Beyond a Cutout World: Ethnic Humor and Discursive Integration in South Park
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Beyond a Cutout World:
Ethnic Humor and Discursive Integration in South Park
matt sienkiewicz and nick marx
a quick survey of recent popul ar Ameri- Although this understanding may suffice for
can film and television comedy reveals a trend the purposes of popular criticism, it neglects
in the portrayal of racists, racism, and the sorts the question of how media texts are ultimately
of stereotypes historically associated with con- able to create messages that, while offensive
servative, Eurocentric worldviews. Comedians on one level, can be deemed socially accept-
such as Sarah Silverman, films such as Borat: able when considered in a larger context. It
Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit also fails to consider whether this trend makes
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, and television a positive, progressive contribution to discus-
shows such as FOX’s Family Guy all casually sions of prejudice in America or works to anni-
reproduce the external markings of racist hilate the distinctions that make such debates
beliefs in the service of comedy with what is possible. In this essay, we look to the show that
presumably an ironic tone. As New York Times perhaps best represents this phenomenon,
critic A. O. Scott notes in discussing the work of Comedy Central’s South Park, in order to arrive
Silverman, such texts are often assumed not to at a better understanding of the ways in which
be truly racist by virtue of the fact that they so the program’s overtly offensive ethnic humor
effortlessly engage in the offensive. Ironic rac- operates within a broader discursive context. In
ism, in this view, takes advantage of the notion doing so, we argue that the program’s integra-
that in a culture so concerned with political tion of offensive humor into contemporaneous
correctness, only creators “secure (in their) lack media discussions of ethnic prejudice works
of racism would dare to make, or to laugh at, a to show such prejudice as a systematic, social
racist joke” (E13). Thus, to present racist char- problem, not one that can be blamed on certain
acters in the current comedy environment may, “bad” individuals.
paradoxically, testify to the creator’s ultimate Current scholarly accounts of the use of
lack of prejudice.1 ethnic humor in adult-oriented cartoons in
general, and South Park in particular, are insuf-
ficient because they often fail to account for
matt sienkiewicz is a PhD student in media and the life that these programs have beyond their
cultural studies at the University of Wisconsin– moment of broadcast. The offensive ethnic
Madison. His primary research areas are Palestin- humor in South Park must be understood in a
ian television, media globalization, and depictions
discursively integrated context, one that takes
of Judaism in American popular culture. He is also
an Emmy-nominated screenwriter and a documen- into account the material circumstances of the
tary producer. show’s production and its circulation within in-
dustrial and cultural discourses. By accounting
nick marx is a PhD student in media and cultural
studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. for the way in which South Park has moved to
His research focuses on popular film and televi- a shorter production schedule that allows it to
sion comedy. consistently engage with public discourses sur-
journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009 5
©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinoisrounding current events, we demonstrate that outlets such as Comedy Central, at least for
the program’s offensive ethnic humor needs to the time being, offer transgressive humorists a
be set against a broad context that has been forum that both accommodates their style and
previously unexamined. We contend that South ensures it an increasing viewership. Although
Park must be understood as what Geoffrey not grappling specifically with South Park’s
Baym calls “discursively integrated media” ethnic humor, Tueth nonetheless cites a criti-
set at the intersection of “news, politics, en- cal industrial element—the program’s position
tertainment and marketing” (262). We argue on cable—that we expand on in examining
that South Park is not constructed in a manner South Park’s process of discursive integration.
conducive to the sort of deep textual analysis Although Tueth points to the broader discursive
to which great works of literature are so often context in which prime-time animated sitcoms
profitably subjected. Instead of great depth, the might be understood, work focusing specifi-
show achieves its complexity through a wide cally on offensive representations of ethnic
and far-reaching web of connections to other minorities in such programs remains largely
media texts and, crucially, the larger discourses relegated to the textual level. In the following
with which these other texts are engaged. It is analysis we review scholarship that employs a
this latter attribute that separates “discursively literary-interpretative model in order to concep-
integrated media” from the merely intertextual. tualize offensive humor in prime-time animated
South Park not only asks the viewer to make sitcoms. We then address the shortcomings of
connections to other media, but it also asks its such work and appeal to the broader contexts
audience to critically engage with the modes of in which South Park’s ethnic jokes exist.
discussion in which these secondary texts are Melissa Hart’s article “South Park, In the
participating. Tradition of Chaucer and Shakespeare” is
pedagogical in origin and thus emerges from a
Literary Models for Understanding Ethnic consideration of a very specific sort of audience
Humor in Prime-Time Animation (B5). The question for Hart is how it is pos-
sible for a group of professors and students,
Despite the considerable public controversy individuals who take “political correctness to
that South Park’s offensive ethnic humor gen- a level mimicking Orwell’s thought police,” to
erates, relatively little scholarly attention has find themselves laughing at South Park’s anti-
been devoted to the specific ways in which Semitic stereotypes and other offensive humor.
the program’s ethnic comedy functions both Hart suggests that other viewers, particularly
textually and contextually. Recent work in Dal- those of an older generation, tend to be un-
ton and Linder’s The Sitcom Reader, though, able to move beyond the show’s crudeness,
provides a good starting point for grappling dismissing South Park as “coarse and ugly.”
