Satire: Religion: Comedy Central unconvincingly disavows 'South Park's religious parody

.
The cable TV network, Comedy Central, is a miracle of the 500-channels technics wrawt by the mass-communications industry, a miracle that enhances cultural pluralism if allowed and protected by the a society's political order, especially in conjunction with unrestrained reception of satellite signals from near-space (satcom). In North America, we've got it except where we're limited by the intermediation of the cable companies which funnel the full panoply of possibly programs thru a wire coming to your house (or place of business, etc). That's the same funnel-wire for many over which they receive their personal computer transmissions from an Internet Service Provider, and indeed via the Net and the WorldWide Web part of it, you an receive even more than the relative figure of 500 channels.

Comedy Central is one of the "500." And it has a huge following. Included in that huge following for CC is none other than the seasonal show South Park.

The writers/creators of SP are Trey Parker and Matt Stone, by no means old-codgers they inherit the American tradition of masscom satire/parody/assault founded by Lenny Bruce.

Unlike Bruce, they evidence no social disablity, except perhaps the Too-Much alienation of the wasp-background middle-class (a benchmark typification I employ metaphorically here because I actually have little knowledge of either of their sociological profiles). But it seems fair to say they are not proceeding in their work from the emotional near-disability of a Bruce, but instead are humorists first and foremost. They work with animated-cartooning accompanied by recorded voice-overs supplied by professional actors/readers in most cases.

So, to say the duo "write" the show is a metonomy that displaces from the multi-disciplinary zone of their creativity of several masscom specialist disciplines to just one. Thus, better than the designation "writers" they fully are entitled to the usage "creators" in order to cover the list of artistic disciplines they command , all at once. One must accord to them the terms "artists" and even "geniuses" at what they do for a financially well-rewarded living.

But the assult-moment in the Bruce tradition is very much with them in their wasp-like privileged sociographic pedigrees. They aim what has often been called on the post-comments on the Web an adolescent genius for mockery that one after another sticks the pin to every inflated balloon they can manage to find with some hope of widespread recognition within their audience. This means there are no potential targets immune to their long-delayed "adolescent humour" which is essentiallly gleeful mockerty appllied snap! snap! snap! by contrasting sound-bytes (usually) from voices reminiscent of each of the seven dwarves.

This gambit as a professional strategy for the comic arts has religious implications because it prevents them from making any fine distinctions among the potential targets that are fair game. They indulge in so widely distributed a general spoofing that they produce dialogues that are at once antiJew, antiBlack, antiHispanic, anti Christian (of several varieties), antiScientology, antiGay, and antiSeeminglyEverything except antiAnti. There are no sacred cows for Parker and Stone. And all of this they convey thru squeaky little gnomic characters seemingly in their prepubescence but often wiser and meaner than their apparent ages would suggest; they are also some adult characters to serve as foils to the revived Little Rascals of early American film.

This ethos which makes an sbsolute value within the contours of the SP show, episode by episode, broadcast season by season, of no values-but-mockery, no-gods-but-parody. Outside the show, however, we can't make any judgment at all about the personal ultimate-values of the writers of SP. For all intents and purposes we just don't know.

Within the contours of the product as broadcast and viewed, however, we are well and r+tly positioned to analyze and make judgments, an activity other than laffing, wincing, or clicking off the tube. This is parody art that knows no master and no transcendent value beyond than the pursuit of humour at whoever's expense. For this reason, it was no big thing for Parker and Stone to depict Jesus as shitting on Bush and flag, and I gather being likewise shat upon himself (otherwise the Jesus-character would be given some special status, I would presume). In the past, SP has also nigrated Scientology (which mite offend Scientologists like Tom Cruise and John Travolta) but for vast majority of Americans is not regarded as a claimant to the status of "the sacred" and so not easily understood as a large enuff societal presence to be worthy of attack. In any case both Jesus and Mary, the Mother of God, in Christian traditions are targets worthy of middle-aged adolscent scorn. It's difficult to be fair to all major religions and protected minority-identities that contribute to the vital mix of our society.

