Satire is defined in my New Oxford American Dictionary as; the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
The cover on The New Yorker depicting presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle as …well, decide for yourself I guess, has been discussed for many different reasons on many different sites. I thought it was satire. I thought it was funny. Funny because it’s stupid …stupidly over the top. Sure it’s sad in way, but not in that The New Yorker printed it, but that there might exist ‘normal’ people who would take it seriously. People that might draw a parallel between a blatantly satirical image and the remote idea that Barack and Michelle actually are as they’re portrayed. Or worse.
In my recent Edge mail-outs there’s an article by Mahzarin R. Banaji called ‘The Science of Satire’. In it he discusses a basic ‘association’ that is naturally made when viewing such images. These passages of his seem to sum things up…
What I can’t understand is how Mahzarin seems to provide a science based ‘escape’ for those who can’t (or won’t) take their thoughts a few steps further and see the satire for what it is. Essentially, he lets certain viewers off the hook as far as being responsible for the conclusions they draw. He makes it alright to fall for the distortion that Obama = Osama etc., justifies their interpretations (or rather misinterpretations) and then offers ’seeing is believing’ as an alibi for the crime of ‘not thinking’. Mahzarin has reduced/limited the skeptical process, relieving the lazy observer of further thought …opening doors to all sorts of situations.
What of UFOs? Magic? Card tricks for example? Does an illusionist abandon their craft because they are concerned that the observer is ‘truly’ going to believe what it is that they do? If seeing is believing, then perhaps they should be criminally charged with promoting ‘death by saw blade’ …or unlawful concealment of a rabbit in a hat? Early infants will easily fall for the ‘depth perception‘ gag while older children themselves are great believers in Santa Claus, the Boogyman and the Tooth Fairy. Why? Because seeing IS believing …and at a basic level this is certainly true.
However, the problem is when you only operate on this principal. The nice thing about being an adult though, is that you’ve learned to see past ’seeing is believing’. The critical assessment of the visually unbelievable is one of the skills that separate us from animals …and we are NOT as simple as Pavlov’s dog, salivating at the ring of a bell. An adult is more than this. We are inquiring creatures – and our inquiring minds do not base important information/decisions solely on what they see. We challenge what is presented. We challenge both our thoughts and beliefs when it comes to the obviously unbelievable. We strive to make sense of the non-sensical, and to use our cognitive abilities for more than just reacting to what our visual cortex presents us with.
If anything, you might argue that our society has become lazy …however that’s not an excuse. Especially when passing judgements on important political events …and avoiding such wrongful conclusions like ‘Obama = Osama’.
Or even things like this. <click>






