For the last few years, I have had a running argument with some of my progressive friends. While they all think that Jon Stewart's The Daily Show offers a great critical analysis of contemporary politics, I have argued that his type of humor undermines American politics by turning everything into a joke and a source of mockery. My argument is not that we need to respect or idealize our political officials; rather, I believe that by constantly laughing at public figures, we feed a libertarian consensus.
It is important to emphasize that libertarianism cuts across political affiliations and is defined primarily by a rejection of the need for public institutions coupled with an idealization of the individual. From this perspective, the most obvious form of libertarianism is the Tea Party with its stress on cutting taxes, shrinking government, and individual free speech. However, this anti-tax, anti-government politics has been a central tenent of both Democratic and Republican presidents. Even Barack Obama is prone to calling for reducing government's interference and cutting taxes. In fact, one could argue that the failure of most of his major policies, like healthcare reform and financial reform, stems from his desire to keep government out of the way of the free market.
Not only have mainstream politicians from both major political parties endorsed an essentially anti-state, anti-public rhetoric, but our shared popular culture feeds the unacknowledged libertarian consensus. Thus, programs like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Family Guy, and South Park all use humor to put down social institutions and celebrate the ironic individual. Moreover, the type of irony that Jon Stewart has perfected embodies a key aspect of libertarianism, which is the ability of turning serious issues into unserious entertainment.
This role of humor in our culture should make us take a second look at Freud's widely misunderstood theory of jokes. While most people understand that jokes represent an indirect way of saying something aggressive or anti-social, what they don't know is Freud's argument that jokes work by bribing audiences with enjoyment so they do not hold the joke teller responsible for the content of the joke. In other words, jokes are a way of escaping from social responsibility, and this escape from the social represents a defining aspect of the libertarian mindset.
One place where we see how humor works in a very negative way is through the use of prejudices and stereotypes in popular culture. Since the joke teller can always deny responsibility for a racist remark by claiming that it is just a joke, racism, sexism, and homophobia are able to circulate in our culture under the veil of being pure entertainment. Therefore, not only does humor keep hate alive, but it adds a level of individual non-accountability to our daily discourse.
In my attempts to study how humor affects people in our culture, I have engaged in anonymous chat room discussion with college students, and I have found that while students are quick to deny that we still have prejudices in our society, they also reveal that they have internalized stereotypes and prejudices on an unconscious level. After some probing in a safe environment, students report that discredited racist, sexist, and homophobic ideas frequently enter into their thoughts, and they often experience a high level of self-loathing due to their inability to live up to ideal forms of beauty and power.
What connects this self-hatred to cultural productions like The Daily Show is that in both cases, humor is used to plant unconscious messages that are consciously refuted. Furthermore, these unconscious messages most often represent negative portrayals of society and diverse individuals in our culture. In other terms, while we might think that we identify with Stewart and his intelligent ability to mock all public figures, we also identify with the victims of his attacks.
If we now stand back and look at contemporary youth culture and our dominant political actors, we find that there is often the same smug combination of individual over-confidence and social contempt. The key then to the ironic libertarian imagination is a rejection of the public world from the position of private purity. For instance, Stewart rolls his eyes at the stupid mistakes of politicians because not only does he know better, but he also knows that there is really nothing one can do.
I know people hate this argument because they love laughing and escaping through entertainment, but one has to ask what are we escaping from, and what does it mean that we spend so much time trying to remove ourselves from our own lives. Before you tell me to get a life and loosen up a bit, step back and think about the last time you laughed and whom or what was the target of your laughter.
You can see how such an idea can get out of hand. Look at the schoolyard bully, for instance: "Its a free country man! I can say/do what I like!"
Sure! As long as you aren't ABUSING others!!
I see political satire as a direct response to the inequality and corruption of government and society at large. This is not to say that it is helpful. A bully is often the result of his/her own victimization, but should we tolerate their bullying? Hell no! So why should we tolerate ridicule?
Humour is fun, but like all things, it has its place.
Unlike the more obvious forms of bullying, ridicule is almost never discussed. It basically shames people for taking things seriously, even if it is something like human rights. The internet is a huge source of ridicule, which is different from humour. People who talk about serious issues like human rights on the internet are classed as 'moralfags'. Why is our culture OK with this?
