As an art form, satire has existed since Antiquity. Several Greek playwrights wrote works mocking the conventions of their time. It has endured throughout western history as a form of cultural critique. Today, thanks to television and the internet, there are endless sources of satirical pleasure. My question is this: is satire necessary? Or beyond that, is it even relevant?
The question that must be asked is whether or not satire has an impact. To what extent does it have the ability to effect change? Does pointing out the flaws of a particular time and place have any capacity to change that which it examines? One of the fundamental flaws of satire is that most often the only people who understand its meaning are the ones who already agree with the satire’s criticism. To the rest it comes across as crude or stupid. A perfect modern example of this is the show South Park. South Park is arguably one of the most brilliantly satirical productions in the history of television. Yet it is frequently criticized and reviled for its content. To those who don’t understand its message, it is simply a despicable program that’s nothing more than cartoon-ish violence and toilet humor.
Inasmuch as satire raises valid points about society, it is essentially just preaching to the choir. How can one hope to point out the error of cultural norms when most people are firmly entrenched in that culture? That task is really all but impossible. So it would seem that satire is largely irrelevant due to the typically small size of its audience. Moreover, satire, by necessity, tends to be extremely topical and therefore only pertinent to a particular time and place. What does it matter to today’s society that Aristophanes made fun of the Sophists? Thus, it would appear that satire lacks the longevity of other art forms to make it culturally important.
Despite these seeming shortcomings, however, satire is one of the most absolutely essential elements of a free society. It is the satirists who point out when we, as a society, are straying from our moral high ground. Satirists, often, serve as the harbingers of error in society. While journalists uncover the horrible events going on in the world, it is the satirist who makes us confront the evils that we ourselves commit. As people, we tend to take for granted that our convictions are most often in the right, and the satirist stands against that notion to ensure that at least someone knows that we are not always acting in an appropriate way. Take Jonathan Swift’s “A Model Proposal,” or Mark Twain’s “Huck Finn.” These two works unrepentantly illuminate the ills of their respective societies. I cannot imagine a news report more powerful than those finely crafted works of satire. It is the honesty and humanism of satire that make it so valuable, in that it forces the reader/viewer to reflect upon his own shortcomings.
More importantly, regardless of how wide the audience, the mere fact that satire exists is one of the most telling indicators of a free society. If there were suddenly no satirical productions I would be very afraid. The importance of being able to criticize and lampoon those in power cannot be understated. And though satirists very rarely affect any real change in the world, the simple fact that they are allowed to produce their work assures us that we live in a free society.
In conclusion, it is readily apparent that satire has never been, nor will ever become, a major force of change in society. It is simply too limited by its necessarily esoteric nature. This is not, however, a weakness. The satirist’s voice need not be heard by everyone, it merely needs to be heard. For once the voice of criticism is silent, society has truly gone astray.
April 18, 2008 at 9:37 am
First of all, sorry your posts show up in tiny text, I’ll fix that asap. Second, good post. I think your point gets right to the Frost quote at the top of the Society page.
An interesting thing that comes to mind after reading this is how satirist do or do not affect change. The politics page has a pic of Socrates taking the hemloct. Socrates was a bit of a saterist in that he basically took everyone’s point or belief and then questioned it until it became such a joke that no one would believe the rationality of it. And for that he got killed.
But what’s interesting is that on the politics page, where we have Socrates’ pic, we have only 4 posts whereas here and the sports page we can put stuff up every 3 days or so.
To me that means that the satirist has the easy job in the equation. He just points out the flaws. What’s left for the rest of us is to address those flaws. And that is where I think socieyt has really failed in the last 40-50 years. So the question is, we have the satirists point all this stuff out, but what should we do? or will we not do anything but laugh at the saterists?
Or we could just feed Matt Stone and Trey Parker hemlock.
April 18, 2008 at 11:56 am
First, I wouldn’t say that satirists have an easy job, as they are often reviled by the majority for pointing out society’s flaws. However, I agree with your point. And it makes me wonder further, keeping in line with what I said about satire’s limited impact, that perhaps because satire is almost always in the form of entertainment that it will never be a catalyst for change. Perhaps that’s why we sit back and laugh knowingly at their assertions but never really act on anything. Moreover, satire rarely explicitly provides an alternative path for us to take and settles for merely illuminating the flaws. It was a good 75 years before America took the racism of Huck Finn to heart. And I don’t know that the English ever really cared about the suffering of the Irish in “A Modest Proposal.” So perhaps it is only with decades of hindsight that satire can truly achieve its own end. So maybe we should make them drink hemlock.
April 19, 2008 at 12:42 am
First of all, great post. I completely agree with you on the importance of satire. I always loved the Larry Flint and Jerry Falwell feud over the “satirical” material Flint printed in Hustler. One thing though about the impact, or lack thereof. What about political cartoons?
I guess the first thing would be to determine whether or not these actually classify as satire. I guess I could see how someone may argue that they do not fully meet the definitions of satire, but they are defiantly satirical in nature. Assuming they do have some sort of satirical content let’s continue.
Nowadays political cartoons don’t really have an impact or really make sense a lot of the time, but what about the cartoons during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars? I think many of these cartoons not only were quite important in representing a free society, but also important in that by pointing out the flaws in society they helped to create the revolutionary mindset that was vital to our overall freedom.
postscript: This comment was neither written nor endorsed by JJ Abrams
April 19, 2008 at 1:08 am
That is an excellent point. Political cartoons are perhaps one of the most accessible forms of satire. In fact, I can’t really conceive of a political cartoon that isn’t, in some way, satirical. I’ve always loved the work of Thomas Nast, and it can definitely be argued that his cartoons had an impact. And even though print media has lost a significant amount of its influence there are still terrific political cartoonists such as Olyphant and Gary Trudeau. I think it would be hard to argue that Doonesbury isn’t culturally relevant. In fact, I think political cartoons might be one of the only truly effective forms of satire because of the frequency with which they are produced.
And I bet JJ Abrams would make a political cartoon that would blow our fucking minds.
April 19, 2008 at 4:40 am
The political cartoons thing is interesting bc here in South AFrica they have this famous cartoonist, Zapiro or something, who does stuff for this weekly magazine the Mail and Gaurdian (acutally, i link to it ont he main and political pages and i bet you can find his stuff there). Anyway, people here really dig his stuff and do take it to heart I think.
This makes me think that satire is a nation or society looking to take action or make changes can be a catalyst for change or at least be meaningfully thought provoking to encourage dialogue.
Meanwhile, in the US no one is really looking to change anything so we all just sit back and laugh at our flaws and then continue on unchanged.
Of course, eventually I think SA will end up having the same social malasie that we have in the US (they’re already heading that way) so Zapiro will be less and less socially relevant and increasingly nothing more than a funny read.
July 23, 2008 at 11:27 am
[...] attention for what it is). Thankfully, Brad wrote a good post revisiting the issue of satire which he’s written about before. This time he looks at the issue in relation to the New Yorker cover. It’s good stuff, so go [...]