When we recorded the Jaspers episode with Paul Provenza I had the good fortune to be in his home of Los Angeles. I was able to meet up with him and his assistant for the recording and along with my wife we met for a meal several days later. I had been re-reading his book ¡Satiristas! and he and I got into a spirited discussion of whether comics, specifically the satirist, have any kind of obligation to their audience or their art. I had trouble formulating an argument in favor of my vague intuition that they do and we parted before I articulated anything to my satisfaction. This is an attempt to do so.
¡Satiristas! is a series of interviews with comic performers and writers with some degree of satirical bent. The main question Paul poses in the book is whether satirical comedy is meant to simply entertain (get a laugh) or to change people's minds (or more broadly change the world). Typically he puts the question at first positively to the particular individual - 'Do you try to change minds or entertain?' and follows with a broader normative version - 'Should satirical comedy try and change minds or just entertain?' Surprising to me, a majority of the comics profess to solely be interested in getting a laugh. Something about that just doesn't sit well with me.
The dictionary.com entry on satire reads:
See irony. burlesque, caricature, parody, travesty. Satire, lampoon refer to literary forms in which vices or follies are ridiculed. Satire, the general term, often emphasizes the weakness more than the weak person, and usually implies moral judgment and corrective purpose
This dictionary of literary devices posits a more explicitly normative structure:
Satire is a technique employed by writers to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of an individual or a society by using humor, irony, exaggeration or ridicule. It intends to improve humanity by criticizing its follies and foibles. A writer in a satire uses fictional characters, which stand for real people, to expose and condemn their corruption.
A writer may point a satire toward a person, a country or even the entire world. Usually, a satire is a comical piece of writing which makes fun of an individual or a society to expose its stupidity and shortcomings. In addition, he hopes that those he criticizes will improve their characters by overcoming their weaknesses. [emphasis mine]
Perhaps a more credible and I think more useful source is A Glossary of Literary Terms, 9th Edition. Ed. M.H. Abrams. Thomson Wadsworth. There are two entries of interest: the first is under "Comedy" and the second is the entry on "Satire" itself.
(2) Satiric comedy ridicules political policies or philosophical doctrines, or else attacks deviations from the social order by making ridiculous the violators of its standards of morals or manners. (See satire.)
Satire can be described as the literary art of diminishing or derogating a subject by making it ridiculous and evoking toward it attitudes of amusement, contempt, scorn, or indignation. It differs from the comic in that comedy evokes laughter mainly as an end in itself, while satire derides; that is, it uses laughter as a weapon, and against a butt that exists outside the work itself. That butt may be an individual (in "personal satire"), or a type of person, a class, an institution, a nation, or even...the entire human race.
The role of satire is to ridicule or criticize those vices in the society, which the writer considers a threat to civilization. The writer considers it his obligation to expose these vices for the betterment of humanity. Therefore, the function of satire is not to make others laugh at persons or ideas they make fun of. It intends to warn the public and to change their opinions about the prevailing corruption/conditions in society. [emphasis mine]
There is a lot of interesting stuff in here to unpack. Let's begin with the notion that laughter can be an end-in-itself or be used as a weapon. The presumption is that laughter used as a weapon - satiric derision - intends to cause harm to the target. How would that harm be caused exactly? In the case of an individual it would be shame or embarrassment that causes emotional or mental anguish. In the case of a class, institution, society or race - what? How would any of those things be harmed? I contend that they would only be harmed insofar as the individuals who constitute those groups were harmed; that is, only to the extent that the relevant individuals were embarrassed or shamed. Which of course becomes problematic when individual(s) don't feel either in the face of satire.
At another level satire can be intended to produce change for the better or improvement. A prerequisite for this to function properly is that a) the subject of the satire can change and b) the subject itself is (at least by the standards of the group or society) immoral, corrupt, depraved, etc. or minimally foolish or absurd. Something that cannot be changed is structurally incapable of moral value and to make fun of it is simply cruelty. Consider the difference between satirizing a person's attitude and their physical handicap. The mechanism for betterment of the individual or the society is in pointing out the thing that is considered 'bad' by the standards of the group and motivating personal behavioral change through shame/embarrassment or social change through opinion that impacts legislation, policy or behavior. This again is problematic if the target or audience for the satire doesn't see the subject as bad or change as possible.
These address the structure and target of satire. The other side of the equation involves the satirist. First, there is the question of authorial (comedic) intention. It seems to me that there are a number of possible levels of intention, none exclusive of any other.
- Egocentric - desire to get a laugh to fulfill a personal need such as validation
- Altruistic - desire to make others laugh for relief, amusement or entertainment
- Critical - desire to use satire to make an intellectual or conceptual point about the status quo
- Moral - desire to use laughter to change other's opinions and by extension the society or world
The latter two are related though I see a difference between the last two in that the moral motivation adds an emotional component to the critical motivation to inspire action, whereas the critical by itself could stand as social commentary without the suggestion of change. I'm not so firm on this that I would disagree with the view that they are really two aspects of the same thing.
In ¡Satiristas! the fallback response for the comedians who claim not to be motivated by critical or moral concerns is the altruistic motivation. Some explicitly acknowledge the egocentric motivation and based on the vast body of interviews of comedians I've read and heard I'm sure most have it. The question in my mind is whether someone who claims to be doing satire can meaningfully hold the line at altruism. There is a value decision in the comic's decision of both subject and approach which I think implies at least the critical motivation and, in my view, the moral.
On numerous occasions I have heard smart, thoughtful comics complain about hack comics that aren't invested in their material making lame points about banal subjects. Their attitude towards the hackery I heard most elegantly stated by Patton Oswalt (though I'm sure others have said the same) as 'Really? That's what you're angry about?' The implication is that a comic who is serious about her craft and invested in the art form makes conscious choices in material and is motivated emotionally or intellectually. It is this type of choice that I claim has a normative component that entails - necessarily - the critical and moral motivation.
This is perhaps a bit strong. There are plenty of smart, thoughtful comics who are not obviously motivated by anger (or similar feeling). Think Jim Gaffigan or Brian Regan. Those comics, however, are not satirists. Satire is something one engages in when one is at least vexed and more likely angry about a subject. So motivated the satirist takes at least a critical and, I claim, a moral stance towards her subject. To claim otherwise is a form of false consciousness in the most genuinely existential, philosophical sense.
Another aspect of satire that highlights the moral component is the necessity of an unequal power relation between the satirist and her subject. This is rarely explicit but always present. Satire is a tool of the weak against the strong. When the powerful satirize the weak it is cruelty. I think it is this more than anything that contributes to the false consciousness I mentioned above. Aristophanes may have been the first satirical comic but the paradigm for modern satire is the court jester. The jester was the definition of powerless - the lowest ranking member of the court permitted to speak. Derided, scorned and existing outside of the political and social hierarchy, the jester could have no meaningful impact on the functioning of the court. It was precisely this position that empowered the jester to be the only public critic of the monarch. He was powerless ergo he was permitted to be critical of the monarch - but only satirically.
The legacy that only the truly powerless are permitted to satirize power informs the modern view that satirists have no real power and so are just in it for a laugh. The view that 'I'm just a comic' is a call back to the function of the jester. This view is undermined, however, when one realizes that the social and political structure that made the jester-monarch relationship possible no longer exists. Choosing satire as a medium and choosing powerful individuals, organizations or structures as targets entails responsibility for that choice.
The comedian as satirist can simultaneously claim a moral position and the desire for change while entertaining. Denial - false consciousness - is a defense mechanism against the extreme difficulty of holding that position. It is hard to remain funny and poignant while being outraged. Holding the line between satire and indignant criticism or political activism is a balancing act with real consequences for failure. One might cease to be a comic and become a part of the power structure (Al Franken, Dennis Miller). One might be pilloried and marginalized (Janeane Garofalo). One can be driven to extreme behavior, drugs or mental illness (Bill Hicks, Lenny Bruce). Few survive and excel (Chris Rock, Lewis Black).
I'll leave the topic here though I think there is something to be said about the special and exceptional case of satire as performance exemplified by Stephen Colbert. Perhaps another post. My argument can be summarized as follows: satire by design has a normative component. Satirists highlight things that they believe should be different. That 'should' entails a desire for change or action that goes beyond simple entertainment or self-gratification. Any satirist who denies this is denying something essential about her work.
Let me close by talking about the need and purpose of satire in the world today. In Friedrich Hölderlin's elegy Bread and Wine he asks 'What are poets for in destitute times?' ("Wozu Dichter in dürftiger Zeit?"). Dürftig indicates a scarcity or a lack - in a harvest metaphor one might say 'lean' or 'meager' years. In Bread and Wine, the scarcity is holiness which poets must recover and to which they must testify. Our time is scarce in informed criticism, shame, openness to changing beliefs, gratitude and compassion. It has an overabundance of fear, anger, meanness, inequity and selfishness. It is the job of the satirist to testify to this dire state of affairs.
In making the connection between the comic as satirist and Hölderlin's poet as divine messenger I also recall our episode on Lynda Walsh's Scientists as Prophets. Walsh makes a convincing case that a key if not the key function of prophets is to call the community back to shared covenant values and bring about social or political consensus in times of crises. Her focus is on scientists as political advisers and I think some part of her analysis is valid for satirists as well. Humor is a rhetorical device that can make difficult or painful subjects palatable for contemplation. The satirist is using humor to create a form of consensus through the experience of laughter to remind us of shared, human values that are not exemplified by the target of the satire - but should be.
Seth
Satire is bad. And, it is the type of bad that everybody says is good. Which is the worst type of bad. The type of bad that you can’t even call bad without getting a hard time for it.
Love the veiled Heidegger allusion, here. If the title doesn’t get them, then the Holderlein quote ought to. I’ve been thinking about satire — specifically as a form of literary/artistic cultural response within certain socio-political parameters. Consider what Voltaire has in common with Juvenal and Horace (both early practitioners), as well as, I think, Aristophanes. L. Kip Wheeler’s extensive literary dictionary for his students (at https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_S.html) offers some useful distinctions in literary satire. I’ve been considering, too, the way that this seems connected with notions of right as they emerge in civil society within a variety of socio-historical parameters. Also of note: Sor Juana Inez de La Cruz. Her poem “Philosophical Satire” is obviously a satire aimed at misogyny. But oes it also present something like a philosophy of satire? (Click through the poem at: http://cdn.readtapestry.com/stories/XRPmgtcvp/index.html)
I almost titled the piece “Wozu Satire”. Glad you caught the reference.
In looking at satire as a “form of literary/artistic cultural response within certain socio-political parameters” alongside other responses (intellectual, political, etc.) I think a key issue is figuring out how it is differentiated. What does comedy do to enable or mitigate the criticism vs. other forms of commentary. Does it create a space for more people to engage or does it create a distance designed for safety?
FYI, I couldn’t get the site to work on the link you provided. Just stuck on a page saying “Poem 92:”
Seth –
Apologies. I should have clarified: with the poem linked above, you have to press the forward arrow on your keyboard to read through. The uploader/designer has made what I take to be a satirical move in pushing Sor Juana’s poem into the digital age. A plain-text version with translation appears at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dfrye/SORJUANA.html.
I should have said it more explicitly in my earlier post: I want to call into question one of the assumptions you’re making in terms of definition or typology. Is satire necessarily a species of comedy? Why would you prejudice an understanding of satire as NOT intellectual or political? (Cf. your “alongside other responses (intellectual, political, etc.”)