I'm not sure I agree with the Freud bit. First of all, you seem to miss the fact that there isn't necessarily a connection between how the audience subconsciously or consciously responds to the joke teller, and how they respond to the object of the joke.
The audience may "forgive" the joke teller because he/she gives them pleasure, but that doesn't necessarily translate into "forgiving" the object of a joke (e.g., a politician) and abandoning all sense of social responsibility for that object.
I'd be more persuaded by a scenario that literally goes "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" and, like that work, looks at the role of Thanatos lurking behind every operation of Eros. That seems like a more plausible mechanism to me for the kind of social disengagement you're claiming: the instinctual drive to "end it all," to return to inanimate matter, following and endless cycle of frankly wearying pleasure -- as wearying in the pursuit as it is in the acquisition, after a while.
Anyhow, on a more basic level. What other response is there to politicians and institutions that are indeed laughable?
And finally, I think you're on shaky ground trying to establish a "libertarian" archetype behind all of this. It's not as bad, but it seems to have that Jonah Goldberg whiff about it, as if attributes in common between two disparate groups (e.g., Nazis and Liberals) were somehow persuasive proof of a real affinity.
Not MSNBC, not FoxNews, not CNN.
That being said, humor and criticism go hand in hand, political or otherwise. The above argument makes me very nervous that the author and anyone in agreement with him have a "remedy" up his sleeve, of removing these dissenters from the airwaves. (to what ends?)
I do agree, that people should take a certain ownership in what they allow into their brains and not blindly (and/or deafly/mutely) follow ANY television personality's belief (be they comedic or otherwise).
"The role of humor in our culture..." is criticism, whether the audience agrees or disagrees.
Dotty says it best,
"Humor to me, Heaven help me, takes in many things. There must be co
Not MSNBC, not FoxNews, not CNN.
That being said, humor and criticism go hand in hand, political or otherwise. The above argument makes me very nervous that the author and anyone in agreement with him have a "remedy" up his sleeve, of removing these dissenters from the airwaves. (to what ends?)
I do agree, that people should take a certain ownership in what they allow into their brains and not blindly (and/or deafly/mutely) follow ANY television personality's belief (be they comedic or otherwise).
"The role of humor in our culture..." is criticism, whether the audience agrees or disagrees.
Dotty says it best,
"Humor to me, Heaven help me, takes in%2
Humour, doubt and shame are both really interconnected I find. We laugh at ourselves in order to cope with the absurdity of not being a worthwhile individual -a real person. In every comedian, there is a longing to be taken SERIOUSLY, an emptiness felt within. Our society perpetuates this emptiness by not taking people seriously enough -by neglecting us. In essence, we aren't real enough to society -we dont mean enough to it.
If you aren't taken seriously, then you can't take yourself seriously. If you can't take yourself seriously, then you can't take life seriously. If you can't take life seriously, then whats the point? You could die right now and nothing would matter. To anyone.
We all need to start taking each other a little more seriously -and I dont mean in a negative, angry way- what I mean is that we need to start really giving a damn about each other, rather than seeing everyone else as simply a means to an end or an obstacle. Its a hard thing to do I know, but every little bit counts.
An Irishman walks out of a bar. . . . Hey, it could happen.
That being said, politics HAS become a joke, especially recently. The Daily Show just runs with it; politicians make it so easy. Jon Stewart doesn't make things up about these politicians and other news organizations (and if he does, which is rarely, it's so very obvious ~ for those with half a brain). Most of these politicians do this to themselves!! This isn't Saturday Night Live. I'm thankful for TDS and Colbert Report. They are NOT bad for our country in any way.
If you'll grab back deep in your memory, remember how Jon begged the "Crossfire" hosts (especially Tucker aka The D*ck) to quit hurting us, and our country. They WEREN'T a comedy show.
It's sad that you feel this way, Mr. Samuels. I think you're wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion~ as are the rest of us, who faithfully watch these shows.
Precisely. If the material wasn't already amply available, it wouldn't be so easy to skewer it. Further, Stewart and Colbert have top-notch research teams. If the cable and network "news" outlets were doing half the research that TDS does, we wouldn't be in this mess.