with the elements of South Park’s humor that For Hart, these difficulties can be resolved
transcend and transgress textual boundaries. simply by re-dividing potential South Park view-
Michael V. Tueth’s “Breaking and Entering: ers into two groups: those who miss the point
Transgressive Comedy on Television” (25–34), and those who get it. Comparing the show’s
for example, argues that South Park represents characters to obscene and offensive characters
a mainstreaming of transgressive humor that created by Chaucer and Shakespeare, Hart
had previously been seen only in more mar- suggests that South Park represents the latest
ginal pop cultural settings, such as the 1983 way in which “intellectuals have stepped down
Hustler magazine advertisement that lam- from the upper classes to revel in lowbrow
pooned the supposed vices of Reverend Jerry humor” (B5). The educated among the rabble
Falwell. Tueth questions whether South Park are thus able to better discern the meaning of
and its foul-mouthed ilk will eventually become the humor, enjoying it on a deeper level that is
television’s comedic norm but notes that cable more in line with the creators’ presumed inten-
6 journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009
©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinoistions. In the specific case of South Park, Hart the Clown’s reprisal of an archaic, buck-toothed
contends that the show, properly understood, Japanese stereotype to the show’s portrayal of
“is really making fun of us—both the people modern-day Japan as a land full of emotionless
who recognize the ignorance-based stereo- people. Dobson acknowledges that such depic-
types that humanity has cultivated, and the tions may be seen as offensive, inflaming latent
people who buy into those stereotypes” (B5). anti-Japanese sentiment in America and across
Simply put, if the viewer is smart enough, it is the world. He is quick to counteract this per-
obvious that, for example, South Park character spective, however, claiming that any such fears
Eric Cartman’s campaign against the “the filth represent “overreactions and that a closer read-
of the common Jew” is funny because anti- ing of the scripts and images fails to reveal any
Semitism is ridiculous, not because Jews really bigotry” (56). It is a deeper look into the text,
are worthy of disdain and degradation. In this he argues, that ultimately redeems the appar-
approach, the enlightened viewer identifies ently offensive content of the show. Although
prejudice as a problem of the individual to be Dobson specifically discusses The Simpsons,
cured by educating that individual. It fails to ac- he also makes reference to Hart’s work on
count for the broader, systematic, and cultural South Park. In order to offset the accusations of
elements that might be implicated—one might racism leveled against The Simpsons, Dobson
infer from Hart that if we all “got” South Park, sets up a two-step system of literary analysis—
we would cease to be racist like Eric Cartman. the first step removes the danger from the
Similarly, the respective approaches of humor in question, and the second attributes a
Hugo Dobson and William Savage Jr. to South positive value to it.
Park’s offensive ethnic humor are based in a Dobson utilizes Bakhtin’s notion of the car-
literary-interpretive model. In many ways these nivalesque in order to defuse The Simpsons’
theories employ Hart’s intuition as a founda- potential to offend. Quoting from Bakhtin,
tion on which to build more nuanced visions he notes that the carnivalesque “celebrates
of the manner through which offensive humor the body which eats, digests, copulates, and
can be redeemed. These two approaches both defecates” (57). A text that employs such cues
presume a deeper textual level within the texts can more easily establish itself as engaging in
of South Park that may justify our acceptance the carnivalesque and thus creates a situation
of its apparently inappropriate humor. The key, where “everyone and everything is a target”
they argue, is locating the proper critical lens (58). Key to Dobson’s argument is the medium
through which to see that depth. It should be of animation. The Simpsons and South Park,
noted that Dobson and Savage engage with by virtue of being animated, can and do quite
both The Simpsons and South Park in their freely engage in the sort of body-oriented
respective analyses, often using one show to humor that serves as a marker of the carni-
illustrate a point that applies to both. Although valesque. By recognizing this level of meaning,
there is no doubt good reason to compare the viewer can then see that these shows are
these shows to one another, Dobson and Sav- providing “an opportunity to ridicule and let
age overstate their similarities while excluding off steam against the piety of current political
some relevant connections to other programs correctness” (58) as opposed to engaging in
and mediated discourses. anything truly offensive.
In an article titled “Mister Sparkle Meets the Having established that a close look at The
Yakuza: Depictions of Japan in The Simpsons,” Simpsons will identify its ostensibly offensive
Dobson refutes accusations that The Simpsons’ humor as acceptable, Dobson then employs a
portrayals of Japan and Japanese people ought second mode of literary interpretation in order
to be viewed as racist (44–69). Cataloging to illuminate a positive aspect of ethnically
complaints levied against the show, Dobson insensitive comedy. Appealing to philosopher
outlines a list of offenses ranging from Krusty Carl Matheson’s notion of hyper-irony, Dobson
journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009 7
©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinoisdemonstrates that shows such as The Simp- ings of these texts that fail to engage in deep,
sons and South Park actually work to undercut thoughtful analysis (197–224). Savage refers to
the sort of ignorance and prejudice of which the “false dichotomies” that are constructed in
they are often accused. According to Matheson, the world of literary analysis in order to sepa-
hyper-irony occurs when a comedic text con- rate the serious from the popular (202). Having
sistently advances “positions only in order to been lumped into this second category, a show
undercut them” (118). Much of Dobson’s argu- such as South Park, he argues, tends to be
ment depends on the idea that the creators taken at face value, whereas a more respected
of these shows “are highly educated and are text would be probed for subtle or symbolic
familiar with the object of derision,” thus echo- meaning. Speaking pedagogically, Savage em-
ing Hart’s notion of intellectuals descending to phasizes the importance of teaching students
the masses to enjoy layers of meaning embed- and scholars “to see the levels of satire which
ded in “lowbrow” forms (60). Here, Dobson exist in the most otherwise beneath-consid-
points to a specific moment in The Simpsons eration text” (221). He contends that such an
episode “Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo” in which approach has the ability to redeem offensive
Homer makes the “statement that if he wanted ethnic humor and even expose oppositional,
to see a Japanese person he would have gone progressive elements embedded within it.
to the zoo” (60). As Dobson notes, however, it Although Savage is explicit in his belief that
is quickly revealed that Homer is merely refer- training in “the interpretive logic of satire”
ring to a Japanese friend of his who works at (222) can redeem “Jew jokes or goofy Chinese
the local zoo, removing the apparently racist accents” (220), offensive ethnic humor is a
element of the humor by drawing attention to subspecies of the more general sort of text he
the common assumptions viewers are likely to wishes to redeem in the essay. Savage’s goal
hold. This type of joke, according to Dobson, is is to show that South Park, considered closely,
common to both The Simpsons and South Park. often intends meanings in direct opposition to
Both shows employ this sort of irony in order what it overtly states, and it consistently ad-
to turn their ostensibly racist jokes back on the vances nuanced positions in ways that surface
viewer. By momentarily seeing the program as readings of the show miss. To illustrate this
racist, the viewer is forced to confront his or point, Savage considers the episode “Death”
her own assumptions and latent prejudices. and its engagement with the taboo subject of
Through the lens of hyper-irony, offensive euthanasia. In the course of an outrageous and
humor is mitigated by its turn into a progres- crude argument over whether or not the South
sive statement. Although Dobson’s mode of Park character Stan should aid in his grandfa-
critique is compelling in many ways, it focuses, ther’s suicide plans, the episode introduces
like Hart’s, primarily on a single text, failing to a subtle, important point, Savage argues. By
account for additional discursive elements. As momentarily contemplating the lingering ef-
such, when a particular text includes a narra- fects such an action would have on Stan’s later
tive or joke that does not seem to overtly under- life “in the midst of all the fart jokes and sight
cut its offensive elements, it becomes difficult gags” (219), South Park subtly adds to the pub-
to read the text as positive or progressive ab- lic debate on this very serious, controversial
sent the larger context. issue. Although such a moment is likely to be
In his article “‘So Television’s Responsible!’: missed by the casual viewer, Savage says, one
Oppositionality and the Interpretive Logic of who applies reading strategies usually reserved
Satire and Censorship in The Simpsons and for more respected texts will find the show to
South Park,” Savage, like Dobson, suggests be full of rich, often oppositional meanings.
that complaints about the offensive content The use of such “dual-level methods inher-
of prime-time animated sitcoms such as The ent in the interpretive logic of satire” (222),
Simpsons and South Park emerge from read- Savage ultimately contends, can potentially
8 journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009
©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinoisallow a viewer to get past the apparently offen- proach to understanding a media text requires
sive elements of South Park, including its pen- an understanding of the uniqueness of produc-
chant for jokes that attack marginalized ethnic tion and exhibition of South Park, one that
groups. This approach, much like Dobson’s, is facilitates its interaction with contemporaneous
one that instructs the viewer to look closely at media coverage of any given subject matter.
a given episode, ferreting out its deeper mean- Accordingly, the ethnically insensitive humor of
ings and using them to counterbalance the the show ought to be interrogated not only via
simpler, cruder ones that superficial readings close literary analysis but also via its industrial
of the same text provide. Although this read- context and the ways in which it both subtly
ing strategy can be useful in some analyses of and overtly interacts with mediated elements of
South Park, it can be problematically limiting public discourse. Just as Savage draws parallels
in certain instances because of its inability to between “Death” and early South Park epi-
account for discursive elements that reside sodes that feature “Jew jokes or goofy Chinese
outside of a given text. Before moving on to accents,” the discursively integrated Schiavo
illustrate this point by appealing to recent de- episode serves as a useful example when con-
pictions of Muslims and anti-Semitism in South sidering later episodes such as “Passion of the
Park, it is instructive to briefly consider Sav- Jew,” “The Snuke,” and the “Imaginationland”
age’s approach in the context of a more recent series.
episode of show.
The episode that Savage considers focuses South Park Production Practices and New
on the question of euthanasia in general terms Possibilities for Discursive Integration
without any obvious real-life analogue. As
such, in order to perform the sort of in-depth So far, we have argued that existing models of
reading that Savage recommends, one can rely reading ethnic offensive humor in prime-time
mostly on a general cultural knowledge that animated sitcoms rely on literary modes of
includes a basic understanding of major ethical interpretation and require the viewer to have
concerns, including assisted suicide. What if only a cursory understanding of the show’s
he had used “Best Friends Forever,” however, discursive context. The following sections
an episode that heavily parallels the persistent characterize recent seasons of South Park as
vegetative state controversy of Teri Schiavo? In an exception to these models, one whose
order to develop a full understanding of this construction of ethnic stereotypes is more inte-
episode, a viewer needs to do more than apply grated into the political and cultural discourses
general knowledge through close textual analy- surrounding the show and whose humor arises
sis. In addition to making reference to contem- not only from a coherent reading of the text, but
poraneous events, “Best Friends Forever” also also from what Lynn Spigel has called “semiotic
engages with the innumerable media com- breakdowns” (258). In discussing South Park’s
mentaries that were produced on the subject place in the post- 9/11 media landscape, Spigel
during the weeks surrounding Schiavo’s death focuses on the exaggerated, nearly incoherent
in 2005. In such an instance, although a close nature of the show’s storytelling when deal-
look at the show’s text is certainly important, ing with controversial subjects. She suggests
one might also consider what is available to the that the lack of obvious internal meaning in
viewer who looks outside of the episode itself episodes such as “Osama bin Laden Has Farty
in order to find meanings that transcend its Pants” encourages the viewer to read the pro-
surface level crudeness. Seen in this broader gram not as a direct comment on post-9/11
discursive context, the offensive elements culture but instead as a meta-comment on the
of the show may take on different meanings media itself, emphasizing the cacophony of
by interacting with and commenting on other political opinions being broadcast and the lack
media texts. This discursively integrated ap- of substance behind them. We seek to expand
journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009 9
©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinoisSpigel’s observation, demonstrating how simi- for differences among programs of a particular
lar meta-commentary is triggered by the show’s genre. South Park might be culturally con-
ethnic humor. In the following case studies, structed like any other prime-time animated
we argue that exaggerated portrayals of Jews program, but its harried, weekly production
and Muslims are intended to motivate critical process grants it access to issues largely un-
consideration of the ways in which the media available to its generic brethren.