Your typology of intentions for comedy are useful, though I would be cautious about identifying any one of these as apolitical or non-political. It seems to me that in order to be either moral or critical, though, the comedy could be either egocentric or altruistic. (E.g., To be critical, one might attempt to improve another for their own sake, or out of care for the other; to moralize, one may either be attempting to improve the other or simply elevate oneself.)
These seem to be the grounds (groundless grounds? Abgrund?) for all sorts of social action — not just comedy. If we assume that in comedy, the thing produced is necessarily the laugh, then we would answer the question “What is Comedy for?” with “Laughter.” Subsequently, one might (but need not) have a variety of subsidiary reasons for wanting to induce the laughter: for its own sake, or for the sake of any other number of things.
I agree with you that satire seems to be getting at something more than “mere comedy.” But I also don’t think satire needs to be comedic. The satire seems to necessarily presume to criticize. (Note: I was about to write “to criticize another,” but then thought that if one can satirize oneself, then satire doesn’t seem to necessitate a self-other distinction.)
Consider, from the Wheeler glossary linked earlier: “An attack on or criticism of any stupidity or vice in the form of scathing humor, or a critique of what the author sees as dangerous religious, political, moral, or social standards.”
Certainly, satire often has humorous effects (produces laughter). But I don’t think it necessarily does … and not just in the case of jokes that don’t go over. Those would be instances where intended comedic satire fails to elicit the (intended) laugh.
It seems to me that someone could also intend to satirize without intending to elicit a laugh. This satire could be (unintentionally) funny (e.g., laughter-eliciting), though it need not be so. The etymological background of the word (in French & Spanish, according to the OED) seems to back this up, insofar as immorality and foolishness are both potential objects of satire.
Another specimen for consideration: Sor Juana has a longer reply to Sister Filotea, the pseudonymn of the Bishop of Puebla, who had published without her consent a theological tract she had written which criticized a sermon delivered 40 years earlier. The bishop had published this alongside his own response. (The “Reply to Filotea” appears in a 2008 translation by William Little at http://dept.sfcollege.edu/HFL/hum2461/pdfs/sjicAnswer.pdf. Erasmus’ “In Praise of Folly” could be another example.
I’m particularly interested in considering satire as a rhetorical mode of philosophical public communication (cf. Phaedrus & Gorgias) — something that follows philosophical inquiry. Consider the Plato’s Socrates in Apology. Is this a satire of Athenian social and intellectual life?.
Nicholas
I am assuming that satire is a species of comedy. Or rather, there is satirical comedy – which is a species of comedy and perhaps Satire (capital “S”) which uses some comedic devices (e.g. irony) and seeks at least one common response (laughter).
When I differentiated satire from political or intellectual responses to culture, society etc. what I meant to say was not that these are different in kind as much as they are in tone and style. Contrast Bill Maher to Noam Chomsky to Elizabeth Warren. All provide critiques of power but from different places and with different forms of expression. You wouldn’t say that Chomsky is trying to get a laugh.
In that way I’m making the distinction. Perhaps you can say more about what satire without the laugh would be.
I think Chomsky is an apt choice for considering unfunny Satire — though he does have a way of sneaking wry quips into his analysis and critique. I would add to the “Leftist Trifecta” (sarcasm) of Maher-Chomsky-Warren the example of Sarah Palin. Even given her loss of popular support on the right, her poking fun at the “lamestream” and her caricature of liberal media and academia more broadly seem to constitute satire as well. O’Reilly seems to be a satirist as well. I’m aware that this does seem to blur the line between satire and punditry, but I hope to address that.
By way of getting to Satire without the laughs, it occurred to me that the initial intuition which you say prompted your piece here bears closer reflection, namely, that “comics, specifically the satirist, have [an] obligation to their audience or their art.”
I think this gives us more reason to consider Satire as a kind of rhetorical device that may be used for comic effect in view of a larger aim, rather than as a species of comedy which happens to aim at “chang[ing] minds” of their audience.
While you might be assuming that “obligation” carries a specific moral connotation, it appears to me that such a formulation would really beg the question. E.g., if comics have an obligation to their art and audience, that seems to be a matter of using the art to achieve its end: laughter in their audience.
