The satire conundrum

Quick—what do “Catch-22,” “American Beauty,” and “Last Week Tonight” have in common? You might say that they are all examples of satire, and you would be correct. However, they are also emblematic of issues stemming from the current role of satire in the contemporary world.

Satire is defined as “a way of using humor to show that someone or something is foolish, weak, bad, etc.” Nowadays, you don’t have to look very far to see how much it has integrated itself into the fabric of our society. Links to The Onion and ClickHole fly around the Internet at light speed. “Saturday Night Live” is as popular now as ever. And The Pledgemaesters has quickly become one of the Chronicle’s most-read columns.

It must be said that there is nothing inherently wrong with satire. Even when done poorly, it can still succeed in drawing attention to issues that may have eluded the public’s attention. Take John Oliver, for example. His late-night talk show has been lauded for its in-depth coverage of topics that are either underreported by the media and/or difficult to understand (net neutrality and predatory lending). When his jokes fall flat (as they often do), he is still able to educate people on his chosen topics.

But how much is this education worth? Herein lies the problem with the current state of satire: it must entertain as well as educate. As people often tell me, a little humor often helps make the topics covered by satire more palatable. There is certainly some truth to this statement—it is not always easy facing reality, and addressing issues straight up is a strategy that can often backfire. But what happens when people begin to see satire as nothing more than mere entertainment?

Sadly, this seems to be the case nowadays. Links are shared and videos are watched. People laugh and maybe even think about what is being satirized. But this is where the process ends. Instead of the starting and continuing of a dialogue, there is often silence. For instance, one of John Oliver’s most popular segments this year was one about Donald Trump. In it, he criticizes the Republican presidential candidate in a variety of ways, including poking fun at the changing of his last name from “Drumpf” to its current spelling. The video became a sensation—for about a week. After it made the rounds on social media, people stopped caring and went back to their lives. Nothing changed.

This is not a problem specific to satire. People in general are often reluctant to discuss topics that they feel are too real or too heavy. Last semester, for example, I went to see the musical “Next to Normal.” Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, it addresses mental illness, loss, suicide and other issues. When I recommended it to a friend, she said that she didn’t want to see it because she didn’t feel like confronting the seriousness of the underlying themes. Such a response it not uncommon, and I imagine there are many others who would say the same about “Next to Normal” and other works ranging from musicals to literature to film.

There is a certain irony in people’s resistance to discussing the underlying issues of creative works: the creators of such works often want these issues to be discussed. For example, the writers of “Next to Normal” didn’t choose the topics they did to discourage and upset people. Rather, they chose the topics they did so they could express their thoughts about, and draw people’s attention to, them. It would be a detriment to the creators’ vision, then, if we purposely chose to avoid the issues being addressed. So why do we insist on doing it?

The aforementioned irony is most apparent when it comes to satire. As soon as people lose sight of satire’s educational aspect, it loses its power to effect real societal change. After that, it becomes no more relevant than a generic mindless action thriller or romantic comedy. Once again, John Oliver proves to be an illustrative example. As soon as the Donald Drumpf segment aired, he released a line of “Make American Drumpf Again” hats which sold quickly sold out. Unfortunately, it seems that the only change brought about by the piece was the lining of HBO executives’ pockets. Such commercialization will only continue as satire becomes more and more prevalent in our daily lives. The creative market will give the people want they want, which right now seems to be nothing more than entertainment in the form of a quick laugh.