3438653826?profile=originalAt the beginning of January 2015, the Western world has shown impressive, and in some cases unprecedented, unity and solidarity in response to the terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo.[1] The fundamental values that unite much of the West, including freedom of speech and of the press were defended and reaffirmed as people throughout the world became Charlie. 

 

This sentiment of je suis Charlie, which became prevalent on Facebook pages as soon as two hours after the initial attacks quickly raced throughout social media pages as the horrible events unfolded.  The more information was diffused and gathered, the more a sentiment of solidarity began to grow, with people outside of France becoming Charlie

 

However, for various reasons, not all shared in this growing, cross-cultural unity.  One such author was Remy M. Maisel, who, on January 09th, 2015 published “Je Ne Suis Pas Exactement Charlie.”[2]   In her article, she analyses Charlie Hebdo’s essence, or raison d’être in a larger context, that of satire, and whether or not the issues, debates, and images used in periodicals such as Charlie Hebdo (and by extension any similar American work) are valid forms of satire in contemporary political culture or if works such as Charlie Hebdo (and by extension, South Park, and Family Guy) fall into what she and Russell Peterson refer to as “pseudo-satire.”  For Maisel, satire “help[s] maintain a functioning democracy by encouraging critical thinking and reasoned political and social engagement.”  The difference between this noble and democratically empowering force and pseudo-satire are the alleged benefits which arise from both forms of satire.  For Maisel, pseudo-satire differentiates itself from “true” satire because pseudo-satire “lacks the social benefits of true satire, which include increased political awareness and engagement among viewers.  Instead, pseudo-satire fosters cynicism, apathy, and intolerance – the very things true satire combats.”

 

Though analyzing the content and effectiveness of satire is a useful exercise, and it is clear that Maisel is passionate and knowledgeable about the subject, it is the intention of this post to highlight some of logical flaws demonstrated throughout her work, and to demonstrate that publications such as Charlie Hedbo, South Park, and Family Guy, which according to her are “pure entertainment,” are equally as important, and sometimes even more profound than what she considers to be true satirical programs such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

The initial flaw in Maisel’s work, was undoubtedly not done on purpose and has always been a tricky trap to avoid when talking about events which have global impacts.  The issue here is one of cross-cultural equivalencies.  It is completely natural to want to compare two things that are different, to try and find similarities between the two. Its even better if the two objects being studied share a lot in common.  This is the case between the US and France.  As Maisel rightly said “…America and France were born of similar ideals…So Freedom of speech and the press is an Enlightenment ideal our nations share.”  At first glance, it would seem that any similarity found between the two countries would automatically translate into a perfect synonym for each other.  This is what was done when trying to analyze Charlie Hebdo.  Yes, it is a satirical magazine, but it is a French satirical magazine.  The two countries are not going to share the same concepts about the same words, even if they are “direct translations.”

One of the many critiques brought against Charlie Hebdo from the American media is how it portrays the French views of religions, and specifically religious figures.  Maisel states Charlie Hebdo is a weekly paper containing cartoons and reports that is known for being very irreverent and extremely anti-religious.”  Further on she continues by stating, “Often, the target of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons- the people being caricatured and ridiculed- are simply the religious.”  This is often the case, but what Maisel fails to take into consideration, are the various points of view.  Americans see religion in a very particular way, as do the French.  The idea of secularism is not at all the same between the two countries; any conversation an American has with a French person on the subject will quickly become aware of the difference.  Take for example, this response to American social media, and news outlets in regards to the attacks:

“You have no idea how much the french community on tumblr is feeling betrayed. We stood by your side many times in the recent weeks, we educated ourselves about the situation in the US, we read, we learnt. Now, our country is suffering and I read everywhere that Charlie Hebdo was a racist journal, that they had it coming.  It was not. NO ONE, I repeat literally NO ONE in France ever considered Charlie Hebdo as racist. We might have considered the drawings tasteless, but NOT racists…So, when you see the covers of the journal out of context and without understanding french, you’re seeing maybe 10% of what there’s to see.”[3]

When comparing something from a different culture, even if it’s a culture with similar values, the context of what is being compared in its regular, everyday use, must be transposed to the foreign context if any type of true understanding or comprehension is to be met.  Therefore, comparing Charlie Hebdo to The Daily Show in order to discuss the offensiveness of the former and the superiority of the latter is not a fair comparison, especially if the context of the former is never detailed explicitly.

The other critique against Maisel’s work, and by extension, the work of Peterson, is this distinction between pseudo-satire and true satire.  She states that “True satire never punches down – the target must always be someone in a position above the satirist, not someone less privileged.”  She then goes on to cite three examples of recent Charlie Hebdo issues which showed the “Prophet Muhammad, the Virgin Mary with a pig’s nose and a dog having sex with French President François Hollande.” (Again going back to the first critique about cultural equivalencies, it is a bit ironic that she uses “French President” when speaking to a non-Franophone audience about who François Hollande is. Anyone culturally familiar with the magazine or French culture in general would automatically know who he is without the title.)  None of these figures are in anyway shape or form “less privileged” than the cartoonists or authors themselves.  And if anything, shouldn’t an image of the Virgin Mary with a pig’s nose or a world leader practicing bestiality be more offensive or vulgar than just an image of Muhammad?

