The points David Masciotra (friend and writer on social justice issues) raised in his comment to my March 12 blog post inspired further thought and I would like to flesh out a few details about the subject of satire and The Daily Show.
The core issue here seems to be application. Another friend recently sent me a 2008 New York Times blog article by esteemed humanities professor Stanley Fish ("Will the Humanities Save Us?" Jan. 6). I intend to eventually write about Fish's article in more depth, but the present discussion invites mention of it.
In brief, Fish argues that the humanities - history, philosophy, literature - should not be held to any kind of external "justification," or be expected to "bring about effects in the world." As he attempts to explain:
... if they [the humanities] don’t bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them. To the question "of what use are the humanities?", the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good.
Fish's point is that people tend to not internalize the lessons on display in the great works of literature. "If it were true," he says, "the most generous, patient, good-hearted and honest people on earth would be the members of literature and philosophy departments." Arrogance does indeed abound in academia. But Fish is being cynical with the intent to change the subject, which is the purpose of his essay.
My sense is that Fish delights in disassociating himself from having to bear the responsibility of, as he quotes another scholar, "put[ting] the conventional pieties of our moral and political world in question." Instead, within the humanities one merely learns "to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge." So aside from being enjoyable, in studying literature, one can engage in analysis and taxonomy. Period.
So what of The Daily Show? Stewart routinely dodges questions and comments about responsibility, suggesting he's merely doing comedy and entertainment. In that respect, he is seeking refuge in the neutrality Fish is eager to establish. But that is his burden to bear - and Stewart the person isn't the issue.
That said, I would argue Stewart and company, more often than not, do a decent job of underlining and lampooning the right-of center elements on Capitol Hill and the shabby journalism of the mass media. As mentioned in the March 12 blog entry, Stewart, Colbert, and others are working within a centrist framework. They could push what they are doing much farther. Still, given the highly constrained nature of how politics are presented to Americans, Stewart is a breath of fresh air. He's not the height of political satire and he's not radical (in the least). I would argue he's mild and moderate. Yet, relative to the current circumstances, even moderate satire is a considerable improvement. And one can learn a bit of current events watching The Daily Show. That doesn't make it a substitute for theWashington Post or the Economist, but it is nevertheless informative.
Be that as it may, it remains up to us what we do with satire - how we apply it. It is not much of a leap to include political comedy under the humanities umbrella. What then do we do with it?
Fish's approach is useless and represents the deepest shortcomings of the intellectual culture. His is a valuable model of how not to proceed.
Mr. Masciotra seems to be warning of another unavailing path: that of always couching these matters in jokes, skits, and one-liners, thus running the risk of apathy, paralysis, and cynicism. I couldn't agree more. Humor is seductive and can create a blind alley and a justification for also doing nothing.
It is the individual's choice as to how he or she will respond to reading a classic work of literature or taking in political satire. One can get stuck in either one. As I touched on in my March 10 blog entry, Holocaust study is another potential trap. To focus on that event to the point of exclusivity is to run the risk of mythologizing the subject matter and thus doing as much harm as if it were forgotten.
Many who watch The Daily Show - it has been my observation - exhibit what Masciotra warns about. I suspect, however, that this haughty detachment is more a cultural phenomenon and is common among politically articulate liberal-left intellectuals (also an observation). They didn't pick it up from Jon Stewart; they brought it with them.
Engagement is the only exit. That is, one must engage the humanities, satire, and individual topics of study, and use them to, as quoted above, bring about effects in the world and put the conventional pieties in question. In other words, seek "involvement or investment in the potential solutions," as Masciotra also correctly emphasizes.
