The Estate Filth

The

Filth

Estate

Analysing the performativity of satirical discourse in South Park

James Field S3171051

Master’s Thesis

MA Journalism

Groningen University

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Dana Mustata

Second Reader: Dr. Marc Esteve del Valle

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ... IV

1.

INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 SATIRE AND SOUTH PARK ... 2

1.2 FACT AND FICTION ... 3

1.3 RELEVANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE ... 4

1.4 GOAL ... 4

1.5 ROADMAP ... 5

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 6

2.1 FOUCAULT ON DISCOURSE ... 6

2.2 PERFORMATIVITY AND PERFORMATIVE FUNCTION ... 7

i.

Performativity ... 8

ii.

Conditions for successful performative utterance ... 8

2.3 THE PUBLIC SPHERE ... 10

i.

The Habermasian Public Sphere ... 10

ii.

Counterpublics ... 11

2.4 SATIRICAL DISCOURSE ... 12

i.

Deconstructing satire ... 12

ii.

Juvenalian Satire ... 14

iii.

The carnivalesque ... 15

iv.

The Relief Approach ... 16

2.5 NARRATIVE THEORY ... 18

i.

The lenses we see though ... 19

ii.

Metanarratives and Universal myths ... 20

iii.

Character and Archetypes ... 22

2.6 GENRE AND THE HAZY LINE ... 24

i.

Hybridity ... 26

ii.

Performative Infotainment ... 26

3.

METHODOLOGY ... 28

3.1 THE VISUAL: SHOT-BY-SHOT ... 28

3.2 THE VERBAL: CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ... 29

3.3 THE SYMBOLIC: SEMIOTICS ... 31

3.4 SAMPLE ... 31

3.5 OPERATIONALISING ... 32

3.6 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 33

4.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ... 34

4.1 SEASON 8 EPISODE 3: THE PASSION OF THE JEW ... 34

i.

Scatological Mel Gibson ... 35

ii.

Cartman as Juvenalian Villain ... 38

iii.

The Passion of The Vomiting Jew ... 39

4.2 SEASON 9 EPISODE 4: BEST FRIENDS FOR EVER ... 43

i.

You say Tomato I say Kenny ... 44

ii.

A Redneck Protest ... 47

iii.

Morality tale ... 48

iv.

Discussion ... 50

4.3 SEASON 17 EPISODE 3: WORLD WAR ZIMMERMAN ... 52

i.

Cartman’s parodic dream ... 53

ii.

The grotesque catharsis of the chair ... 56

iii.

Discussion ... 58

4.4 SEASON 19 EPISODE 2: WHERE MY COUNTRY GONE? ... 61

i.

Only room for one Trump ... 61

ii.

Not another speech! ... 65

iii.

Discussion ... 68

5.

PERFORMATIVE FUNCTIONS OF

SOUTH PARK

’S DISCOURSE ... 70

6.

CONCLUSION ... 73

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 76

7.1 BOOKS, JOURNALS, STUDIES ... 76

7.2 WEBSITES & ONLINE JOURNALS ... 78

8.

APPENDIX ... 80

8.1 TELEVISION TECHNIQUES AND EFFECTS ... 80

8.2 FULL TRANSCRIPTS OF EPISODES ... 80

8.3

ANNOTATED NOTES ... 108

i.

Initial notes on episodes ... 108

ii.

Notes on scripts ... 112

Abstract

South Park is a long running animated television show produced in the US which has become known

for satirical commentary delivered in surreal and irreverent narratives. Yet despite its popularity and cultural impact its particular form of discourse, and its performative functions in society, remain an area lacking in detailed and extensive research. This study sets out to redress this, while also contributing to the cannon of research around contemporary satirical discourse and its role in the public sphere. Building from a framework of theories on performativity, satire, genre, metanarrative, and the public sphere, this paper seeks to analyse the performative function of South Park’s unique form of satirical discourse. To this end a three level analytical approach was used, combing methods of critical discourse analysis, shot-by-shot analysis and semiotics, to examine the verbal, visual and

symbolic elements of the show respectively. The research demonstrates how South Park uses a wide

range of satirical tools such as, parody, implicitness, allegory and various forms of irony and the carnivalesque, to deliver its comment and critique on current events. The findings demonstrate how the satirical discourse in South Park carries with it performative roles in the counterpublic sphere in which it acts, including: to change mind-sets, to create a critical counterpublic, to outrage, to denigrate authority, and to produce a psychological relief.

Key Words

1. Introduction

“While voter apathy may be a perpetual problem, interest in traditional news coverage may be on the wane, and professional political dialogue may be merely a repetition of partisan talking points, there is nevertheless a renaissance taking place in the realm of political satire…The political discourse taking place in the satiric register currently appears far more vibrant than any of the traditional outlets for serious political dialogue.”

Amber Day, Satire and Dissent (2011:1)

“On South Park, nothing is off limits. Foul language, gleefully rendered scatological humour, biting social commentary, Kanye West coming out as a gay fish—it’s all pretty much par for the course.”

Laura Bradley, Vanity Fair Magazine (2016)

As Amber Day suggests, used to comment and critique as much as it is to entertain, satire is becoming an increasingly important player in the political realm. Popular culture scholar Robert Hariman goes even further, suggesting it is “essential for an engaged, sustainable, democratic public culture” (Hariman 2008:248). Naturally, as a genre of discourse distinct from other forms of political commentary, satire has its own set of tools and conventions with which it aims to critique. These are employed in ways as varied as the texts that utilize them. But what role do these cultural products play in contemporary society?

A recurring theme when discussing satire is how it is often viewed as a tool for speaking truth to power, as Megan Hill points out, “resistance is thus a constituent feature of satire and one measure of its ideal functions” (2013:324). In her study to find a normative approach to political satire, Hill suggests that the genre can be seen as a “counternarrative intended to resist entrenched accounts of how the world works” (2013:324).