She rightly points out that Muslims face discrimination in Europe as in America.  This is true.  But so do other minority groups including Jews, gays, migrant workers etc, and a lot of these minorities actually benefit from hate speech protections.  These people, individually, are most likely less privileged than the social forces which hold the political power to mock.  However, publications such as Charlie Hebdo are not attacking  average individuals with their messages, articles, or imagery; they are mocking institutions, religious figures, ideas or political and religious figures, figures deemed as "fair play" by conventional standards. 

Maisel continues this distinction between true satire and pseudo-satire by highlighting the effectiveness of American television shows such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report while discarding the “other end” of this “satire spectrum.” 

What Maisel fails to take into consideration by outright dismissing shows such as Family Guy, South Park, and [author’s addition] The Simpsons, due to their “pseudo-satire” humor, is the fact that these shows, as well as publications such as Charlie Hebdo are equally important as what she considers “true satire.”   Some people are put off by these television shows for the crude humor and often offensive material, (though they shouldn’t be as making jokes about bodily functions goes back to Plato[4]), however, as any fan of either of the aforementioned shows will note, once past the bodily function jokes, the insights are profound.   Discussing subjects from blasphemy to gay marriage, recreational drugs, to political and economic philosophy, these shows enable the viewer to think about the society in which s/he lives, and to ponder deep questions.   The humor in these shows forces viewers to question their own beliefs, assumptions and perceptions by showing the absurd and often the obscene or blasphemous.  As Roberto Sirvent and Neil Baker state in their essay “Religious Fundamentalists: Always Naïve and Arrogant,” which discusses, amongst other things, how South Park handles fundamentalists (of any nature). “By taking their truth as the truth, religious fundamentalists arrogantly ignore the fact that their interpretations, like everyone else's, are driven by their own presuppositions and values.”

It could even be argued that shows such as Family Guy and South Park are “smarter” because they force the viewer to pick out the message him or herself, without having his or her satire “spoon fed” to them à la Daily Show or Colbert Report.  Those viewers of this so-called pseudo-satire, who are able to dig out the often highly intelligent, and highly intellectual jokes, gags, and references, are in no more danger of becoming cynical or intolerant than the viewer who watches these shows for the sheer pleasure of watching “a cartoon.” 

Maisel concludes her article stating that perhaps one of the outcomes of the tragedy in Paris last week is that a new conversation about free speech should start up again, that “…blanket condemnation of terror and support of its victims need not go hand in hand with blanket approval of the content of their speech.”  The je suis Charlie movement that took the social media world by storm which followed the attack  wasn’t about approving or disapproving the content of anything Charlie Hebdo said, it was a show of solidarity that any type of violent reaction or censorship against satire, or even pseudo-satire would not be tolerated. 

 

Whether or not a pen is a sword or a tool is of little importance.  What is of importance, is that they continue to be used, so that people never stop questioning whether or not the ink has written outside the margins.   But then again, to quote an expert on the subject “Oh Marge, cartoons don’t have any meaning.  They’re just stupid drawings that give you a cheap laugh.”[5] 

This post is in resposne to Remy M. Maisel's article "Je ne suis pas exactement Charlie" which appeared on politico on January 9th.  This resposne aims to analyze and critique Maisel's arguments, specifically her comparisons between French and American satire, her breakdown of "true satire" and "pseudo-satire" and the problems of cross-cultural comparisons in general.  The conclusion being that when comparing two different cultures, even cultures with similar values, one must be careful not to transpose his/her societal norms to the other culture; that even "universally understood" terms such as: democracy, freedom, satire, and secularism, each have their own very specific culture context.

James Perosi-Doughty is currently a doctoral student at the Université Bordeaux Montaigne specializing in early 20th century American liberal and progressive thought.  He has a Masters in political science from the Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV (currently Université de Bordeaux : Collège de droit, science politique, économie et gestion).  He has been in France since September 2009 and when not doing grad work, spends most of his time chasing his cat, Schrodinger (Dinger), around the house in a vain attempt to prevent him from doing things he shouldn't be doing.

(Image courtesy of Matthew A Perosi:)



[4] Cantor, Paul. « South Park and Libertarian Philosophy », The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy: Respect My

                Philosopha! Blackwell Philsoophy and Pop Culture Series, 2013,  p.179.

[5] Chow, Valerie. « Homer Erectus : Homer Simspson as Every Man and Every Woman » Leaving Springfield.

                Wayne State University Press, Michigan, 2004. p.132.

You need to be a member of New York in French to add comments!

Join New York in French

Visit our bookstore

 

 

Visit our store

Learn French