present topics such as anti-Semitism, Islamo- South Park co-creators Trey Parker and Matt
phobia, and ethnic sensitivity. Whereas The Stone initially collaborated as students at the
Simpsons, for example, makes politically pro- University of Colorado on the animated short
gressive commentary on ethnic stereotyping ac- Jesus vs. Frosty, creating it entirely out of con-
cessible through literary notions of parody and struction paper and shooting it on 8 mm film
satire, South Park obfuscates such readings by using stop-motion animation techniques. After
utilizing stereotypes that can be read simulta- the short circulated among a handful of televi-
neously as regressive within the confines of the sion executives, the duo landed a deal with
text and as progressive in its implications be- Comedy Central, and South Park premiered
yond the text. But if both shows arise from the on 13 August 1997. The series instantaneously
same sociohistorical context, how does South became a hit despite, or perhaps because of,
Park dialogue with the network of discourses widespread derision in the popular press. The
around it in a different manner than that of its program was a huge boon to Comedy Central
prime-time animated brethren? in advertising revenue, in merchandising,
The best way to approach South Park’s and in ratings support for programs such as
circulation within cultural discourse is to first The Daily Show. Moreover, in its first season,
address that of prime-time animation. Jason South Park cost merely $250,000 per episode
Mittell has argued for a definition of television to produce, compared to the $600,000 aver-
genres (such as cartoons or situation com- age cost per episode to produce a live-action
edies) that transcends the text, identifying, situation comedy at that time (Carter D11). This
among others, program scheduling and chan- low cost sprang from various factors. Parker,
nel identity as two industrial discourses key to with nominal support from a writing staff, wrote
understanding television genres (56–93). This every script, and he and Stone voiced nearly
framework proves instructive in the case of The every character in the South Park universe. This
Simpsons, a program used by Fox initially to process remains more or less intact today. Ad-
woo viewers away from the Big Three and later ditionally, South Park kept all of its animation
to build audiences for animated sitcoms such in house in their California studios, minimizing
as Futurama and Family Guy. As prime-time outsourcing costs common to other prime-time
animation has found increasingly comfortable animated sitcoms. This is as much a result of
niches beyond broadcast networks on cable, Parker and Stone’s control over the show as
industrial discourses have become especially it is the natural evolution of its cutout anima-
important in describing prime-time animation’s tion techniques. Although the Jesus vs. Frosty
circulation as a television genre. South Park, for short and the pilot episode (“Cartman Gets
instance, has helped define the explicit genre an Anal Probe”) were created with the same
expectations established by Comedy Central construction paper and stop-motion animation
and has fostered the growth of like-minded techniques, Parker and Stone found the manual
satirical cartoons such as Drawn Together and workload unsustainable over the course of an
Lil’ Bush. Although this approach capably ad- entire season and quickly moved to computer
dresses the discourses through which televi- animation programs that simulated the show’s
sion genres are constructed, circulated, and rudimentary, original aesthetic (Tanner).
understood, we also wish to emphasize the In latching onto new digital animation tech-
material conditions that create the potential niques while holding to their impulse to attack
10 journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009
©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinoisanything and everything, Stone and Parker were As animation director Eric Stough notes, “The in position to comment on contemporaneous computer allows us to be so efficient that we issues. Stone joked, “We can ‘cast’ whomever can crank out 6–8 shows in that many weeks we want, or fly to Mars or have four airplanes . . . We owe our entire ways of scheduling to flying overhead at one time. We just need to cut the fact that we are computer based” (“Inter- up a few more pieces of construction paper” view” 26). Although not every episode sub- (qtd. in Meisler 3). Crude content mirrored its sequent to “Chef Goes Nanners” necessarily rough form in the early going, as topics ranged addressed some event contemporaneous to from anal-probing aliens to chicken-“loving” its production, it is important to note that the weirdoes. Though South Park utilized some potential existed for this to happen, a potential inflammatory representations of marginal- facilitated by the program’s weekly production ized groups in its first several seasons, it did process. so in a manner largely circumscribed by the The show’s ability to stay topical, facilitated conventions of parody and satire. “Big Gay Al’s by its weekly production schedule, was placed Big Gay Boat Ride,” for example, introduces a into sharp relief after 9/11. Fewer than two parodically exaggerated gay character (Big Gay months after the attacks, “Osama bin Laden Al, donning an ascot and lisping platitudes like Has Farty Pants” aired, an episode in which “Fabulous!”) into South Park in order to teach the children visit their Afghan counterparts and the children “it’s O.K. to be gay.”2 “Jewbilee” hunt down bin Laden. The episode’s bizarre satirizes misconceptions and commonly held climax, a Looney Tunes homage featuring Cart- tropes of Judaism without explicit reference to man in the Bugs Bunny role and bin Laden contemporaneous events or discourses. These (whose evil nature is at one point attributed episodes function not as part of a larger dis- to small genitalia) as the hapless Elmer Fudd, cursive web, but as media texts encoded in a refuses any compartmentalization into the manner similar to that of The Simpsons. But as dichotomous “with us or against us” rhetoric South Park headed into its middle seasons at of the period. As Spigel notes, “the program the beginning of 2000, the confluence of world establishes such a high degree of pastiche, affairs, media industry transmogrification, and blank irony, and recombinant imagery that it the show’s own production process would yield would be difficult to say that it encourages any something more significant. particular ‘dominant’ reading of the war” (258). As South Park’s profile continued to grow Indeed, Parker and Stone seemed disinterested with the release of the movie South Park: Big- in using the show as a sort of moral compass, ger, Longer, and Uncut, Parker and Stone took resisting any obvious or symbolic reading of bin on increasingly provocative and controversial Laden’s inflammatory representation. Instead, subject matter. In July 2000, American news as we argue in this article, episodes such as media focused on the controversy swirling “Farty Pants” can be seen as part of a broader around the South Carolina state legislature. web of discourses, one spreading across media At issue was the removal and re-placement of texts, networks, and genre. the Confederate flag that had long sat atop the As South Park (and the rest of the country) state’s capitol building. On July 1, the flag was tried to move on after 9/11, Parker and Stone removed from the capitol dome and placed became acutely aware of the show’s associa- on the lawn in front of it. According to Stone, tion with current events. Stone complained South Park sought to incorporate the imagery before the start of a new season in September and rhetoric of the controversy as it unfolded, of 2005, “‘Now it’s like, ‘What’s South Park including them as part of the episode broad- going to do this week about Hurricane Katrina?’ cast July 5, “Chef Goes Nanners.”3 This repre- I don’t know what we’re going to do. We should sented the first time the show had specifically do an episode about how the town can’t wait responded to current events as they unfolded. to see this show and what they ’re going to do journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009 11 ©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinois
about Hurricane Katrina” (qtd. in Aurthur E1). exaggerated, is actually not uncommon within
Stone’s comments point to a larger concep- white supremacist groups. Even when Cartman
tion of the program held by Americans and defends the film The Passion of the Christ by
how the public looks to South Park for relevant praising its ability to expose the “filthiness of
social commentary, not just satire-derived the common Jew,” he employs language that
laughs. Again, South Park’s weekly production appears regularly on hate Web sites such as
schedule, though not necessarily a mandate for stormfront.org.4 When placed within its larger
topical humor each week, enables the show to discursive context, however, the episode’s of-
circulate among contemporaneous political and fensive content can be understood as part of a
cultural discourses in a manner unavailable to systemic, comedic critique of contemporane-
other prime-time animated sitcoms. Further- ous public debate regarding anti-Semitism.