If this can be seen as satire’s role in the public sphere, or rather, a counterpublic sphere (Warner 2009), it’s then possible to examine to what extent individual satirical texts are performing their counternarrative function, and what exactly this function is. As we will see, Michael Warner theorised the existence of multiple counterpublics, as opposed to one public sphere, which can both form, and be formed by, the discourse of a text.

When it comes to how modern satire interacts with current events, there is a cannon of research around satirical news and commentary shows such as Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight. These particular forms of political satire, produced on a weekly or even daily schedule, offer a direct and clear challenge to mainstream news narratives and traditional power structures. Thus, how their satiric discourse is presented, and what it intends to do in the public sphere, is an area of much interest for contemporary scholars (Duffy & Page 2008; Rossing 2012; Lamarre 2013; Baumgartner & Morris 2006; Baym 2005). Yet, as journalist Laura Bradley writes for Vanity Fair, there is a source of timely political and social engagement that has the potential to be even more vibrant and transformative, the long running animated television show South Park (Bradley 2016).

1.1 Satire and South Park

Despite the increasing interest in forms of satire as socially and politically performative (serving a role or function in these realms) and in South Park itself (Thorogood 2016; Cogan 2012; Thompson 2009), there is a surprising lack of detailed analysis of the show’s particular and distinctive form of satirical discourse, and thus, what its role in the public sphere might be.

With this study, I hope to unpack how South Park utilises the tropes and tools of satire, but also examine more closely its individual style of discourse. In relation to its function in society, Brian Cogan sums up what makes

South Park an important satiric discourse to examine:

“South Park functions as a cultural “bullshit detector,” one that asks viewers for deeper involvement, and the critiques inherent in South Park allow viewers not simply to chuckle at the foibles of vacuous celebrities, but challenge us to look at television as a medium with potential…In creating the ultimate piece of television deconstruction, Trey Parker and Matt Stone have created powerful conceptual weapons for concerned viewers, a battle cry to take control of their culture.”

Brian Cogan (2012:xviii)

For the uninitiated, South Park is an animated television show which began in 1997. The simple and distinctive style of the animation derives from the show’s original pilot in 1995, which was made in stop-motion, entirely with cardboard cut-outs. The show’s surreal comedy is based in the fictional town of South Park, Colarado in the US, and the various plots and stories of the show revolve around the lives of the four main characters, Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski, Eric Cartman and Kenny McCormick, four 3rd_/4th _grade children in the town. However, later seasons’ stories tend to branch out to involve ancillary characters in the main plot more often, including members of their families, friends, classmates, and residents of the town. While based in the real world of present-day US, South Park revels in the absurd, grotesque and surreal (Thorogood 2016; Thompson 2008). Episodes frequently involve mythical, science-fictional, and religious characters and storylines. An example being an episode involving a group called ‘The Super Best Friends’, which includes Muhammad, Buddha, Moses, Joseph Smith, Krishna, Laozi and Jesus, as characters that exist in the real world of the show. These bizarre situations and stories are often used as satirical tools to make a political critique or comment, in so doing, one of the defining characteristics of South Park has become its social commentary.

Importantly, since 2000 and the fourth season of the show, the creators changed the production schedule to one where episodes are put together in a single week. Interviews with the creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker attest this was done for the dual benefit of inspiring creativity through time pressure, and, crucially for this study, allowing the show to stay more topical and respond quickly to current events (Leonard 2006). Jonathan Gray goes as far as to suggests that “arguably South Park’s greatest contribution to a satiric lineage has been its speed and topicality.” (Gray 2012:13)

This format also separates the show from other satirical animation like The Simpsons and Family Guy. The longer production schedules of these shows restrict them from directly commenting on up-to-date current events. As David Leonard wryly sums up in his Fortune Magazine article on South Park, “You won't find "Simpsons" creator Matt Groening tearing apart his show at the last minute…The entire process, typical of modern animation, takes eight months” (Leonard 2006).

1.2 Fact and Fiction

Along with its one-week production (which allows timely political and social satire), its surreal animation, and its fictional story form, South Park becomes a difficult show to locate in a specific genre. This is relevant when considering genre’s effect on both how a television program is produced, and how it is received by the viewer. In order to properly analyse South Park it is first necessary to place it in context, when it comes to a television show this means identifying its genre.

“There have been prime time cartoons that have expanded the genre constraints normally associated with animation, from The Flintstones to Family Guy, but South Park not only defies conventions and genre, but also works to create its own niche, where it can be both transgressive, but also resembles nothing so much as the family friendly comedies of the fifties, where every episode has a moral lesson and people were not just cynical but actually nice to each other.”

Brian Cogan (2012:x)

This study explores ideas of hybrid genre, understanding the significance of this “niche” that Cogan talks of, on the meaning and presentation of the show’s discourse. Elements of sitcom, animation, political satire, social commentary, surreal fiction, and infotainment, can all be found in the show’s form and style. In relation to infotainment, a hybrid genre in itself, ideas of performative authority particularly come into play (Broersma 2010:19), which can contribute to the role or function of a text in the public sphere in which it acts. Another factor that provides South Park with a more complex narrative, is its use of elements of both serial and

series formats in its ongoing discourse. While a series resets the narrative of the show at the end of each

episode, with the characters essentially going back to their start positions, and any lessons learned are forgot in the next instalment, a serial involves an ongoing story, with events having consequences that last the length of a season, or even an entire run (Chappell 2017:1).

In South Park the main characters are stuck in a perpetual adolescence, lessons learned in one episode are frequently not carried forward into the next. However, the show includes elements of the serial format as well, with some plotlines running several episodes, characters being permanently killed off, and individual character development that has a narrative impact throughout a season. This is necessary to know when attempting to locate the show’s hybridity, and also when analysing how intertextual knowledge might affect the discourse.

