The Silent Satire
Author: Dorothy Hou | National Affairs Officer 2022
Dionysus sexual satire in Ancient Greece
Arise from the soil, vegetation! As the Athenians har-hawed at the phallic processions celebrating Dionysus’ (God of vegetation) rituals, it had kickstarted a prolific age in Greek history–comedic theatre. Developed for mass audiences with satirical character tropes, plays often followed a struggling protagonist undergo trial and tribulation in a comedic, clown-like way. Although the only actors were slaves, well-known comedic actor, Quintus Rocius around 126-62BC bought his freedom from the wealth he amassed on the open stages of the Roman Empire. He set the stage away from clown-like acting to wit in humour and presentation. Two thousand years later, modern television and late-night talk shows replicate the same witty humour and satire, creating careers enough to make a living off.
But satire is foggy to interpret, especially when it comes to touchy topics like domestic abuse. Medieval comedy in the 16th century introduced us to the character of Pulcinella, rooted in Italian commedia dell’arte. Over time, it developed into the familiar Punch and Judy puppet shows, making its way into Britain where its outrageously violent satire, often accompanied by a shocked audience, told a story of domestic abuse and Punch often murdering different characters. From this, even you might be unclear about the author's intention behind the satire of Punch and Judy. Was it to normalise domestic violence, or fight against it? As Charles Dickens wrote about Punch and Judy, it “is one of those extravagant reliefs from the realities of life which would lose its hold upon the people if it were made moral and instructive”. Nobody wants to listen to your lecture on domestic abuse, we simply want to laugh at it. But is that good enough to enact change in society?
Punch and Judy became a polarising show in Britain for joking about gruesome themes
Throughout the 18th century Punch had been seen as an attractive antihero. But by the 19th century, the comedic story nearly phased away completely. The drop in popularity may seem like it achieved some hefty goal of phasing out the normalisation of domestic violence because its gruesome imagery gained widespread disapproval. But the real reason was not the power of comedy to change society, it was the industrial revolution. Throughout the early 19th century, artisans were phased out of jobs and financial stability. The financial contribution of men fell and family dynamics shifted to relying on women as well. As domestic culture shifted in the middle of the 19th century, the popular misogynistic and racist tone of Punch and Judy were eventually phased away. The satire of Punch and Judy may not be honoured with changing society positively. If truth be told, it did nothing but polarise the community. For some, it reinforced domestic violence by lightening the abuse with humour, and for others, it created newfound disgust at the depictions of abuse.
***
In June 2016, to escape the creeping winter by diving into a much more fearsome summer, I found myself in China on a family visit. It was peaking midday as the heatwaves intimidated the usual street vendors when my aunt and grandma took me out shopping. I wanted nothing more than some English to read among the buzz of Chinese characters that greeted me every corner stop, and I was taken to the largest bookstore in town. Of course, I found myself in the English textbook section and as I was breezing through the books of practice tests, I landed myself with Orwell’s Animal Farm in my hand. I stopped. You stopped. With my limited year seven knowledge, even I knew Orwell should not have been China’s fan favourite piece for English literature analysis. I took it home, gave it a read and saw it as nothing but a story about some smart pigs. Of course, the allegorical satire of the Russian Revolution fell short of analysis on my part, but the bigger question was not Orwell’s message but why China had it on their bookshelves. In 2018, as China moved to censor all words related to 1984 and Animal Farm on social media in fears of charging the opinion that the nation was moving towards an authoritarian dictatorship, surprisingly they still hadn’t removed it from their bookshelves.
Whilst the popular western interpretation and Orwell himself saw it as a satire on Stalin and the failure of Marxist ideals, the slim little novel written in 1945 was equally interpreted the other way by conservatives. In fact, in Norman Podhoretz’s essay “If Orwell Were Alive Today”, his take on Animal Farm had been “a satire on the Russian Revolution so unsparing that it could be and usually was interpreted as a repudiation of all hopes of a benevolent socialist revolution”. Despite Orwell being himself a socialist and his claims on the novel, the satirical body of the piece has once again drawn the audience of many, its message misinterpreted, and the power of comedy to enact change in society questioned once again. So, why is it on China’s bookshelves? Arguably, the Chinese Communist Party may not expect most of the population to even understand the untranslated contents of the book. But, perhaps Animal Farm is just another satire misconstrued to align with the conservative political values in English classrooms on the other side of the world.
It doesn’t just end with books. When Harry Enfield released his character Loadsamoney on live television in 1988, misinterpretation was just the beginning. Enfield’s Loadsamoney character satirised the working-class citizen of Thatcher-era Britain. In one instance, Loadsamoney yells at a protest group of public sector nurses to “Get back to work you scum!” before proceeding to burn a 10-pound note on stage. The nurses go crazy, and the right-wing papers go crazy. To the nurses, Loadsamoney satirised their enemy, the affluent private-sector workers Thatcher created. But for the right-wing papers Loadsamoney was used like propaganda. In fact, Margaret Thatcher mentioned in parliament once, “We’ve got a Loadsamoney economy”. Ultimately the message Enfield envisaged by making a grotesque mockery of Thatcher-era Britain fell short. Loadsamoney met a philanthropic death. He was run over by a van for charity on live telly.
Loadsamoney aimed to satirise the capitalistic nature of Thatcher’s Britain
Aristophanes' clouds
Let’s turn 180 degrees back, let me take you through Greek comedic theatre. While Enfield was great at satirising Thatcher-era Britain, Aristophanes was hilariously good at writing Socrates. The infamous play was Aristophanes’ Clouds. In the play, Socrates runs a secretive school of thought called “The Thinkery” where his students are taught to believe in female deities called Clouds rather than the traditional gods. This arose from a period of criticism against the “sophists”–self-claimed mentors–that taught the rich subjects in unorthodox ways. It’s believed Aristophanes’ satire of Socrates contributed to Socrates’ execution in 399 BCE from allegations of impiety during his trial. Albeit nobody knows if Aristophanes intended to kill Socrates with humour, but the prolific philosopher ultimately faced an untimely death.
The power of satire to push change in society suggests it is something to be afraid of. But is political satire really effective at fulfilling its author’s purpose? When Loadsamoney got mentioned in Parliament and Socrates was dramatically killed, Thatcher didn’t stop advancing, and neither did the sophists. The power of comedy to enact meaningful change in society seems to never occur. Today, as satire grows in popularity from its blurry interpretations lending itself to a diverse audience regardless of political opinion, satire loses out on its ability to influence change in society. If China can twist Orwell, and Dickens can laugh at Punch and Judy, what’s the merit in trying to create value through satire. As stand-up comedians turn to late night talk shows like Trevor Noah, and modern media is populated by channels like The Betoota Advocate, the voice of satire is small. Often so, it leads to nothing but greater divergence as everyone’s political views are somehow validated and championed regardless of the author’s intention.