In Defense Of Satire

HOW SATIRE WORKS; AND HOW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WORKS AGAINST IT:

To appreciate satire is to recognize that the best way to expose human folly is to amplify it…and then pretend everything is perfectly fine (with a wink and a nudge, of course).  Oftentimes, this can only be done by being impolitic.

Feather-ruffling is a time-honored tradition.  As we’ve seen, in most instances of great satire, irreverent commentators were derided for their impolitic speech–especially insofar as they were iconoclastic.  Yet it was often THEY who had the most important points to make.  Those who have staked their claim on sacred apple-carts will vilify anyone who deigns to upset them.  Such revanchism is effectively what undergirds the holy crusade that is political correctness.

In a world governed by the p.c. mentality, propriety tends to trump—or even masquerade as—probity.  Etiquette is treated as a form of ethics.  Consequently, anyone with the audacity to tread on sacred ground (which is supposed to be cordoned off from critical scrutiny) is rendered persona non grata by the power elite.

Says the Reactionary: How dare you besmirch the hallowed name of [insert sanctified dogma here]?  Meanwhile, satirists flout established convention; as their vocation is upsetting sacred apple-carts.

Satirical commentary exposes absurdity by presenting that very absurdity in unexpected ways.  It exacerbates nascent absurdity so as to show what happens when it is taken to its logical conclusion.  Usually the result of this is the opposite of what most people would expect; which makes irony the engine of most satire.

To parody X is to pretend to extol X, thereby illustrating the daffy implications of doing so.  Thus one shows the speciousness of X by heightening its signature features–in a kind of exaltation of the absurd.  The use of irony to make a point often involves taking illogic to its logical conclusion, yielding unexpected results that amuse as much as they surprise.  With well-wrought irony, it is typically the OPPOSITE of what we’d expect–an awkward juxtaposition that brings to our attention the ridiculousness of what we’ve come to consider normal.

Juxtaposing how things REALLY are with how we’d rather believe them to be is a surefire way to make a point.  This is what a skilled stand-up comedian does.  (There’s a reason stand-up comedy is not a thriving trade in theocratic environs.)  Parody brings our attention to idiocy by casting it in terms that make the idiocy more apparent.  Of course, those who ENDORSE the idiocy will tend not to welcome this exposure.

The use of irony to expose faulty thinking is valuable because it SHOWS rather then TELLS.  Its virtue lies in the fact that there is no moralizing involved.  Rather than officious, it is playful…thereby inviting the audience to be participants in the judgement.  It elucidates without preaching; thereby rendering it far more potent than preachy asseverations.  H.L. Mencken may have put it best when he said, “One horse laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms.”

Political correctness deprives us of this learning opportunity; rendering commentary toothless.  (One might say that p.c. takes the “iron” out of irony.)  But the fact remains: One can accomplish far more by making fun of idiocy than by getting angry at it.  Vituperation has never been the basis of sound thinking.  (Invective is the enemy of cogency.)  Oftentimes good humor is the breath of fresh air that people need to see things in a new light.  When people are amused, they tend to be more receptive to what one has to say.  Acrimony is incommensurate with sound thinking.

When it comes to any sincere endeavor to elucidate, perspicacity demands brute candor.  It is inevitable that those who revere the object of reproach will not welcome an infelicitous verdict with open arms.  They would much prefer everyone in the world respect the same things that they do; but this should not dissuade the rest of us from being frank in our assessments.

When the object of reproach is a sacred cow, disparagement becomes a matter of desecration; but that is entirely beside the point.  As H.L. Mencken put it: “The liberation of the human mind is best furthered by men who heave dead cats into sanctuaries.”  That some people happen to sanctify X does not magically grant X exemption from the standards by which we evaluate credence.

Ironically, the kind of chiding that is mean-spirited has much in common with the p.c.-evangelists who most vociferously denounce it.  For BOTH refuse to engage with those with whom they do not see eye-to-eye.  In this sense, dissimulating ends up being just as unproductive as a maligning.  Such things are done in bad faith.  Ultimately, nobody benefits when everyone is simply putting on airs.

Society’s arrested development can often be attributed to the inability for people to endure a ribbing.  After all, frangible ideologies need to be protected, as they tend to fracture easily when subjected to strain.  It is no surprise, then, that the proponents of spurious belief systems have little tolerance for being made fun of.  Deep down, they know that sunlight will expose their fatuity.

Puritanical interlocutors have traditionally seen critical inquiry as DANGEROUS; and have seen impertinence–especially irreverence–as a kind of CONTAMINATION.  In this scheme, propriety is correlated with purity; and so impropriety with impurity.  As if their closed-mindedness is not bad enough, Puritans operate in bad faith (even as they proclaim to be STEWARDS OF this or that Faith).  It is important to note, though, that the animating sentiment behind their rebukes is shaming, not compassion.  (Alas, political correctness renders one incapable of experiencing shame; as shame is only something the p.c.-monger strives to make everyone ELSE feel.)

Just as we make our body (bones, tendons, ligaments, muscles) stronger by subjecting them to strain, we make our minds (that is: our critical capacities) stronger by subjecting them to strain.  Part of a productive exercise regimen is “surprising” the body by forcing it to incur a burden.  This goes for mental acuity as well.  Whether one’s immune system or one’s thought processes, adversity strengthens.

Admittedly, sometimes the object in question fails the stress-test.  However, when it comes to IDEAS, whenever it has unassailable merit, it will withstand however much pasquinade it is subjected to.  That’s why those who have the confidence of their convictions are unafraid of mockery.

