the previous post simply attempted to de-centre the idea that satire–particularly racialized and gendered satire–creates a subjective universal experience once its purpose is understood. i want to instead think of satire at the crossroads of aesthetic difference.
in the commentional, pam powerfully articulates how a differential subjectivity might experience racialized and gendered satire:
to complement your approach of using subjectivity to critique this kind of satire, i think there’s also an approach that could be based on notions of objectivity. i’m thinking of the idea of collateral damage, in that the women and minorities depicted in negative stereotypical ways in these kinds of satirical pieces are being placed objectively in positions of compromise and literal damage; even if the goal of the satirical piece is to trick things around and turn the negative image around against itself, the piece still goes there in terms of the negative depiction and asks the subjects so depicted to absorb the collateral damage of the satire, possibly even in a demanding patronizing way to accept this position of compromise/sacrifice because aren’t they the ones who will ultimately be rescued by the satirical meaning, even as they are absorbing the damage of the literal meaning? this is, i believe, where the true offensiveness lies.
what do you think? agree? disagree? something to add?
thanks for commenting pam!!! i hope you are well 🙂