more, the production schedule, in conjunction To a certain extent, the “hyper-irony ” that
with adjacent program scheduling and Comedy Dobson suggests mitigates the racism of
Central’s channel identity, propels South Park prime-time animated sitcoms is at work. Al-
beyond the realm of literary interpretation and though Cartman is given ample time to voice
into a framework of commingling discourses. his anti-Semitism, he is rebuked by the end of
South Park’s placement before the “fake news” the episode. Mel Gibson, the director of 2004’s
hour of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report The Passion of the Christ and the inspiration for
reinforces its status as a text in dialogue with Cartman’s ideological position, shows up as a
the same political and cultural issues ad- character in the episode. He is, much to Cart-
dressed by the latter two shows; accordingly, man’s chagrin, absolutely insane (the episode
all three programs have helped forge Comedy ends with Gibson defecating on Cartman). This
Central’s reputation as a network that markets narrative strategy does not provide a clear-cut
a unique blend of information and entertain- moment of the seemingly offensive character’s
ment. South Park and Comedy Central’s brand prejudice being negated, as in the case of The
of cultural production need not be character- Simpsons’ undercutting of Homer’s Japanese
ized by the bedraggled label of “infotainment,” zookeeper joke. By attaching Cartman’s anti-
as Geoffrey Baym has argued (262). Instead, Semitism to the mentally unstable Gibson,
the program can be better understood as an ex- however, a certain amount of negation does
ample of what he calls “discursive integration, take place. Yes, Cartman is anti-Semitic, but by
a way of speaking about, understanding, and implication the broader narrative suggests this
acting within the world defined by the permea- to be a major flaw in his character. A literary-
bility of form and the fluidity of content” (262). interpretative reading of this text might there-
It is precisely through this framework of inte- fore conclude that its true meaning is one that
gration that we argue South Park, in contrast shows the similar natures of anti-Semitic and
to other prime-time animated sitcoms, places mentally insane worldviews.
itself among a discursive network of politics, Yet, an analysis of the remainder of the epi-
culture, and humor. Nowhere is this network sode complicates such a conclusion. Although
more readily apparent than in the show’s utili- Cartman’s loathsome anti-Semitic stereotypes
zation of ethnically offensive humor. may be blunted by Gibson’s insanity, the actual
Jewish characters portrayed in the episode
“The Passion of the Jew” serve to re-inscribe such stereotypes. In ad-
“The Passion of the Jew” provides an ideal ex- dition to being big-nosed and loud-mouthed,
ample of an episode that might, at first glance, they are also irrational, clannish, and deter-
be condemned on grounds of offensive ethnic mined to impose their will on the media by
imagery and rhetoric. South Park character Eric getting The Passion of the Christ pulled from
Cartman advances an anti-Semitic position the local theater. After Kyle (a Jew himself) sug-
that, while seemingly hyperbolic and comically gests taking a rational approach toward Jewish
12 journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009
©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinoisculpability in Jesus’ crucifixion, the Jews form exaggerated and often alarmist sentiment a mob and take to the streets. They are met by from both sides. On the one hand, Gibson’s a group of enraged citizens who have unknow- discussion of the film’s importance was taken ingly been recruited to support Cartman’s pro- to outrageous lengths, perhaps most strikingly Gibson, anti-Jewish crusade. Before the groups during an interview in which Diane Sawyer very are able to engage in any sort of real discus- seriously asked him whether God had written sion, however, Gibson shows up, his bizarre the film.5 Elsewhere in this interview, Gibson behavior destroying whatever limited possibil- defends himself by stating that not all Jews ity for dialogue may have existed between the are “eternally cursed by God,” underscoring two irrational, uninformed mobs. the extent to which discussions of the film and Our argument regarding this episode is not anti-Semitism became interchangeable. On the that a literary/textual analysis of the episode other side of the issue, Anti-Defamation League fails to provide any insight. Indeed, Dobson’s spokesman Abe Foxman battled with Gibson, application of Matheson’s hyper-irony shows going so far as to associate The Passion of the the multiple levels on which the episode is Christ with the sort of public anti-Semitism at operating; Savage’s close reading strategy the root of the Holocaust.6 also proves useful, particularly when Kyle, This was a debate waged largely via political amidst much sensationalism, sneaks in a rarely punditry and opinionated forms of journal- mentioned aspect of the debate over potential ism. As such, it became a staple not only on Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. We programs such as The O’Reilly Factor and contend, however, that no matter how deeply Countdown with Keith Olbermann, but also one delves into this text, the viewer is likely The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a program to come away with a mixed message, includ- that runs both before and after each episode ing one that potentially reinforces anti-Semitic of South Park. For the month leading up to agendas and action. the premiere of “The Passion of the Jew,” The In order to come to a fuller understanding Daily Show consistently ran segments point- of what appears to be virulent anti-Semitism ing to and mocking the way in which Gibson’s in “The Passion of the Jew,” the episode must film was being discussed in media outlets, be considered in a broader context rather than thereby commenting on the discourse while delving more deeply within the text. Unlike The simultaneously becoming an integral part of Simpsons, South Park is produced on a short it. As Baym suggests, The Daily Show’s satiric, schedule by a relatively sparse staff. Certainly, entertainment-oriented approach to news this circumstance does not necessarily pre- serves to blur the lines between form and clude the program from achieving the sort of content, news provider and newsmaker (262). deep, complex satire that is often attributed The