In-Class Satire Essay

In human society, there are many errors, both with the individual, and with the larger institutions created by the minds of  humans. This, though, is apart of humans at the very core, and should be understandable and excused for most grievances. The real problem arises in society when certain people hide from this truth, or ignore it completely. For example, a corrupt politician working for his own benefit and not his/her constituents. This is why the satirist emerges, filling the niche to notify society when these affronts occur. The satirist writes in very specific ways; the problem is not directly spoken of, but instead hinted at in an attempt to reach the readers on a deeper level. This writing style, though, does not reach everyone, and in fact may reach a very few people, rendering satire ineffective. Because of this writing style, satire is ultimately a futile method in changing the folly in human society, because of the engrained nature of flawed systems in society, its bluntness, and  its insulting nature.

First, the theory that engrained societal institutions can't be altered is revealed in a satirical video entitled, "First World Problems." In this video, many American people are complaining about very insignificant and trivial problems. For example, one young person says, "The AC is set to 72, but I need it at 73" (First World Problems). The reaction of society to this, unfortunately, is most likely a laugh and then it is ignored henceforth. This is because Americans' way of life is too engrained into every citizen, and the satirical purpose of fixing society is a lost cause before it is even written or spoken. Americans can't be expected to change their lifestyles very drastically because of this video, especially when life in a First World country is so privileged and lazy. Another person in this video says, "I'm so hungry, but all we have is leftovers" (First World Problems). Many people in the world go without food for days, because they are very poor. Americans waste large amounts of foods, and have been doing so for many decades. This, as it is so natural to Americans, will not be changed by satire alone, and will most likely continue into the foreseeable future. Satire cannot take on problems too big to be fixed, because it will lose the battle and end up fruitless.

Another reason satire comes up short in its eventual goal to change society is because of its bluntness. This comes up in Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, as his topic is very barbaric in the literal sense.

Swift says,"...a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food..." (Swift 3). This statement alone deters many readers, as no one in their right mind would consider eating human babies. Back in Swift's time, and still today, this bluntness blinds the readers to the point where they are unable to see the deeper meaning of the text as a whole. There were many criticisms of Swift following this publication, and regrettably is the proof of his failure to expose society's folly to the public. He and his work were dismissed by many without a second glance. Another statement of Swift's on this subject is: "... twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof  only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine..."(Swift 4). In this sentence, Swift compares children to cattle and swine, a notion most humans would not care for whatsoever. This, again, puts a shield on Swift's message to society and blocks the readers from heeding his words. A satirist must always take into account the target group of readers, and in this case, Swift overlooked this possible outcome and thus failed to change society.

Finally, satire, no matter who is authoring a piece, will seem very insulting at some point or another. When authors go too far in this sense, satire becomes ineffective. As with John Oliver's investigation on gun control reform, he blatantly insults his guests about policies he seemingly knows nothing about. For example, he says, "...Gun control will never work" (Daily Show) This is very insulting to the people who have worked hard and risked themselves because Oliver is basically saying what they've done is useless. Many viewers in this instance will scoff and decide right away to ignore what Oliver says because he is just being mean and ignorant, when in fact, he is feigning this to give out his message. At another time, Oliver says in response to the statement that 'people are the problem,' "Do you know what? After spending this amount of time with you, Philip, I'm starting to believe that that's partially true."  (Daily Show) This an obvious insult to the person being interviewed, strongly implying he is a problem and stupid. This is unappealing to a lot of people, as Oliver is just being a mean and disrespectful person. So though this example does get through to some, the insults and disrespectfulness turn away many people who will never face the problem at the heart of the video.

In conclusion, satire is an ineffective tool in changing society because of intrinsic characteristics of the satirical writing style, including bluntness, insulting nature, and taking on large problems. This, though, may be considered the author's fault, as they need to write for their audience to change from apathy to empathy or sympathy. Satire can indeed be useful, and it has been effective, but it has usually  done so at a smaller level than society as a whole. But as it stands right now, with the common and preferred methods, including scathing humor and sarcasm, satire is not a productive and efficacious tool in use for the changing of society's flaws and folly.