Narrowing The Scope

In our last meeting, we discussed the value of satire, and specifically ‘the value of satire in a satirical world’. However, we decided that using this as our presentation question would be difficult due to its broad scope so we threw around ideas for more focused questions. Below are a list of potential ideas (although feel free to add to this guys if you can remember anymore):

– What is the value in depoliticising the hyper political?: A casestudy of SouthPark’s commentary on Donald Trump.

– What is the comic value in satire?

– Damaging Or Empowering? What is the value of laughter during a political epoch?

– Does satire challenge its audience, or does it preach to the converted?

– ‘The ability to shock’: Has satire lost its value in a world of extremes?

– SouthPark: Offensive or Subversive?

The Guardian and The Independent both have articles claiming that the makers of South Park are going to ‘back off’ Donald Trump jokes because he has become too difficult to make fun of. (Although Anthony did not believe that the producers would be so quick to back away, and that this is perhaps a media spin on a conversation with the two producers).

The articles are here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/donald-trump-adminstration-satire-south-park-trey-parker-matt-stone-the-book-of-mormon-a7560636.html

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/feb/02/south-park-donald-trump-mr-garrison

 

We also discussed the idea of a ‘satirical world’ – can reality ever be satirical? Or does it have to be satirised in order to be so?

We set ourselves targets to read academic articles about SouthPark and select clips from series 20 that we find particularly compelling. We’ll then bring these ideas together in our next meeting.

How can we investigate value in South Park?

We’ve done a fair amount of planning but I don’t think we have spoken much about value. So, I will ramble a bit and we will see if it is helpful…

The attribution of value presents a conceptual problem. There is a sense in which everything is valuable. Racism is valuable because it provides an example of deplorable behaviour and faulty thinking. Racists who propound racists beliefs help us to refine our anti-racist arguments. Yet we would intuitively reject the statement ‘Racism and racists are valuable’. There are values and things which are valuable. Those things which are valuable must be qualified, they are valuable because of or for, that is, their value is contingent. Whilst South Park may appeal to our values, or more likely, subvert them, it seems that South Park can only be contingently valuable. A thing is contingently valuable if it is useful, if it demands critical engagement, if it satisfies personal desires and so on. Not only is something valuable because we think it is, if value is at least partially defined by utility, value is measurable. This presents some problems. Firstly, how do we measure value? Secondly, how can anything be valuable if everything is? The attribution of value to a thing implies that there are things which are not and cannot be valuable but there is a sense in which everything is.

Our project is not a strict investigation into value, but the problem of definition seems to be an immediate obstacle. If we begin with a definition of value and measure South Park by that standard it seems that we lack a focal point and are more likely to miss what makes South Park valuable. If we accept that all things are valuable, the interesting question cannot be ‘is South Park valuable?’ But, is South Park valuable for the reasons it purports to be? Why must we value South Park? What makes South Park more valuable than other objects of value? As a starting point, we should ask ‘what is South Park?’ and ‘what does it intend to do?’ If South Park possesses any value it must be in virtue of what it is and what it aims to achieve, if it fails at being what it is supposed to be (i.e if the real-world is satirical, it cannot be satire or even extreme) or doing what it is supposed to do (i.e provoking thoughtful engagement or changing minds) then it would seem to lack value.

Of course the questions don’t stop there: Does South Park’s value only lie in these features?  If not, where does the value lie? Can it be valuable because it makes us laugh or does this depend on what evokes our laughter? Are these other features sufficient to label ‘South Park’ rather than ‘this part of South Park’ as valuable? Lots of questions, no answers, much confusion, feel free to ignore.