These ideas of character development and on-going plots lead into one of the areas that makes South

to select from a cast of characters with established persona, and place them in a familiar story, speaks to what Megan Hill refers to as a “shared understanding” (2013:327). Also known as metanarrative and universal myth, the concept that we as humans understand the world through stories, has the potential to greatly impact on how a discourse is delivered and received. A fictional animation has almost no limits on what can visually be presented and discussed, thus South Park can utilise this shared understanding to play with metanarrative in its stories, and recognisable personality archetypes in its characters, adding another persuasive level through which to deliver its discourse. As sociologist Catherine Reissman suggests, “storytelling is seen as performance... involves, persuades, and (perhaps) moves an audience through language and gesture, “doing” rather than telling alone.” (2005:5)

Thus, in this study I propose to explore the area where fact and fiction, infotainment and sitcom, satire and serious political engagement, meet, and what this means for the show’s role in society. For this purpose, the research question and focus of analysis is, ‘what is the performative function of South Park’s satirical discourse in the public sphere?’

1.3 Relevance and Significance

When attempting to ascertain how satire delivers its message, and what role it plays in society, Amber Day highlights the importance of thorough analysis, “the fact that this mode has become so popular (not simply in audience numbers, but in increased legitimacy as a form of political speech) makes answering these questions particularly important.” (Day 2011:2)

As there is general agreement amongst television commentators and scholars that South Park uses their shortened production schedule to bring politics into the show, the creators admitting as much (Weinman 2008; Bradley 2016), they become a cultural product worth examining in terms of socio-political impact. Stephen Stockwell points out how, “traditional TV news and current affairs programs are shrinking in terms of audience reach and thus significance to public discourse” (2004:2). With it consistently large audience figures “attracting 3.1 million viewers an episode, more than The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” (Leonard 2006) and the New York Times circulation, the discourse of South Park has the potential to reach an extremely large and diverse public, if and when commenting on current events. Despite this, it seems South Park is not allotted the same status in the public sphere, little attention being paid to its performative function, unlike news or talk-show style shows. Yet, Nick Marx points out how “in many ways, the show provides the same

contemporaneous commentary on news items that its compatriots [The Daily Show] on Comedy Central do, except that South Park is (ostensibly) a fictional narrative program” (Marx 2012:167).

1.4 Goal

The goal of this research is to go some way to redressing this lack of detailed analysis of individual texts and discursive style of South Park, often neglected to the realm of absurdist fiction by those studying satire in popular culture. In so doing this study also takes into account the “fictional narrative” element of South

Park, with the aim to identify how the elements that make its discourse unique, might contribute to its specific

Satirical shows have “begun to explore representing politics in imaginative ways, treatments that can offer voices, positions and perspectives not found in traditional television representations of politics.” (Jeffrey Jones, quoted in, Cogan 2012:xviii). I aim to examine the imaginative way South Park represents politics and what function this might have in the public sphere in which it operates.

Gray hints at the distinctive, unique format of the show that shapes its discourse, “as much as South Park’s satire and commentary learns from and plays with many texts that have preceded it, it is also boldly innovative both for American television and for satire more generally, due to its own satiric style and its topicality.” (Gray 2012:12) Through a detailed analysis of the texts, I intend to show in more detail what this unique satiric style is, using theories of the public sphere and performativity to extrapolate what role it plays.

“Its continued popularity indicated that South Park must serve some sort of cultural function as it continues to appeal to a broad enough audience to justify its continued existence and endurance in a highly competitive numbers-driven television industry.”

Robinson, M.J. (2012:179)

The aim of this study is thus to unpack what this “function” is, and how it is presented in the satirical form of the show.

1.5 Roadmap

In my theoretical framework, I elaborate on what exactly I mean by the performative function of discourse. This involves looking at the nature of language and texts, and what it is they intend to do. Once this is established I place the show in the context of where these performative functions act, by exploring theories of the public sphere: from Jürgen Habermas’ (1962) original concept, of a deliberative space of citizen interaction, free from state interference, to Michael Warner’s (2002) ideas on counterpublics, which can form around discourse, helping to shape and maintain it. As explained by Day in relation to satiric discourse, “types of counterpublics are coalescing around these forms, as people look to the satirists as

representatives who will push their particular worldview into the wider public sphere.” (Day 2011:11). After locating where the show acts, I explore in more depth how it acts, the type of discourse at work in South

Park, namely, satirical discourse. Through this exploration I establish a set of satiric tools with which to take

into the analysis of the show.

The mixing of satiric commentary on the real world with surreal fiction, is where ideas of narrative come into play. Narrative is everywhere, but the freedom of South Park’s fictional animated form to play with ideas of storytelling, requires an examination of how this might impact on its discourse. For this, ideas of metanarrative and archetypes help to explain some of the show’s broad appeal, as well as the potential success of its intended functions.

Finally, building on this, I look at genre theory to show how its hybrid genre influences South Park’s satiric discourse, as much as how its location in a genre can influence its reception.

Once the theoretical basis for the analysis is established, I outline the methodology employed in this research. As Martha Daas point out, “to ‘get’ South Park is to look beyond its shocking surface. Although the show is entertaining from a superficial perspective, in order to truly enjoy its rich humour, its various levels of commentary must be taken into account.” (Daas 2012:84) It is precisely this that this study attempts to do, to look beyond the surface and examine the various levels of commentary and discourse. For this reason, the show’s discourse will be analysed on three different levels: the verbal, the visual, and the symbolic.

Under the broad heading of textual analysis, which allows for various analytical approaches to be employed depending on the need, the chosen sample of four key episodes is examined on these three levels. For the verbal level a critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach is employed; for the visual a shot-by-shot method rooted in film and television studies provides the tools for unpacking the images and filming techniques; and for the symbolic, semiotics is used to interpret the meaning behind the symbols.

Together this three-level approach allows for a full and thorough examination of the constituent elements that make up the audio-visual discourse of South Park. The speech and dialogue, the images and sound, and beyond the explicit, the symbolism that can be inferred by the images and sound. While it is presented in the same visual codes, the symbolism of the text speaks to the the viewer in a different way, is interpreted on a different, often unconscious level, and thus requires a separate examination from the visual level of discourse.

To round of the research, I discuss the findings of the analysis, using them to make conclusions on the performative role South Park plays in the public sphere, and how it is shaped, defined and delivered through satirical discourse.

