Search This Blog

Sunday, September 26, 2010

A Question of Propriety: When Play Meets Seriousness



Stephen Colbert recently spoke on behalf the United Farm Workers (UFW) in an address to Congress on "Protecting America's Harvest." The hearing was meant to acknowledge concerns about farm worker jobs as well as the sustainability of America's largest industry: agriculture. Serious stuff, to be sure. Colbert, acting in (parodic) character, delivered a pointed speech.

To put it simply, a number of people (House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer in particular) expressed their displeasure over the speech--not because it mocked many of the fundaments undergirding the argument that undocumented workers are stealing American jobs (though it did mock them), but rather because it did so with such dead-on exactitude. There is, of course, the obvious question as to the limits of humor in particular contexts. This example is no exception. Certainly a congressional hearing is not a scene in which one might expect a parodic enactment of a critique meant to level a certain perspective, let alone a blatantly performative judgment on the inertia of the government with respect to contemporary framing woes. However, it is important to note the limits of straight reason as well. Supposed reason, after all, has perpetuated the abovementioned theory and contributed to a similar mode of rationale that sustained the passing of one of this country's most egregious anti-Immigration laws in history. It is reason that has led to massive corporate farming. It is reason that expects large-scale, industrial farming to be sustain itself by the almighty "invisible hand." Reason. Its serious stuff, to be sure.


Colbert's "performance" was certainly controversial, and therefore
seriously problematic for some. Yet it speaks directly to the power of humor to speak directly--especially when, amidst the myriad problems that require serious attention, the government, as Colbert indicates, "isn't doing anything." True enough: play is not the same as reason, and humor is necessarily incongruous in its argumentative stance. But that does not make it any more unreasonable than reason itself.


Photo Credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Friday, September 17, 2010

Rally to Restore Sanity

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't." -William Shakespeare, Hamlet

The Rally to Restore Sanity.


"In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly." -Samuel Taylor Coleridge

March to Keep Fear Alive.

Enough said...for now.

Monday, September 6, 2010

It's Not My Lot Today And It's Yours Tomorrow

One of the prevailing criticisms of humor as a mode of socio-political judgment is that it does not provide any material action. That is, humor can serve as a social and political palliative, a means for placating even our darkest demons, but it cannot exorcise (or exercise) them out of existence. Let me be clear in saying that such is quite possibly one of humor's most powerful qualities (its means for placating... and, by extension, calling into question those very social and political mores that undergird the actions that may or may not be taken in a particular context). Thus, I do not completely buy the premise, especially considering the an enactment of humorous discourse can be as motivating and mobilizing as a speech, nevermind the fact that humor as critique enables changes of attitudes and reconsideration of givens, arguably the roots of action (or inaction). Then again, critics are right to, perhaps, expect more of humor and to hold "the comic's" feet to the fire. But let us not burn it in effigy before recognizing its embodiment, first in ideas, then in action. Especially when such a comic as the one below drives at a serious political point...and especially when the rhetoric of figures like Glenn Beck humorlessly laughs its way both to the bank and to the political battlefield. Indeed, we might do well to consider humor as our lot today so that action can likewise be ours tomorrow.



Image Credit: John Darkow / Columbia Daily Tribune