So what of the cartoons of Mohammed of Mecca published in Denmark’s newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in 2005–which spurred lethal reprisals around the globe?  And what of France’s satirical journal, Charlie Hebdo–which spurred a lethal reprisal in Paris in 2015?  In such cases, we bear witness to a frail constitution indicative of a friable dogmatic edifice.  It seems pitiable that so many fanatics worship an entity that is unable to endure satire.  The message is effectively: “Our god is embarrassingly meek; so please handle him with kid-gloves.”  (Behold: A feeble deity for feeble minds.)  It was for similar reasons that the Roman Catholic Church called for a ban on Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian” in 1979.  Houses of cards cannot withstand critical analysis; so their only recourse is to retreat into some sort of memetic quarantine.  Indeed, there is a very good reason that religious fundamentalists–be they Christians or Salafis / Wahhabis–cannot abide ridicule: They fear it will reveal the fact that their gilded dogmatic edifice is comprised of nothing more than meticulously-varnished bullshit.

And so it has gone with the fragility of such dubious organizations as the Watch Tower Society and the Church of Scientology.  Flimsy ideologies demand an exemption from criticism because they could not possibly subsist if they were to be routinely subjected to scrutiny.  It is worth noting the kinds of regimes that DO ban satire–and even enact draconian strictures against insolence.  The list is long: from Stalinism in Russia and Maoism in China…to Juche in North Korea to whatever the heck is going on in Turkmenistan…to the Iranian Grand Ayatollahs and the Arabian House of Saud.  Forbidding subversive activity is the hallmark of totalitarianism.

The comic irony of erecting a hermetic seal around one’s belief system in order to “protect” it from harsh critique is that the hermetic seal ITSELF ends up becoming the very mockery it was intended to prevent.  In their ham-fisted attempt to be seen as non-absurd, absurd ideas ending mock THEMSELVES.  It is their adamant demand to be treated as anything but absurd that they expose their own absurdity.

The need to appeal to political correctness is oftentimes what reveals a creed’s frangibility.  Hence: An sign that we will no longer have a problem with reactionary elements within the Ummah is when the day comes when, in addition to the cheeky “Book of Mormon”, a “Book of Islam” can have a successful run on Broadway…without incident.  That is to say: We’ll know when Islam is undergoing a genuine Reformation when such a musical can be staged at a major venue without scandal, without outcry, and with plenty of hearty laughter.  The Church of Latter-Day Saints does not augment its credibility by showing that it can take a joke; but it is savvy enough to recognize that it avoids BROADCASTING its lack of credibility by putting up a big fuss over a Broadway musical. {11}

There is nothing to be afraid of when it comes to even the most biting satire; as it simply urges us to see things from an alternate point of view.  It cajoles us into thinking of things in a way that may have never occurred to us.  It helps to caricature real life in a way that is ironical, highlighting the absurdities in things to which we are accustomed.

So far as p.c. aficionados are concerned, though, biting satire is verboten not because it is erroneous; but because it is UNCOUTH.  Trenchant commentary is deemed heretical in p.c. circles, as it can be quite unsettling–even unnerving to those who much prefer to never be disturbed.  (Searing ridicule is beyond the pale; as irreverence is BY DEFINITION offensive to certain people.)  A consequence of this censorious attitude is that one of the most useful didactic tools is rendered off-limits to heterodox thinkers.  Deprived of the license to express oneself in a brutally frank manner, one finds oneself in society that is not only closed, but humorless.

Being “disrespectful” is not necessarily a sin; especially if its aim is to simply call a spade a spade.  Indeed, sometimes dis-respect is warranted; as certain things are not worthy of respect.  Shall we be eternally obliged to feign respect for that for which we really have none?  Indeed, in a gambit to forestall hurt feelings, p.c.-mongers propose a regimen of obligatory disingenuousness.  Such an onerous mandate helps nobody.  The fact of the matter is: In certain cases, derision is called for.  In those cases, anyone who is honest does not dissemble in the name of politesse.

ALL of the writers enumerated above would have been censored–nay, castigated–by the p.c. aficionados of the present day.  “What you are saying is offending people; so you should shut up.”  Those are the same people who would have gladly handed the vile of hemlock to Socrates.  Such scolds fail to see that satire plays a vital role in bringing things to our attention that may not have otherwise occurred to us.

Satire–especially when brash and cutting–is one of the most effective didactic tools at our disposal because it ILLUSTRATES rather than DICTATES.  Done well, it encourages critical thinking; and subsequently spurs active engagement.  There is nothing that reveals the untenability of life’s hidden absurdities the way that satire can.  We might recall Vladimir Nabokov’s great insight: “The difference between the cosmic side of things and their comic side depends on one sibilant.”

Well-crafted satire helps us preserve a modicum of common sense in the midst of epidemic fatuity.  It shows us why certain things don’t make sense.  It does so by recourse to one of the most human sensibilities: humor.  Comedy brings us together because it transcends virtually every human construct.  (Laughter knows no tribal divisions.)  It is something to which anyone can relate.  Consequently, even when it is caustic, it highlights our shared humanity.

To reiterate: Satire is a potent didactic tool–a tool of which we must be able to avail ourselves when seeking to make an important point in a compelling way.  While we might balk on causing offense, we should bear in mind that feather-ruffling is the life-blood of participatory democracy.