2. Theoretical framework

In order to effectively analyse the performative function of South Park in the public sphere, it is necessary to understand the constitutive parts of this question. Firstly, defining the concepts of discourse and performativity, as well as the public sphere in which this performative discourse acts. It’s then possible to elaborate on satirical discourse itself: how it is produced, the tools a satirist uses, and what performative role these play. Once satirical discourse is established, we can examine further what makes the satirical style of

South Park unique, by discussing the implication of the fictional story form of the show, particularly the

performative function of character, metanarrative and universal myth in storytelling. The discourse created by this peculiar mix of satirical critique and real-world commentary, packaged in a fictional series with established characters, requires an acknowledgement of genre and its role in how a text is shaped and perceived. This is crucial to understand the performative function of a text in the public sphere. 2.1 Foucault on discourse

In terms of breaking discourse down in order to analyse it, Michel Foucault states that, “discourse is really only an activity, of writing in the first case, of reading in the second and exchange in the third. This exchange, this writing, this reading never involve anything but signs.” (1972:228). When examining an audio-visual medium, these “signs” of discourse can be divided into three levels, that together constitute the

discourse of the text. The verbal, which relates to dialogue and the spoken word; the visual, relating to images and sounds that make up the text; and the symbolic, which is embedded in the audio-visual presentation but recognised on an unconscious or metatextual level. This latter category, although also presented in audio-visual images and dialogue like the former two levels, functions differently, addressing the viewer primary through implicitness and unconscious signification. This requires an analysis on a separate level, so that the discourse of an image, for example, can be examined for the impact of its visual construction and codes, as well as its symbolic significance to the viewer.

But before looking into the specific form of audio-visual discourse used by South Park, and how this acts in the public sphere, it’s worth briefly elaborating on the idea of discourse itself.

Foucault defines discourse as a way of constituting knowledge, combined with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which exist in knowledge. The idea of power relations in discourse is particularly important, as Foucault states:

“In every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its ponderous, formidable materiality.”

Michel Foucault (1981:52)

Here he highlights a fear of the erratic, disorderly nature of discourse, which must be controlled to maintain power relations. Under Foucault’s definition even the language with which one might express dissatisfaction and critique is controlled, and thus language becomes another tool of institutional oppression. This is where the performative functions can lie, in its ability to control, but also conversely in the possibility of harnessing the disorderly nature of discourse, to transgress from and subvert standards of what can be said, what language is used to say it, and who is permitted to utter such discourse.

2.2 Performativity and Performative Function

South Park uses satire to engage with socio-political current events and issues, in the process its

discourse performs a role in the public sphere. There is a doing behind the words and images of the show. How and what this doing is, it is the intention of this research to elaborate on. Yet first we must explore this concept of how language and discourse can act and perform a function, rather than simply describe.

“We set some limits to the amount of nonsense we talk, or at least the amount of nonsense that we are prepared to admit we talk; and so people began to ask whether after all some of those things which, treated as statements, were in danger of being dismissed as nonsense… Mightn’t they perhaps be intended not to report facts but to influence people in this way or that, or to let off steam in this way or that? Or perhaps at any rate some elements in these utterances performed such functions, or, for example, drew attention in some way (without actually reporting it) to some important feature of the circumstances in which the utterance was being made.”

Here, philosopher and linguist John Austin explains the move to a performative utterance approach to understanding speech acts, from what is sometimes called the descriptive fallacy where, for example, speech describes a state without any intent to change it. The use of the word “nonsense” is particularly relevant when discussing South Park and how its discourse is too easily dismissed as crass, childish potty-humour, as opposed to discourse that intends more than a simple laugh (Cogan 2012; Thompson 2009; Thorogood 2016).

When considering the show, how much nonsense are we to describe before we look closer and consider whether there is a purpose behind the text? Can a detailed analysis of the show reveal in-between the nonsense a meaningful intent to change a state of being, rather than describe it? Or, perhaps this nonsense also carries some performative function itself? These are questions that could be asked of almost any discursive act, but become particularly pertinent when the subject uses satirical discourse, and enacts this in a significant public sphere. So, to attempt to better answer these questions in relation to South Park, we must delve further into this notion of the performative.

i. Performativity

Austin elaborated on the theory of performativity in his 1976 work on ‘Performative Utterances’. Here the concept of performativity in relation to speech and texts is essentially the idea of what an utterance, or in the context of a media product what is referred to as the text, can do. Austin highlights the performative power of some speech to do something, rather than simply say or explain something. In certain circumstance—one of the examples he uses is saying “I do” at a wedding—the act of uttering the words is performative, as it is saying the words that achieves the intended result or goal, it is not simply describing a situation (Austin 1979:235).

However, whilst there are more obvious performative utterances, where the utterance itself is the doing, there are utterances that have the intention to do something, yet the intended action is not immediately obvious, or is less obvious. Austin focuses perhaps too much on the grammatical criteria to help us recognise a

performative utterance, he doesn’t take into account speech acts intended to persuade that don’t directly address an individual or individuals.

As will be explained in more depth later, it’s possible to see satire, critique and commentary as performative speech (text), designed to create debate or controversy, change minds and influence opinion. Austin also doesn’t factor into his linguistic theory the performative function of visual forms, therefore to appreciate the performative function of the audio-visual satire in South Park we need a more nuanced approach.

ii. Conditions for successful performative utterance

An essential starting point for this is the work of Pierre Bourdieu, who goes beyond “a few rather specialized speech situations to a recognition of the performative nature of language in general” (Carlson

position of the speaker. “Even more than Austin, he stressed the importance of analysing texts in their social context rather than in purely linguistic terms.” (Broersma 2010:18).

A text taken out of context can lose its true meaning, and along with this, its performative role. In some cases it could even enact an entirely unintended role.

In relation to the speaker Bourdieu suggests that the likelihood of success in any performative act depends to a large extent on how the speaker is perceived by the audience, stating, “the effectiveness of the performative discourse…is directly proportional to the authority of the person doing the asserting” (Bourdieu 1991:224). Thus, ideas of authority and trust in the producer of the performative utterance become important, this can relate to television through the implications of genre, as is explored in a following chapter.