Otherwise, we assume that the purpose of comedy is to achieve something else (which could be moral or normative) by means of laughter. Any questions about satire would then require preliminary questions about the nature of comedy to be addressed.
But if by obligation you mean something more like moral, ideological, or rational improvement of the audience, then the definition of satire fits the bill, because satire seems to aim specifically at just such a bevy of potential “improvements.” Crucially, though, the final end of any laughter is the improvement –- not improvement for the sake of laughter, which seems trivially absurd (but not necessarily impossible).
We probably don’t need more than the basic definition, here from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which roughly parallels the others you gave: “artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, parody, caricature, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to inspire social reform.”
Ridicule, derision, and irony (as well as burlesque) don’t seem necessarily comedic, though they are often used in conjunction with comedy. Parody and caricature might be the only elements out of this list – and, I think, the former more than the latter – that aim to get yucks.
My qualm with this definition at the Encyc. Br. is that it only tangentially addresses social reform. Still, I think you’d agree that one can be morally outraged but still think that a better world is either impossible or unlikely and thus forego aiming toward social reform. (There’s an apparent disjunct between this as some of the implications of satire as a form of persuasion, as we’ll see.) The EB entry also preserves the moral or, less harshly, normative sentiment through “censure” as well as the emphasis on vice, folly, abuse, and shortcoming.
Insofar as her goal or end is either strictly “censure” or “changing the mind of the audience,” the satirist is a persuader. They carry forward a moral purpose and use laughter “as a weapon” (I would say tool) to achieve the broader, normative, persuasive ends. The Gorgias would be particularly apt to reference, here.
Again, it seems to me that the comedic effects of such satire are not requisite, but potential ancillaries or supplements – like rubbing smallpox on the blankets (or not washing it off), or adding Uranium to the tips of your bullets. For tool analogies, consider like having an eraser on the end of your pencil, zippers on denim jeans, or claws on the ends of hammers.
As a persuader, the satirist her tools with any one of three different aims – not limited to strictly changing minds — which are fairly standard in rhetorical theory.
Persuasion can aim to affirm and strengthen the beliefs of the audience, weaken their commitment to their previous beliefs, or convert their beliefs entirely. The satirist may aim to improve (from their own perspective) the subject of their satire through converting the beliefs of their audience, or they may aim to simply rally the troops who are already with them into a greater fervor by strengthening their beliefs, or they may be attempting to simply weaken the commitment the audience has to their prior commitments.
This last one is tough to identify in contemporary society. I have an intuition but no really good reasons why I think that Louis C.K. and Richard Pryor might be good examples. Any one of these could center on censure and extend further.
Assuming that censure sits at the center of satire – or, to put it more bluntly, granting that satire has a fundamentally normative core, then we could say that Satire is the form of persuasion which hinges mostly on the generation of a specific kind of pathos (emotions and values in the audience) toward the topic of the speech. Satire would be that form of persuasion which evokes disapproval of particular actions and behaviors through the use of the particular tools above, any one or all of which may also have comedic effect.
It’s clear that comedians have an epideictic function that focuses on entertainment and laughter. But I would contend that satirists are among those who may choose to use the art of comedy as a tool (weapon) for achieving their own ends. At its most extreme, this means that the audience believes they’re buying tickets to see a comedy show because they want to laugh, but they’re really being sold some sort of political, moral, ideological agenda that the comedian is affirming in them.
It seems rare that one would go to a comedy show to be morally, politically, rationally improved. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I’m saying only a few of the truly skillful satirist-comedians can really draw an audience in for the purpose of being made fun of in order to examine their own faults and correct them.
It seems to me that satire really is the posture of holding up a mirror to nature or humanity — whether one recognizes it as an artificial gesture or not — wherein the satirist providing the reflection (possibly distorted, not always admittedly so) intends to show, either to the audience at large or to the individual/group reflected, some set of defects that can be corrected.
