, I don’t much care

for them. Are you alright? Do you want something?”

Buddy: “I don’t want any more lies.”

Ms. Cornelia: “So, it’s the truth you’re after. A highly overrated commodity if

you ask me. Is there a particular truth you’re looking for?”

Buddy: “Does it snow in New Orleans?”

Ms. Cornelia: “Almost never.”

Buddy: “What about Santa?”

Ms. Cornelia: “Santa Claus? You mean is there or isn’t there one?”

Buddy: “My friend Toby says there’s not.”

Ms. Cornelia: “Of course, there’s a Santa Claus! It’s just, well it’s just that no

single someone could do all that he has to do. So, the task has been spread among

us all. That’s why everybody’s Santa Claus. I am, you are, your father is, even

this Toby of yours is.”

Buddy: “That’s confusing.”

Ms. Cornelia: “Yes, life is confusing. That’s the nature of it. Life is confusing, but

we muddle through. Now you just relax and be a child for as long as you can be

one. Count the stars. Think of the quietist things like snow, snow, snow falling

through the stars.”

That conversation is important to illustrate an aspect of rebelief. It should be noted that

Ms. Cornelia does not believe in Santa Claus per se or at least the stereotypical

personified Santa, but she believes in the essence and spirit of Santa Claus/Christmas and

says that everyone is Santa Claus, which will be discussed in further depth later in the

thesis. Ms. Cornelia’s niece, Ms. Emily Beaumont, also explains the aspect of belief and

lies. The dialog goes:

Emily: “People lie. That a fact of life. They usually don’t mean any harm by it.

They’re just trying to protect themselves.”

Buddy: “From what?”

Emily: “From getting hurt. Sometimes we have to deceive ourselves just to get

from day to day. The truth is often more than we can bear. So, we make ourselves

believe. We tell ourselves we’re still pretty. There’s still a chance for us. That

someone loves us. And we hope against hope that believing strongly enough will

make it true.”

That conversation, along with what Ms. Cornelia told him, helps Buddy to understand

how to see or understand what people say in respect to belief. It also illustrates that

beliefs give people something to dream about or look forward to. Buddy slowly starts to

make a transition from his confused unbelief state to a state of rebelief. Buddy’s father

also helps him understand aspects of childlike belief and magic. He says:

It’s been too many years, Buddy. You’re not the son I expected, but then

I’m not the father you deserve. The truth is, Buddy, we’re all born with a

pocket full of magic. I used mine early. Tossed it around until there was

none left. There’s no one to blame but myself. So, if I had one thing to tell

you, don’t waste your magic, Buddy. Treasure it. Make it last. It’ll take

you to places you never dreamed of.”

What Buddy’s father is saying is people/children believe with a childlike simplicity while

they can and before the world makes them grow up. By the end of the movie, Buddy

makes a full cycle of transition from belief to unbelief, to rebelief and learns to trust what

people say and tell him.

One final aspect of the cycle of belief is shown towards the end of the movie

when Ms. Emily gives Buddy a radio for Christmas. He remembers what Ms. Cornelia

said about everybody being Santa Claus. He gives/gifts his radio to Toby as a Christmas

present. When Toby sees it, he exclaims that “Santa” brought him a radio that illustrates

that even Toby makes a full transition to rebelief, and Buddy gets to be Santa Claus

himself.

Combination of Literal and Figurative Beliefs

To explain, this section or category examines and addresses the theme of a

combined belief or a combination of literal and figurative beliefs. The following case

examples present both literal and figurative beliefs from different points of view. Unlike

the previous sections and categories that had an overarching theme of literal or figurative,

the following present an overarching theme of both.

Miracle on 34

Street. 1947.

Directed by George Seaton.

This movie or case example is a full-length feature that presents the story of Kriss

Kringle (sic; as spelled and credited in the movie) (Santa Claus) and the skeptical

attitudes towards his identity. He claims to be the real Santa Claus, but that challenges

rationality and logic; therefore, people think that he is crazy. Over the course of the

movie, audiences see how Kringle works to turn skeptical people into believers while

also having his own sanity questioned.

There are so many examples of belief in this movie; it is difficult to encompasses

it all. However, by looking at the overview of the characters and their states of belief, the

cycle of belief is illustrated. Kriss Kringle/Santa Claus knows and believes that he is the

real Santa Claus and presents himself as such. It is fair to say that Kringle exhibits belief

throughout the movie even though his belief is more self-awareness/knowledge; but, even

so, when he is asked if he believes himself to be Santa Claus, and he answers, “Yes, of

course.” However, most importantly, he understands what he (Santa Claus) means and

represents. It can be argued that Kringle’s self-awareness and knowledge of his identity is

metaphorical or figurative for knowing and believing in oneself.

Fred Gailey exhibits the state of belief and does not really change through the

movie. However, his belief in Santa Claus is figurative meaning that he believes in what

Santa Claus or Kringle stands for. He believes in the goodness of people and trusts in

their good nature. He teaches Mrs. Doris Walker how to trust against common sense.

does, however, present an aspect of faux belief or romanticized belief to Susan Walker

for the sake of childhood belief.

However, Susan is not the typical child per se.

Susan exhibits the state of unbelief that is influenced and enforced by the

authority of her mother. She even tries to test Kringle with the “superficial conclusion” of

granting her Christmas wish.

However, over the course of the movie, Susan slowly

transitions from a state of unbelief to belief. Audiences can see her transition by degrees

and pass over the Axis-Fidei. She does have a minor setback when she does not see or

find her gift under the tree,

but she corrects the transition when her wish it granted. It is

difficult to say if Susan ever originally believed in Santa Claus or if she was raised to

disbelief, so she may transition from unbelief to belief instead of rebelief. By the end of

the movie, Susan literally believes in a real Santa Claus; in fact, she believes that Kriss

Kringle is the real Santa.

Mrs. Walker, Susan’s mother, exhibits a state of unbelief, and audiences learn that

she disbelieves because she has been emotionally hurt by her previous beliefs especially

her belief in the goodness of people: she was emotionally hurt by her ex-husband and

decided to stop believing in such things like goodness, decency, and hope before she gets

hurt again. She raised Susan with the same attitude of disbelief. Over the course of the

movie, Mrs. Walker slowly transitions from unbelief to rebelief as can be seen when she

signs Susan’s letter to Santa: She writes at the bottom, “I believe in you, too.” Like with

Susan’s transition, audiences can see Mrs. Walker transitioning by degrees and

eventually pass over the Axis-Fidei. She ends up believing in Kringle and that he is Santa

Claus; however, her belief is figurative meaning that she believes in the essence and

nature of Santa Claus rather than a literal Santa, per se. Still, by the end of the movie, she

has made a complete cycle of belief.

As mentioned, a part of this movie is that Santa Claus goes on trial to determine is

competence and if he should be committed. The argument is made that anyone who

believes themselves to be Santa Claus is mentally unstable. However, during the trial, a

number of witnesses state under a sworn oath that they believe in Santa Claus and that

they believe Kringle is the real Santa. Eventually, it is ruled that Kringle is sane, that he is

Santa Claus, and the case is dismissed.

However, not everyone makes a transition from unbelief to belief. One character

that does not change is Mr. Sawyer, a psychiatrist who examined Kringle. Even though

Kringle passes all of the competency tests, Sawyer still thinks he is delusional. He says

that anyone who enjoys playing Santa Claus has a “guilt complex.”

He exhibits a state

of unbelief and stays in a state of unbelief throughout the entire movie. This shows that

not everyone transitions from unbelief to rebelief even when others do.

Miracle on 34

Street. 1994. Directed by Les Mayfield.

This case example is quite similar to the 1947 version; however, there were

changes to some aspects of the movie, but the story line and plot are quite similar if not

the same. This movie, like the 1947 version, tell the story of Kriss Kringle (sic; as spelled

and credited in the movie) (Santa Claus) and his journey to help to unbelievers find belief

not only that he is Santa Claus but in the goodness of people while having his own

identity and sanity questioned.

Again, this movie, like the previous example and version, has so many aspects of

belief that it is difficult to examine and present them all. But, the cycle of belief is evident

in characters, their beliefs, and their behaviors. Kriss Kringle exhibits a state of belief or

knowledge of being the real Santa Claus. Throughout the movie, he stays in the state of

belief and does not transition. There is one part before his hearing when he questions

himself and his actions, but this is not an actual transition. It is more of a reflection or

evaluation of his recent behavior of striking a man to defend the innocence of children.

As argued with the 1947 version, Kringle’s knowledge or self-awareness can be a

metaphor for belief or believing in oneself.

Brian Bedford exhibits a state of belief; however, he does not literally believe in

Santa Claus, but he believes in what Santa Claus or Kriss Kringle represents and stands

up for.

He even has to remind Kringle of what he (Santa) represents.

He believes in

the honesty and goodness of people. He trusts and hopes. Similar to Mr. Gailey in the

1947 version, he helps Mrs. Dorey Walker to believe in the decency and goodness of

people. He also exhibits a faux or romanticized belief for Susan’s sake. However, again,

Susan is not the typical child with typical childlike beliefs.

Susan Walker exhibits a state of unbelief that is influenced and enforced by her

mother. She even uses the classic “superficial conclusion” to test Kringle to see if he is

the real Santa Claus and can grant her Christmas wish.

However, over the course of the

movie, Susan interacts with Kringle who challenges her disbelief and helps her slowly

question and transition.

Throughout the movie, degree by degree, Susan transitions

from unbelief to a state of belief and audiences can see as she passes over the Axis-Fidei.

However, it is difficult to say if she transitions to a state of rebelief because it is not clear

whether she previously believed in Santa Claus or if she was raised to disbelieve before

she believed. Still, she transitions to the same point. By the end of the movie, Susan

exhibits a state of literal belief in Santa Claus and believes that Kringle is the real Santa.

Mrs. Walker also exhibits the state of unbelief. Audiences learn that Mrs. Walker

previously believed in things such as Santa Claus and the goodness of people, but she

was emotionally hurt when she was let down by her beliefs or rather who and what she

believed in. She also puts that aspect onto Susan.

However, over the course of the

movie, Mrs. Walker slowly transition from unbelief to rebelief and makes a full cycle of

belief. Like with Susan, audiences can see the point when Mrs. Walker passes over the

Axis-Fidei. It should be noted that her belief is not a literal belief like Susan’s. She

believes in Kringle, but her belief is a figurative belief meaning that she believes in what

Santa or Kringle stands for rather than literally believing in a literal Santa Claus. It should

also be noted that one major influence that helps Mrs. Walker transition or question her

beliefs or rather unbelief/disbelief is a conversation she has with Kringle. The dialog

goes:

Mrs. Walker: “Just be yourself. Don’t even thing about the camera. You’ll be just

fine.”

Santa: Right: I must confess, I don’t quite know why they’re making such a fuss

about me.”

Mrs. Walker: “Well, this is the holiday season, and you’re Santa Claus, right?”

Santa: “To many, yes. But, to others, I’m just an old man with a white beard.”

Mrs. Walker: “Yes, but you’re still the symbol of the season.”

Santa: “You think I’m a fraud, don’t you?”

Mrs. Walker: “I think fraud is a bit too strong of a word.”