discursive integration of the show creates to The Simpsons, but South Park’s manner of a permeability, one in which the target of dis- production is one built more for timeliness and course is often discourse itself. less for the crafting of multiple textual layers Although no one looking at “The Passion of to be peeled back by the close reader. The pre- the Jew” would mistake it for news coverage or miere of this episode on March 31, 2005, barely a straightforward editorial, it is best considered a month after the opening of The Passion of the within the context of the sort of discursive in- Christ, attests to this fact. tegration that Baym describes. By virtue of its Although “The Passion of the Jew” may not timeliness, its association with The Daily Show, feature intricate plotting, it is thoroughly en- and its strategy of directly paralleling the alarm- gaged with public debate that was ongoing in ist sentiments of newsmakers, “The Passion the media at the time it aired. This discourse of the Jew” becomes part of public discourse surrounding the potential anti-Semitism of while also commentating on it. It is from this Gibson’s film is one that consistently featured perspective that one might start to consider the journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009 13 ©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinois
anti-Semitism communicated in “The Passion broader discursive context. Early scholarship
of the Jew” as well as the anti-Semitic stereo- on the representation of Arabs, Muslims, and
types that are invoked by the episode. Middle Eastern ethnicities on television largely
Whereas the scholars discussed previously avoids any critical consideration of the textual
suggest that stereotypes and offensive humor or discursive operations of media texts, favor-
are employed in order to teach something ing a taxonomy of offensive stereotypes over
about the nature of stereotypes and racism, systematic analysis of their formation or func-
South Park seems to be doing something else. tion.7 The attacks of 9/11 reinvigorated the tele-
In this case, offensive elements are employed vision public’s interest in Muslims, but much
in the service of making a larger point. The tar- scholarly work on the subject has focused on
get of the episode’s satire is not the absurdity their presence in nonfictional news media.8 To
of anti-Semitism, but the way in which discus- be sure, both categories of work are useful in
sions about such prejudice are presented in considering images of Muslims on South Park,
the media. As evidenced by the episode’s final but they often fail to account for readings of
scene, “The Passion of the Jew” ultimately these images that extend beyond their superfi-
focuses on the irrationality of the debate sur- cial offensiveness.
rounding Gibson’s film. The Jewish characters, In “The Snuke,” for example, resident bigot
intent on forming a clan and imposing their Eric Cartman is alarmed at the presence of a
will on the rest of the world, serve to under- new Muslim student in school, instantly para-
score and parody one element of this irrational noid that he is a terrorist. The student, Bahir,
discourse. The stereotype is never, however, is a nondescript, seemingly normal boy from
negated by the text itself. Whereas Savage ar- Chicago. Their teacher, Mr. Garrison, implores
gues that those who do not get the Jew jokes in Cartman to relax—“Not all Muslim people are
prime-time animated sitcoms are guilty of mis- terrorists!” In a literary reading of the repre-
interpretation, it is not clear that this is the case sentation, this retort to Cartman’s misguided
with “The Passion of the Jew.” The Jew jokes hostility aligns the viewer’s sympathies with
are left standing by the end of the episode. Bahir. Clearly, this thinking goes, Cartman must
Although Cartman’s Nazism is certainly proved receive his comeuppance and be taught the
unattractive, the paranoid and myopic Jews do lesson that not all Muslims are terrorists.9 Cart-
not fare much better. Within the context of dis- man pursues his initial misgivings about Bahir,
cursive integration, however, these apparently however, calling Kyle to check on Bahir’s back-
exaggerated and anti-Semitic representations ground for any suspicious activities. In doing
have a greater purpose—to criticize the over- so, Cartman and Kyle set off a chain of events
reactions and empty rhetoric surrounding all that leads to their discovery of a Russian and
sides of the contemporaneous media debate British (not Muslim) plan to detonate a bomb in
over anti-Semitism. South Park. While Cartman interrogates Bahir’s
parents about the terrorist plot of which they
“Imaginationland,” “The Snuke,” and are not a part, Kyle and Stan assist various gov-
Muslim representation in South Park ernment officials in defusing the bomb threat,
Whereas the previous case study of “The saving the town from annihilation. Nonethe-
Passion of the Jew” examines anti-Semitic less, a smug Cartman revels in the fact that
discourses, the following analysis focuses spe- his apparently imprudent suspicion of Bahir
cifically on similarly offensive representations is what ultimately led to the defeat of the real
of Muslims. Analyses of episodes “The Snuke” terrorists—“Today,” Cartman says to Kyle, “big-
and the “Imaginationland” series illustrate that otry and racism saved the day.” This subversion
South Park’s employment of offensive repre- of the viewer’s expectations established by the
sentations of Muslims is best understood in a storyline undermines Dobson’s conception of
14 journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009
