Chris’s comment on this post got me thinking a bit about parody, irony, and resignification. I wrote in my talk for the Feminism(s) and Rhetoric(s) Conference about the claim many have made that by calling Ann Coulter a “tranny” (or other such names) they are parodying her (see the post for further explanation and why I see their claims as problematic).
Chris wrote that there’s always the risk that a parody will go misunderstood or misread, but that it’s important to take that risk. I’m inclined to agree, but when is that risk worth taking? Who has the right to parody who/what? Or, more accurately, perhaps, since I am not so fond of discussing things in terms of “rights,” when might it be moral or ethical (two different things) for someone to parody someone/something else?
I’m particularly interested in this right now because of two YouTube videos that Laura May points to.
The first one is “Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene”:
The second one is “Brokeback Mountain: Christian Edition”:
These two films attempt irony in order to mock (certain) Christians for what is perceived as irrational or ridiculous rhetoric: claims that being queer is a choice, that queer-ness is going to destroy families, that queer folk should be “changed” or “cured,” etc.
However, what are the effects of these videos and other such parodies? Certainly, for one, I think there is the affirmation of queer identities. But other effects?
One effect I’ve begun thinking about is due to the increased publicity of counterpublic discourse. With counterpublic discourse more readily available (instead of, say, underground networks of zines and meetings, the discourse is much more easily and readily available to more people because of the Internet), does this make the possibility for other groups that are perhaps denigrated or mocked in order to affirm subaltern identities to see this parody and then further discount those groups as irrational, barbaric, etc.?
I think about George W. Bush and how incessantly he is mocked and parodied by liberals and the Left. I am definitely a party to this; it’s fun. It also takes a devastating situation and makes light of it so that folks don’t fall into despair. But with increased publicity of these parodies that would normally be made in less accessible (though still public) forums, does this make it harder for liberals and the Left to demand rational discourse from the Right? I have heard and read folks from the Right who call out liberals who demand rational discourse: “How can you ask for that when liberals are making fun of George Bush (or insert other Republic public figure here)? That’s not rational debate!”
And by this example, I don’t mean to fall into a Left/Right discussion, nor claim that liberals are somehow disempowered in this country, but rather point to the problems of an increased publicity for parody. And of course, I am not meaning to say that we should avoid parody. Again, I agree with Chris that it’s important to take the risk.
But what am I meaning to say by this post? I am not sure. It’s complicated? Well, duh.
This is an interesting question that I’ve been pondering as well, although I haven’t thought of it in terms of parody, but, rather just the larger issue of how civic discourse. Like you, I’ve got no ready answers, so I really liked your conclusion.
Of course, whether something counts as “parody” or not is a matter of definition, not morality. What matters morally (to me) is whether the implicit argument being made is a valid argument or not. That video about Christianity genes amounts to argument by analogy, whereas making fun of Coulter’s adam’s apple and Bush’s disfluency amount to ad hominem arguments. (I’m probably mixing up ethics and morals; I’m not clear on the difference.)