If of interest, look up the excellent article in the Guardian on this which gave me much to think about. And is satire about Politics  as chronic abroad - and what of its role in history - does it muffle or negate action to mitigate a situation. In my case, do I laugh too much for my own good?  Err = put another way, so what has Satire ever done for us? (Apart from roll about glee.)

Is this the Guardian article, Priscilla? There can surely be no objection to my directing interested posters to it: the judicious use of such links is acceptable - no?

It's an interesting piece and a good new topic - back with a contribution when I've got more time. The Romans enjoyed a  nice bit of satire, I believe - who would be on the Roman HIGNFY panel circa 1 CE (or earlier, or later)?


Satire - the Disease in UK Politics

Satire is the best defence of a democracy (whatever one understand under democracy)

Kind regards, Paul.

Satire also potentially undermines democracy in that it gives the illusion of having satisfactorily addressed a social ill once it has been laughed at. It carries a much more potent force in more tyrannical societies which, quite understandably, classify its expression as dangerous deviation - in those cases it takes much more personal courage to be subversive, even humorously, and as such one's actions carry much more import and effect socially. In other words, satire within a democracy can reduce those who enjoy it to a role of mere critical spectator, whereas in other regimes in which free expression is not tolerated by authority and carries real punishment for those who voluntarily partake of it, it is very much a proactive and potentially effective form of very real social engagement.

In British society (a country that prides itself on a long and illustrious history of well honed satirical expression) satire has proven itself over the years to be a rather double-edged sword. It often correctly identifies in very critical form the faults of those who "run the show" and has almost equally as often on that basis been a valuable form of education in that respect, so in that way can be seen as a valuable part of the arsenal in any political movement for change. But it has also duped many people into thinking that their understandable enjoyment of the entertainment it provides somehow equates with active participation in processes effecting change. It doesn't.

Aye, nordmann, this is my experience abroad. Democratically …. under the rent a vote scheme - the duly elected  leaders brook no dissent. Only the brave or untouchable in stature sense coud dare to attempt up front satire. Some bravely did it in cartoons, artlcles - and art..... nnd some suffered somewhat for doing so by indirect action. How ever their efforts got people talking - with shrewd smiles but valuing the significance of what had been high lighted. Some the had the further courage to make an overt stand with a following.
And, as you say, in a bland democracy the wit produces laughs and 'Yer, that's right, Stupid tosser,' vein but no more than that. Just turn the page, change the channel. buy tickets for something else for a laugh is how most react.

We sorta deserve the democracy we got. So. no Paul satire does not safeguard democracy. Satire can blunt critical action to redress an ill with in it, too. I have also lived in a reasonably benign Dictatorship - and during that time the satirical output was taken seriously by the controllers. It was when they no longer did so that the Dictatorship became oppressive to the point of being turfed out eventually. We can consider also the effects of satire and the Church. (Cor, nord will have a field day with that one.)

Satire, as Nordmann says, as well as "potentially undermining democracy in that it gives the illusion of having satisfactorily addressed a social ill", can also harden and polarise opinion directly against democratic institutions, and so create an environment where any meaningful debate aiming for concensus or at least some raproachment - surely a linchpin of any true democracy - becomes impossible. I'm thinking here particularly of the reactions and counter-reactions (from all sides) to the publication of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and those of the earlier Jyllands-Posten magazine, but also, alas, to much of the current coverage of brexit as well.

Then there is satire used in propaganda; I can recall war time posters, radio shows amd film stuff that we children  revelled in, quoted and gained formulated opinion.

I think Alan Coren's decision to discontinue his "Idi Amin" letters was a (possibly rare) exampleof a satirist deciding that the net effect of makinga tyrant risible was counterproductive.

Priscilla,

"So. no Paul satire does not safeguard democracy. Satire can blunt critical action to redress an ill with in it, too."


I agree. My point was more that a satirical cartoon, if it is a good one, especially a political one, brings in one single cartoon, the essence of the problem, by picturing it in the extreme form. And as such inform in one single picture the average citizen of what is going on. But as you said the satirical cartoon can be also used as propaganda to support a political party, which counteracts the aimed action of the first cartoon. And as MM said, can harden and polarize the two positions so that compromise becomes more difficult or impossible.


At the end I have to agree that satire can be both good and bad for a democracy.


Kind regards, Paul. 

Green George wrote:

I think Alan Coren's decision to discontinue his "Idi Amin" letters was a (possibly rare) exampleof a satirist deciding that the net effect of makinga tyrant risible was counterproductive.

Yes Gil, perhaps can it be that silly cartoons of the American president Trump, can act counterproductive and even stiffen the traditional Republican  voter in their choice for Trump. And even by the silliness of the cartoon move hesitants to the Trump camp. I guess...

Kind regards, Paul.

Priscilla wrote:

Then there is satire used in propaganda; I can recall war time posters, radio shows amd film stuff that we children  revelled in, quoted and gained formulated opinion.

Satire directed against an enemy never has quite the same comical bite though, the motive is too obvious and the whole thing is very low risk, attacking people and systems already demonized through less funny means anyway. Compared to someone having a go at hypocrisy or dispensers of injustice within one's own community it's a poor candidate for being "satire" at all, I would have said.

Having said that, both world wars produced some very effective satire indeed within the UK that was directed against the UK, or at least the "establishment" targets most closely identified with prosecution of the war effort who maybe incorrectly assumed they could rely on the blind obedience of the British people (always a dangerous assumption). The BBC a few years ago, back when it ran good websites to which actual people contributed, invited those with memories of WWII to submit to a "People's War" website any anecdotes and recollections they might have from the period. It made for fascinating reading, not least when the British flair for mild subversion came to the fore. One that stuck in my mind was from a lady who, as a young woman, worked within the Ministry of Information as a junior clerk. The MOI had the job of collecting and collating the postal response from the public when they had been asked to submit names and addresses of "suspicious" Germans or pro-German neighbours they knew about who might pose a security risk as the war progressed (the appeal had been initiated by Beaverbrook, surprise surprise, in his Daily Express newspaper early in the war and an alarmed government had had to step and intercept the post). According to the contributor they quickly realised the futility of the exercise when three quarters of the opened mail specified "the royal family".

And the same was equally true for German citizens, who were never always quite the dependably docile consumers of propaganda that Goebbels & Co may have assumed, with Berliners especially excelling most often in this: (Identification tips for the average Berlin citizen when aircraft spotted overhead: If it's mostly silver it's American, if it's mostly green it's British, if it's not there at all it's the Luftwaffe).

Green George wrote:

I think Alan Coren's decision to discontinue his "Idi Amin" letters was a (possibly rare) exampleof a satirist deciding that the net effect of makinga tyrant risible was counterproductive.

Good point about Coren's series of Punch articles, GG. In a similar vein the Spitting Image people also faced an unresolvable crisis of satirical conscience when they realised that the harder they lampooned politicians the more of a badge of honour it became for the same individuals to be featured as puppets on their (inferior satire in my opinion) programme. The clincher, according to one of them, was when a letter arrived from (I think) Michael Heseltine demanding to know why something he had just said or done hadn't featured in the previous week's edition. Who's jerking whose chain at that point? ....

In a similar vein the Led By Donkeys campaign (of billboards etc, aiming to expose the hypocisy of brexit politicians by quoting their own words back at them) have had to withdraw some of their posters because they risked giving credence to the subjects of their attacks. Most people intuitively understand that quoting Michael Gove: "We didn't vote to leave without a deal", or Boris Johnson " There is no plan for no deal, because we're gong to get a great deal", exposes their hypocrisy and deceit. However after putting a pronouncement from Anne Widdecombe "Homosexual acts are wrongful" on a billboard, Led By Donkeys had to apologise and quickly remove it because feedback suggested that some might take her words at face value and so be taken as giving support for her views.