If correction weren’t possible, it would seem the “comedy” would turn to “cruelty.” It seems that this correction, even if only implied, freights into the rhetorical situation and the discourse surrounding it an assumption of the existence of, if not free will, then at least some kind of compatiblistic human agency, along with an individuation of selves. (Can you imagine a thoroughly solipsistic or deterministic satirist?)
In its unfunny guise this seems on the surface difficult to granulate from outright moralism, except that I would suggest moralists tend to be deontological, whereas satirists use the evidence of the opposition’s behavior as evidence of a sort of deviation from nature. The (pure) moralist simply defers to the set of prohibitions and prescriptions they’ve assumed tacitly and points out violations or (less common) praises the nobility of those who meet the call.
Satire does more than simply denounce actions, though – it depicts them and exaggerates them, and
I think Sor Juana’s poem gives a clue to thinking about Satire in both its comedic and non-comedic guises, though:
Whose humor could be more odd
than he who, lacking judgment,
himself fogs up the mirror,
then laments that it’s not clear?
If we look at this stanza in isolation, ignoring the poem’s larger satirization of misogyny and patriarchy as producing the very effects in women that misogyny and patriarchy complain, she also seems to address the very idea of satire as a mirror held up to its object of critique, and to offer something like an ethics of satire. As Sor Juana points out, the satirist may or may not recognize their own implication in the characterization . To ignore one’s own complicity in either the satirical presentation is, in her words “lacking judgment.”
This can give teeth to your criticism of comic satirists who claim they don’t really have any horses in the race beyond the audience’s laughter, as well as to those who wear their allegiances on their sleeve. The question Sor Juana raises, here, is: how diligent has the satirist been in inspecting their own judgment? Does it presume to come from a place of “pure” judgment that bears no responsibility in that which it ridicules or derides?
The question seems, perhaps, to not only fall on the comedian-satirist but also on the audience, in this case. Why are they laughing? Does their laughter come from a place of agreement or disagreement with the moral view implied by the satire’s denunciation? De la Cruz suggests in this philosophy of satire, I think, that the satirist bears an obligation to be certain they play no avoidable (unnecessary, contingent) causal role in that which they satirize. This raises particular problems for the label of “self-satire,” which might more accurately be called self-parody or buffoonery. It might also explain why Colbert’s character can satirize himself, while Stephen Colbert can disaffiliate himself politically.
I wouldn’t hold, though, that every skilled comedian is necessarily skilled because they’ve theorized their art. So, too, I would think that many effective satirists may not be aware of the nature of their art. Just so, not every poet has Holderlein’s or Rilke’s or Eliot’s philosophic grasp, nor every philosopher Heidegger’s capacity for poetic dwelling.
Kudos. A number of your points are similar to ones I tried to make the other day on David’s post about the relationship between philosophy and comedy, but I lack the philosophical acumen to put up a tidy argument.
We in the theatre group were talking a couple of months ago about the effectiveness of satire as a subversive form. Do you have any thoughts on what can be expected from satire in today’s situation, or how it’s generally perceived?
Our questions had mainly to do with how capable satire still is of motivating social or political action, or if it now generally motivates like-minded people to feel smug, while activism gets conflated with entertainment. Coming off of a few months looking at Brecht, Artaud and Schechner, it seemed to us that there were some deeper questions here about how people relate to mediated forms of content, ritual, etc., and it’s probably a mistake to generalize about effectiveness. Still, it seems like part of the “just for a laugh” mentality of the satirists might be bound up with the public’s increasingly compartmentalized attitude toward media/content/entertainment.
I hinted at a response to your questions when I mentioned in the article that satire has no power over its target if said target doesn’t feel shame or embarrassment. In a world where facts no longer have sway and people are disenfranchised and excluded from the political process satire loses its efficacy. What’s the point of showing the vices of the powerful if no one cares or sees a possibility of change?