It is no secret that inconvenient facts can be irksome.  When they are presented in a way that makes people laugh AT ME (and those who share my ideas), it becomes well-nigh intolerable TO ME.  The key, then, is for each of us to resist the trappings of epistemic narcissism, and remind ourselves that it is not “all about ME”.

Unadulterated Truth–especially when unsolicited–can be abrasive, specifically in the event that it upends our most cherished beliefs.  Brute candor, then, can cause severe irritation.  Even so, it plays a crucial role in deliberative democracy; so even the most unsettling material must be abided.  That said, good satire is not only emotionally provocative; it is–more importantly–thought-provoking.   (After all, the two tend to go often go hand-in-hand).

Some satire is intentionally zany (as with, say, “Saturday Night Live” in the U.S. or “Little Britain” in England); but done well, it is very effective at making a point.  Oftentimes, it is ONLY efficacious insofar as it is disagreeable, even disturbing.  Snark can be either sophomoric (vapid, and thus pointless) or sapient (insightful, and thus edifying).  We should not pretend that there is no distinction to be made between such scenarios.  Should we have begrudged Richard Prior for not having been sufficiently p.c.?  He was carrying on a legacy in America that started with Ambrose Bierce–a legacy that has always played a crucial role in deliberative democracy.

Satire can be high-brow (as with the hyper-cheeky “Yes [Prime] Minister” in Britain)…or brusque (as with “Veep” and “Parks and Recreation” in the U.S.)…or dry (as with “The Office” in both its British and American incarnations)…or even slightly preposterous (as with “Monty Python” in Britain).  All of these have been effective BECAUSE they are politically incorrect.  However it is done, so long as it has something important to convey, it works.

To recapitulate: Well-crafted satire requires temerity.  And, while it is always done tongue-in-cheek, it is intended to be jarring.  It is SUPPOSED TO BE agitating, as its goal is to agitate.  As Thomas Paine stated, in response to (monarchist) American critics of his insolent pamphlet, “Common Sense”: “He who dares not offend cannot be honest.”  As the aforesaid satirists attest, this is nothing new.  It goes back to Aristophanes…and has continued into contemporary culture.

As the above survey shows, no matter where it was done, satire has always been up against the Reactionary forces of hidebound ideologues.  Consequently, it was held in contempt by those with a vested interest in the status quo.  Predictably, those who wished to maintain the established order resented those who disrupted things.  So each instituted its own version of political correctness.

Not being able to take a joke is the signature trait of a Reactionary mindset.  An incapacity to laugh at oneself is a sing of retrograde thinking.  (Such humorless interlocutors are contemptuous of those who laugh at anything they hold dear.  Insecurity precludes amusement.)  The hidebound ideologue is incapable of abiding a parody of his dogmatism; as parody exposes speciousness in a way that he can’t avoid noticing.

A feature of political correctness is the inability and/or unwillingness to endure a good-natured ribbing; as it’s not about objective merit, it’s about how one happens to FEEL.  But this goes beyond simply not being able to take a joke (a sign of insecurity and/or neuroticism).  There is an irony here.  To the degree that one allows oneself to get tied up in knots whenever one’s coveted dogmas are parodied, one has rendered oneself incapable of serious discourse.  For humorlessness indicative of a cognitive handicap.

In order to hold one’s own in the agora, one must embrace the slings and arrows of incisive critical engagement.  Trenchant satire requires audacity.  And when an interlocutor becomes apoplectic each time trenchant satire is encountered (where the “butt of the joke” is his own ideology), he has revealed himself to be inadequate to the task.

After all, the point of a well-crafted lampoon is to poke holes in social norms; to push back against what is accepted; to buck propriety…with one’s tongue in one’s cheek.  Satirists from Jonathan Swift to Oscar Wilde demonstrated the efficacy of this approach.  Swift made use of the outlandish to make his point–as with “A Modest Proposal”.  By contrast, Wilde made use of ultra-dry humor.  (In Wilde’s dialogues, everything was tongue-in-cheek to an absurd degree; yet that is what made his writing so compelling.) {10}  Both men used an amusing narrative to reveal the absurd embedded in quotidian life.  Satire works because it is poignant; and it is poignant because it is clever.  Not coincidentally, such commentators were invariably liberal; and usually grounded in humanism.  (After all, iconoclasm is by definition anti-Reactionary.) 

Insofar as the satirist seeks to rock the boat, those averse to boat-rocking will tend to vilify him.  Those who are DETERMINED to be offended will insist the boat is about the capsize any time they perceive the mildest sway.

One might call this heterodoxy-phobia.  After all, it is a pathology, as it is a subset of hamartophobia (fear of imaginary crimes).  As is often the case, the phobia often manifests itself as angst.  (Oftentimes, FEAR OF can translate into HOSTILITY TOWARD.)  The flip-side of this is a dependency on–nay, an addiction to–orthodoxy.  This is the hallmark feature of neurosis, whereby INSECURITY can quickly manifest as ANIMUS.  This creates an inhospitable environment for any kind of critical engagement; and ensures the climate is downright fatal to irreverence.

Satirists are radicals in a sense–as they refuse to kow-tow to the powers that be; to acquiesce to the guidelines of accepted conduct; to be subservient to the established order; to be choreographed by the enforcers of convention.  They refuse to mouth the pieties that have been prescribed to them.  They eschew “propriety”.  The most incisive satire is not merely irreverent; it is astringent.  If people do not find it jarring, then it’s not doing its job. 