©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinoisthe function that offensive ethnic stereotypes nationland begs further inquiry—what do Mus- play in reinforcing progressive ideologies in lim terrorists have to do with mermaids and prime-time animated sitcoms. In fact, one Mighty Mouse? might read Cartman’s ostensible victory as sup- Without directly addressing a topic of public portive of regressive ideologies. discourse (as “The Passion of the Jew” did), Similarly, in the three “Imaginationland” both “The Snuke” and the “Imaginationland” episodes, representations of Muslim terror- series engage in discursive integration in order ists take on a regressive, offensive denotation to reach similar conclusions. With Cartman’s when their meaning is relegated solely to the paranoia from “The Snuke” and the Muslim textual level. In part one of the series, terrorists terrorists of “Imaginationland” both placed speaking in an offensive faux-Arabic accent within a broader context beyond the show, invade the fictional Imaginationland, a sort of we can see Parker and Stone hinting at some dreamlike, collective cultural consciousness of the larger issues at stake in representing inhabited by benevolent cartoon characters Muslims post-9/11—namely, the futility of ad- and cereal mascots. Most of the South Park dressing these representations solely through boys (except the hapless Butters) escape the discourses of either paranoid, hawkish con- terrorist attack, and when the US government servatism or naïve, bleeding-heart liberalism. finds out, Stan and Kyle become instrumental Cartman’s actions in “The Snuke” allude to a in saving Imaginationland. Over the course of function of ethnic representation that is, at the the subsequent two “Imaginationland” epi- level of the text, readily decodable as racist sodes, the South Park boys and various Penta- but multivalent in meaning beyond the text. gon officials plan ways to take back control of For example, Cartman’s stance brings to mind Imaginationland from the terrorists and save the “If you see something, say something” their friend Butters. Their search for a solution, campaign launched in 2003 by the National which includes calling on the creative powers of Security Agency, but Parker and Stone clearly directors Michael Bay and M. Night Shyamalan problematize this paranoia. Cartman’s suspi- for insight, leads to several bloody battles and, cions of Bahir are justified after the terrorist inevitably, a muddled moral message delivered plot is defused, but they are also made to by the South Park children. Although the fic- seem irrational because Bahir is not actually tional town of South Park functions as the stage part of the plot. As Kyle states at the episode’s for most of Parker and Stone’s soap-boxing, end, it is dangerous to be suspicious of only Imaginationland is one more step removed one group of people “because, actually, most from this cartoon world, becoming a surreally of the world hates [America].” Indeed, “The mediated battleground upon which Parker Snuke” includes both Russians and British as and Stone fight a battle against fearmongering American enemies, weaving their various ven- discourses. The representations of the Muslim dettas into crosscut sequences parodying the terrorists as bloodthirsty jihadists, however, are style of 24. In January of 2007, only two months real and resonant images analogous to their before “The Snuke” was broadcast, members portrayal elsewhere in popular culture, most of the Council on American–Islamic Relations notably in the early 2007 season of Fox’s hit 24 and American Arab Anti-Discrimination Com- being broadcast when the “Imaginationland” mittee (among others) vehemently protested series was conceived. Although it is not clear the portrayal of Muslims as terrorists on 24. that the “Imaginationland” episodes respond Fox spokespeople responded by noting that to any particular popular representation of the series’ “villains have included shadowy Muslim terrorists, their peculiar characteriza- Anglo businessmen, Baltic Europeans, Ger- tion as exaggerated and buffoonish caricatures mans [and] Russians” (“Muslims Rip”). By not on par with the fictitious inhabitants of Imagi- referencing the 24 controversy directly and in- journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009 15 ©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinois
stead invoking it via mimicry of the program’s Conclusion
formal features, Kyle’s end-of-episode mes-
sage moves from mere parody of 24 to satire of It has often been noted that discussions of ra-
the ideologies it represents. cial and ethnic prejudice in America lay blame
But the episode’s satiric target is not the on small numbers of flawed individuals while
absurdity of Islamophobia (represented in the forgoing valuable opportunities to discuss the
figure of Cartman); it is the absurd way in which more systematic elements of discrimination
discussions about such prejudice take place that are latent in social structures and dis-
in the media—how could the spokespeople of course. For example, after Don Imus’s infamous
24 possibly have expected to appease Muslim- “nappy headed hos” comment in reference to
rights groups by claiming the program has also the 2007 Rutgers women’s basketball team,
portrayed other ethnicities in a similar light? critics complained that the ensuing uproar
Although a viewer may indeed come away focused too much on getting the perpetrator
from “The Snuke” with a conflicted impression off the airwaves and not enough on broader
of Muslims, Parker and Stone ask us to look concerns. As scholars Stephen Maynard Cali-
beyond mere surface impressions in order to endo and Charlton McIlwain observed, “this
examine the broader discursive context from isn’t about Imus, it’s about racism, sexism and
which those impressions emerge. The “Imagi- classism, which are bigger than any individual
nationland” episodes make this step to dis- or even the sum of all individual attitudes or
cursive integration a bit more conspicuous by intentions.” What is needed, they argue, is
placing Muslim terrorists in a fantastical land a critical consideration of the way racial dis-
of make-believe, separate from the (episode’s) course is structured, not just the excising of
real-world conversations at the Pentagon on one problematic voice.
how best to attack the terrorists. In placing of- Similarly, in this article we have argued that
fensive images of Muslims on par with those existing models of understanding offensive
of Medusa or Friday the 13th’s Jason Vorhees, ethnic humor in prime-time animated sitcoms
Parker and Stone ask us to consider the absurd, have focused largely on close textual analysis
exaggerated nature in which Muslims are por- while ignoring important elements of discursive
trayed in American media. These representa- context. Whereas the work of Hart, Savage, and
tions echo Spigel’s conception of South Park’s Dobson suggest that South Park’s ethnic in-
post-9/11 humor as a series of semiotic break- sensitivity is made acceptable through the way
downs. Indeed, the surreal qualities of the it blames, and then undermines, the bigoted
series make it difficult to decipher Parker and positions of Cartman and other characters, we
Stone’s ideological stance, but this is perhaps contend that through discursive integration,
the point: debates surrounding terrorism and the show actually does much more than this.
