Many of us may be familiar with the presidential impersonations of Steve Bridges (George W Bush) and Barack Obama (Reggie Brown), and have probably shared a good laugh at the uncanny likeness with which comedians of today are able to dissect our nation’s chief of state.
Perhaps more readers might consumer regular helpings of comedic pundits such as Jon Stewart, or Stephen Colbert. Even when we try not to laugh, the shocking “spot on” reflections of our political stereotypes and perceptions can leak a chuckle out of us. As we discussed in posts past, if surprise and the ridiculous are at the core of humor, these comedians pierce straight to our funny bones with their incredible ability to surprise us with the resemblance to figures know in the public sphere, and the ridiculousness with which they share the “transparent thoughts” of leader’s who’s hearts must otherwise be so guarded and shut.
Political satire has existed since the earliest of times,[1] and continues to seem to creatively flow from, and entertain, the human mind. However, we also know that this humor is at the least not edifying, and at the worst, terrible disastrously deprecating, and perhaps bordering libel.
Yet, political satire has lived for millennia as a medium for communicating actions of injustice and evil, a method for exposing corruption and bringing this information to the public. Sexual scandal, embezzlement, deception, coercion, and fraud are all evils that should not exist in government. If political satire can expose this knowledge, it is objectively a good thing… is it not?
Today I look to challenge what may be a deeply embedded gem of comfort for many believers. Yet, aware of the consequences and aware of the benefits, let me ask and discuss some pointed reflections on political satire.
What is the intent of satire?
It is possible to argue that the intent of satire is two-fold: both to expose and to publicize (often biased) perspectives and happenings to the rest of the on-looking nation, and like all comedy, perhaps it’s to heal the soul (by means of the ways that only laughter can).
However, is this really the intent of satire? Is it chiefly to be informational, and do its contents and style reflect this as the chief value of this form of communication? I would contend that the answer is no: political satire is far less about education, and more about character degradation, than anything else. One must ask- of all the various means of communication that exist, certainly other forms of communication (researched journalism, interviews, electronic messages, etc) are far more effective at relaying and promoting critical bits of education. The chief component of political satire is not it’s presentation of the facts, but it’s guise to get a laugh and a rise at the critical expense of another.
What is the outcome of satire?
It is important to evaluate satire not simply by its intentions, but by it’s accomplishments. One of the most crucial questions any believer should ask is “what good is this person/event/situation/ ect producing?”
One might think that the dispersed information and the penetrating effect of humor mike make satire a very effective role at motivating people to activism. However, this hardly seems to be the case. In an interesting read by Ted Gournelos and Viveca Greene, A Decade of Dark Humor is a sociological look at the way popular humor has been used to allow an emerging generation (especially millennials) deal with post 9/11 America. Case studies through Saturday Night Live and YouTube and other social media show that satire and sarcasm increasingly have become the grid through which a disillusioned popular has forced themselves to handle a government they feel they cannot trust, and a complex world of conflict that activates like Iraqi Freedom show cannot be resolved with a magic pill or a little bit of muscle. In this study, it is interesting that satire does not beget activism. It does not rally change. Instead, satire begets despondent passivity.
If this is the case, one must ask: on utilitarian terms alone, how can satire possibly be the best thing for the political and social health of our society? Certainly, if all words and actions of libel and grievous insult hurled by some are not enough to agitate the Christian soul when they think about “enjoying” political satire on any spectrum, considering how unsuccessful it is at accomplishing good should be room for Christian conscious and concern. Thus, satire results in the opposite of what Scripture instructs- which is to have sober, vigilant, and engaged hearts, not minds that taste cheap thrills and sit is soggy standstills.
I am open to my philosopher friends providing me a more accurate or historically supportable paradigm, but if Christian Ethics can be boiled down to choosing the optimal experience, the choice that promotes “life abundant” through live with one another, much political satire is hard pressured to find a mantle in home of a believer’s heart. And ultimately, if all horizontal ethics ultimately tie to the ethic of giving glory to God, satire still seems to have little room for reflecting that glory in ways that are as free as possible from the affects of the fall?
This post isn’t mean to impose new rules. The church doesn’t need an even skinnier-fit kerugma of morality. However, the freedom and powers involved with it that come with knowing Christ should cause us to seriously, and reflectively, as one’s self: how much am I settling? Have we learned to be completely satisfied with the cheap tricks of Western political satire, and completely ignored the abundantly rich pleasures that come in savoring delight and laughter in HIM.
My challenge to you is to not adopt another man’s rules, but instead, to wrestle with another man’s reflections. Because, if comedy is a creation of God, let us learn to deliberate choose to NOT live and play in that scene that C.S. Lewis paints of children seeming so delighted to play in a cheap, bug infested, and muddy sandbox, when the road to amazing splendor and grandness is right behind us.
[1] A vague statement, but the oldest documented example I have stumbled across in simple research is Aristophanes, who targeted leaders like Cleon, and even institutional religion.
Leave a Reply
Your email is safe with us.