Anything can be satirized

The censoring of last Wednesday’s “South Park” episode has generated widespread debate concerning issues of fear-mongering, freedom of speech and Islamic radicalism.

I have even participated in this growing dialogue, discussing the topic with friends and co-workers.

While the majority of the people I’ve spoken with oppose Comedy Central’s decision to rid the episode of all things “Mohammed,” I found myself in serious disagreement with others regarding a different area of contention.

Some people I’ve spoken with believe satire is only appropriate when the subject being satirized has been fairly and accurately depicted by the mainstream media.

They argue that the religion of Islam has not been given enough impartial and comprehensive treatment in popular culture, and consequently, any critique will be biased and incite further bigotry and hatred.

Furthermore, they argue that extremist groups such as Revolution Muslim would be less likely to exist in a society that fully understands the many nuances of Islam, instead of one that tends to stereotype it.

I agree that Islam has not been wholly examined and explained in the most visible bureaus of pop culture.

A news report on a suicide bombing is not generally followed by a lecture detailing the Five Pillars, and a story about Al-Qaida probably isn’t going to provide background on the Prophet Muhammad’s adolescent years.

But the purpose of satire is not to wait for everyone to have their food before starting to eat. Its objective, as the Roman poet Quintus Horatius Flaccus puts it, is to “laugh men out of their follies.” Whether the gradations of the subject being satirized are known by the audience is irrelevant.

What’s important is that satire be allowed in a free society as a form of protest against whatever the satirist feels is wrong, deceptive or dangerous.

Satire is, and should always be, allowed to attack hegemonic beliefs and practices, humiliate public figures and comment on taboo subjects.

To suggest satire should only be allowed to exist in a utopian, nonbiased world is nonsensical. A “satire-appropriate” world would require media outlets to restructure themselves as pedagogical PA systems, objectively educating the public about every potentially controversial issue. It’s an optimistic idea but not a realistic one.

Furthermore, satire is inherently biased because it uses exaggeration to make its point.

This is routinely seen in “South Park,” where an antagonist’s viewpoint or the irrationality of an issue is exaggerated to a ridiculous degree, thus making the flaws in the opposition’s argument blatant to the viewer. It’s like using a microscope to magnify an area of a painting in order to spot a forgery.

It is not the satirist’s job to make sure his or her audience has been educated about the topic being satirized, and it isn’t likely that the media will adopt the role of a high school history teacher.

It is our job to realize not everything we see or hear is gospel and to try to make well-rounded decisions based on carefully evaluated information.

After all, if the media was objective and society was fully educated about almost everything, there would be little need for satire.


E-mail: joskraus@indiana.edu