In order to wrap up our investigation into humour and satire, I will be answering the following three questions.
What happens when satire is not recognised?
Satire is sometimes not recognised due to its subtle nature. Sometimes, due to its use of sarcastic tone or cultural references, it can come across as an open insult or can even be taken literally. The latter situation can have major consequences, possibly contributing to the spread of online misinformation, even to the point where politicians believe false claims. This is evidenced by the spread of one such news article, claiming that the Obama administration wanted to house 250,000 refugees, which was eventually repeated on major news channels such as Fox News. The problem is further exaggerated by the increase in satirical content that has no “satirical value” (ie. is not actually mocking someone for their morally unjust actions) and the increased use of weaponized irony, making it very hard to understand what content actually had clear satirical intent behind it.
Is Satire dead?
As a result of political changes and changes in the way we interact with and consume media, some argue that satire has lost its shock value and necessity in challenging established ideas. This is partially because general political values have been “set in stone” in the West for the past few years with populism and distrust of establishment figures. Additionally, social media has created echo chambers, and therefore the content we tend to share and consume is increasingly likely to cater to our own values and beliefs. As a result, political satire may have lost its shock value, which is part of what made it so effective, and instead serves to comfort those who see it and vindicate them in their beliefs.
However, I would personally argue that satire is not dead in many countries outside of the West. This was evidenced by the importance of cartoonists such as Ali Ferzat in Syrian revolutions. Even here, in Singapore, political cartoons are often one of the only permissible ways to challenge the government, in a society where public free speech is strongly curtailed, but the irony, sarcasm, and subtlety of political cartoons are let slide while still having righteous anger behind them and calling our the statements of authority figures. In societies where free speech is limited and anti-establishment views are not always common, political cartoons continue to have a purpose. Furthermore, is there is a way to create satire that transcends political and social divides, and if it can be broadcast to wider audiences, it could have an effect.
So what makes something funny, funny?
I think there are many recognisable techniques used to construct humour within texts, and there are also a variety of theories of what makes something funny or humorous. One theory and set of techniques that stand out suggests that incongruity and absurdity in any form can be humourous, and this is often used in satirical texts which make use of juxtaposition, irony, caricature, and similar techniques. Some people also suggest that seeing other people suffering misfortune can be quite funny, which would explain the popularity of slapstick universally. However, it is undeniable that humour often relies on shared knowledge, values and norms, and hence, some jokes aren’t always funny to every audience.