The Guardian - Led By Donkeys: 'There is political power in laughing at these people'

All interesting points. My low grade war time satire that had us strutting with finger moustaches was just comedy you reckon. nordmann - ITMA. chad, Mr Snoop, Chaplin - Abbot and Costello songs, even.  Perhaps so but did not transfer to making cult idols  which satire can do.

Perhaps Comedy as an art form would make a thread - but would that turn out to be satire (graded from very poor and weak like my example  up to Big Stuff Biting)?

Well, if you're going to distinguish satire from crude caricature for its own sake, then I suppose you also have to pay attention to the political point being made. If the humour identifies a threat or a flaw for what it is ahead of the rest of the culture, then in my book that's certainly good satire. Once the threat has been realised or a social flaw has been long exposed for what it is then it drops back into being lampoonery - which can of course be very funny, but simply isn't really satire any longer.

Satire also, as I said before, is almost always best when it carries at least a hint of risk for the satirist - by acknowledging the potential for his or her reproach the audience is invited by the satirist to think beyond the lampoonery, and in that way the joke can hit home at several different levels at once.

My Berliner example above reminds me of another one from wartime Germany, this time just after the German occupation of France when Hitler famously went to Paris within days of its capitulation and had a few photos taken on his flying visit. This was reported in a Munich newspaper with the usual tone of reportage in Nazi Germany, as in: "Our marvellous Führer and Reichsmarshall Göring today toured Paris, where they surveyed this vanquished city from atop its famous Eiffel Tower, etc etc".

Some pedantic German (such is a thing, apparently) wrote in to the newspaper advising the editor that the Eiffel Tower was in fact closed with its elevators removed, and unless the Führer had climbed all three thousand odd steps with the Reichsmarshall it is more likely they viewed the tower from the bottom, rather than Paris from its top. And anyway, from a German national security point of view, it would be highly doubtful that the Führer and his close deputy would have been allowed to stand together at the top of such high structure.

To which another correspondent added by reply "I concur that Hitler, for his safety, would not have been wise to stand alone with Göring on top of the Eiffel Tower. I concur also that the tower is indeed closed, and that neither could go up it anyway, even if they wanted to. But then, Hitler was always one lucky bastard."

By the time Göbbels got to hear about this the paper had sold out - and even propaganda Joe knew not to risk alienating the Münchners.

(You may have to realise just how Göring was viewed in Bavaria to get the satire - but whoever sent that letter in was a brave person indeed, as was the paper's publisher).

Hint of a risk...… good point. I know about that. Story of my entire life, actually..... and love it. No, not entire life I was a very quiet, almost silent child  but not scared of people. Work to do, letter to Council to write.

The Germans understood satire but what about irony? For Hitler's failed visit to the Eiffel Tower in June 1940 the victorious German commanders had a banner hung on the monument:



The banner reads: "Germany is victorious on all fronts", with the prominent V obviously standing for Victory. Properly in German it should have been an S for Sieg, but it was thought the Parisians would better understand the V for Victoire. Unfortunately the V for Victory and the four-beat opening to Beethoven's fifth symphony which matched the morse code for V, were already becoming established as a secret symbol of allied solidarity especially when broadcast by the BBC. This was something the Parisians understood all too well, while the 'joke' was apparently completely lost on the vainglorious Germans. I wonder how much influence the French civil authorities had in persuading their new masters how best to get the message across to the newly occupied city. Churchill noted that perhaps the Germans had meant "verloren", German for defeat.

The French resistance frequently altered a letter or two on these type of banners and so this particular message was often transformed to "Deutschland liegt auf allen fronten" – Germany lies (down, ie gives up) on every front.

Ah, but then you're comparing an ability to "do" satire (or for that matter irony) between members of a political ruling elite and the "ordinary" person. No competition, in any country ...