Judith Butler used Bourdieu’s work on the power of performative discourse to theorise the essential ingredients for a successful speech act—by which we can read text, as in an audio-visual medium speech act refers to the whole discursive presentation, not just the verbal:

“Most of the conditions that have to be fulfilled in order for a performative to succeed come down to the question of the appropriateness of the speaker - or, better still, his social function - and of the discourse he utters.”

Judith Butler (1999:124)

Borrowing the marriage ceremony example of Austin, this could relate to the official (priest/vicar etc.), who presides over the wedding, announcing “I now pronounce you man and wife”. The statement does not have the same performative effect if uttered by an un-ordained/uncertified passer-by. Thus, the appropriateness of

South Park to use its specific discursive form could be seen in its continued popularity and recognition as social

commentator.

So, in television who has this performative authority? Bearing in mind the context of each text, there are those with more obvious forms of authority such as politicians, influential figures, and professionals, but media scholar Marcel Broersma also suggests that journalism, as a field relying on its unique position in society as the fourth estate, also holds the position of authoritative speaker. He goes on to explain how “journalism derives its performative power from the forms and style employed” (2010:16). However, Bourdieu offers another group that could claim the authority necessary for a performative text, “the authorized point of view of an agent who is personally authorized, such as a great critic or prestigious preface-writer or established author” (Bourdieu 1991:230). It is in this group that we might place Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the show’s creators, as great critics and established-authors.

Transposing all these ideas to the case in hand, if we describe a discourse as performative it enacts, or has the intention to enact, a change. When delivered in the appropriate context by a speaker with recognised authority, the performative power is increased. We can credit the authors of South Park with some

performative authority based on their reputation and success as satirists who comment on timely issues, and the location of the show on Comedy Central, an established TV network, this impacts on the likelihood that we can ascribe some performative function to their discourse.

It could be said that the way Stone and Parker engage and maintain viewers is a performative function of their discourse, and at the same time this performative discourse is enhanced by the consistently high viewing figures. It is the intention of this research to explore how the show does this, but first it’s necessary to unpack the arena in which the show acts. This provides the groundwork for the analysis and enables some

conclusions to be made about the performative function of South Park’s form of satirical discourse in the public sphere.

2.3 The Public Sphere

As a long running television series watched consistently by up to three million viewers per episode (Leonard 2006), the discourse of South Park can claim to have some significant reach in what we term the

public sphere. When analysing the performative function of this discourse, the nature of how the show acts is

influenced by the nature of the arena in which it acts. i. The Habermasian Public Sphere

When discussing activity in any public space (virtual or literal), one must acknowledge the ideas of Jürgen Habermas, who coined the term public sphere in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere – An

Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (1962). In this seminal work Habermas traces the evolution of this

“intermediary system between state and society” (2006:2), a space theoretically free from official influence, in which an informed public (citizens) can interact, facilitated by an independent mass-media. Amber Day describes Habermas’ notion of how the public sphere was fostered by a bourgeois coffee shop culture where, “public dialogue allowed the bourgeoisie to develop a powerful political consciousness… public forums for democratic debate led to the organic development of true public opinion” (2011:14). Of course, Habermas had to evolve this historical ideal space of deliberation and productive interchange of ideas, with social and technological change. This led to a new definition more suited to contemporary society, which Nancy Fraser sums up as “a theatre in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through the medium of talk” (1990:57). Under this definition, South Park’s engagement with socio-political issues, and current events of relevance in the public sphere, would certainly be classed as talk, or rather discourse, and thus political

participation. Unravelling the exact purpose and performative function of this political participation is the aim

of this study.

It could be seen, for example, that through offering an alternative, perhaps more inclusive, presentation of politics, South Park shapes the nature of political participation by bringing more people into the fold. As Amber Day points out, “whether or not satire has become verifiably more popular, satiric media texts have become a part of (and a preoccupation of) mainstream political coverage, thereby making satirists legitimate players in serious political dialogue.” (Day 2011:1)By presenting public figures and socio-political issues using the tools of satire, the show can change how they are perceived in the public sphere, or open them up to ridicule and critique that other political participation has ignored.

However, South Park and other televisual media may act in this public sphere, but according to Habermas there exists a requirement of interaction for full normative participation. This is almost certainly why, as Day

points out, Habermas moved to a somewhat pessimistic view of contemporary public spheres. Day goes so far as to suggest that according to Habermas, the modern public sphere “exists in appearance only, as discussion is carefully controlled, assuming the form of a consumer item itself” (2011:14).

This is where Michael Warner’s work on counterpublics can help to locate media entities in a social context. He states, “an addressable object is conjured into being in order to enable the very discourse that gives it

existence.” (2002:2) Under this definition, Habermas’ normative conditions are no longer necessary, allowing for a more fluid idea of what constitutes a public and how its members interact.

ii. Counterpublics

In Warner’s view, individual members of a public can remain strangers, with only minimal

participation, “merely paying attention can be enough to make you a member” (2002:4). Individuals become part of a public simply by taking in the same text and sharing in its discourse, not only this, each individual consists of intersectional identities and as such can exist in a multitude of publics at one time, whilst never needing to physically meet or share the same space.

Hence, South Park, and its audience, form what Warner refers to as a counterpublic, constituted through satire’s “conflictual relation to the dominant public” (Warner 2002:12), as well as the sharing of the joke or

absorbing of the message. This conflictual relationship satire has with the dominant public is explained by Hill:

“satirists should seek to harm the current system and to create confusion, even if only momentarily, in people’s understanding of how the world works, challenging their attitudes and opinions, taunting and provoking them into doubt, and perhaps into disbelief”

Megan Hill (2013:332)

South Park’s creators Stone and Parker pride themselves on their conflictual relation to power, prestige and

authority. Brian Cogan highlights in Deconstructing South Park, how their “penchant for poking fun at bloated celebrities, dishonest politicians, and self-serving community leaders reveals a deep (and justified) suspicion of authority figures and the institutions that support them.” (2012:xii).