This point is that at which the issue, from an immanence-critique of this masscom-professional art of mockery as a religion itself, comes into play. It would seem that in the recent episode that delited vast hordes of SP's fans and so outraged large numbers of art-critical thinkers and members of the targetted religion, those for whom Jesus is sacred and symbolic of the Good, have taken offence. Especially tell-tale is the fact that all sides acknowledge that a Mohammed character was implicated, but not degraded. This raised the specter that Parker and Stone were inconsistent, and simply anti-Christian within the contours of the show (let's be careful not to overextend our interest and concern to the ultimate values of the creative duo outside their profession, being careful on that matter to remain disinterested and agnostic).

But, the art of the creators of South Park is what's called pre-rationally polysemic and polyvalent. It has many secondary and tertiary values at play at once, and many semiotically-overcharged signs and symbols that are pre-analytic to the extent that they evoke numerous intepretations which can all be true at the same time. [In aesthetics theory I am a Seerveldian, and emotions-rooted semotics-founded analyst.].

The episode in question as broadcast included a prolonged frame with a text message that an appearance of a depiction of Mohammed had been censored from the episode by Comedy Central, and for the longest time many assumed this was so, but in the posts and comments on the Internet longtime viewing fans who had seen every epidsode ever aired in the history of the show maintained that this was just another parodic device, and I (in agreement) would add that it was semantically and semiotically fucntional in a multi-level way. Later, after the howl of bloggers and others on the Internet had dinned on for some days, Comedy Central issued a terse statement that it had intervened to stop the short segment of the (purported) Parker-and-Stone-intended display of Mohammed (but apparently without direct mockery parallel to the that of Jesus pooing and being poo-ed upon. My metareviewing take on the discussion is that Comedy Central was in cahoots with Parker and Stone from the outset. CC was not about to take a public position against one of America's most productive and widely-followed creative duos, albeit in the fine art of adolescent-seeming mockery. And it makes good commercial sense for all the masscom parties concerned, for Parker and Stone to use the device of censorship to add just another twist to the whole process, juxtaposing that in the same episdoe to the loathesome mockery of Jesus, while doctrinally true enuff as to the fleshiness of his humanity, had him "turning the other cheek" upon humans including the American president and the national flag. But this could be construed, too, according to one's politics, as positioning Jesus where he belongs - above the politics of the President and the American state.

As to the "failure" to depict Mohammed, we needn't spend time on batting about whether this was out of respect (in contrast to the disrepect of the Jesus character) or out of cowardice (fear of some Muslims going into fatwa mode against the creators and the broadcasters of the depcition that never happened).

My own position is that the American art of satire and its practioners should not depict Mohammed and should not not disrespect the images and symbolizing characters of Jesus or Moses or other foundational religious symbols held to be sacred by religious communities indigenous to American life and culture, as also now the Islamic Prophet is. One needn't pay hommage but one shouldn't offend the believers for whom such personaages are integral to their deepest feelings and ultimate values. There will be problems in understanding just who and how some more marginal religions should receive the general respect that makes for civil peace and feelings of inclusion in the social order. At the same time, I say this, I think we can (and I surely can) live with the fact that South Park is ensconced in the entertainment system and has its devotees. I don't have to watch it; and I don't very often because of the wide-scope of my TV watching, while I mainly blog. I've just clicked on the TV to catch the last 5 minutes of today's The Young and the Restless. Then comes the news with Kevin Newman on Canada's Global network. There are religious forces at play here in both of these as well, much more under the surface, much harder to discern the spirits. Next to them, South Park is a piece of age-ing adolescent cake. -Anaximaximum

Tags: Pluthero's impersonation, identity theft, character assassination

• aesthetics
• art
• satire
• parody
• mockery
• tv
• cable
• tv
• masscom
• humor
• polysemous
• polyvalent
• disrespectreligious
• mohammedepiction
• jesusmockery