The expectation for satire to not be controversial is like expecting an exposé to not expose anything (at least: nothing that its subject didn’t want exposed).  The POINT of satire is to be controversial.  Doing so “insensitive” insofar as sensitivity is measured by an indiscriminate deference to the sensibilities of any / all interlocutors.  The satirist isn’t trying to ingratiate himself; he’s trying to make a point that others were too obsequious to make.

Shall discomfiture a dependable measure of credence?  Is sentiment to be the ultimate standard for what shall be deemed impermissible?  This is a dubious proposition, to say the least.  For while malice can be caustic, so can even the most estimable instances of iconoclasm.  It is a grave mistake to presume that anything that is discomfiting is ipso facto nefarious.  ALL great satirists are “insensitive” when it comes to what has been consecrated by the self-appointed impresarios of propriety.

As it turns out, satire is only possible when it flouts what is considered to be the “appropriate” way to exercise speech.  Instead of cow-towing to sacred cows, it urinates on them with a mischievous grin.  This does not sit well with those with a vested interest in maintaining incumbent power structures.  It’s one thing to urinate on someone’s sacred cow; it’s quite another thing to wink and smirk while doing it.

This is not to say we should be heedless of hurt feelings.  It simply means that hurt feelings should never be seen as an insurmountable obstacle when trying to get to the heart of the matter.  Diplomacy is important, but critical inquiry cannot be held hostage by any given party’s sentimentality.  All decent people would agree that it is generally nice to be nice.  However, de rigueur niceties can only go so far.  Hollow congeniality is an empty gesture.  At some point, SOME feathers will need to be ruffled–if, that is, headway is to be made.  Oscar Wilde put it well when he said that a great writer is “someone who has taught his mind to misbehave.”  The sine qua non of satirical commentary is to–as it were–shake things up.

Every one of us needs to be jarred sometimes–cognitively, emotionally, existentially, and–yes–sometimes physically.  The same goes for dogmatic slumbers.  A bucket of ice-water over the head isn’t supposed to be pleasant; but it serves a purpose.  The goal of satire is to BOTHER us in a way that forces us to re-evaluate how we think of things.  After all, revealing uncomfortable truths is bound to cause discomfiture.  Comforting truths are easy to discuss.  But consolation is the opposite of what satire is meant to do.

Well-crafted satire serves an important purpose: It cajoles people into thinking about things in a different way; into seeing things from a new perspective.  The most incisive commentary breaks rules, makes people feel a bit awkward.  It tries to nudge us out of our comfort zones.  It does so by being somewhat “off-color”.  It refuses to adhere to the paint-by-numbers routine to which we’ve grown inured; and consequently sometimes shocks us.

Satire, then, is a wake-up call.  We might bear in mind that nobody ENJOYS wake-up calls.  Nevertheless, it is generally conceded they are eminently useful.  (We call “rude awakenings” RUDE because they are unwelcome; but in retrospect we’re glad we had them.)  When we want to be roused from a slumber, we tend not to select a Nocturn by Chopin to play in the background; a bucket of ice-water dumped over our heads does the trick.  It works BECAUSE it is uncomfortable.

Meanwhile, the point of satire is to show why we SHOULD BE bothered by certain things.  The showing will ITSELF bother certain people–as they don’t want to be bothered; NOR do they want to have it brought to their attention that others are bothered by what they hold dear.  To idea is to overcome this tendency to be narcissistic.  Embracing satire is about embracing discomfiture.  This is all about being open minded…yet, at the same time, remaining principled.  In other words: Keep an open mind; but not so much that your brain falls out.

As I hope to have shown, irreverence is a crucial didactic strategy.  This almost always requires one to breach the accepted bounds of what was considered “acceptable” or “appropriate”.  Every great satirist has understood this.  Thomas Nast understood it; Mark Twain understood it; Sinclair Lewis understood it; Art Buckwald understood it; H.L. Mencken understood it; Kurt Vonnegut understood it; Terry Pratchett understood it; Dick Gregory understood it; Lenny Bruce understood it; and George Carlin understood it.  In each case, if the audience remained in its comfort zone, they weren’t doing their job.

So WHAT OF curtailing toxicity in the agora?  In attempting to promote free speech, at what point are we enabling dysfunction?  In attempting to mitigate “offensive” speech, at what point are we stifling expression?  These are difficult questions to answer.

Posed another way: At what point are we being overly fusty?  At what point are we just being ridiculous?  Where do we draw the line?  Of course, the POINT of satire is to be ridiculous.  To indict satire for being ridiculous is like begrudging a memoire for being too personal…or complaining that an exposé exposed a tad-bit TOO much.

At the end of the day, we cannot deny the fact that intelligent ridicule has vital didactic purpose.  For it is done out of a sincere effort to expose absurdity.  It elucidates folly by amplifying it.  Meanwhile, pernicious ridicule has no civic value.  The former must not only be tolerated, it should be celebrated.  The latter should be denounced.  It should be denounced because it is counter-productive; not because it happens to cause discomfiture.

To reiterate: That some things offend does not mean such things are mean-spirited; it means they are causing discomfiture.  Yet it is important to curtail mean-spiritedness: commentary done in bad Faith, simply as a way to libel interlocutors rather than bring to light their errancy.  Comedy is not a license to denigrate simply for the sake of denigration.

Humor is not an excuse for, well, just being a jerk.  Some people are just assholes…which helps nobody.  That said, the repudiation of gratuitous mockery (mockery done to malign rather than to edify) should not disqualify all mockery.  While it is clear that certain mockery–done with sneerful disdain–is not done in good faith, it does not follow that mockery PER SE cannot be done in good faith.  The key is to be brusque without being overly brash. {9}  Irreverence does not require truculence; it merely bucks propriety (flouting the commonly-accepted rules of what we’re supposed to think / do), with the aim of making a point that needs to be made.