its representation in the media are too complex The episodes we have discussed do not always
to be understood in “with us or against us” undermine the positions of its prejudiced char-
terms. Instead, “Imaginationland” comments acters. In fact, sometimes these positions help
on these terms, pointing to the absurdity of save the world, as in “The Snuke.” By using a
trying to reduce so complex an issue to easily rapid-fire production schedule, however, South
decodable images and isolated discourses. Park’s creators are able to put their work in
Seen through this framework, the images and direct dialogue with discussions of anti-Sem-
messages expressed in “Imaginationland” itism, Islamophobia, racism, and other preju-
become both a constitutive element of and dices. When the characters in the “The Passion
critical commentary on the discourses we use of the Jew” stake out outrageous positions that
to understand Muslims, terrorism, and their comically resonate with the words of public
attendant imagery rather than an attempt to figures such as Mel Gibson and Abe Foxman,
define them. they serve to mock and criticize not just anti-
16 journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009
©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinoisSemitism itself, but also the way anti-Semitism closely aligned with traditions of ethnic comedy than
those of religious humor.
is discussed and mediated. South Park does
2. Stan delivers this line at the end of the episode.
not take the easy way out by blaming one bad Similarly, in a September 1997 episode of The Simp-
apple, but instead takes aim at the structure of sons (“Homer’s Phobia”), gay filmmaker John Waters
American discourse on prejudice. guest stars as an eccentric toy collector who teaches
There is, of course, a danger in this. In the Homer tolerance.
3. Matt Stone makes this assertion on the season 4
process of comedically exaggerating the posi-
DVD commentary of the episode “Chef Goes Nanners.”
tions of others, South Park has a tendency 4. See http://www.americansagainsthate.org/
to make things such as anti-Semitism and Stormfront_Derek_Black.html.
Islamophobia seem like a lot of fun. Cartman’s 5. After a hesitation, Gibson responded, “God or-
offensive rants, in addition to serving as a dains everything.”
6. See http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-044–foxman
comment on American discourse, are also
.htm.
creatively crass new ways to insult members of 7. For an example of this type of work, see Jack
marginalized or minority segments of the pop- Shaheen, The TV Arab (1984).
ulation. As such, there is little doubt that they 8. For examples of this type of work, see Norris,
could be used as tools for those who wish to Kern, and Just’s edited anthology Framing Terrorism:
The News Media, the Government, and the Public
authentically advance bigoted agendas. In the (2003) and Poole’s Reporting Islam: Media Represen-
case of his Islamophobia, there is certainly tations of British Muslims (2002).
enough real fear of Islam in the Western world 9. Cartman’s response to Mr. Garrison’s insistence
that Cartman may well be taken seriously by that not all Muslims are terrorists is “No, but most of
them are. And all it takes is most of them.”
those looking for such a message. In the case
of anti-Semitism, his rants reintroduce old
references
ideas of hatred and prejudice to a population
Aurthur, Kate. “Those Boys Are Back, as Timely as
that has advanced tremendously in its atti-
Ever.” New York Times 19 Oct. 2005: E1, E10. Print.
tudes about Jews. These depictions should not Baym, Geoffrey. “The Daily Show: Discursive Integra-
be dismissed as merely crude or potentially tion and the Reinvention of Political Journalism.”
regressive jokes, however. When placed in Political Communication 22.3 (2005): 259–76. Print.
the constellation of the larger media universe, Carter, Bill. “Comedy Central Makes the Most of an
Irreverent, and Profitable, New Cartoon Hit.” New
these representations can be understood
York Times 10 Nov. 1997: D11. Print.
as important critiques of the ways in which Caliendo, Stephen Maynard, and Charlton McIlwain.
controversial issues are debated. In a contem- “This Week’s Non-Racist: A Crappy-Headed Host.”
porary mediascape rife with bloggers, 24-hour This Week in Race 13 Apr. 2007. Web. 30 July 2008.
news, and constant (meta)commentary, South .
Park relies on offensive representations in
Dalton, Mary M., and Laura R. Linder, eds. The Sitcom
order to capture our attention. In doing so, it Reader: America Viewed and Skewed. Albany, NY:
invites the viewer beyond its cutout world to SUNY Press, 2005. Print.
give critical consideration to the way society Dobson, Hugo. “Mister Sparkle Meets the Yakuza:
and the media engage ethnic prejudice. Depictions of Japan in The Simpsons.” Journal of
Popular Culture 39.1 (2006): 44–69. Print.
Hart, Melissa. “‘South Park,’ in the Tradition of Chau-
notes
cer and Shakespeare.” Chronicle of Higher Educa-
1. Throughout the article we refer to jokes focus- tion 49.9 (2002): B5. Print.
ing on Jews and Muslims as “ethnic humor.” Strictly “Interview with Eric Stough.” Animation July 2002: 26.
speaking, this is not accurate, given that both Jews Web. 12 Nov. 2007. .
backgrounds. We choose the term ethnic humor as Matheson, Carl. “The Simpsons, Hyper-Irony, and the
opposed to religious humor, however, because South Meaning of Life.” The Simpsons and Philosophy:
Park’s engagement with Jews and Muslims tends to The D’oh! Of Homer. Ed. William Irwin, Mark T.
relate to cultural stereotypes as opposed to ques- Conrad, and Aeon J. Skoble. Peru, IL: Carus, 2001.
tions of faith or theology. As such, the humor is more 108–25. Print.
journal of film and video 61.2 / summer 2009 17
©2009 by the board of trustee s of the universit y of illinoisYou can also read
