The limits of satire, or the reification of cultural politics

Abstract

In the first decades of the 21st century, humour has been increasingly embraced as a legitimate means by which to cover, analyse and intervene in political issues. Most frequently, this political application of humour has been interpreted through the lens of ‘satire’: a term that evokes an idea of humour as a politically meaningful cultural act. Such an account of humour connects satire with the long-standing theoretical tradition of ‘cultural politics’ that explores the ability and mechanism of cultural forms to inform, inspire or enact political change. However, while satire may appear as the manifestation or culmination of a cultural political agenda, I argue that the concept ultimately works towards the closure of cultural political possibility. Drawing on the work of Georg Lukács and Fredric Jameson, I argue that satire is better understood as a form of reification that prematurely resolves how, when and why cultural forms can do politics.

Humour versus dignity in the public sphere

“…12 members of staff were killed in the attack and 11 others injured. The brothers were motivated by the publication's perceived comic slights against Islam, which it had frequently portrayed and discussed in terms of humour (Hebdo's comic portrayal of Islam is predominantly discussed in terms of "satire," though the loose usage of that term can make it difficult to determine exactly what such a description means [Holm, 2023]). The attack prompted global outrage and widespread declarations of support for the publication often expressed through the phrase "Je suis Charlie" Overwhelmingly, both scholarly and popular discussion of the attacks has taken place with reference to ideas of offense, blasphemy and sensitivity (Ervine, 2019;Horsman, 2020;Rolfe, 2021).…”