Santa: “But you don’t believe in me.”

Mrs. Walker: “I believe that Christmas is for children. “

Santa: “Well, your daughter doesn’t believe in me either.”

Mrs. Walker: “I don’t think that there’s any harm in not believing in a figure that

many do acknowledge to be a fiction.”

Santa: “Oh, but there is. I’m not just a whimsical figure who wears a charming

suit and affects a jolly demeanor, you know. I’m a symbol. I’m a symbol of the

human ability to suppress the selfish and hateful tendencies that rule a major part

of our lives. If you can’t believe. If you can’t accept anything on faith, then you’re

doomed for a life dominated by doubt. I like you very much Mrs. Walker. You’re

a fine woman. And, you know, I think you’ll make an excellent test case for me—

you and your daughter. If I can make you believe, then there’d be some hope for

me. If I can’t, well, I’m finished.”

That quote is quite influential in the idea that Santa is more than a man in red suit; he is

an essence that can be found in people.

As mentioned, a major part of this case is that Santa goes on trial to determine his

competency, if he should be committed, and eventually, if he is really Santa Claus. There

are a number of witness testimonies that say under a sworn oath that they believe in Santa

Claus and that Kringle is the real Santa. Something that is interesting about this version

that is not present in the 1947 version is the final factor that helps the judge make a

ruling, per se. In the 1947 version, the “competent authority” is the United States Postal

Service. In this 1994 version, the deciding factor is inspired by a similar branch of the

United States’ Federal Government. Just before the judge makes his ruling, Susan gives

him a Christmas card with a one-dollar bill in it. It is not a bribe but a way to remind the

judge about the aspect of belief. The judge’s monologue is quite profound and goes:

Judge Harper: “Merry Christmas.” [Crumples his verdict and tosses it aside]. “I’m

not going to be needing that. The young lady who just approached the bench

presented me with this Christmas card and this. It’s one-dollar bill. It’s going to

be returned to her shortly. But by presenting me with this bill, she reminded me of

the fact that it’s issued by the Treasury of the Untied State of America, and it’s

backed by the government and the people of the Untied State of America. Upon

inspection of the article, you will see the words ‘In God We Trust.’ Now, we’re

not here to prove that God exists, but we are here to prove that a being just as

invisible and yet just as present exists. The federal government puts its trust in

God. It does so on faith and faith alone. It’s the will of the people that guides the

government. And it is and was their collective faith in a greater being that gave

and gives cause to the inscription on this bill. Now, if the government of the

United States can issue its currency baring a declaration of trust in God without

demanding physical evidence of the existence or the nonexistence of a greater

being, then the State of New York by a similar demonstration of the collective

faith of its people can accept and acknowledge that Santa Claus does exist, and he

exists in the person of Kriss Kringle. Case Dismissed.”

The reason that monologue is so profound is because it presents the aspect of (secular and

sacred) belief on the basis of evidence or the lack thereof. It addresses that belief is often

established by a collective or cultural agreement or “faith” of the people. However, not

everyone will agree with the collective.

The character Victor Landbergh (the owner of a competitive store) exhibits the

state of unbelief and stays in that state throughout the movie. At the end of the movie, he

is talking with his hench-employees about the ruling on Santa Claus. He says, “He isn’t

Santa Claus. What the hell is the matter with everybody? There is no Santa Claus!” That

illustrates that not everyone transitions in the cycle of belief. Some people disbelief and

stay in a constant state of unbelief.

Observed/Observable Patterns

Each of the case study examples either illustrate the patterns of the states or

theory of cyclical belief, or the cycle of belief can be found within the cases. While

examining the case study examples, one can see common documentable patterns emerge.

In the case studies, the main character(s) seem(s) to either stay in belief, transition to a

state of unbelief, or return to belief (rebelief) by the end of the movie. There are a couple

of reasons for the “happy ending” or what could be called the “belief” ending. Firstly,

these are what can be called “family films/movies” meaning that families usually expect

positive, happy endings where most everything is resolved. It follows the classic plot

structure of stories and even contains what Tolkien called catastrophe and eucatastrophe

(2001). This is similar to the “fairy tale” or “escapist” ending in fairy/folk stories. Even

though real life does not always end happily per se, the escapist narrative with a happy

ending gives the audience something that they can experience in the escape that they do

not often get in real life or reality. They also leave the audience with “happy” feelings

knowing that the story worked out or was resolved.

Another pattern that emerges in these case study examples is the transitions of

belief. Each character in the story has their own placement in the cycle of belief i.e., a

character may be in a state of belief, unbelief (disbelief or misbelief), or even rebelief.

Some characters make a full transition from belief to rebelief. Some characters start at a

state of unbelief and work to belief. Some characters begin at belief and stay in belief.

Some character start in a state of unbelief and stay in unbelief: just because there are

connections between states of belief, that does not necessarily mean that it is universal

and that everyone changes. One character in most narratives is the villain or bad

person/character. It would be out of their character to change, per se. The same goes for

the hero. In stories, the hero does not usually become a villain.

Another pattern that appears is the aspect of the “inner child” inside of the adult

or grownup. This motif is observable in Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus when

Mitchell tells Church that he was “a kid once.” It is observable in The Santa Clause when

Charlie tells Neil that he was “ignoring his inner child.” It is observable in Santa Who?

when Santa tells Albright that “they both need to remember who they used to be”

meaning that Albright needs to look inside of himself and see what he believed when he

was a child. It is observable in Get Santa when Anderson argues that he is a thirty-year-

old grown man, and Santa reminds him that he was “once seven.” It is found in the lyrics

“If you Just Believe” from The Polar Express when it says, “we find it all again on

Christmas Day.” Basically, the aspect of the “inner child” is based on the idea that adults

have a part of themselves that is childlike but often gets suppressed or repressed

especially because of pathologizing conditioning.

Another pattern that appears in the movies is what I call “superficial conclusions”

meaning that people, often-times children, draw “superficial conclusions” about beliefs

especially regarding Santa Claus. Throughout the movies, there is the aspect that if Santa

Claus does not grant a wish and bring an exact present at an exact time (Christmas) then

he is not real and does not exist. This is shown in the 1947 and 1994 versions of Miracle

on 34

Street with Susan’s test for Santa Claus. It is shown by Laura and Neil in The

Santa Claus. It is shown by Toby in One Christmas. It can also be seen in arguments

concerning proof, evidence, rationality, and logic. Throughout the movies, arguments

concerning said aspects or elements are made against Santa Claus’ existence and reality.

Another pattern that appears in these tales can be called the acting parents. By

that, I mean that there is often the parent, adult, grown up, authority figure that tells a

child that they believe in Santa Claus when they actually do not i.e., they present a faux

belief. They are playing or acting for the child. It is to help keep the story going and keep

the magic alive until the child no longer participates in the story or until the

parent(s)/authority decide(s) it is time to end the story and quit pretending. There is a

major aspect with this pattern both in the examples and in real life. According to folklore,

Santa Claus is considered a “legendary” figure: he and his narratives both oral/traditional

and literary/visual (movie/shows) are placed in the genre of legendry. In folklore, there is

the aspect of ostension i.e., performing a legend. I argue that anyone who performs (in)

the legend of Santa Claus such as parents with their children is performing ostension.

Such performance can be a legend trip consisting of parents and children going to a

particular location to see Santa as part of the legend. However, I take my argument a step

further because performing the legend of Santa Claus is twofold: parents are performing

ostension when they put a gift “from Santa” under the Christmas tree, but they are

performing the legend for their children. Parents can even to go the extent that J.R.R.

Tolkien went to for his children: Tolkien wrote letters from “Father Christmas” and

addressed them to his children (2004).

Thus, they are performing ostension for someone

else. This is similar to the performance of tropes. I argue that when performing a legend

for someone else such as the legend of Santa Claus, one is performing what I call

“proxetic

ostension” meaning ostension for another. This extends from just giving gifts

to others, to putting gifts marked “from Santa” under a Christmas tree at night while

children sleep, to consuming the snack and beverage left for Santa, to people dressing up

and playing Santa for employment or volunteer/charity services.

One major theme or motif that is present in many of the case study examples is

the broken home or family. In The Santa Clause, the Calvin and Laura are divorced. In

Santa Who?, Albright is left at an orphanage, and Zach’s parents are divorced. In Get

Santa, Anderson’s parents got divorced, and he and Alison are divorced. In One

Christmas, Buddy’s parents are divorced. In both versions of Miracle on 34

Street, Mrs.

Walker is divorced, and Susan does not really know her father. The aspect of the broken

home or family causes issues for the situation, especially for the child involved.

The theme or common pattern that arises is children teaching or helping adults or

unbelievers to believe as well as the address of the wisdom of children. To an extent on

could say that the wise believer has to teach or help the skeptical unbeliever to believe.

Not only is the action present visible and present, the message of such is addressed, as in

the case of Santa Who? when Santa acknowledges that children are able to see what

adults no longer can or choose to ignore. In a number of the examples, the

adults/unbelievers/disbelievers/skeptics tell the believers/children that the children were

right all along.

One final theme or motif that appears in the case study examples is the aspect of

seeing and believing, believing and seeing. The examples make arguments that believing

is seeing rather than seeing is believing. It is directly presented in The Santa Clause;

Santa Who? The Polar Express; Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus; Get Santa and it is

indirectly presented in the other case study examples. Such arguments are actual

encouragements for belief as well as acknowledging the value of such sight based from

belief.

Final Thoughts

Something that is very profound in examining and analyzing these case study

examples is that they reflect persons, people, and situations of the real world even though

they can be or are considered fiction or fictionalized. Even the story of Virginia

O’Hanlon is about a real girl, family, and letter, but the movie was

dramatized/fictionalized. What is more interesting is the wisdom that they hold. Yes, they

encourage not only the characters in the narrative to believe, but the give messages to

viewers and audiences both children and adults to believe, especially to believe like

children. What is also interesting is the aspect of who/what Santa Claus is.

In the examples of Miracle on 34

Street, people think Kriss Kringle is crazy

because he believes himself to be Santa Claus, a legendary figure.

In the other

examples, people see the real Santa Claus as just another person until they learn

otherwise. However, in The Year Without a Santa Claus, Mrs. Claus sings that anyone

can be Santa. It should also be acknowledged that when the children in The Year Without

a Santa Claus send him presents, they are actually playing the role or being Santa for

Santa himself. In One Christmas, Ms. Cornelia tells Buddy that everybody is Santa

Claus. However, when people are asked who or what Santa Claus is, they usually explain

something along the lines of the stereotypical figure i.e., overweight, jolly man, red suit,

white beard, and such that looks like the Santa Claus personification that is plastered on

posters and promoted by Coco-Cola at Christmas time. When people stop believing in

Santa Claus, they argue that Santa Claus is not real because they have not seen the

stereotypical figure delivering gifts to them: people fall into “superficial conclusions.” If

people do not get what what they want, when they want it, and how they want it, they

conclude that Santa is not real and/or does not exist. Still, based on the idea(s) posed in

The Year Without a Santa Claus and One Christmas, as well as Yes, Virginia, There is a

Santa Claus, a person can rebelieve in Santa Claus if they alter or adapt their perception

of Santa Claus.