Some things SHOULD be mocked; and doing so is effectively a public service.  The “catch” is that estimable satire is about elucidating, not obfuscating.  It seeks to expose, not to decimate.  It tears down the curtain rather than tearing down what’s behind the curtain–leaving the thing it has revealed for everyone else to subsequently judge.  This gesture is, of course, seen as an attack by those who would much prefer the curtain remain drawn.

We might go so far to say that artistic expression that is NOT rocking the boat is rather pointless.  If somebody’s feathers are not being ruffled, then the commentary is probably not worthwhile.  For the point of great art is to provoke; and the point of revolutionary art is to go against the grain.

The point of satire is to rebel against SOMETHING–something, that is, that most people would otherwise be inclined to accept as a matter of course.  Satire is pointless without iconoclasm…which is, by nature, offensive to someone.  After all, one cannot be ground-breaking without breaking ground.  A key way to do this is to get people to laugh at what has generally been considered normal.

Large swaths of people not being able to take a joke is a sure sign that culture is normalizing illiberalism.  Czech writer, Milan Kundera demonstrated this in 1967 with his parable, “The Joke”.  Kundera pointed out that prosecuting someone based on ill-advised humor is the mark of a society slipping into totalitarianism.

Generally speaking: It is the tyrannical mindset that cracks down on artistic (read: free) expression the moment such expression is deemed insufficiently reverent.  It is solely an insufferably puritanical sensibility that forbids satire.  Civility is, in part, predicated on having a sense of humor.  Being able to laugh at oneself is a precondition for a liberated mind; and the freedom to laugh at OTHERS is a precondition for liberalism itself.  Once we deprive ourselves of the prerogative to be cheeky about the stuff of life, or to josh each other, we pave to the way to a closed society.  Participatory democracy is, in part, about challenging one another.

Some can be mean-spirited in their mockery; but it does not follow from this infelicitous fact that chiding itself is problematic.  The problem is the mean spirit.  Rather than move the conversation forward, mean-spirited satire is not undertaken in good faith.  It is malign instead of sassy.  It berates instead of cajoling.  It antagonizes rather than edifies; and so is counter-productive.  It is castigation / defamation done for its own sake.  It is denigration done for sport.  It is born of ill will more than from a sincere interest to “get to the bottom of things”.  It is not constructive, as it is done merely to tear down–to deprecate, to slander, to demean.

This is NOT the same as well-crafted satire.  Well-crafted satire challenges rather than traduces.  It is provocative but not vituperative.  It is pro-social, not anti-social.  It lampoons because it want us to be better.  It urges us to improve ourselves and the world around us.

Let’s be clear on the crucial point: There is a difference between being sardonic and being snide.  Caustic wit does not entail malice.  Mean-spirited satire goes beyond “just for the fun of it” joshing; and becomes a means of calumny.  It is a weapon rather than a prod.  It is done with scoffing dismissal rather than with playful engagement.  It only wants to inflame.  The intent, then, is anti-social rather than pro-social.  This is not to be confused with satire done in good faith.

The problem is this: Those who rail against satire are inclined to caricature ALL satire as invidious.  Just as unsettling critical analysis is treated as traducement (when it is nothing of the sort), unsettling satire is treated as traducement (when it is nothing of the sort).  When people are incentivized to feign offense at every infelicity, this charade will persist unabated; thereby undermining the integrity of public discourse.

Puritanical thinking rarely ends well.  A censorious approach to expression is the hallmark of fascism.  To ban unpalatable speech is to undermine the very foundation of free speech.  For incisive artistic expression is, by its very nature, disruptive.  It is SUPPOSED to aggravate.  As John Cleese once put it: “ALL humor is critical.”  Thus one of the greatest comedic minds of the 20th century felt compelled to remind us that criticism–nay, offensiveness–INHERES in comedy.

Satire makes things look bad not because it is mean, but because it seeks to expose absurdity.  We know that a lampoon is done with good intentions rather than just to be hurtful when it exhibits certain traits.  It decries the abuse of power rather than justifying it.  It pokes fun in order to shed light on human folly, not to foster hate.  It edifies us rather than causing neurosis.

Done well, satire uses irony to elucidate the truth rather than to obfuscate it.  The trick is often to take the faulty logic out of its native context and apply it in a surprising new context, whereby its flaws are laid bare (typically in outlandish ways).  The use of parody–especially when it exposes absurdity where it might not have otherwise been noticed–is one of the most effective didactic tools–especially when its target is a sacred cow.

The didactic power of cheeky humor derives from the fact that it is disquieting; yet p.c.-mongers strive to stifle it BECAUSE it is disquieting.  In other words, they see the virtue of satire as its primary sin.  And so they fail to recognize what is obvious to anyone who is level-headed: nobody can be oppressed by joke.  Off-putting (nay, even snide) comments are not tantamount to oppression.  Being “offended” is not the same as being persecuted.  They fail to see that progress is facilitated by “stirring things up” (i.e. introducing perturbations into a homeo-static system).  Agitation catalyzes paradigm shifts; yet political correctness urges us to be wary of anything that agitates.

This is about eradicating pretense.  Well-crafted satire strips away the facade that enables asinine things to masquerade as acceptable.  It’s about showing that certain things that we’ve heretofore considered normal are really quite preposterous–something we can only recognize if we look at them in a new light.

