But we have to recognize the difference in power that these two different populations have. That’s not to say that we should only ridicule the dominant religion of a country. Yet, I also acknowledge that there is a difference between ridiculing the Pope in a country that is traditionally Catholic, even if mostly secular these days, and ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad when Muslims are clearly an oppressed minority in France. And if religion isn’t fair game for satire, I don’t know what is. Neither of these vulgar depictions are very nice, granted, but surely that’s the point. Here’s another one of their cartoons, this time depicting Pope Francis wearing a skimpy Mardi Gras bikini on the streets of Rio, saying that he's "desperate to solicit customers," presumably suggesting that the Pope is prostituting himself in Brazil. The movie provoked massive demonstrations by Muslims all over the world, which is what this cartoon is poking fun at, while also doubling-down on the offensiveness to Muslims.Īs you can see, Charlie Hebdo does not hold back.īut, to be fair, they target everybody with the same level of viciousness-not just Muslims, but Catholics and Jews too. Here’s one on “The Film That Enflames The Muslim World” – a reference to the Islamophobic amateur film, The Innocence of Muslims, which depicts the Prophet Muhammad as “a depraved, homosexual pedophile,” according to Paris Match. It’s hard to come to any judgment about this question in the abstract, so I’ve included a couple of cartoons below from Charlie Hebdo. In the wake of the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo, many thought that, while it was clearly wrong to murder the cartoonists for their incendiary work, much of it did cross a line, that it was unnecessarily mean and nasty, and that it often went after oppressed and disenfranchised populations rather than just the powerful elite. The real question is when is it ever appropriate to target specific groups or specific people with such harsh ridicule, and what would make a specific group or specific people legitimate targets for satire? The fact is that a lot of what self-consciously passes for satire is mean-spirited and hateful. My own view is that whether or not something strictly speaking falls under the traditional definition of “satire” is not the issue. Satire that ridiculed the less fortunate was just in poor taste or mean-spirited. Others thought that any person or institution could be targeted in satire. Ridiculing or shaming the poor and downtrodden was just some form of hate speech. Some on the team argued that satire has to target those with some sort of power in order to count as satire. When the Philosophy Talk team started to discuss the topic satire in preparation for this week’s show, there was major disagreement about whether ridiculing those who lack power and privilege should really count as satire. That’s the power of satire.īut what about its perils? Satirizing the rich and the powerful is great, but what about when satire is used to attack the poor and downtrodden? It's the perfect way to take them down a peg or two. It’s a potent tool for exposing society’s ills, especially when it comes to politicians and other powerful people. Satire involves the use of humor to ridicule and shame people or institutions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |