In our discussion today in 5th period AP Language, one question that was more touched on than fully explored (in my opinion) dealt with the ability of satire to effect change in society. It is my belief that satire alone is not going to cause people to change their opinions or take action on an issue.
One big reason for this is that people are fundamentally resistant to change/hearing things they don't like. We all hold certain beliefs, and are unlikely both to fundamentally shift these beliefs and to pay much attention to people espousing beliefs different from ours. For instance, I know few people who actually seek out and watch/listen to satire that openly espouses views they oppose, and those that do are not usually changed by the experience. I've never seen a liberal listen to Limbaugh and emerge a passionate conservative (although I have seen one emerge an angry, snarling madman). Usually, whenever we begin to hear things we don't like, we retreat back into familiar territory and like-minded people.
Also, I can't see satire as being something that causes people to take action. If, for example, Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech was a satirical piece, it would not have been taken very seriously, and would not have incited people to action. As another example, look at the impact such media as "The Daily Show" has: you don't see millions of young liberals in the streets demonstrating in favor of a socialist revolution.
Overall, I think that it's fair to say that satire, as a form of propaganda, is more successful at strengthening already held ideas rather than pushing people to change. Just a thought.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|