The Simpsons explaining satire

If you, after reading all my previous blog posts, still don't get what satire is about you're in luck because I am certain that this video will at least provide you with a basic idea of what satire really is. The video shows how the four basic satirical tools (exaggeration, incongruity, reversal and parody) are used in the TV-show The Simpsons. For those of you wondering how to use satire in an effective way, the video can also be of some help, I think. The Simpsons have successfully satirized American behavior, celebrities and movies for more than a decade, so if anyone knows how satire should be done, it should be the crew behind this TV-show. Watch and learn, my friends, watch and learn.

Learn how to write satire in 7 minutes

For those of you who want a quick guide to how to write satire I suggest you take a look at this YouTube clip, which shows what satire is about in a very clear and structured way as well as how you can best use it. In the video, you will be encouraged to write a 200 word text about satire and I think that this is a very good idea if you are interested in using satire for some purpose or other. It is important to remember, however, that satire does not necessarily have to be in the form of a text. You can create caricatures, animated caricatures (as discussed previously), parodic news shows, plays, you name it! The worst mistake you can do when it comes to creating satire is thinking that your satire has to follow a specific structure or format. Satire is about making people see things differently and if you yourself cannot do that, then how will you teach others to do so?

Modern satire

Traditionally, satirists have either been writers or cartoonists. This, however, is something which has come to change lately, with the new technological advances of our modern day society. In my last blog post, I discussed how a new satirical genre, parodic news, has emerged as a result of this. Another example of how satire has developed over time is the creation of so-called "animated caricatures." Those of you who are used to reading The Washington Post will most likely have seen some examples of these, drawn by political caricaturist Ann Telnaes (if you haven't seen her political cartoons, you can see examples of her work here). This, I think, could serve as an inspiration to all of you out there thinking about using satire for some purpose or other; those of you wanting to convey a message so that people will understand it. Since satire is always centered on current issues, ridiculing contemporary views or behaviors, the different media tools used to deliver satire must also keep up with current technology. This is yet another reason why satire is so powerful; it can never be out of fashion, becomes if it is, it can never be classified as satire.

One of Ann Talnaes' caricatures of the former Secretary of Defense's, Donald Rumsfeld's, ideas and behavior in connection to the War in Iraq

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Fake news that "keep it real"

Satire, as discussed earlier, is an extremely unstable genre. This causes it to constantly take the form of other genres, for example tragedy and comedy, to be able to spread its message (satire is used in a range of literary works, from Hamlet to Pride and Prejudice). The latest contribution to this range of genres is the satirical genre of parodic news that emerged during the 20th and 21st century. "Fake news" was born somewhere in the 60s and 70s with news shows such as That Was the Week That Was on BBC and This Hour Has Seven Days on CBC. However, these shows largely relied on sketches, songs and invented news items, which made them very different from the parodic news shows we are used to seeing today. Scholars have argued (see Amber Day's Satire and Dissent: Interventions in Contemporary Political Debate) that the satire used in parodic news shows today has got much more efficient and powerful than older "fake news" shows, due to that contemporary programs use real news footage and interview real people (i.e. not fake experts or actors pretending to be politicians). The deconstruction of real political debates, speeches and interviews by news hosts like Jon Stewart (The Daily Show), Stephen Colbert (The Colbert Report) and Rick Mercer (The Rick Mercer Report) teaches people to deconstruct arguments given by politicians and experts; making people more prone to question and analyze such arguments. Jon Stewart, by constantly pausing news clips to give his own comments on them, assumes the role of the average man in the couch watching TV; he is showing average Joe how he can analyze and deconstruct things politicians and news anchors say easily, just by watching them more intently on the news. The video below is an excellent example of this.

If you plan on writing satire on your own, it is important to think about keeping it real (like they do on the The Daily Show). By showing people how ridiculous the arguments for whatever you want to satirize are, you can teach people how to scruntinize and deconstruct such arguments until they see them for what they really are: stupid.

The Power of Controversy

According to certain genre theorists, the genre of satire is a necessary part of any society, since it creates a forum for public discourse that cannot be expressed otherwise, especially not in political debates. Satire does not have to be politically correct, which leads to that it can discuss sensitive issues in a way that most political parties cannot. 

A newspaper that has become famous for expressing controversial issues and thereby, perhaps, liberating public debate, is the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Founded in 1960, the satirical journal has become famous for its way of satirizing absolutely everything. The journal has been attacked by politicians, companies and famous people, for its satirical images and texts, to such a degree that a certain sum has been reserved in the journal's budget for the cost of all the lawsuits it receives. The editor of the journal, Gérard Biard, has stated in an interview (which can be seen here) that he sees it as his duty as a journalist to use the laws of freedom of expression, which are very strong and permitting in France, to start debates around controversial issues that are otherwise not addressed in France. He sees the lawsuits and the criticism that the journal receives as positive, since they show that people actually care about the things the journal addresses. 

Over the years, Charlie Hebdo has satirized the Pope, Muhammad, President Hollande, Barack Obama, Judaism and even the terrorist attacks on World Trade Center. Do you think, when reading the text above and looking at the pictures below, that these satirical images bring something to the French society; that they make discussions on the topics satirized easier? Or do you have trouble seeing any real power of controversy?

On 9/11, a salesman screams "vendez" (sell) instead of warning his co-workers of the airplane.

A cartoon satirizing the resistance to gay marriage by stating that we all have three fathers in the "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"

Satire as a response to censorship: The satirical boom in the US

In Amber Day's outstanding book Satire and Dissent: Interventions in Contemporary Political Debate (2011) I finally got an answer to a question I have been pondering for quite a while now. The question reads: "Why has satire become so widely used in the US over the past few decades?" As mentioned earlier, an increased use of satire in a country can often be explained by that the country has become slightly less democratic (by introducing censorship or becoming less transparent) or more democratic (by reducing censorship slightly). This has led me to wonder if there were any specific processes (undemocratic or democratic) behind the upsurge of satire in the US. Day's response to this question seems to support the idea that satire thrives in a "middle-ground" climate, between democracy and censorship. She writes that the satirical boom of the US can be traced to the presidency of George W. Bush and his administration greatly "expand[ing] presidential power while simultaneously limiting transparency and access". Bush's staff started to become skilled at using "political doublespeak designed to obscure", something which sparked a satirical renaissance.

However, even though satire might have grown in the US over the past few years, due to undemocratic measures being taken by George W. Bush, it is still important to remember that the political climate in the US is far more liberal than that of many other countries. As an example of this, I want to discuss this satirical cartoon of Obama, showing him raping the Statue of Liberty. I found this cartoon recently, while researching satire made on Obama, and I think that it is rather weird that I had not heard a word about it previously. In South Africa, a similar cartoon of South Africa's president (then soon-to-be president), Jacob Zuma, has sparked a lot of debate and even a defamation claim. The reactions to these two pictures in their respective countries show how different their political climates are (of course this also has to do with where the cartoons were first published and the publicity they got as a result of that). This does, of course, also say something about the difference between the leaders of the two countries. Personally, I think that the cartoon below is taking it too far, while I think that the drawing of Jacob Zuma in some ways was justified, as I have argued before. One of the key characteristics of satire is that it should not be libellous, and, therefore, by painting an undeserved picture of Obama, the Obama satire misses its mark in a way that the cartoon of Jacob Zuma does not.

Satirizing Muhammad - Funny or just disrespectful?

As most of you probably already know, there has been a lot of controversy over satirical cartoons drawn of Muhammad, the most important prophet of Islam, over the past few years (it all started in Denmark with a Danish newspaper having a competition of who could draw the best Muhammad cartoon). Islam strongly prohibits depicting Muhammad and its adherents (the Muslim community) has therefore, to say the least, not seen lightly on satirical cartoons depicting him. This goes for most Muslims, who have been hurt and angered by the pictures, and not just those who we are used to seeing in media (the ones retorting to extreme measures, bombing newspaper offices and setting fire to flags). I remember when the Danish cartoons of Muhammad started to appear here in Sweden; a Muslim girl in my class, the sweetest girl you could ever imagine and one of my closest friends, became extremely sad when seeing them. She told me that she wished that people could just respect her religion and depict something else if they really felt the need to satirize it.

There are those who claim that one must have the right to satirize Muhammad if one's country is to be considered democratic. Perhaps this is the case. However, I think that if you satirize Muhammad solely to anger people, there is no real point in the satire. Satire's aim should be to improve society; not to increase divides between different religions and ethnicities and thereby create distrust and misunderstanding. Recently, I have seen some satirical images of Muhammad with his face blurred. I would say that this is okay, since it shows some level of respect. I also think that it is more effective, since it will probably make Muslims more interested in understanding the message of the satire. The whole point of satirizing Islam must be to change the religion, right? To point out things that are outdated or unequal in the religion? Well, if you satirize Islam without any degree of respect, what is the chance of anyone listening to your message? And, more importantly, as I have discussed earlier, if you do not have true knowledge of what you are satirizing (i.e. if you don't know the basics of the people believing in what you're satirizing or their beliefs) then it is impossible for you to satirize it in a clever way. In order to make a change you cannot simply attack people. Satire's greatest weapon is humor: Use it!