The figure of Santa Claus is a personification or personified figure/being of the

qualities of Santa Claus or what can be called the spirit of Christmas. The case study

examples express that Santa is the embodiment of the spirit of Christmas or Christmas

spirit. As is pointed out in Miracle on 34

Street, 1994 version, “[Santa Claus is] a

symbol. A symbol of the human ability to suppress the hateful and selfish tendencies that

rule a major part of [human life].” If a person can see that Santa Claus more than the

stereotypical personification, then anyone who performs the act or function of Santa

Claus becomes Santa Claus. Even by giving a gift marked “from Santa” puts the giver in

the role, function, or character of Santa. Again, that aspect connect to the children giving

gifts to Santa in The Year Without a Santa Claus along with Buddy in One Christmas.

Conclusion

After examining the definitions, literature, and case study examples, it is fair to

say that a fluid continuum or cycle of belief that includes states of belief, unbelief, and

rebelief appears and does exists as a human function or faculty. However, after such

research, it becomes clear why scholars have difficulties with belief. It is complicated and

complex: it is astronomical in scope. Even when one narrows their focus, it is still

incredibly nuanced when examining all the intricacies involved. To explain the concepts,

belief is a thing that is credited, seen, viewed, accepted; as true based on or grounded

with or without evidence. The verb believe means to hold something as true. Unbelief is a

thing regarded as not true or not to be believed. Unbelieve is the act of not believing.

Disbelief is similar and means a lack or refuted belief. Disbelieve means to refuse or

withhold belief. Misbelief is a false, erroneous, or wrong belief; and misbelieve is to

believe in something falsely, erroneously, or wrongly. Rebelief is a state of belief that

one can believe again whether in the same or similar thing or way they once did.

Rebelieve is an act of believing again or a return to an original or previous/earlier state of

belief. All of the states of belief are based, formed, framed, and/or grounded with or

without evidence. The concepts get more and more complicated when put under a

microscope or lens, but it is not impossible to examine.

Through the case study examples, audiences can see that there is a cycle of belief.

Within the examples, there are characters such as Fred Gailey, Brian Bedford, Zach,

Charlie, Tom Anderson, Virginia O’Hanlon, and others that exhibit the state of belief and

do not actually transition in the cycle. There are characters such as Mrs. Sawyer and

Victor Landbergh who exhibit unbelief/disbelief and do not transition in the cycle.

However, there are numerous character the make their transition either from an initial

state of unbelief/disbelief and transition to belief such as Susan Walker (in both versions

of the case studies). There are also many characters that make full transitions to a literal

belief/rebelief in a literal Santa Claus such as Hero Boy, Peter Albright, Steve Anderson,

Buddy, and even Ignatius and Mr. Thistlewhite. There are also characters that make a full

transition to a figurative belief such as Mrs. Walker, Ms. Cornelia Beaumont, and

Frances P. Church. Something that is interesting to reiterate that was mentioned in the

observed/observable patterns above is the aspect that many of the believers that did not

transition and had to help the unbelievers in the examples were mostly children. This

aspect is also addressed in the examples in connection with the value of belief.

As for understanding the value of rebelief and understanding the value of belief

that often gets pathologized, one is able to see that belief give humans something

personal. It gives them something to hope for or trust in (an) aspect of life. It allows a

person to believe in something without the demand of evidence, proof, or justification.

Rebelief seems to also give people a wisdom that is found (again) that many people seem

to forget. As was pointed out in a number of the case study examples, believers/

rebelievers see and understand what unbeliever/disbelieves lose sight of. One can see the

wisdom and insight in Church’s letter to Virginia O’Hanlon as well as Ms. Cornelia’s

advice to Buddy. As so many of the case studies explained, just because someone cannot

see or hear something does not mean that it is not there. Of course, there is also the aspect

of cultural tradition to consider that influences the romanticizing and pathologizing of

beliefs and behaviors. Even still, people can believe and can be influenced by what they

see: people can see what they believe.

As aforementioned, popular culture and people are influenced by popular media

(books/literature, music, television shows, movies, and the like). When people watch

pop-culture movies, they are presented not only with a movie or show; they are presented

with messages whether directly or indirectly; regardless, they are there. Drawing from the

case study examples, the message of believing in Santa Claus is promoted in such

movies. Like with a parable; if a person only wants a story, they get a story. If a person

wants the message/wisdom contained within the story, they will get the message/wisdom

therein contained. The messages consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously can reach

the viewers and audiences. After examining, analyzing, and studying the case study

examples, it is evident that the popular culture media movies depicting Santa Claus

illustrate or depict my theory of cyclical belief or a belief cycle. They depict children who

believe and disbelieve. They shows adults who believe and disbelieve. They also show

instances when people get stuck in the state of unbelief or disbelief. They show the

transition between the states or points in the cycle. As aforementioned, this is an

introduction, so there needs to be further study and application of my theory. The cycle of

believe can be found or illustrated in popular culture movies that not only represent

people, beliefs, and the world, but they also give messages to believe or of belief.

However, it can be seen and applied in real world situations as well.

Notes

Other works from Hufford on the subject of belief and the supernatural include The Terror that

Comes in the Night: And Experience-Centered Study of Supernatural Assault Traditions, (1982) and

“Beings without Bodies: An Experience Centered Theory of the Belief in Spirits,” (1995).

This work is built from Dé gh’s previous work and articles including “The ‘Belief Legend’ in

Modern Society: Form, Function and Relationship to Other Genres” (1971), and “Legend and Belief” that

she wrote with Andrew Vá zsonyi) (1981). She later adapted her scholarship of belief and legend in her

book, Legends and Belief, (2001).

In this work, Dé gh addresses Gillian Bennett’s work and arguments in the article “’Belief

Stories’: The Forgotten Genre.” Bennett wrote a reply (1996) to Dé gh’s comments in the journal Folklore

where she defends her reasonings.

Michael Dylan Foster and Jeffery A. Tolbert introduce the term “Folkloresque” and state, “So

the term folkloresque articulates three related meanings: (1) that an item (or element of an item) is in the

‘style’ of folklore; (2) that it is connected to something beyond/before itself, to some tradition or folklore

source existing outside the popular culture context; and (3) that the product itself is potentially of folkloric

value, connected in some way with processes of folklore creation and transmission” (2016, 5-6).

In her text, Putting the Supernatural in Its Place: Folklore, the Hypermodern, and the Ethereal,

Jeannie Banks Thomas addresses the term “hypermodern folklore.” She defines the phrase as, “This term

recognizes the intermingling of folk, popular, consumer, and digital cultures. I like the word hypermodern

for its clarity—you get an immediate sense of what the word means…” (2015, 7).

Mathews-Pett adapted her thesis into the article “I want It to Go to a Good Home: Animism in

Western Relationships with Personal Possessions” in 2019 in the journal Performance Research.

In a featurette or behind the scenes interview with Angela Lansbury who plays the Balloon Lady

talks about playing such a character. She says, “You have to think in those terms. You have to believe. You

have to believe in magic. You have to believe in all of the qualities, she continues, “It’s all imagination. It’s

all about children’s imagination” (Creators Faire 2018).

In connection with Mary Poppins Returns, one can make the argument that the original Mary

Poppins movie gives similar messages about the value of childhood and goodness. In the Mary Poppins,

the title character makes a statement that men like Mr. Banks “[C]annot see past the end of their nose”

(Stevenson 1964). This can connect to the aspect of unbelief and skepticism. In the movie Saving Mr.

Banks, audiences see the background story of the Mary Poppins narrative and find out that the real

inspiration for the character and message of the story in Mary Poppins is not that the nanny goes to help the

children but to help the doubting, skeptical, unbelieving father/adult (Hancock 2013).

Such criticism by skeptics can be seen in responses in the YouTube documentary clip entitled

“Fairy Folklore of County Clare” uploaded by Celtic Atlantic Tales. In the clip, audiences/viewers hear

from an elderly interviewee (when talking about fairies and folk belief) who says, “If I told them, they’d

just laugh at me. Do you know what I mean, they don’t believe in it” (2017 [00:03:10]). Another elderly

interviewee says, “Yeah well very few believe it, sure. Yeah I suppose they’re more educated than we

were, I think. Sure, we’d be listen to it all the time. Long ago, sure it was all the stories. By night we’d hear

something about the fairies or something, you know?” But sure there’s none of that now, that’s all gone

(2017 [00:03:21]). In the documentary clip, Irish story collector Eddie Lenihan says, “Technology may

move. We may move. But these things don’t move. These things were and are and will be. The fairies, they

were there, and they are there. It’s we who have changed (2017 [00:03:45]).

Based on claims and arguments by William James in The Will to Believe, beliefs can be formed,

founded, held, and grounded without evidence or proof (2010).

It should be noted that there is a difference between disbelief and nonbelief. According to W.V.

Quine and J.S. Ullian, “Disbelief is a case of belief; to believe a sentence false is to believe the negation of

the sentence true. We disbelieve that there are ghosts; we believe that there are none. Nonbelief is the state

of suspending judgement: neither believing the sentence true or believing it false” (1978, 12). Essentially,

disbelief is to believe something is false where nonbelief is to neither believe nor disbelieve.

It is interesting to understand the slight differences between knowledge and belief. It seems that

knowledge is based more on known and provable facts or evidence where belief may be grounded without

such proof or evidence. When it comes to the aspect of belief and knowledge, there is much debate over

what qualifies or designates each or both. Hufford makes an interesting statement in his article and says,

“‘What I know I know, what you know you only believe—to the extent that it conflicts with my

knowledge’” (1982, 47-48). Carl Jung made an interesting statement in a documented interview when

asked about believing in God: “Now? Difficult to answer. I know. I needn’t—I don’t need to believe, I

know” (Templar 2021, [00:00:10]). He also addresses his belief about death and the end of life: “Well, I

can’t say—. You see, the word ‘belief’ is a difficult thing for me. I don’t believe. I must have a reason for a

certain hypothesis. Either I know a thing, and when I know it, I don’t need to believe it. If I—, I don’t allow

myself for instance to believe a thing just for the sake of believing it. I can’t believe it. But when there are

sufficient reasons to form a certain hypothesis, I shall accept it is a reason, naturally” (Ibid. [00:01:36]).

I refrain from defining things like skepticism, doubt, delusion and like synonyms within this

thesis for the sake of argument and brevity. They should be self-evident or self-explanatory. I also do not

address the negation or negative aspect of the term such as trust and distrust (since again, the negated term

should be self-evident or self-explanatory). However, even though faith, hope, knowledge, and trust get

synonymized with belief, there are differences in meaning and usage. To briefly explain, the consensus and

common/general definition of faith is belief or trust commonly connected with religion, belief of something

or someone without evidence, proposition without complete evidence, belief or credit beyond logical proof.