This conflictual relationship to the dominant public and dominant forms of discourse, which the show shares with other satirical forms, is worth keeping in mind when attempting to interpret its performative functions. Viewers participate in the show’s form of critical and conflictual discourse by giving it their continued attention, and in doing so a self-perpetuating counterpublic is created. This continued attention is demonstrated by the consistently high ratings of the show, which can be seen in Neilsen Media Research figures. The Neilsen research on audience share and viewing figures shows South Park as having, at its peak,

6.2 million households in its second season. Since then its viewership has “steadied at 2.5-3M viewers from season 5 through its latest season” (Borden 2015). This demonstrates a considerable and consistent reach, suggesting a fertile counterpublic ground in which, and through which, its discourse and performative functions can take root and act.

Having established what discourse is and where it acts, I can now delve further into the particular form of discourse at work in South Park.

2.4 Satirical Discourse

“All of the distinct genres [of satire]…are linked by several important characteristics, including a desire to challenge the standard formulas and narratives within the mainstream press, a choice to do so by highlighting absurdities and inconsistencies through the use of irony”

Amber Day (2011:23)

To find the performative function of a particular satirical discourse, we must first understand how this media form works. Challenging the standard formulas and narratives of mainstream news is the hallmark of modern satire such as: The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, The Late Show with Steven Colbert,

Saturday Night Live, The Simpsons and of course South Park. Brian Logan, writing in The Guardian, went so far as

to recently suggest, “responding to Trump’s daily scandals, this cohort of comics arguably form a more potent opposition than journalism and the Democratic party combined.” (Logan 2017).

According to some, satire’s links to conventional news media run even deeper, with Amber Day suggesting, “all of them [satirists] attempt to gain some control over the way in which particular issues are publicly discussed” (Day 2011:19), much like how traditional journalism is continually engaged in the project of agenda setting. This comparison with traditional journalism becomes important when analysing how South

Park, as a form of satirical discourse, discusses and engages with current events. To locate the intention

behind the show’s discourse, we must understand the goals of satire as a genre, and as Day and Logan point out, one way of doing this is in contrast to traditional news media.

In order to properly analyse and unpack this discourse, the tools and techniques of satire must be examined. However, this groundwork must go further than a standard examination of political humour, as we will see how South Park also challenges the formulas and narratives of mainstream satire, presenting a unique form of discourse deserving of analysis on its own terms.

i. Deconstructing satire

“A work of satire is designed to attack vice or folly. To this end it uses wit or ridicule… it seeks to persuade an audience that something or someone is reprehensible or ridiculous… satire usually proceeds by means of clear reference to some moral standards or purposes.”

Dustin Griffin (1994:1)

Here Griffin highlights two key principles that define satire: humour and a moral purpose to affect change. Megan LeBoeuf in her study on The Power Of Ridicule states modern satire is “a very powerful artistic form

used to critique specific human behaviours” (2007:2). Like Griffin she affirms satire must not only be humorous but also have a moral core, seeking to affect real change (2007:2).

Amber Day, in her book Satire and Dissent, suggest that a lot of the criticism aimed at satire as a genre, for dumbing down politics and not resulting in any real change (Day 2011:12), can be explained by the idea that this change that satirists seek is not necessarily instantaneous and visible. She states, “none of these satirists is aiming for revolutionary change; rather, they are committed to the importance of incremental effects, of getting people engaged, and of slowly shifting debate.” (Day 2011:23)

LeBoeuf goes on to identify some specific characteristics of contemporary satire: critique, irony and implicitness (2007:3). We can place irony and implicitness as discursive tools, taking critique as an aim or result of the text. Looking at implicitness first, LeBoeuf defines it as satire’s attempt to deconstruct a critiqued behaviour through the use of the absurd, exaggerated and out of context, rather than stating a “verdict” explicitly (2007:3).

Irony has a slightly more complex description, Ian Hall sum it up as, “saying the opposite of what the author

and the audience know is (or ought to be) the case, in order to draw attention to an inconsistency or

contradiction” (2012:6). However, Kreuz and Roberts go further, suggesting four sub-categories of irony that share the common feature of “a discrepancy between mental representations and states of affairs” (1993:98):

Socratic irony, irony of fate, dramatic irony and verbal irony. A brief explanation of these four sub-categories helps

grasp the tools being used by the creators of South Park to engage in politics.

As explained by Kreuz and Roberts, socratic irony is the technique of “pretending ignorance” to highlight a flaw in the thinking of another individual or institution (1993:98). Dramatic irony on the other hand involves a

real ignorance or lack of information. The tension or disparity created when an audience has information that

characters do not (1993:99). Irony of fate, unlike the previous forms, is more explicit, it involves the speaker or author of a text directly drawing the audience’s attention to a disparity, a strange relation between two events (1993:99). This is also in contrast to verbal irony, in which the authors “make statements directly opposite to their beliefs” (1993:99), for comedic or emphatic effect. Perhaps the most widely known and used form of

verbal irony is sarcasm.

Along with these discursive techniques Hariman further identifies parody as a crucial tool of political humour (2008:248), with its sub-genre of caricature (Koestler 1976:70).

According to Hariman, “parodic techniques involve various combinations of imitation and alteration: direct quotation, alternation of words, textual rearrangement, substitution of subjects or characters, shifts in diction, shifts in class, shifts in magnitude” (2008:250). This tool can be used in relation to any object, event, social structure, or in the case of caricature, individual. As Kreuz and Robert point out, parody does not need to go “beyond the bounds of the original work” (1993:103) or parodied individual, to be understood and

appreciated. However, as a tool in a satirist’s arsenal it can be used to make powerful broader comment and critique.

Finally, combining this with Arthur Koestler’s definition of political satire in The Act of Creation, we can

identify the tool of allegory, whereby the satirist projects objectionable features in customs and institutions onto a different background, rather than magnifying or exaggerating them as in parody and caricature (1976:73). One of the most famous examples of this form is George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945), in which the perceived

trials and ills of Stalinist Bolshevism are projected onto the animals of a typical English farm. Historically,

allegory is often accompanied with a moral message, received implicitly by the audience, this has a relation to

ideas of folk tales, universal myths and the storytelling tradition, the importance of which will become clear in the next chapter.

