|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Tags: libertarians, more-reasoned-than-thou, Simpsons, south park, subtext
Not to step in the way of someone else's blog battle, but this response, by Michael Moynihan of Reason, to Ben Adler's response to Moynihan's criticisms of his Simpsons column, seems to merit another response (feel free to read this in the voice of Comic Book Guy). Being the only Ben in the office at the moment, I think this duty falls to me.
Here's Moynihan's main point:
But dear Ben, surely there is a difference between discussing the political implications of Ken Loach film, a Kurt Weill opera, a Billy Bragg record...and a cartoon. It is one thing to discuss a political work of art—one that is either expressly or subtextually political—and quite another impart ideology onto a largely apolitical work.
This argument falls short of what I'd expect from a reasoned person for two reasons. First, one needn't be a Marxist cultural critic or annoying postmodernist to see that "largely apolitical work" can have a political subtext. Indeed, the whole concept of subtext would be meaningless if it couldn't be applied to works that might seem "largely apolitical" on the surface. Ben's Simpsons column simply made the case that earlier episodes featured a more blatant liberal political subtext than they do now. This is more a historical argument than one about the "rightness" of the current Simpsons, and while it's certainly open to dispute, it's hardly as doctrinaire as Moynihan characterizes it to be. It's not too different an assertion than that made by Rolling Stone (and linked to from Reason's blog), that The Simpsons "is intellectual and pleasantly dumb in its portrayal of American life, using both to further a leftist agenda."
But more strikingly to a regular reader of Reason, it's also funny to hear an associate editor for that magazine fault others for "impart[ing] ideology onto a largely apolitical work" (and to do so in such a condescending tone.) For the past few years, the libertarian magazine has been running articles on South Park seemingly non-stop, many of them debating just how libertarian Trey Parker and Matt Stone are. Reason's Nick Gillespie argues that "there's a consistent politics to South Park." In December 2004, Jesse Walker wrote (citing both South Park and The Simpsons): "Cartoons can be political or apolitical, left-wing or right-wing or apathetic." And so on. Indeed, one of the great things about Reason is that its writers are so acutely aware of subtext, which makes Moynihan's response all the more surprising.
!
""it's also funny to hear an associate editor for that magazine fault others for "impart[ing] ideology onto a largely apolitical work" (and to do so in such a condescending tone.) For the past few years, the libertarian magazine has been running articles on South Park seemingly non-stop, many of them debating just how libertarian Trey Parker and Matt Stone are. ""
This isn't a very good comparison, because in that case Trey Parker and Matt Stone are both active participants in that conversation. They attend and speak at libertarian-themed conferences, including ones sponsored by Reason, if I remember correctly. Also, politics isn't just a "subtext" on South Park - it's the entire point of the show about half the time.
Let me know when the Simpsons does something on the level of "This is what Scientologists *actually believe" or having Jesus decapitate the Catholic League's Bill Donohue with the spinning blade-disc from Krull, or... I could go on for days.
Certainly, political commentary is more subtle in The Simpsons than in SP, but in what shows isn't it?
This is a difference of degree, not a difference of kind.
...just because they don't use dick and fart jokes to make their points, or gross oversimplifications ofr that matter, doesn't mean they don't get political.
The thing is, though, to me that falls more under the category of 'general Americana', in that everything is just played to type for a relatively quick laugh. The Republicans are sinister, the Democrats will give you money for nothing, Lisa's an idealist with a laundry list of causes, etc.
To me, this isn't so much "political humor" as "humor *about* politics", and there is a difference. It dovetails in with Ned Flanders and Homer and Apu and Moe's as part of the Simpsons' light-hearted, in turns both cynical and hopeful look at American life.
When I look at the Simpsons, I don't see a political philosophy animating the show, in the same sense that you do on South Park.
With South Park, IMHO, you can have a much more engaged and in-depth discussion about the show's political philosophy.
Discussion of the Simpsons' political jokes tends to devolve into bean-counting; this joke went for my group, this joke went against my group, etc. etc.
The writers didn't seem out to make a point, more just to get some laughs from the knowing recognition of the audience.
Maybe this isn't true all the time (and I admit I haven't seen every episode), but it's true enough of the time that I think we can safely say that South Park is different from the Simpsons in kind, not only in degree.
I don't think you can have much of an in-depth discussion about political issues off of a South Park episode, since they're not usually going for depth. They do make more overt political points, but most of them tend to be pretty shallow and more often than not are made just to make Matt and Trey's position look superior. Sometimes they've got a good point (see also: the Catholic League, the Family Guy episode), and sometimes they're absolutely full of it (see also: Manbearpig, atheism). While it's easier to discuss the underlying philosophy of the show itself, the utter lack of depth is a huge reason why that conversation is so easy to have.
And I do think it's worth pointing out that The Simpsons manages to inject politics into broadcast television, whereas South Park is relegated to late-night cable. The lines walked by The Simpsons are necessarily finer than those South Park faces. That earns them a bit of leeway, IMHO, and necessitates a more subtle touch than, say, shit coming out of people's mouths after food is inserted rectally.
No argument on manbearpig, but if by the atheism episode you're referring to the "Zealots of the future warring over differing interpretations of Richard Dawkins" episode, as an atheist I felt it was well-done and rather on-point.
Christopher Hitchens, among others, has pointed out that atheism (or at least a 'functional atheism' of indifference to religious doctrine) is merely one of multiple necessary preconditions for various sorts of desirable progress; in and of itself, it is not sufficient.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but I imagine that just as countless human-beings are hard-wired for religion (religiosity has been proven, to a significant degree, a heritable trait), countless human beings are also hard-wired for zealotry, and in a hypothetical future atheist world they'd still find *something* to be a zealot about.
I saw the episode as the perfect rebuttal to Dawkins' rather noxious idea that henceforth, atheists should be referred to as "brights".
What'd you take away from it?