Basically, faith is a belief that is based on someone or something (usually religious in context) without

evidence or proof. It seems it differs from belief slightly because belief can be grounded or perceived or

asserted as true with or without evidence or proof. Faith seems to be more based without irrefutable

evidence or proof. Hope is basically defined as a desire especially for something good or a belief or opinion

not based on certainty. Knowledge is essentially defined as a perception or cognizance, awareness of fact or

truth, or something learned. Knowledge seems to differ from belief even though they both address as

crediting things as true. It seems that belief can be based with or without evidence where knowledge seems

to be based on evidence, fact, truth, or something learned or perceived. To compare faith, belief, and

knowledge, it seems that faith is usually credited without evidence, belief can be credited with or without

evidence, and knowledge basically credits with evidence. Finally, trust is more-or-less defined as

confidence, reliance, credit, or dependance without doubt or examination. After examining the

synonymized terms, it is easy to see why and how they are used interchangeably in the general vernacular.

Even though there are nuances to the definitions and usages, what folklorists should examine, analyze,

acknowledge, and study is how the people use the terms more than the arbitrary differences.

McNeill, based from Hufford’s work, basically says that cultural source hypothesis is the idea

that beliefs are shaped by culture and/or cultural traditions (2013, 57-58; Hufford 1982).

McNeill, based from Hufford’s work, basically says that experiential source hypothesis is the

idea that beliefs are shaped by (personal) experience(s) (2013, 57-58; Hufford 1982).

Similarly, Jeana Jorgensen addresses the approach to (folk) belief and even addresses the often-

unpopular term, superstition. In her opening sentence to the chapter or section reads, “Is calling someone

‘superstitious’ an insult? If so, why?” (2021, 192). She continues, “The popular definition of superstition is

as a naïve popular belief and any related behaviors, often thought to be illogical and irrational” (Ibid.); she

also sates, “In contrast, we define folk belief as any traditionally held belief. It’s usually a belief shared by

members belonging to the same folk group, or a belief that can be demonstrated to have multiple existence

and variation, coming from informal rather than institutional sources” (Ibid.). Although some folklorists do

not like the term, Jorgensen makes an important point. She also states, “What superstition and folk belief

have in common, and why we might use them interchangeably as folklore scholars, is: each is a belief, a

practice, or procedure based on conscious or unconscious assumptions; further, they share the form

‘cause/sign, result’ where something either causes or indicates another thing” (2021, 193). Even though

Jorgensen justifies her linguistic and even etymological reasoning, many folklorists dislike the term

“superstition” because of the negative connotations and stigmas attached to it. Still, for a person in popular

culture, folk belief and superstition might be synonymous. It should be understood that Jorgensen is not

advocating for folklorists to use folk belief and superstition interchangeably exactly; she is saying that they

have commonalities. She concluded, “Thus, at the end of the day, I don’t necessarily care if my students

use folk belief or superstition when referring to the genre of an item. I do worry that superstition might be

off-putting to some people, and imply judgment, so that’s one reason to steer clear of it” (2021, 195). She

continues, “At the end of the day, we all have beliefs—and in fact, our belief may contradict one another

and may not always be as based in scientific evidence as we like to think—so I think we should give

ourselves and other as much grace as possible here” (Ibid.). This actually matches with Magliocco’s article

(2012) about contradictory belief systems existing simultaneously. Still, there is one more aspect to

consider when approaching belief.

Basically, Tolkien argues, “Children are capable, of course of literary belief, when the story-

maker’s art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called ‘willing suspension of

disbelief.’ But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the

story-maker proves a successful ‘sub-creator.’ He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter.

Inside it, what he relates is ‘true’: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you

are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed”

(2001, 37). He continues, “You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive

Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief

must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this

suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thin, a subterfuge we used when condescending to

games or make-believe, or when trying (more-or-less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of

an art that has for us failed” (Ibid.). He continues further, “This suspension of disbelief may thus be a

somewhat tired, shabby, or sentimental state of mind, and so lean to the ‘adult.’ I fancy it is often the state

of adults in the presence of a fairy-story. They are held there and supported by sentiment (memories of

childhood, or notions of what childhood ought to be like); they think they ought to like the tale. But if they

really liked it, for itself, they would not have to suspend disbelief: they would believe—in this sense”

(2001, 38).

The argument or aspect of believability and fiction is addressed by William Bascom. He says,

“In these definitions the distinction between fact and fiction refers only to the beliefs of those whom tell

and hear these tales, and not to our beliefs, to historical or scientific facts, or to any ultimate judgment of

truth or falsehood. It may be objected that this is a subjective judgement based on the opinions of

informants rather than on objective facts, but it is no more subjective than the distinction between sacred

and secular, and in practice it may be even easier to establish” (1965, 7). Thus, it is arguable and reasonable

to say that based on Bascom’s statement, a teller and a listener can believe in the narrative which makes it,

to use Bascom’s word, “fact,” or at least believed.

Hume says, “I conclude that an induction which seems to me very evident, that an opinion or

belief is nothing but an idea, that is different from a fiction, not in the nature, or the order of its parts, but in

the manner of its being conceiv’d. But when I wou’d explain this manner, I scarce find any word that fully

answers the case, but am oblig’d to have recourse to every one’s feeling, in order to give him a perfect

notion of this operation of the mind” (sic) (1878, 397-398). Belief is an operation of the mind. It is an

emotion. It is a function. If it is an operation of the mind, it can be conscious, subconscious, or unconscious

to the believer. This also goes for unbelief and rebelief as well.

It should be noted that The Year Without a Santa Claus was adapted into a live action television

movie in 2006. Although it basically tells a similar story of Santa thinking that the children and the world

does not need him anymore, it does not exactly present the same type of message that the 1974 version

depicts. Still, it cannot be counted out because it does depict a premise of children believing in Santa Claus.

The lyrics to Mrs. Claus’ song go: Mrs. Claus: “Who would know the difference,/if Santa Claus

was me?/Yes, who would know the difference?/Just Santa Claus and me./Anyone can be Santa./Why can’t

a lady like me?/I admit, I’m underfed but with a pillow from the bed./I could be Santa Claus./Oh, anyone

can play Santa./I’ve fantasized it a lot./With his hat upon my head,/and his suit of Christmas red./I could be

Santa Claus./And with his “ho, ho, ho” I’d be going down the chimneys with his sack./And though my

curls may be showing./I’ll make sure they only see me from the back./Yes, anyone can be Santa./A

tantalizing remark./Though his boots are not my size,/with a twinkle in my eyes./I could be Santa

Claus./With his reindeer and his sleigh,/I’d be up, up and away./Yes! I could be Santa,/I could be Santa,/I

could be Santa Claus.”

The dialog goes:

Neal: “Charlie, it’s just not logical. How can one man, in one night, visit all the children of the

world?”

Charlie: “Not everyone celebrates Christmas. And I think there’s some sort of time continuum that

breaks down once Santa’s in his sleigh.”

Neal: “What about fireplaces? A lot of people don’t have them. How does Santa Visit those

people?”

Charlie: “He turns into Jell-o and [slurping sound] the fireplace kind of appears and he goes down

through it like this.”

Neal: “What about the reindeer? Have you ever seen a reindeer fly?”

Charlie: “Yes.”

Neal: “Well, I haven’t.”

Charlie: “Have you ever seen a million dollars?”

Neal: “No.”

Charlie: “Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.”

It is important that Scrooge is brought into the conversation of belief since he denies, doubts, or

disbelieves what is right in front of him and while he sees “evidence” before his eyes. With the case of

another Christmas story, A Christmas Carol, when asked of Scrooge’s belief and senses in Marley’s

existence (“Why do you doubt your senses?”), Scrooge replies, “Because a little thing affects them. You

may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato.”

He makes excuses to not believe what is outside of his rationale/rationality even when presented (sight and

sound) of something beyond the physical reality, realm, or world.

The full song lyrics are: “Children sleeping/Snow is softly falling/Dreams are calling/Like bells

in the distance/We were dreamers/Not so long ago/But one by one/We all had to grow up/When it seems

the magic slipped away/We find it all again on Christmas Day/Believe in what your heart is saying/Hear

the melody that's playing/There's no time to waste/There's so much to celebrate/Believe in what you feel

inside/And give your dreams the wings to fly/You have everything you need/If you just believe/Trains

move quickly/To their journey's end/Destinations/Are where we begin again/Ships go sailing/Far across the

sea/Trusting starlight/To get where they need to be/When it seems that we have lost our way/We find

ourselves again on Christmas Day/Believe in what your heart is saying/Hear the melody that's

playing/There's no time to waste/There's so much to celebrate/Believe in what you feel inside/And give

your dreams the wings to fly/You have everything you need/If you just believe/If you just believe/If you

just believe/If you just believe/Just believe/Just believe” (Groban 2004).

The dialog goes:

Tom: “Santa’s in the garage.”

Anderson: “What?”

Tom: “He says that we’ve got to help him get home. He says he knows you.”

Anderson: “Are you in the garage with a man?”

Tom: “No, I’m in the house, Santa’s in the garage.”

Anderson: “Okay, Tom, can you put your mom on, please?”

Tom: “No, I can’t. Santa says it has to be you.”

Anderson: “Tom, listen to me. “

Tom: “He’s crashed his sleigh, lost his reindeer, and if we don’t help him--.”

Anderson: “Tom, go and get your mother, please.”

Tom: “No. I’m going back to the garage. Santa wants to show me his plan.”

Anderson: “Tom.” [Tom hangs up the phone] “Tom?”

Eventually Anderson goes to help/protect Tom.

Santa: “Steve!”

Anderson: “Who the hell are you?”

Tom: “What are you doing?”

Anderson: “Who are you?”

Santa: “You know who I am.”

Anderson: “I what?”

Santa: “You know who I am.”

Anderson: “I haven’t got a clue who you are.”

Tom: “He’s Santa!”

Anderson: “Okay, just so we’re clear, the only reason that I haven’t knocked your block off is

because of him.” [Points to Tom]. “So, whatever your reason is for being here now, it better be a good

one.”

Santa: “I was running in my new sleigh. I came in too low, hit a telephone wire, got thrown off,

and hit my head.”

At that point, audiences hear Tony calling for Tom outside.

Tom: “He’s lost his reindeer, and if he doesn’t get to Lapland, Christmas is off.”

Santa: “All right, Tom. When your father was your age, he saw me.”

Anderson: “What are you talking about?”

Santa: “It was Christmas Eve. You saw a shooting star racing across the heavens. That was me.”

Tom: “We need to help him, Steve.”

About that time, Tony walks into the garage. Anderson tells Santa to leave and “never come back again.”

This conversation helps to establish the states of belief between Tom and Anderson. Tom sees a man who

looks like Santa Claus and believes he is Santa based on his word. Anderson sees the same person and

believes that it is some stranger and wonders why he is alone with Tom in the garage. Audiences also learn

that Anderson once believed in Santa which sets up the cycle and transition from belief to unbelief.

The dialog goes:

Anderson: “I tell you what. If I—when I prove that he’s not Father Christmas, can we just forget

all of this and have a nice day together, hmm?”

Tom: “Okay.”

At the prison, Santa is brought into the visiting room wearing denim clothes.

Santa: “Thank you for coming. This place is horrible.”

Anderson: “Yeah, well, it’s not a holiday camp, Nick.”

Santa: “You know my name.”

Anderson: “I worked it out.”

Santa: “How?”

Anderson: “Well, I thought of Saint Nicholas. Then I abbreviated it to Saint Nick, and then I took

away the ‘Saint.’”