In many ways, satire is the antithesis of propaganda, which seeks to obfuscate rather than elucidate.  Instead of conditioning us, satire is meant to BREAK conditioning.  Propaganda elides incongruity with Reality; satire magnifies it.  Propaganda obfuscates folly; satire exposes it.  Propaganda behooves us to stop thinking critically and to just accept; satire behooves us to START thinking critically and to NOT just accept.  Underlying all satire is “But don’t take OUR word for it; see for yourself.”

Being a satirist is the antithesis of being an apparatchik.  For candid critiques are diametrically opposed to sycophancy.  Those who abide sycophancy are INEVITABLY offended by anyone who flouts the sacrosanct protocols to which they’ve wed themselves.

Sycophancy cannot abide ridicule.  It should come as no surprise, then, that Reactionaries (esp. authoritarians and those swept up in tribalism) and anti-intellectuals (esp. hyper-dogmatists) are far more susceptible to conditioning and groupthink (read: propaganda), more governed by biases, and much less tolerant of satire.  Oftentimes, it’s not merely that they cannot take a joke; it’s that they fear–deep down–that what the comedy exposes might undermine the perceived credence of their sacrosanct truths.

Beware those who forbid satire.  For it is a contempt for critical commentary that enables the prohibitions of blasphemy, not vice versa.  Hidebound ideologues understand that the best way to control people en masse is to institute taboos: no-go zones for asking questions.  If no inconvenient inquiries can be made, no inconvenient truths will be found.  Parody exposes absurdity better than any other didactic tool.  It forces us to revisit long-accepted “truths” by putting them in a different light.  This requires us to flout norms…which means making ourselves UNCOMFORTABLE.

The question remains: How are we to ascertain whether or not satire is being done in good faith?  On its surface, biting satire seems gauche–even louche.  Its abrasiveness is often misconstrued as a sign of moral depravity.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  When truth meets power, what is empowering to the truth-teller is invariably caustic to those who benefit from the incumbent order.  As it turns out, impertinence is often a virtue.

A laudable parody can come off as overly brash…especially when it “hits a nerve”.  Yet this is not indicative of a problem when it is SUPPOSED TO BE unsettling.  Satire works best when it is jarring; so the distress it may elicit does not itself indicate mean-spirited-ness.  So we must look beneath the surface of things if we are to ascertain if there is any merit to the impertinence.  Put another way: Vulgarity is not to be found in the expression ITSELF; but rather in what is BEHIND the expression.  After all, the mode of articulation of X (as expression) is beside the point when the crux of the matter is the merit of X (as thesis).  One must consider the context within which the expression-in-question is embedded in order to determine its true spirit.

This should to be distinguished from jeering–a cynical exercise designed simply to taunt.  Chastisement that is gratuitously abrasive is ignoble; for it is simply done out of spite.  Poking fun of others just to make them feel bad is underhanded, not edifying.  Good satire–even when acerbic–is done to edify, not to vent.  A splenetic rant has no pedagogic value.  What makes all this confusing is that even the most acerbic satire is often not done in good faith; and ends up being antagonistic rather than productive.  The problem is that those taken in by political correctness are wrongly convinced that ALL impolitic satire is of this nature (as if irreverence were an indication of iniquity).

There is a fundamental distinction to be made between sneering disdain and judicious repudiation.  Not all contempt is of equal endowment.  What we should discourage is derisive speech born of thoughtless, emotive ejaculation; not dissidence born of erudition.  It is to our own detriment when we pretend that a discerning rebuke is no better than a thoughtless jeer.

Hence, of any given instance of mockery, we must ask: Is the gesture productive or counter-productive?  Is the criticism an attempt to be constructive or to be destructive?  There is, after all, a key difference between parody (which deigns to edify) and denigration (which is done to smother or traduce).  The former is an exercise of free speech; the latter is an attempt to curb it.

When it is a case of the stronger castigating the weaker BECAUSE they are weaker, it is bullying.  In such instances, the criticism is done not to pull up, but to push down.  Estimable forms of satire punches across or up, never down.  That is, it pokes fun ONLY at things formidable enough to adversely affect the common-man.  Bullying, on the other hand, is more about intimidation than it is about engagement.  The distinction, then, is between being irreverent FOR A GOOD REASON and just being an asshole.

In cases where it is NOT the privileged buffaloing those who are disadvantaged, yet it is done in bad faith, it amounts to a gratuitous slight–which invariably leads to exacerbated enmity.  Such aspersions are un-necessarily inflammatory.  Here, we make a distinction between goading on principle and, say, heckling.  The satirist uses prodding to induce a rude awakening; whereas the trouble-maker needles his target in order to cause humiliation.  Heckling is a way of squelching others’ ability to exercise free speech.  In the more pernicious cases, it aims to cause psychical distress.  When the ultimate aim of a speech-act is to cause consternation, one is not engaged in critique; one is just being a jerk.

Thus a heckle is more about curbing discourse than about making a point.  It is not about expression; it is about drowning out expression.  Hecklers seek to taunt and harass.  They make noise, yet contribute nothing of value to the conversation.  It is not people being offended (feeling insulted or somehow disrespected) that makes heckling an odious affair; it is the mean-spiritedness behind it.

And so a fundamental distinction must be made.  Biting satire is done by irreverent expositors; heckling is done by bullies.  Both require gall; but one is commentary while the other is buffoonery.

