In Defense Of Satire

A sense of humor is integral to appreciating the warp and woof of human life.  It is for this reason that satire can have tremendous didactic value.  It exposes human folly via a tongue-in-cheek emulation of that folly.  As it turns out, the fatuousness of fatuous things can be elucidated via a judicious deployment of exaggeration.  As Thomas Jefferson once noted: “Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

Done well, satire serves as an epistemic jolt.  It forces us to reassess that to which we have become overly-accustomed; and it invites us to notice things that we may not have otherwise noticed.  The key is to do so without being gratuitously sententious.

Using humor (parody) is the best way to expose the dysfunctions of those in power (the socio-economic elite).  A dry, turgid critique is not nearly as effective—as poignant—as a well-crafted lampoon; and what better way to expose privilege than to simply flaunt it in all its obnoxious-ness?

Those who insist that nobody ever ruffle the feathers of certain people (to wit: people of THEIR choosing) tend to be aficionados of political correct-ness.  This is an authoritarian mindset characterized by puritanical sensibilities as well as a censorious attitude to all things heterodox.  For p.c.-mongers, anything that infringes on anyone’s sense of propriety is seen as intolerable—irrespective of objective merit; and is denounced.

In evaluating the different ways in which human society has evolved over the centuries, it is important not to underestimate the importance of dissent; and to bear in mind that dissent often entails agitation—to wit: irritating those who insist that things remain a certain way (i.e. the way that THEY very much prefer).  Homeostatic systems require a modicum of disruption if they are to do anything but stagnate.  Systems cannot evolve without shaking things up from time to time.

The idea is to catalyze progress, which often involves “rocking the boat”.  The alternative is torpor…and ideological calcification.

Perturbations are instigations.  Static social systems don’t evolve.  The point, then, is to rouse—nay, STIR—those who are intellectually complacent, inured to social norms, and thus aloof.  Complacency and comfort are symbiotic; and both are friends of those benefiting from the status quo.  The aim of satire is to break the stasis by introducing perturbation into an otherwise static system.  Agitation is—in virtually all contexts—a catalyst for change; and, hopefully, progress.  A measured degree of disruption—psychical and/or social—is required for evolution.  This invariably involves some degree of discomfiture.  As P.T. Barnum put it: “Comfort is the enemy of progress.”

Satirists shake things up.  They do so not to cause consternation, but to bring to light that which is often occluded in the public eye.  Naturally, this does not sit well with those who’d prefer the status quo be left fully in tact.  And it certainly does not sit well with anyone with a Puritanical mindset.  Reactionaries are easily thrown into a dither, claiming to be “offended” by anything that does not hew to their delicate sensibilities.  Tampering with the established order is seen as a threat to what is a precarious equilibrium–a stasis upon which some have come to depend (whether ideologically or financially).  Naturally, those who’s bailiwick is upsetting sacred apple-carts are promptly rendered personae non grata.

Ultimately, though, a tenuousness of conviction explains outsized responses to the merest hint of blasphemy.  When it comes to any instance of religious fundamentalism, we behold a friable ideology to which mobs of disgruntled, feeble-minded votaries cling in desperation.  Such votaries are unable to contain their resentment for having their creed shown to be fatuous.  Their agitation betrays the neurosis underlying their overwrought exhibitions of piety.  Heterodoxy cannot be tolerated because it threatens the integrity of what turns out to be a house of cards.

And so it goes: Proponents of a frangible memeplex tend to have a captious disposition.  This ensures that they will go into any interaction with a massive chip on their shoulder.  So when they encounter biting satire, their grievance is not about the credence of the points being made; it is that someone, somewhere had the audacity to rock a boat that they insist must never be rocked…or ruffled feathers that must never be ruffled.

Ideologues are often high-strung because of a nagging insecurity about the credence of their beliefs.  Their conviction, it turns out, is as strident as it is groundless–a kind of overcompensation for the speciousness of their creed.  Insecurity, then, is the root cause of the tizzies enumerated above.  Only by attenuating the attendant neuroses can robust Reform become a viable prospect.

Meanwhile, it is the critics who drive progress.  It is those willing to engage in critical reflection—even when it is very uncomfortable, even when it is stupendously inconvenient—who have the most courage.  Demagogues, especially, are incapable of withstanding ridicule.  The best way to expose the illusions they peddle is to MAKE FUN OF them.  The best way to debunk specious ideologies is to MAKE FUN OF them.  The best way to dismantle rickety dogmatic edifices is to MAKE FUN OF them.

Questions remain: In using stereotypes, are we ridiculing them or reinforcing them?   The point, of course, is to shed a light on the obtuseness of stereotypes, not to validate them.  Satire is supposed to EXPOSE folly, not encourage it.  Its measured use of caricature is deliberate: as the role of such heightened portrayals is didactic.