Santa: [laugh] “That’s exactly how I came to it.”

Anderson: [sarcastically] “Oh, wow, what do you know?”

Santa: “I tried other more elaborate names, but that one seemed to stick.”

Tom: “We’ve come to rescue you.”

Santa: “Thank goodness.”

Anderson: “Yeah, we thought we’d free your reindeer, fly in, and pick you up.”

Santa: “No, that wouldn’t work because the reindeer can’t actually fly. I mean, not by

themselves—. Well, it’s complicated. But if you find the sleigh—I mean, provided it’s not broken—then

you might be able to.”

Anderson: “Are you on medication?” [Santa gives a strange look] “Or worse, are you not on

medication?”

Santa: “Ho, ho, ho. You still don’t believe I’m Santa.”

Anderson: “Do you want to know why? Because I’m thirty.”

Santa: “But once you were seven.”

Anderson: “Yeah, and I saw a shooting star. Tell me something I don’t know.”

Santa: “It was an exceptionally cold Christmas night. Your parents were drunk, they’d been

rowing.”

Anderson: “My parents got divorced.”

Santa: “This was their last Christmas together. You ran out into the back garden. You were crying.

You heard a noise in the skies above you. The sound of bells, sleigh bells. And that’s when you saw me.

You knew it wasn’t a shooting star. That’s just what your mother told you. But you had proof. You found a

gift in the garden, a gift that I had left for you. What was it? Do you remember?”

Anderson: “Why don’t you tell me?”

Santa: “It was the most popular gift of that year. A Rubik’s Cube. You still have it, don’t you? Not

because of me, oh no. No, you kept it because that was the last family Christmas you ever had.”

Anderson: [Seeming emotional] “How’d you know that?”

Tom: “Because he’s Santa.”

Santa: “Deep in your heart, you know who I am.”

Anderson: “Deep in my heart, you’re a nut bag.”

Santa: [chuckles] “The reindeer have been moved to a private area in Richmond Park. Go there,

seek out Dasher. He knows what to do.”

Tom: “Dasher speaks?”

Santa: “He communicates.”

Anderson: “Right, that’s it. I’ve had enough of this. We haven’t seen each other in a very long

time.”

Santa: “And I wouldn’t ask this if it wasn’t the most important job in the world.”

Anderson: “Come on, we’re going.”

Tom: “We had a deal.”

Anderson: “You want to spend our day looking for a talking reindeer?”

Tom: “Yes.”

Anderson: “Okay, then, that’s what we’ll do. Thank you.” [sarcastically].

Santa: “No, thank you. One more thing, how do I survive in this place?”

Anderson: “Um, stop pretending to be Father Christmas.”

Tom: “Steve!”

Anderson, “Go and see the barber.”

Santa: “I can’t change my look.”

Anderson: “For advice. Tell him I sent you.”

To note, Santa puts his trust and belief in Steve Anderson because he sees that Anderson still

possesses some childlike qualities or at least goodness within him. When referring to Anderson and

children, Santa states, “Steve saw me when he was a child. I’d given him a Rubik’s cube. He still hasn’t

managed to solve it, to this day, but unlike nearly every other child in the world, he hasn’t cheated, and he

hasn’t given up trying.” This can connect as a metaphor of belief meaning that unlike most children who

stop trying or believing, there are those who keep trying or believing.

The 1897 news editorial reads: “We take pleasure in answering at once and thus prominently the

communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is

numbered among the friends of THE SUN: DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends

say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, ‘If you see it in THE SUN, it’s so.’ Please tell me the truth; is there

a Santa Claus? VIRGINIA O’HANLON. 115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET.” It continues,

“VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age.

They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their

little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of

ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as

measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge. Yes, VIRGINIA, there

is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they

abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were

no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith

then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in

sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished. Not believe

in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in

all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming

down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus.

The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies

dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or

imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world. You may tear apart the baby’s rattle

and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest

man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith,

fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and

glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. No

Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten

times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood” (Church 1897).

It should be noted that Miracle on 34th Street had a couple of different versions after the

original movie came out. Each version added aspects to the narrative as well as the quotes/messages within

each. One version was released in 1955, and the other version was released in 1973. The 1994 version is

addressed in the case study examples, but it should be noted that there are more versions than just the 1947

and 1994 versions of the movie.

The dialog goes:

Gailey: “I can’t let Kriss down. He needs me, and all the rest of us need him.”

Mrs. Walker: “Look darling, he’s a nice old man, and I admire you for wanting to help him, but

you’ve got to be realistic and face facts. You can’t just throw your career away because of a sentimental

whim.”

Gailey: “But, I’m not throwing my career away. I promise you, if you believe in me and have faith

in me everything will…. You don’t have any faith in me, do you?”

Mrs. Walker: “It’s not a question of faith. It’s just common sense.”

Gailey: “Faith is when common sense tells you not to. Don’t you see it’s not just Kriss that’s on

trial? It’s everything he stands for. It’s kindness, joy, love, and all the other intangibles.”

Mrs. Walker: “Oh, Fred, you’re talking like a child. You’re living in a realistic world! Those

lovely intangibles of yours aren’t worth much. You don’t get ahead that way.”

Gailey: “That all depends on what you call ‘getting ahead.’ Evidently, you and I have different

definitions.”

Mrs. Walker: “These last few days, we’ve talked about wonderful plans. Then you go on an

idealistic binge. You give up your job, throw away your security, and then you expect me to be happy

about it.”

Gailey: “Yes, I guess I expected too much. Look Doris, someday, you’re going to find out that

your way of facing this realistic world just doesn’t work. And when you do don’t overlook those lovely

intangibles. You’ll discover they’re the only things that are worthwhile.”

The dialog goes:

Gailey: “He certainly is a giant, isn’t he?”

Susan: “Not really. There are no giants, Mr. Gailey.”

Gailey: “Maybe not now Susie, but in olden days there were a lot of—” [Susan shakes her head in

disagreement]. “What about the giant that Jack killed?”

Susan: “Jack? Jack who?”

Gailey: “Jack and the beanstalk.”

Susan: “Jack and the beanstalk?”

Gailey: “You must have heard it, you just forgot. It’s a fairy tale.”

Susan: “Oh, one of those. I don’t know any fairy tales.”

Gailey: “Oh, your mother and father must have told you a fairy tale.”

Susan: “No. My mother thinks they’re silly. I don’t know if my father thinks they’re silly or not. I

never met my father. You see, my father and mother were divorced when I was a baby.”

Gailey: [Gaily it taken aback and redraws the subject to the parade, smiles] “Well that baseball

player certainly looks like a giant to me.”

Susan: “People sometimes grow very big, but that’s abnormal.”

Gailey: “I’ll bet your mother told you that too.” [Susan smiles and shakes her head in affirmation].

Within this dialog, viewers see that Susan has been raised not to believe in fairy tales and is quite an

analytically-minded and skeptical child for her age. Within the same scene, the doorbell buzzes. Mrs.

Walker come into the scene. She and Gailey begin their conversation in the kitchen over coffee. In the

background, Susan mentions Santa Claus, and Mrs. Walker basically refers and indicates that there was an

issue with the other Santa Claus at the parade that caused trouble. This introduces the topic of Santa Claus

into Mrs. Walker and Gailey’s conversation.

Gailey: “I see she doesn’t believe in Santa Claus either. No Santa Claus, no fairy tales. No

fantasies of any kind. Is that it?”

Mrs. Walker: “That’s right. We should be realistic and completely truthful with our children and

not have them growing up believing in a lot of legends and myths like Santa Claus for example.”

Gailey: “I see.”

The dialog goes:

Susan: “If you’re really Santa Claus, you can get it for me. And if you can’t, you’re only a nice

man with a white beard, like my mother said.”

Kringle: “Now wait a minute, Susie. Just because every child can’t get his wish, that doesn’t mean

there isn’t a Santa Claus.”

Susan: “That’s what I thought you’d say.”

The dialog goes:

Mrs. Walker: “But there are lots of presents there for you, darling.”

Susan: “Not the one I wanted. Not the one Mr. Kringle was going to get for me.”

Mrs. Walker: “What was that?”

Susan: “It doesn’t matter now. I didn’t get it. I knew it wouldn’t be here, but I thought there’d be a

letter or something telling me.”

Kringle: “I don’t suppose you even want to talk to me.”

Mrs. Walker: “Something about a present.”

Kringle: Yes, I know. I’m sorry, Susie. I tried my best, but—.”

Susan: “You couldn’t get it because you’re not Santa Claus, that’s why. You’re just a nice old man

with whiskers like my mother said, and I shouldn’t have believed you.”

Mrs. Walker: “I was wrong when I told you that, Susie. You must believe in Mr. Kringle and keep

right on doing it. You must have faith in him.”

Susan: “But he didn’t get me the—that doesn’t make sense, Mommy.”

Mrs. Walker: “Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to.”

Susan: “Huh?”

Mrs. Walker: “I mean, just because thing don’t turn out the way you want them to the first time,

you’ve still got to believe in people. I found that out.”

Susan: “You mean like ‘If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again?’”

Mrs. Walker: “Yes.”

Susan: “I thought so.”

In the 1955 version, Mr. Sawyer expresses why belief in Santa Claus is dangerous for children.

He says, “Parents and young people, it’s thrilling indeed to see so many happy, smiling faces. I know

you’re all looking forward to a joyous Christmas. But as those of you in this intelligent group know, this is

going to be a Christmas without Santa Claus. Such a person as Santa Claus, Saint Nicholas, or Kriss

Kringle does not exist. Never has existed, and never will exist.” At this point, we see Kringle, dressed as

Santa Claus, looking out from the wings if the stage. He sneaks behind the scenery during Sawyer’s speech

address. Sawyer continues, “This silly old man in his red suit represents the wishful dreaming of all people.

He is the all-giver, the generous father. Mature adults who keep this myth alive are clinging to childish

fantasies. A show, themselves afraid to face realities. People who play Santa have a strong feeling of guilt.”

Because Kringle is playing behind Sawyer, the children see him and start to laugh. Sawyer says, “I see

nothing to laugh at. Far from being amusing…far from being amusing…far from being amusing, this myth

is actually harmful. So is stupid old men, prancing around in white whiskers keep this ridiculous myth

alive.” The 1973 version of Miracle on 34

Street’s Mr. Sawyer also presents hostile arguments and

attitudes about Santa Claus and argues that he (Sawyer) is a man of science and knows more than Kringle

does about psychiatry and mental disorders.

Bedford states, “Your honor, a lot of people believe in Mr. Kringle, including millions of

children. If you rule against him, you won’t destroy anyone’s belief, but you will destroy the man they

believe in. Mr. Kringle is not concerned for himself. If he were, he wouldn’t be here. He is in this

regrettable position because he is willing to sacrifice himself for children to create in their minds a world

far better than the one we’ve made for them. If this is, as Mr. Collins suggests, a masquerade, then Mr.

Kringle is eager to forfeit his freedom to preserve that masquerade, to subject himself to prosecution, to

protect the children’s right to believe. If this court finds that Mr. Kringle is not who he says he is, that there

is no Santa Claus, then I would ask this court to judge which is worse: a lie that draws a smile or a truth that

draws a tear.”