Thus, a common set of tools and discursive techniques emerge, with which a satirist can attempt to affect change through humour and critique: irony, implicitness, parody (with caricature) and allegory. These could be presented in speech patterns, intonation, and visual imagery, as much as the specific language used. With a more defined set of satirical tools established, it’s possible to analyse how South Park uses or adapts satire to present messages, and understanding these tools helps us to understand what this message might be. These tools appear common to much contemporary satirical discourse, they are utilized and adapted to different degrees by different satirist, including Stone and Parker, depending on the context, form and style of the text. Examining how South Park adopts them can provide useful insight into its discourse, but to fully understand the show’s unique approach and performative function it’s necessary to explore where its presentation diverges further from other forms of up-to-date political satire.

ii. Juvenalian Satire

“By showing no proclivity to “take it easy” South Park has…moved well beyond many of its satiric-parodic antecedents…In this respect, South Park is wholly Juvenalian satire—biting, bitter, and often unfriendly.”

Jonathan Gray (2012:12)

Juvenalian satire dates back to Juvenal, the Ancient Roman satirist who gave it its name, but it can be seen throughout history, most notably in Johnathan Swift’s A modest Proposal (1729). In this essay Swift uses irony and gross exaggeration to suggest that English Landlords should fatten up Irish babies so that they can be of use as food. This horrific image was a comment on the dehumanisation of the Irish as well as the nature of debates surrounding how to deal with the Irish problem (Gray 2012:12). This most famous of examples in fact provides a way of explicitly linking South Park to the grand tradition of Juvenalian satire. In an episode entitled ‘Night of the living homeless’, whether knowingly or not, the show directly references Swift’s essay when, in a town meeting to discuss the growing homeless problem, a resident suggests using the homeless as tires for their cars, a proposal greeted with general approval by those in the meeting.

But perhaps a useful way of understanding Juvenalian satire is in contrast to another famous tradition descended from Rome, Horatian satire. Named after the Roman satirist Horace, in this form the satirist holds up to gentle ridicule the absurdities and follies of society, aiming at a knowing smile. In stark contrast Juvenalian satire thrives on realism and harshness and aims to produce, raucous laughter, shock and anger, as opposed to the “cheerful and gentle Horatian satire” (Gray 2012:13). It can also be seen in contrast to LeBoeuf’s implicitness, as much of the pleasure of the Juvenalian approach to satire, comes from the catharsis of the release, of making controversial or unpalatable thoughts and ideas explicit. This form of satire comes with its own performative functions, i.e. the effect it intends to produce like shock and laughter, but

depending on the context of its use in the larger discourse of the show, it may serve additional performative roles for the authors.

This form of extreme, controversial to the point of offensive, satire has strong links to another tradition that

South Park has been linked to, the carnivalesque.

iii. The carnivalesque

“South Park is perhaps the closest text that the contemporary cultural industries have to what Russian cultural theorist Mikhail Bakhtin characterized as Rebelaisian carnival.”

Jonathan Gray (2012:11)

What Russian Philosopher and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin referred to as the Rebelaisian carnival, or more often simply the carnivalesque, takes the ideas of Juvenalian satire further, allowing us to hone in on the specific form of satire used by South Park.

In his work Good Demo, Bad Taste Ethan Thompson describes South Park as a perfect example of carnivalesque satire (2009:214). As Bakhtin describes it, the carnival was a place where social rules and norms didn’t apply, “people were expected to release themselves from social inhibitions and drink, dance, curse, and just be rowdy in general… carnival was symbolically central to medieval folk culture.” (Thompson, 2009:219). But despite this raucous description, the carnival was far from a place devoid of substance and discourse, Bakhtin went so far as to suggest that the concept of carnival could be genuinely revolutionary:

“This carnival spirit offers the chance to have a new outlook on the world, to realize the relative nature of all that exists, and to enter a completely new order of things.”

Mikhail Bakhtin, quoted in Thompson (2009:219)

Along these lines we could suggest that the carnival represented to the working class (or peasant class) what Habermas’ coffee houses represented to the bourgeoisie:

“Carnival was a zone of laughter and momentary liberation “from the prevailing truth and from the established order; it marked the suspension of all hierarchical rank, privileges, norms, and prohibitions.” While temporary, though, by offering another worldview, it held the potential to deeply challenge power systems outside of the carnival too: comic laughter and ridicule, Bakhtin felt, was an act of degradation”

Jonathan Gray (2012:11)

This humour, often perceived as crass, crude or nonsensical, became a unifying, even liberating force, a source of relief and identity forming potential, in direct opposition and defiance to the closeted upper class.

Here we see a potential performative function of carnivalesque satire, challenging power systems through

ridicule and by offering another worldview. As Thompson suggests, “South Park also uses the carnivalesque to

recapture the public sphere, reopening the discussion of “serious” affairs to a crude language that signals that anyone can participate in it.” (Thompson 2009:223). A sentiment supported by Amber Day, who affirms that “there is plenty of discursive exchange that takes place in the form of the seemingly “irrational”—in the registers of parody, satire, fiction, and nonsense.” (2011:19).

From Bakhtin’s description, it’s possible to identify some key characteristics of carnivalesque: • laughter, usually a shared experience and resulting from the humorous nature of carnival. “The

carnivalesque is not a sombre—or even rational—form of cultural engagement or critique.” (Thompson 2009:221).

• bodily excess/scatological humour, whereby the grotesque and the disgusting is an important feature of the carnivalesque. The idea of going over the top or taking things to the extreme has strong links to the Juvenalian tradition.

• billingsgate, essentially bad language, swearing and insults “that constitute an alternative response to official, legitimate language” (Thompson, 2009:221).

• inversions or reversals, which relates to some of the tools of satire previously outlined, specifically irony and parody, often aimed at those with authority or power.