Note that satire needn’t be ill-intentioned in order to be poorly-crafted.  It can be just plain daft.  That is to say: BAD satire can be bad for reasons other than mean-spirited-ness.  It can be petty and sophomoric.  It can traffic in cheap caricature.  It might be unscrupulous or misleading.  There is, after all, a crucial difference between being deft and being daft.  In order to be pro-social, satire needs to be done in good faith.  More to the point, it must be edifying in some way…lest we devolve into juvenile antics.

Good satirists aren’t bullies; they are the emasculators of bullies.  They are not fools themselves; they bring foolishness into the full light of day for all to see.  (That’s why only fools are afraid of satire.)  Satirists are scathing, but not malicious.  They agitate people, yet not in a way that is counter-productive.  They are not timid; but neither are they reckless.  They are jarring not merely to shock, but to enlighten.  Hence their work is vital to the subsistence of social democracy.

Satire, then, is an integral element of liberal democracy; and so should be celebrated.  Alas, evangelists for p.c. strive to render this vital didactic tool off-limits; and do so in the name of placating those who prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.  As far as they’re concerned, morality is entirely about etiquette; so breaching their protocols is somehow immoral.  They consider scathing commentary iniquitous not because it actually causes harm; they considered it iniquitous because it is impolite.

They have failed to learn one of the most important lessons of cosmopolitanism: If we can laugh together, we can live together.  A citizenry that can’t take a joke is doomed to eternal fractiousness.  Comedy is supposed to bring people together.  Those who can laugh with each other form a bond, making it less likely they will fight with each other.  Laughing together is one of the most powerful foundations for human solidarity.

When well-executed, satire can strike the ideal balance between amusement and pedagogy. Humor helps us maintain our sanity in the face of perfidy; and in the midst of adversity.  Ribald is one of the most common devices for satire; yet the mandarins of p.c. proscribe it in a ham-fisted attempt to palliate the tetchiest members of the audience.  Priggish bystanders insist on being eternally palliated; and assail anyone who fails to comply with their demands.  So the rest of us are expected to toe the line…lest we be excoriated for being unsettling…or “offensive”…or “insulting”…or “disrespectful”.

In order to ascertain an expression’s moral nature, we do not look to the the psychical effects the expression happens to have on this or that party; as subjective states are not a dependable arbiter of credence.  Rather we must look at what is BEHIND the expression.  We can then inquire into how well it was articulated.  Be that as it may, effrontery is not itself a dependable gauge, as ANYTHING critical is seen as an affront by SOMEBODY.  Nobody is in a position to adjudicate the rights of one party based on the sentiment of another.

There is a time to be facetious and a time to be serious.  Aristotle once cited Gorgias, who noted that one is best advised to defeat an opponent’s earnestness with jesting, and defeat his jesting with earnestness.  The pen is mightier than the sword; but jest can be far more powerful than even the most eloquent prose.  The prerogative to be irreverent is one of the surest signs a society is genuinely free.  Meanwhile, the best friend of compliance is silence; as dissimulation is typically concomitant with subservience.

The established order depends on everyone “knowing their place” and “staying in their lane”; not upsetting sacred apple-carts.  The archaic notion that we all have our assigned roles to play must be jettisoned.  At some point, one needs to tread on sensibilities in order to make headway.  All pioneers must—BY DEFINITION—be blasphemers (that is: iconoclasts, subversives), as they buck trends, flout long-accepted norms, and color outside the lines.  Progress in ANY context is predicated on a willingness to eschew outdated precepts; and, yes, engage in heresy.

The key is to maximize audacity without compromising perspicacity.

In a free / open society, the satirist is willing to unsettle—even disturb—what is an otherwise complacent demos.  Creativity thrives on psychical agitation (that is: the disruption of ingrained habits of thought).  This amounts to throwing a bucket of ice-water over the heads of the smug, the intellectually moribund.  Satirists do so in order to spur progress—like giving an electrical jolt (NEVER comfortable) to those who have slipped into a protracted dogmatic stupor.

The point, then, is to disrupt what is often a psychical / social homeostasis: something that can only be done by introducing a dialectical perturbation into an intellectually moribund system.

In the event that a snarky quip or silly cartoon can throw MILLIONS of gormless—and peevish—ideologues into paroxysms of discombobulation, there is no other conclusion than that they are afflicted with gnawing insecurity.  Such people are quick to be offended; and quick to lash out…no matter how trivial the perceived slight.  This is a reminder that insecurity quickly translates to irritability, then to hostility.

A reactionary (obdurate) mindset accounts for the uptight disposition exhibited by hair-trigger offense-taking.  Such heightened skittish-ness indicates that a dogmatic system is far too weak to withstand any serious critique.  When the folly of the sacrosanct is exposed, temper tantrums can’t help but ensue.

When comes to ideology, obduracy is typically a sign of frangibility–a point illustrated by the current neo-Maoist regime in China being offended by Winnie the Pooh.  Like Mao himself, Xi Jin-ping cannot abide even the slightest hint of dissent.  Show me someone who can’t laugh at himself and I’ll show you an authoritarian.

Feeble constitutions are indicative of feeble minds.  This is why obsequiousness invariably accompanies sycophancy–as demonstrated by virtually all instances of cultic thinking since time immemorial.

Dogmatists are funny that way.  Disturb their epistemic homeostasis, and they are apt to panic.  For it turns out that their ramshackle dogmatic edifice is embarrassingly fragile.  Any perturbation threatens the integrity of this teetering edifice; and—deep down—they know this.  So they will become apoplectic the moment anyone has the gall to “shake things up”.  This is especially so if they’ve staked their name on—nay, built their entire lives around—a certain set of beliefs.  This is most apparent when it comes to those who’s continued socio-economic status depends on the established order being left “as is”.