The dialog goes:

Bedford: “You failed your mental exam on purpose, didn’t you?”

Kringle: “Why would I—do a thing like that?”

Bedford: “I don’t know. Maybe you’ve served people long enough. Maybe you’ve given all you

have to give?”

Kringle: “No.”

Bedford: “Then why did you do it? The charges against you were dropped. The man you hit

suffered no injury. You could’ve been out of here if you passed your exam.”

Kringle: “I disgraced myself.”

Bedford: “I read your transcript, Kris. You defended your honor. You stood up for the dignity of

every child. That isn’t a disgrace. That’s decency.”

Kringle: “If I’m dismissed as a crazy old man, then the good name of Santa Claus is spared.”

Bedford: “That isn’t true. If not for you, there is no Santa Claus. You are him. Crazy or gone,

you’re Santa Claus.”

Kringle: “Only if the children believe that. And what kind of Santa Claus were they believing in

anyway? They can’t look to me anymore. Not after knowing what happened the other night.”

Bedford: “Well, think about the other night. A man was there to photograph the incident? The man

you hit was the man you replaced? The cops told me this, Kriss. The cops believe in you. A lot of people

do. More will when we’re finished.”

The dialog goes:

Mr. Bedford: “Oh, well, I think you should ask Santa Claus to give Cole’s and interest-free loan

for Christmas.” [Susan laughs at his joke.] “Ya know, it might happen. I mean, Santa Claus, he does some

pretty amazing things.”

Susan: “Bryan, you know what? I know.”

Bedford: “Know what?”

Susan: “The secret?”

Bedford: “What secret?”

Susan: “Santa Claus. I’ve known for a long time. He’s not real.”

Bedford: “Says who?”

Susan: “My mom.”

Similar to the 1947 version, audiences see Kringle visiting (baby sitting in this case) Susan.

And, he asks her what she wants for Christmas. Similar to the 1947 version, she gives Kringle a picture of a

house from a magazine. She says that she wants a house and a little brother and a dad for Christmas. The

dialog goes:

Susan: “If you’re really Santa Claus, you can get it for me. If you can’t, you’re just a nice man

with a white beard like my mother says.”

Kringle: “Oh, Susan, just because every child doesn’t get his or her wish doesn’t mean there’s not

a Santa Claus.”

Susan: “I thought you might say that.”

Kringle tries to explain that what she is asking for is quite a lot to ask for and that even Santa Claus cannot

force such things to just happen.

Susan: “If Santa Claus really can make reindeer fly and go up and down people’s chimneys, and

make millions of toys and go all around the world in one night, he can get somebody a house and a brother

and a dad, right?”

Kringle: “Right. Right, yes, I suppose he, he could.” Kringle keeps the paper and says he’ll see

what he can do

The dialog goes:

Mrs. Walker: “What are you doing out of bed?’

Susan: “Something’s driving me crazy, and I can’t sleep.”

Mrs. Walker: “Well, what’s on your mind?”

Susan: “Santa Claus.”

Mrs. Walker: “Mr. Kringle? Why? What about him?

Susan: “He talked sign language with a kid today.”

Mrs. Walker: “Oh. That was considerate of him.”

Susan: “It’s weird how he knows so much about toys and kids. He speaks Russian and Swahili.”

Mrs. Walker: “Well, he must be quite a learned man.”

Susan: “He looks exactly like every picture of Santa Claus I ever saw.”

Mrs. Walker: “Yes, I know. That’s why I chose him.”

Susan: “You’re positive he’s not the real Santa Claus?”

Mrs. Walker: “I thought that we talked about this. You understand what he is.”

Susan: ‘What if we’re wrong? That would be extremely rude.”

Mrs. Walker: “Well, we’re not wrong, sweetheart.”

Susan: “But all my friends believe in Santa Claus.”

Mrs. Walker: “Well most children your age do.”

Susan: “How come I don’t?”

Mrs. Walker: “Because you know the truth. And truth is one of the most important things in the

world. To know the truth and always be truthful with other, and more importantly, with yourself. And

believing in myths and fantasies just makes you unhappy.”

Susan: “Did you believe in Santa Claus when you were my age?”

Mrs. Walker: “Yes.”

Susan: “Were you unhappy?”

Mrs. Walker: “Well, when all the things that I believe in turned out not to be true, yes, I was

unhappy.”

Susan: “Would it be okay if I thought about this some more? Do I have to not believe in Santa

Claus right away?”

Mrs. Walker: “You have the right to believe whatever you want to believe. Now, I’ve told you the

truth, but if I am wrong, I would be glad to admit it. I’ll tell you what. You ask Mr. Kringle for something

that you would never ask me for, and if on Christmas morning you don’t’ get it, you will know once and for

all the honest truth about Santa Claus.”

The dialog goes:

Bedford: “I didn’t see any harm in her saying hello to an interesting old man.”

Mrs. Walker: “Well, there is harm. I tell her there is no Santa Claus. So, you bring her down here,

and she sees thousands of gullible kids, and she meets and actor—a very good actor, mind you—with a real

beard and a beautiful Santa suit, sitting smack dab in the center of a child’s fantasy world. So, who does she

believe? The myth or the mom?”

It should be noted that J.R.R. Tolkien’s son, John Francis Tolkien, claimed that they, the

children, never “suspected that [the letters] were from [their father]” (eruounico 2014; Bailey 1996).

To explain, proxetic is based off of its two parts: “proxy” and “-etic.” “Proxy” is roughly

defined as someone who acts for another or is a substitute for someone or something else. The suffic “-etic”

basically means “pertaining to.” So, Prox-etic is pertaining to the substitute or acting for another person i.e.,

ostension. “Proxetic” ostension is basically performing ostension for another person.

There is thought regarding the idea of Santa and identification. As is presented in the cases and

examples of Miracle on 34

Street, Santa or Kriss Kringle was seen as disturbed, crazy, insane, or any

other synonym of the word because he thought himself to be Santa Claus. It is curious to think of this

concept in or with a view of current society. With so many various aspects to identity, it is curious how/if

one believing themselves to be Santa Claus would be viewed currently. It might be more accepted or even

romanticized. It may still be pathologized as it was depicted in the movies. More research may be needed

on that idea.

References

Bailey, Derek, dir. J.R.R.T.: A Film Portrait of J.R.R. Tolkien. 1996. Narrated by Judi

Dench. Featuring Christopher Tolkien, Tom Shippy, John Francis Tolkien,

Priscilla Tolkien. London, United Kingdom: Landseer.

Bascom, William. 1965. “The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives.” The Journal of

American Folklore 78, no. 307 (Jan.-Mar.): 3–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/538099.

Bass, Jules and Arthur Rankin Jr., dirs. “The Life & Adventures of Santa Claus.” Double

Feature: Life and Adventures of Santa Claus/Nestor the Christmas Donkey.

December 17, 1985. Screenplay by Jules Bass. Featuring Earl Hammond, Earle

Hyman, and Larry Kenney. New York: Rankin/Bass Productions, DVD. 2009.

---. Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town. 1970. Teleplay by Romeo Muller. Featuring Fred

Astaire, Mickey Rooney, and Keenan Wynn. New York: Rankin/Bass

Productions, DVD. 2018.

---. The Year Without a Santa Claus. 1974. Teleplay by William J. Keenan. Featuring

Mickey Rooney, Shirley Booth, and Colin Duffy. New York: Rankin/Bass

Productions, DVD. 2007.

Bennett, Gillian. 1989. “‘Belief Stories’: The Forgotten Genre.” Western Folklore 48, no.

4 (October): 289–311. https://doi.org/10.2307/1499544.

---. 1996. “[What Is A Belief Legend?]: Reply.” Folklore 107: 47–48. http://www.jstor

.org/stable/1260913.

Bill, Tony, dir. One Christmas. 1994. Teleplay by Duane Poole. Featuring Katharine

Hepburn, Henry Winkler, Swoosie Kurtz, and T.J. Lowther. United States: Karpf-

Davis Entertainment Television, DVD. 2009.

Borsos, Phillip, dir. One Magic Christmas. 1985. Screenplay by Thomas Meehan, Phillip

Borsos, and Barry Healey. Featuring Mary Steenburgen and Harry Dean Stanton.

Burbank, CA: Buena Vista Home Vid, VHS. 2007.

Celtic Atlantic Tales. “Fairy Folklore of County Clare.” YouTube video, 00:04:24.

January 8, 2017. Accessed March 22, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

N4rrdSr2EIM.

Cherry III, John R., dir. Earnest Saves Christmas. 1988. Screenplay by B. Kline.

Featuring, Jim Varney, Douglas Seale, and Oliver Clark. Burbank, CA:

Touchstone Pictures, DVD. 2002.

Columbus, Chris, dir. The Christmas Chronicles 2. Screenplay by Matt Lieberman, Chris

Columbus, David Guggeheim. Featuring Kurt Russell, Goldie Hawn, Darby

Camp. 1492 Pictures. https://www.netflix.com/title/80988988.

Cottingham, John. 2009. Why Believe? York Road, London: Continuum.

Creators Faire. “Angela Lansbury ‘Balloon Lady’ Talks about Mary Poppins Returns.”

YouTube video, 00:02:29. December 5, 2018. Accessed March 22, 2022.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eize06ylpYk.

Cuaró n, Alfonso, dir. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. 2004. Screenplay by

Steve Kloves. Featuring Danial Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint. Burbank,

CA: Warner Bros., DVD. 2007.

Church, Francis P. 1897. “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus.” The Sun, Newseum.

https://www.newseum.org/exhibits/online/yes-virginia-there-is-a-santa-claus/.

Accessed. January 5, 2022.

Dear, William, dir. Santa Who? 2000. Teleplay by Debra Frank and Steve L. Hayes.

Featuring Leslie Nielsen, Steven Eckholdt, Robyn Lively, and Max Marrow.

Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Productions, DVD. 2001.

Dégh, Linda. 1971. “The ‘Belief Legend’ in Modern Society: Form, Function, and

Relationship to Other Genres.” American Folk Legend: A Symposium. Wayland

D. Hand, ed. Berkley, California: University of California Press, 55-68.

---. 2001. Legend and Belief: Dialectstics of a Folklore Genre. Bloomington, Indiana:

Indiana University Press.

---. 1996. “What Is A Belief Legend?” Folklore 107: 33–46.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1260912.

Dégh, Linda, and Andrew Vá zsonyi. 1981. “Legend and Belief.” Folklore Genres. Dan

Ben-Amos, ed. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 93-123.

Dobkin, David, dir. Fred Claus. 2007. Screenplay by Fan Fogelman. Featuring Vince

Vaughn, Paul Giamatti. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros, DVD. 2008.

Dougherty, Michael, dir. Krampus. 2015. Screenplay by Todd Casey, Michael

Dougherty, Zach Shields. Featuring Adam Scott, Toni Collette, David Koechner.

California: Universal Pictures, DVD. 2016.

Dunham, Duwayne, dir. Santa and Pete. 1999. Teleplay Greg Taylor. Featuring Hume

Cronyn, James Earl Jones, and Flex Alexander. Lethbridge, AB, Canada:

Madison Avenue Productions Inc., DVD, 2018.