This has been signaled in the recent past by the call that ‘irony is dead’ (in America at least). Irony is like John the Baptist to Satire’s Christ. If we lose the ability to see the humor in our failures, satire will have no influence on us.
I’m thinking that Jon Stewart pretty well fits the description of a satirist that refuses to admit that he’s taken a critical and a moral stance towards his subject, which is a bit disingenuous if not a form of false consciousness. He very effectively uses satire as a weapon all the time but insists The Daily Show is just comedy, the kind of show that follows puppets making crank calls, as he put it.
Excellent piece, Seth. Bravo.
Thanks David and thanks for your articles on comedy. Obviously we share some interests.
I disagree with you about Stewart – I think he wears his moral and political positions on his sleeve as evidenced by his appearances on O’Reilly and Fox News. The paradigm of the satirist who refuses to acknowledge his stance is Colbert. Grab Paul’s book and read the interview with Colbert. His adoption of a persona from which he acts out his satire creates a double distance from accountability. Not only can he explicitly deny any judgment, he is able to say he’s just ‘playing a role’.
Sorry to hear that Colbert claims he’s “just playing a role”. I wouldn’t have expected that, given his advanced education and obvious intelligence. Bummer.
Seth, I think David makes a great point about Stewart and that you are misunderstanding him slightly.
Stewart (of whom I am generally a huge fan) very clearly has, as you say, his stripes on his sleves. But, he has claimed in the past that he should not be taken as a pundit or at least not be held to account in the same way as many of the (generally idiotic) pundits he goes after because he “comes on after puppits making crank calls.” He has used his Comedy Central platform to deflect people asking him for explanations and to avoid commenting on his statements or dealing with politics on anyone’s terms but his own. It’s sneaky (bullshit is a better word).
It’s an extreme but apt example for what you described many satirists as doing when they claimed to be “comedians only” or “only in it for laughs.” Along with trying to not cross the line into too-serious-to-be-funny, it is exactly one of the main reasons you discuss for someone doing claiming “comedy only, satie just happens.” John Stewart (as opposed to Colbert) discusses real, important issues as John Stewart, but uses his platform to only talk about them when and how he wants to. Again, I love he guy, but I think that was David’s point. The he “wears his positions on his sleeve” but won’t talk about it unless he starts the conversation and uses his position as a comedian as a cover not dodge questions or say “hey, I don’t know nothin.”
I kind of think you actually agree with him and that he nailed a good example of exactly what you were trying to get at.
Also awesome article. Loved reading it.
I get what you are saying though I might argue that setting boundaries and refusing to engage on anything other than one’s own terms is a strategy that could be employed by anyone. His appearances on Fox seem to contradict this.
In any case, my point is that Stewart doesn’t hide behind his comedic identity to deny that he has a certain political or moral stance. He identifies as something like a progressive liberal. Colbert on the other hand not only denies having a specific political position in the interview but also uses his satirical persona to distance himself from an identifiable political or moral position.
Apologies for typos. Mobile on subway.
Seth, I’m interested to know more about your thoughts on performance satire and the “special case” of The Colbert Show. I’m currently teaching a moral philosophy course and I have a unit on satire and morality in which we start by reading Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, and consider it to fall squarely in your fourth category above. We then discuss the efficacy of satire as moral critique and look at Colbert, The Onion, etc.
I think that it is unfair to say that the satirists themselves don’t understand the reason for their own actions. From my experience, most people who have found the freedom to choose their profession to some degree do what they do because they love the action itself. If you enjoy handling fire or jumping into dangerous environments, you become a fireman. If you enjoy making things precise and crunching numbers, you become an accountant. If you enjoy making people laugh, you become a comedian.
Clearly most comedy arises from the comedian’s natural perception of the absurd around them. A natural satirist is going to have that perception of the absurd driven by an instinctive and emotional outrage at the current social order. That does not mean that you should expect the satirist to identify with that outrage, as in their mind (and I think most of our minds as well), what they identify with and strive towards is that which they love, rather then what they hate.
Thumbs up, Chris!