When an ideology is so delicate that it sees even the most fleeting ball-busting as an existential threat, we are witnessing the flailing of a faltering dogmatic system.  It makes sense, then, that those who are insecure are unable to abide even the mildest of satire.  Their obduracy belies their professed confidence in their convictions.

In summary: A lampoon is good when it seeks to bring dysfunction to light; a lampoon is bad when it is done just to be mean.  Exposing human folly invariably causes discomfiture; so discomfiture cannot be a reason for censure.  Parody–even measured degree of parody mockery–is, as they say, “all in good fun”; as it keeps people on their toes.  When done in good faith, it is intended to awaken rather than to derogate.

Exposing folly is imperative if we sincerely want to progress, even when the folly is our own.  And sometimes a well-placed jape is an effective way to do that.  On the other hand, a censorious attitude is inimical to robust discourse; and is therefore antithetical to deliberative democracy.  A willingness to laugh at oneself is a sign of open-mindedness; a willingness to learn and grow.

To support satire–ESPECIALLY when the target is a sacred cow–is to recognize the vital role that unhindered heterodoxy plays in sustaining liberal democracy.  A humorless polis is a repressed polis.  In reflecting on the importance of irreverence in civil society, we should harken back to the words of Voltaire: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Footnotes:

{1  Satire is not necessarily controversial.  It can be relatively anodyne–as when it is simply making fun of life-in-general, the world-in-general, or human nature (that is: all of humanity qua humanity).  It tends not to ruffle feathers when it has no discrete targets–a scenario in which certain people feel singled out.  See footnote 2 below.}

{2  When Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi composed his “The Moral of the Viziers” in the late 10th / early 11th century (a work that mocked idiotic rulers in the abstract), it likely never occurred to anyone who really needed to be mocked that the characters applied to THEM.  In such cases, nobody thinks that THEY are the butt of the joke; it’s always the OTHER people who are the idiots.  So it goes with sardonic cartoons like Doonesbury, Dilbert, and The Far Side.}

{3  Gilbert and Sullivan (the composer) were also famous for “The Pirates of Penzance” and “The Gondoliers”.}

{4  France has not always been so liberal.  From 1830 to 1835, there were the popular satirical daily magazines, “La Caricature” and “Le Charivari” (distributed in England as “Punch”).  Alas.  In 1835, the (illiberal) French monarchists banned political cartoons.}

{5  Interestingly, Washington Irving penned a massive dramatization of Mohammed of Mecca (“Mahomet and His Successors”) in the 1840’s.}

{6  Bassem Youssef was an Egyptian satirist who’s television series, “Al-Bernameg” lasted only two years (2011-2013; plus eleven episodes aired in early 2014) before it was curtailed due to threats to Youssef and his family.  It is instructive to note WHY Youssef’s television show was banned.  It was taken off the air not for blasphemy; but for “offending” people (that is: for being too condescending).  In other words, the ban was done not for explicitly religious reasons; but for socio-political reasons.  We were thus reminded that political correctness is just another form of censorship.  Note that other shows have been inspired by Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show”, including Hikari Ota’s “Bakusho Mondai” in Japan.}

{7  On the heels of the so-called “Arab Spring”, the election in Egypt was a non-choice between a Mubarak stooge and a Salafi theocrat.  Either path led to a non-democratic outcome.  Being able to vote is a vital part of democracy; but democracy is about far more than just being able to vote.  As I write this footnote, Egypt still does not know genuine democracy.}

{8  At any given time, the most erudite people are invariably the least dogmatic; and thus the least religious (that is: the least apt to be doctrinal).  Revolutionary thinkers are, by nature, not reactionary.  Indeed, they are suspicious of “received wisdom”.  (Fetishizing ancient creeds means assuming we have learned nothing of import since they were first codified.)  As a consequence, revolutionary thinkers are less susceptible to the trappings of institutionalized dogmatism than those who are transfixed by the status quo.}

{9  When it comes to assaying culture, the point is to strike a balance between being overly austere and overly libertine.  The idea with cultural prescriptions, then, is to be imaginative without either devolving into anarchy (that is: indiscriminately lashing-out) or getting carried away with decadence (that is: being florid, and thus cloying).  Meanwhile, the satirist is obliged to be responsible in his commentary without succumbing to the temptations to remain prim and proper.  (It is possible to be conscientious without being up-tight and stodgy.)  Thus the credo is: Loosen up!  But not TOO much.}

{10  This approach would later be used in animated television series like “The Simpsons”, “South Park”, and “Family Guy”–each of which offered a witty yet irreverent take on the absurdities of American life.  This is a reminder that even zany satire can be a powerful didactic tool.}

{11 Imagine a day when a vaudevillian production of “Mohammed, Bedouin Superstar” could be staged in the middle of the Muslim world…to rave reviews.  Or imagine “Book of Islam” instead of “Book of Mormon” receiving critical acclaim across the Muslim world.  Until then, a truly Reform Islam remains forthcoming.}

{12  During the 20th century, Indian satire flourished in Kerala more than anywhere else–as demonstrated by famed Malayalam writers like E.V. Krishna Pillai, Mannikoth Ramunni Nair (a.k.a. “Sanjayan”), Sukumar[an] Potti, and Veloor Krishnankutty.  Other notable Indian satirists included Sushil Siddharth and Gitchandra Tongbra.}