Ebert, Philip A., and Martin Smith. 2012. “Introduction: Outright Belief and Degrees of

Belief.” Dialectica 66, no. 3 (September): 305–8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/

42971300.

Eriksson, Lina, and Alan Hájek. 2007. “What Are Degrees of Belief?” Studia Logica: An

International Journal for Symbolic Logic 86, no. 2 (July):183–213.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40210750.

eruounico. “J.R.R.T.: A Film Portrait of J.R.R. Tolkien-1996.” YouTube video, 01:47:48.

November 8, 2014. Accessed March 22, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=rNqVqzIxi3A

Favreau, Joh, dir. Elf. 2003. Screenplay by David Berenbaum. Featuring Will Ferrell,

James Caan, and Bob Newhart. Burbank, CA: New Line Cinema, DVD. 2006.

Foster, Michael Dylan, and Jeffery A. Tolbert. 2016. The Folkloresque: Reframing

Folklore in a Popular Culture World. Utah: Utah State University Press.

Gatling, Benjamin. 2020. "There Isn't Belief, Just Believing: Rethinking Belief as a

Keyword of Folklore Studies." Journal of American Folklore 133, no. 529: 307-

328.

Goldstein, Diane E., Sylvia Ann Grider, and Jeannie Banks Thomas. 2007. Haunting

Experiences: Ghosts in contemporary Folklore. Utah: Utah State University

Press.

Groban, Josh. 2004. “Believe.” Track 4 on The Polar Express. Warner Sunset, compact

disc.

Hancock, John Lee, dir. Saving Mr. Banks. 2013. Screenplay by Kelly Marcel and Sue

Smith. Featuring Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney

Studios Home Entertainment, DVD. 2014.

Hogan, P.J., dir. Peter Pan. 2003. Screenplay by P.J. Hogan and Michael Goldenberg.

Featuring Jeremy Sumpter and Jason Isaacs. Burbank, CA: Universal Pictures.

DVD. 2008.

Huber, Franz. 2009. “Belief and Degrees of Belief.” Degrees of Belief. Edited by Franz

Huber and Christoph Schmidt-Petri. Germany: Springer Netherlands. Vol. 342: 1-

33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9198-8.

Hufford, David J. 1995. “Beings Without Bodies: An Experience-Centered Theory of the

Belief in Spirits.” In Out Of The Ordinary: Folklore and the Supernatural, edited

by Barbara Walker, 11–45. University Press of Colorado. Accessed: February 9,

2022. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt46nwn8.6.

---. 1982. The Terror that Comes in the Night: An Experience-Centered Study of

Supernatural Assault Traditions. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

---.1982. “Traditions of Disbelief.” New York Folklore. 8, no. 3 (Winter): 47-55.

Hume, David. 1878. A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the

Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects; and Dialogues

Concerning Natural Religion. 2 Volumes. United Kingdom: Longmans, Green

and Company.

James, William. 2010. The Will to Believe: And Other Essays in Popular Philosophy.

Auckland: Floating Press. October 26, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Jarrott, Charles, dir. Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus. 1991. Screenplay by Val De

Crowl and Andrew J. Fenady. Featuring Richard Thomas, Ed Asner, Charles

Bronson, and Katharine Isabelle. Los Angeles, CA: Shout! Factory, DVD. 2017.

Jorgensen, Jeana. 2021. Folklore 101: An Accessible Introduction to Folklore Studies.

Kaytis, Clay, dir. The Christmas Chronicles. 2018. Screenplay Matt Lieberman.

Featuring Kurt Russell, Darby Camp, Judah Lewis. 1492 Pictures.

https://www.netflix.com/title/80199682.

Kenan, Gil dir. A Boy Called Christmas. 2021. Screenplay by Ol Parker and Gil Kenan.

Featuring Michiel Huisman, Maggie Smith, and Kristen Wiig. Blueprint Pictures.

https://www.netflix.com/title/81029733.

Kiefer, Greg, dir. Stalking Santa. 2006. Screenplay by Daryn Tufts and Matt Whitaker.

Featuring Christ Clark, Daryn Tufts, and Lisa Clark. Salt Lake City, Utah: Excel

Entertainment Group, DVD. 2008.

Lanskaya, Yelena, dir. The Santa Incident. 2010. Teleplay by Jeffery Scott Simmons. Los

Angeles, CA: RHI Entertainment, DVD. 2011.

Lembeck, Michael, dir. The Santa Clause 2. 2002. Screenplay by Don Rhymer, Cinco

Paul, and Ken Daurio. Featuring Tim Allen, Spencer Breslin, and Elizabeth

Mitchell. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Pictures, DVD. 2003.

---. The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause. 2006. Screenplay by Ed Decter and John J.

Strauss. Featuring Tim Allen, Martin Short, Elizabeth Mitchell. Burbank, CA:

Walt Disney Pictures, DVD. 2007.

Lieberman, Robert, dir. All I Want for Christmas. 1991. Screenplay by Thom Eberhardt

and Richard Cramer. Featuring Harley Jane Kozak, Jamey Sheridan, Ethan

Embry, and Leslie Neilson. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Pictures, DVD. 2017.

Light New Fires. “C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien on the Power of Fiction.” YouTube

video, 00:13:49. June 19, 2017. Accessed February 5, 2022. https://www.youtube

.com/watch?v=WoAE15gtEzg.

Lundholm, Helge. 1936. The Psychology of Belief. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Magliocco, Sabina. 2012. “Beyond Belief: Context, Rationality and Participatory

Consciousness.” Western Folklore 71, no. 1 (Winter): 5–24. http://www.jstor.org/

stable/24550769.

Marshall, Rob, dir. Mary Poppins Returns. 2018. Screenplay by David Magee and Rob

Marshall. Featuring Emily Blunt, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Ben Whishaw.

Burbank, CA: Walk Disney Pictures, DVD. 2019.

Mathews-Pett, Amelia. 2018. “’Full on Toy Story’: Exploring the Belief in Object

Sentience in Western Culture.” Master’s thesis, Utah State University. Accessed

February 6, 2022. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7085/.

---. 2019. “I Want It to Go to a Good Home: Animism in Western Relationships with

Personal Possessions.” Performance Research: A Journal of the Performing Arts,

24:6, 86-94, https://doi.org/10.1080/13528165.2019.1686585.

Mayfield, Les, dir. Miracle on 34

Street. 1994. Screenplay by George Seaton and John

Hughes. Featuring Richard Attenborough, Elizabeth Perkins, Dylan McDermott,

and Mara Wilson. Los Angeles, CA: Twentieth Century Fox, DVD. 2000.

McNeill, Lynne S. 2013. Folklore Rules: A Fun, Quick, and Useful Introduction to the

Field of Academic, Folklore Studies. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press.

Mechling, Jay. 2006. “Solo Folklore.” Western Folklore 65, no. 4 (Fall): 435–53.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25474824.

Mullen, Patrick B. 2000. “Belief and the American Folk.” The Journal of American

Folklore 113, no. 448 (Spring): 119–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/541285.

Oring, Elliott. 2012. Just Folklore: Analysis, Interpretation, Critique. Los Angeles, CA:

Cantilever Press.

Osborn, Mark and John Stevenson, dir.. Kung Fu Panda. 2008Screenplay by Jonathan

Aibel and Glenn Berger. Featuring Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, and Randall Kuk

Kim. Glendale, CA: DreamWorks Animation. DVD. 2008

Pasquin, John, dir. The Santa Clause. 1994. Screenplay by Leo Benvenuti and Steve

Rudnick, Featuring Tim Allen, Eric Lloyd, Wendy Crewson, and Judge Reinhold,

Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Pictures. DVD. 1994.

Quine W. V. and J.S. Ullian. 1978. The Web of Belief. Second edition. New York:

Random House.

“re-.” n.d. Online Etymology Dictionary. Online Etymology Dictionary. Accessed,

January 28, 2022. https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=re-.

Seaton, George, dir. Miracle on 34

Street. 1947. Screenplay by George Seaton.

Featuring Edmund Gwenn, Maureen O’Hara, and John Payne. Los Angeles, CA:

Twentieth Century Fox. DVD. 2017.

Smith, Christopher, dir. Get Santa. 2014. Screenplay by Christopher Smith. Featuring

Jim Broadbent, Rafe Spall, and Kit Conner. Liza Marshall and Tony Scott.

Vancouver, Canada: DVD. 2015.

Spielberg, Steven, dir. Hook. 1991. Screenplay by James V Hart and Nick Castle.

Featuring Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman. Culver City, CA: TriStar

Pictures, DVD. 2000.

Stevenson, Robert, dir. Mary Poppins. 1964. Screenplay by Bill Walsh and Don DaGradi.

Featuring Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, and David Thomlinson. Burbank, CA:

Walk Disney Studios, DVD. 2004.

---. “The Miracle on 34

Street.” The 20

Century-Fox Hour. 1955. Teleplay John

Monks Jr. Featuring Thomas Mitchell, Sandy Descher, Macdonald Carey, and

Teresa. Osiris Entertainment, Tubi. Accessed January 5, 2022. https://tubitv.com/

movies/314262/miracle-on-34th-street?start=true&utm_source=google-feed

&tracking=google-feed.

Szwarc, Jeannot, dir. Santa Claus: The Movie. 1985. Screenplay by David Newman and

Leslie Newman. Featuring Dudley Moore, John Lithgow, and David Huddleston.

Culver City, CA: TriStar Pictures, DVD. 2010.

Tapping, Amanda, dir. The Magicians. Season 1, episode 11, “Remedial Battle Magic,”,

Teleplay by Leah Fong, featuring Jason Ralph, Olivia Taylor Dudley, Arjun

Gupta, Hale Appleman, and Summer Bishil, aired on March 28 2016, SiFi, DVD.

2022.

Templar, Nelson. “Carl Gustav Jung Tribute.” YouTube video, 00:04:19. March 5, 2022.

Accessed, March 22, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI3qDewKCdk.

Thomas, Jeannie Banks. 2015. Putting the Supernatural in Its Place: Folklore, the

Hypermodern, and the Ethereal. Utah: The University of Utah Press.

Thompson, Tok, and Gregory Schrempp. 2020. The Truth of Myth. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel. 2004. Letters from Father Christmas. Baillie Tolkien, ed.

Boston, MA: Mariner Books

100

---. 2001. “On Fairy-Stories.” Tree and Leaf. London Bridge Street, London:

HarperCollinsPublishers.

Vince, Robert, dir. Santa Buddies: The Legend of Santa Paws. 2009. Screenplay by

Kevin DiCicco. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Home Entertainment, DVD. 2009.

---. 2010. The Search for Santa Paws. Screenplay by Robert Vince, Anna McRoberts,

Paul Tamasy. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Home Entertainment, DVD. 2010.

Volk, Steve. 2011. Fringe•ology: How I tried to Explain Away the Unexplainable—And

Couldn’t. New York: HarperOne.

Werner, Peter, dir. Call Me Claus. 2001. Teleplay by Sara Bernstein, Gregory Bernstein,

and Brian Bird. Featuring Whoopi Goldberg, Nigel Hawthorne, and Brian Stokes

Mitchell. Culver City, CA: Columbia TriStar Television, DVD, 2001.

