Advertisement

Neohelicon

pp 1–18 | Cite as

Satire, humor and ecological thought

  • Massih ZekavatEmail author
Article
  • 178 Downloads

Abstract

Despite several claims on the political inconsequence and moral ambivalence of humor and satire, I contend that satire can be employed to raise environmental awareness, which requires ethical and political responsibility, and foreground environmental concerns among people and policy makers. South Park is investigated to illustrate how an alliance between satire and environmentalism can further environmental causes. The show’s environmental satire happens at three levels: direct environmental satire aiming to promote environmental ethics and encourage change; satire directed against environmentalists; and satire linking environmental issues with other adjacent concerns including politics, economy, culture, race, ethnicity, science and religion.

Keywords

Ecocriticism Environmental justice Otherness Satire Humor South Park 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professor Scott Slovic and Professor Brennan Thomas for their helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this essay.

References

  1. Anderson, B. C. (2005). South Park conservatives: The revolt against liberal media bias. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Arp, R. (Ed.). (2007). South Park and philosophy: You know, I learned something today. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Arp, R., & Decker, K. S. (Eds.). (2013). The ultimate South Park and philosophy: Respect my philosophah!. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Bogel, F. V. (2001). The difference satire makes. London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Branch, M. P. (2014). Are you serious? A modest proposal for environmental humor. In G. Garrard (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of ecocriticism (pp. 378–391). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cogan, B. (2012). Deconstructing South Park: Critical examinations of animated transgression. Plymouth: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  9. DiCaglio, J. (2015). Ironic ecology. Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, 22(3), 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frim, D. J. (2014). Pseudo-satire and evasion of ideological meaning in South Park. Popular Culture, 36(2), 149–171.Google Scholar
  11. Geybels, H., & Van Herck, W. (Eds.). (2011). Humour and religion: Challenges and ambiguities. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  12. Gilhus, I. S. (2004). Laughing gods, weeping virgins: Laughter in the history of religion. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Green, V. (2011). Critique, counternarratives, and ironic intervention in South Park and Stephen Colbert. In T. Gournelos & V. Green (Eds.), A decade of dark humor: How comedy, irony, and satire shaped post-9/11 America (pp. 119–136). Jackson: University of Mississippi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halsall, A. (2008). “Bigger longer & uncut”: South Park and the carnivalesque. In J. A. Weinstock (Ed.), Taking South Park seriously (pp. 23–37). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hazlitt, W. (1987). Lectures on the English comic writers. In J. Morreall (Ed.), The philosophy of humor and laughter (pp. 65–82). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Marshall, A. (2013). The practice of satire in England, 1658–1770. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  18. Morreall, J. (1999). Comedy, tragedy, and religion. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  19. Morreall, J. (2008). Philosophy and religion. In V. Raskin (Ed.), The primer of humor research (pp. 211–242). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parker, T. & Stone, M. (1997–2017). South Park.Google Scholar
  21. Peiffer, K. S. (2000). Coyote at large: Humor in American nature writing. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  22. Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  23. Sienkiewicz, M., & Marx, N. (2009). Beyond a cutout world: Ethnic humor and discursive integration in South Park. Journal of Film and Video, 61(2), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. The Bible: King James version. Coradella Collegiate Bookshelf Editions.Google Scholar
  25. Thompson, E. (2009). Good demo, bad taste: South Park as carnivalesque satire. In J. Gray, J. P. Jones, & E. Thompson (Eds.), Satire TV: Politics and comedy in the post-network era (pp. 213–232). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Topitsch, E. (1959). World interpretation and self-interpretation: Some basic patterns. Daedalus, 88(2), 312–325.Google Scholar
  27. Weinstock, J. A. (2008). Taking South Park seriously. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  28. Zekavat, M. (2014). A discursive model of satire. JESELL (Jena Electronic Studies in English Language and Literature). http://zs.thulb.uni-jena.de/receive/jportal_jparticle_00324293. Accessed December 20, 2018.
  29. Zekavat, M. (2017). Satire, humor and construction of identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yazd UniversityYazdIran
  2. 2.Alexander von Humboldt Foundation FellowFlensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations