> This merely confirms what I already know - that the American public tends
> to be very conservative. Consequently, any form of left-leaning opinion,
> be it a tv or radio show, or a political program is unlikely to attract
any
> significant following. Their popularity, if any, will be at best limited
> to very narrow audiences linked mainly to universities.
Before moving to the big generalizations I think it's a good idea to seriously consider the question of how to maximize appeal or, in terms I argue for, the ability to tolerate criticism of the powerful. Doug's thoughts about nastyness and humor bring to mind Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed" and Moore's "Stupid White Men." Both of them, in different ways, use humor to make political and social criticism palatable and enjoyable to their audience. As many political analysts have pointed out -- and I think there are a couple of fine examples in Ehrenreich's book of this -- the more accurately you address the problems a person is facing, the more you need to be aware you are tampering with their mode of adjustment to a difficult life. For some -- how many I don't know -- this works to make them feel anxious/depressive/shitty as they sit watching the TV, likely as not by themselves. There's no party out there that will do anything about the problem, the sense of support available via the imaginary TV "community" is weak, and they have to go to work the next day numbed down some to deal with the assistant manager. A delivery larded with humor sets up some ways of allowing the audience not have to deal with this too directly. There are at least these angles:
- Humor allows the person starting to get angry a way of backing off that emotion. I think this can be understood very literally, as in the person starts to get angry, and then right there can begin to experience an internal counter-reaction to it. Humor gets the internal censor/alarm system off track (this goes back at least to Freud's "Jokes and their relation to the Unconscious"), and you can think of this in very literal terms, it breaks up an emerging emotional state that a person typically has to regulate down. It can also be understood in modeling terms, as in the "hey, she takes these strong positions but is still funny and attractive, not a serious jerk" idea we're familiar with.
- In a more complicated way, humor can set up a sense of power and omnipotence. Humor often involves the use of metaphors and imagery that "turns the world upside down." This is satisfying, and yet it's also kept in limbo, partially disowned, "only a joke" or fantasy, not necessarily tied to action.
- Humorous deliveries of social criticism set up the possibility that the audience can draw on this spirit -- even the same lines -- to address each other.
I suppose this implies that the critique of power can in some senese "require" the use of humor to help its audience deal with their existing mode of adjustment. Affirmations of power relations are not so in need of humor because there's less to run afoul of internally, not to mention externally. Randy