Zemeckis, Robert, dir. The Polar Express. 2004. Screenplay by Robert Zemeckis and

William Broyles Jr. Featuring Tom Hanks. Beverly Hills, CA: Castle Rock

Entertainment, DVD, 2006.

101

APPENDIX: FILMOGRAPHY

102

In the study of folklore, Santa Claus is recognized as a legendary figure: he and

his legend(s) which are transmitted both formally and informally are placed in the genre

of legend/legendry. Based on Linda Dé gh arguments about legend and belief i.e., belief is

the core of legends/narratives/stories, meaning that the more believable the story is, the

stronger the stronger the legend can/will be. The following list of movies present

narratives or elements that help fill in, explain, expand, expound, and address the legend

of Santa Claus and presents those stories to the popular culture. Each move adds to the

legend of Santa Claus. And, with each passing year, new items/examples can be added to

the list. (It should be noted that not every movie that presents a “Santa” is included in the

following list.

For example, the movie Bad Santa is not listed because it does not

actually deal with Santa Claus and/or belief per se. It depicts an inappropriate guy

playing Santa Claus). Still, the movies presented/listed adds or contributes something to

the legend of Santa Claus and/or deals with an aspect of belief.

Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town. 1970. Dir. Jules Bass and Arthur Rankin Jr.

The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus. 1985. Dir. Jules Bass and Arthur Rankin

Jr.

One Magical Christmas. 1985. Dir. Phillip Borsos.

Santa Claus: The Movie. 1985. Dir. Jeannot Szwarc.

Earnest Saves Christmas. 1988. Dir. John R. Cherry III.

All I Want for Christmas. 1991. Dir. Robert Lieberman.

Santa and Pete. 1999. Dir. Duwayne Dunham.

The Life and Adventure of Santa Claus. 2000. Dir. Glen Hill.

Call Me Claus. 2001. Dir. Peter Werner

103

The Santa Clause 2. 2002. Dir. Michael Lembeck.

Elf. 2003. Dir. Jon Favreau.

Stalking Santa. 2006. Dir. Greg Kiefer.

The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause. 2006. Dir. Michael Lembeck.

Fred Claus. 2007. Dir. David Dobkin.

Santa Buddies. 2009. Dir. Robert Vince.

The Santa Incident. 2010. Dir. Yelena Lanskaya.

Santa Paws. 2010. Robert Vince.

Arthur Christmas. 2011. Dir. Sara Smith and Barry Cook.

Krampus. 2015. Dir. Michael Dougherty.

The Christmas Chronicles. 2018. Dir. Clay Kaytis.

The Christmas Chronicles 2. 2020. Dir. Chris Columbus.

A Boy Called Christmas. 2021. Dir. Gil Kenan.

Notes

It should be noted that the legend and narrative of Santa Claus is constantly evolving. For an

example, Santa used to be pictured smoking a pipe. In current depictions, Santa is more-or-less restricted

from smoking or even being pictured with a pipe. Also, in current conversations concerning gender and

identity, groups have suggested that Santa become genderless, and in 2021, commercials were broadcasted

of Santa being homosexual or gay. So along with his narrative evolving, the figure himself keeps evolving

as well.

Although this movie does not directly address Santa Claus completely i.e., he is not the center of

the movie but makes an appearance, this movie illustrates how a woman learns to rebelieve in people, the

Christmas spirit, and even in Santa Claus. It even illustrates how much faith, trust, and believe that children

put in Santa when a little girl asks Santa to “make her daddy not dead.” She believes that Santa can bring

her father back to life.

Although this movie does not exactly focus solely on Santa Claus or fully present the cycle of

belief, it does show how much belief that a child/children put in Santa Claus when a little girl asks Santa to

get her divorced parents back together.

Call me Claus is an interesting movie in many ways. Not only does it add to the mythos of the

legend of Santa Claus when the current Santa has to find a replacement as part of his terms of tenure, but

his replacement is a female/woman. That puts a nontraditional spin to the dynamism of Santa Claus. The

104

movie also illustrates the cycle of belief. Lucy Cullins believed in Santa Claus as a little child; however,

she transitions to disbelief when her Christmas wish that her father would come home from the war is not

answered/granted i.e., her father is killed, and she (along with her mother) receive the news on Christmas

Eve. Lucy Cullins is the last person on Santa’s list to replace him. Over the course of the movie, Santa has

to convince her that he is the real Santa Claus. Eventually, Cullins transitions from unbelief to rebelief and

accepts to become the next Santa. Essentially, Cullins illustrates a full cycle of belief. That also illustrates

that anyone can be or become Santa Claus.

Although there can be an analysis of a cycle of belief present in the movie Elf, there is an

important aspect that not only deals with the aspect of belief and believing in Santa Claus, such belief adds

to the mythos of the legend of Santa Claus. Towards the end of the movie, Buddy and his family find Santa

Claus in Central Park, New York City, New York. As Buddy helps Santa get the turbine engine put back on

the sleigh to help it fly, Santa asks Buddy’s little brother, Michael, to open a hatch on the sleigh. Michael

asks if Santa is the “real Santa.” Santa replies, “Ya never can tell, kid.” He then asks him what he wants for

Christmas. Michael says, a skate board. Santa says that Michael does not want just a skateboard but a “real

Huff board” and shows him the list. He tells Michael to look in his bag of toys. When he pulls out the Huff

skateboard the sleigh hovers off the ground, and the “Clausomiter” lights up. When Michael asks what

happened, Santa replied, “You made my sleigh fly.” Michael asks, “What do you mean?” Santa says,

“Well, before the turbine days, this baby used to run solely on Christmas Spirit. You believed in me. You

made my sleigh fly.” Michael gets an idea to get news cameras to show that he is the real Santa and get

people to believe, but Santa replies, “Christmas Spirit is about believing not seeing. If the whole world saw

me, all would be lost.” Later on in the movie, Michael and Jovie get a group of New Yorkers to start

singing Christmas carols, specifically, they sing “Santa Claus is Coming to Town.” This starts to encourage

Christmas Spirit. Simultaneously, Buddy and Santa are trying to get the sleigh up in the air. They try to

engage the turbine engine, but it gets knocked off. Santa thinks that they will never get the sleigh off the

ground. However, more and more Christmas spirit grows which is indicated on the Clausomiter. The last

person that has to be convinced to believe in Santa Claus and the Christmas spirit is Buddies father who is a

skeptic. Once he starts singing, Santa and Buddy flight right over the crowd which causes the Clausomiter

to read 100% Christmas spirit. This not only adds to the mythos of how Santa gets his sleigh to fly, but it

shows an aspect of rebelief in adult unbeliever/disbelievers in the crowd.

What is interesting in this movie is that the magic of Christmas is produced by the magic

icicle/crystal which is sustained by belief and Christmas Spirit. Within the movie, Santa and Santa Paws

(Santa’s dog) go and see the magic icicle melting at an astonishing rate. The dialog goes:

Santa Paws: “If the great Christmas icicle continues to melt at this rate, Christmas Magic stored in

the ice crystal will vanish.”

Santa: “These days, children and their pups just don’t believe like they used to. Their focus is on

themselves, instead of on giving to others less fortunate.”

Santa Paws: “If they don’t understand the true meaning of Christmas, the icicle has no chance.”

Santa: “I’m afraid that’s something we just can’t teach.”

Throughout this narrative, not only does it address belief, but it has a test of true belief similar to the test in

The Polar Express. In this example, the test is that one can hear animals speak if one truly believes. It also

shows the cycle of belief with the character Stan Cruge. By the end of the movie, he transitions from

unbelief to belief.

This narrative is similar to Santa Who? is that it tells the story of Santa forgetting who he is and

whose health declines which threatens Christmas. When asked by a child if he is the real Santa, Santa

replies, “I don’t know if I’m the real Santa or not.” What is really important in this narrative is Santa’s

understanding of children and their belief and/or Christmas spirit. He says, “I’m just an ambassador for the

Santa Cause. One of many spreading the Christmas spirit to children around the world, reminding them of

what’s important.” This is important because it presents the idea that Santa, Santa’s helpers or

ambassadors, all work to spread Christmas spirit. It also goes along with the idea that anyone can be Santa.

There is also a statement made about the belief and spirit of Christmas in regards to children. Kate Huckle

says, “Yeah, Bud, you really seem like you enjoy listening to the children.” Santa (Bud) says, “I do.

Someone once told me that the spirit of Christmas is embodied in the hearts of children, untouched as yet

by the fears, doubts and disappointments of the adult world.” This story also has a similar aspect as Santa

105

Buddies and Polar Express in that if someone has true Christmas spirit and truly believes, they can hear

Santa Paws talk. It should also be noted that in this movie, the children at the orphanage sing a musical

number entitled “I Do Believe in Christmas. The lyrics explain the childlike belief in the magic of

Christmas and Santa Claus.

Although, the movie Krampus does not directly deal with Santa Claus, it does illustrate aspects

of belief. In the beginning of the movie, Max shows and exhibits a state of belief. However, he loses his

belief and wishes that Christmas did not happen which more-or-less summons Krampus. Not only does

Max exhibit the state of unbelief, his grandmother, Omi, tells the story of when she also wished for

Christmas to go away. She says:

Please, listen. I must tell you something, to all of you. It started with the wind. On a cold,

winter night, much like this, it was almost Christmas. But this Christmas was darker, less

cheerful. But, I still believed in Santa and magic and miracles and the hope that we could

find joy again. But, our village had given up on miracles and on each other. They had

forgotten the spirit of Christmas, the sacrifice of giving. And my family was no different.

I tried to help them to believe again. But, we were no longer the loving family I

remembered. They too had given up, and eventually so did I. And for the first time, I

didn’t wish for a miracle. I wished for them to go away. A wish I would come to regret.

And that night, in the darkness of a howling blizzard, I got my wish. I knew that Saint

Nicholas was not coming this year. Instead, it was a darker more ancient spirit. The

shadow of Saint Nicholas. It was Krampus. And, as he had, for thousands of years,

Krampus came not to reward but to punish; not to give but to take—he and his helpers. I

could only listen as they dragged my family into the underworld knowing that I would be

next. But, Krampus didn’t take me that night. He left me as a reminder of what happens

when hope is lost, when belief is forgotten, and when Christmas spirit dies.

This illustrates not only a state of belief/rebelief, but it shows the wisdom of belief and a cautionary

warning of what happens when belief is lost or forgotten. It is important that Omi says that she tried to help

her village to “believe again” because that is the exact aspect or definition of rebelief.

This movie is quite important not only because it adds more elements to the legend and narrative

of Santa Claus, but it encourages belief. Nicholas, who become Santa Claus, goes in search of magic and

hope that he can bring back to the kingdom. When he tries to find the land of the elves in Elfhelm, he

encounters Father Topo who explains how to see the elf kingdom. He says, “To see something, you must

believe in it. Really believe.” This works on the premise that believing is seeing. It is an encouragement of

unconditional belief. Even if within the short trailer to the movie, the narrator says, “Long ago, nobody

knew about Christmas until a boy showed the world how to believe in the impossible.”