These characteristic features that constitute the carnivalesque spirit, interlink with many of the established tools of satire. They can be used alongside the other tools, as a historically significant form derived from folk carnival, and in explicit opposition to social norms dictated by the powerful. Together they provide a working definition of the specific forms of satire that makes up South Park’s discourse, but one more satirical concept interweaves with some of these ideas, whilst providing a performative function that works on a subconscious level, this is the notion of relief.

iv. The Relief Approach

In his article, Satire and Geopolitics: Vulgarity, Ambiguity and the Body Grotesque in South Park, Joe Thorogood uses the work of Philosopher David Monro, on humour and laughter, to help explain the lasting appeal of

South Park.

Monro’s ideas on humour can be boiled down to three key approaches: superiority, incongruity and relief. In the superiority approach humour is generated from unequal power relations. This often involves a certain amount of degradation of an individual or institution, and as such we can see links to the satirical ideas of

caricature and parody.

The incongruity approach involves humour derived from the pleasure of contrasting and connecting two

antipodes. In this approach, we can also see the tools of satire, as this incongruity has clear connections to many forms of irony previously discussed.

With the relief approach humour comes from the release of often repressed or withheld messages and urges. “It draws on the work of Sigmund Freud and the repression of impulses and outwitting our internal censors that control our social conduct.” (D. H. Monro quoted in Thorogood 2016:218)

It is this last approach that offers another tool of satire with which to unpack the performative functions of South Park. Apart from the mental release gained in the act of laughing in general, and the catharsis that comes from satirical ridicule, the relief approach has a clear connection to Juvenalian satire and the carnivalesque. It can be found in the catharsis of laughing at the realisation of grotesque and shocking images, not normally acceptable to say or see outside the carnival environment.

Combining relief with the other established satirical forms, we can now piece together a coherent set of ideas and concepts with which to analyse the show’s discourse, and the performative function carried within:

• Irony (incongruity) and its various forms. The performative function here can be to educate, to point out a flaw, inconsistency, or juxtaposition that highlights a characteristic the authors want to critique. For example, by pointing out a hypocrisy in the form of irony, the show might intend to create critical discussion or simply shine a light in the hopes that the subject will correct their behaviour, to avoid further ridicule and public shaming.

• Implicitness. Satire uses the explicit and the implicit to deliver its message, thus analysing a text for both is necessary to fully appreciate its performative function. Explicit in a particular discourse might be a description on an issue, yet the way the issue is presented might carry an implicit critique that intends to inspire change.

• Parody (superiority) including its sub-category of caricature. By holding a subject, whether it be a person or an institution, up to ridicule, exaggerating certain characteristics and inverting some for comic effect, the performative function can be two-fold. It can reduce the subject’s authority, even the balance of power, and it can again shine a light on a critiqued idea or activity with the intention of changing or at the very least starting a conversation.

• Allegory is a technique more often associated with fictional forms such as South Park, it also frequently comes with a moral message. In terms of its performative function, this can depend on the moral message being delivered, but allegory can carry a performative authority based on the emotional impact of critique delivered in a story rather than a direct speech.

• The Juvenalian carnivalesque elements (relief) including the grotesque, bodily excess/scatological humour and

billingsgate (extreme, even excessive use of offensive language and insults). Here we see where South Park

separates itself from many of its contemporaries. As well as providing a discourse that allows a more inclusive space for serious socio-political critique, the performative functions can involve the building of a counterpublic movement around the show’s irreverent form, the denigration of powerful

emotional change enacted by the release and satisfaction of unconscious urges, a transgression against prescribed societal norms of behaviour, dictated by those in charge of society.

Using these criteria South Park’s unique discursive form and style can be explored, the messages, critiques and commentary within the show’s discourse can be found, and their possible performative functions in the public sphere can be revealed.

Other than this eclectic combination of satirical techniques, one of the main factors that permits a description of South Park’s discourse as unique, is the fact that its biting, up-to-date satirical commentary is packaged in a fictional animated series. It is a fictional, often fantastical show that uses material from the real world to turn its stories into satire. Therefore, to fully appreciate the force and nature of its discourse, it must be examined in this context, taking into account ideas of storytelling.

Megan Hill in her essay on, A Normative Approach to Political Satire, highlights how the power of some satire stems from a narrative tradition that presents information and critique through the lens of culturally ingrained stories, so called master narratives and universal myths, which mould our “shared understandings” (2013:327). Of course, even factual, information based news reporting uses ideas of narrative and storytelling to present its news and keep viewers/reader engaged, hence the use of story in this context. But there are some elements of fiction, particularly series/serial fiction that involves a set of characters that the viewer can become connected to and invested in, that news stories cannot offer. This shared understanding of character, archetypes and metanarrative has the potential to speak even louder to how we as a society, or public, see the world, “they are not the things people see when they look at the world; they are the things they see with.” (Bennett quoted in Hill 2013:327).

It is these elements of narrative tradition that fictional form can play with, it can help to set South Park’s discourse apart as well as affect the interpretation of their performative function.

2.5 Narrative Theory

Sarah Kozloff suggests that “every narrative can be split into two parts: the story, that is, ‘what

happens to whom,’ and the discourse, that is, ‘how the story is told.’” (in Clyde 1992:69). Under this description narrative is intimately connected to discourse. Looking at how a story is told, can reveal the discourse within and thus what its function is.

Kozloff states in relation to television that “it’s characters and their interrelationships that dominate television stories” (in Clyde 1992:75). Therefore, examining the stories and the characters of a show is potentially the only way to fully understand the discourse therein.

Kozloff goes on to explain how due to the nature of the medium, and the importance of narrative in its presentation, much of television has become formulaic. This formula can be linked to ideas of shared

understanding, whereby the tried and tested way for a text to confer as much meaning as possible on its

receivers, is to utilise recognisable forms of storytelling. Because of the narrative form, this leads to the use of

turn something local and specific, into something with global reach, something that carries an even greater meaning to the viewer.

The performative functions of the use of these universal forms in satirical discourse, could then be seen as the creation of a broader audience, or counterpublic, and the ability to instil a critique with a meaningful, emotional resonance, that persuades and inspires a change in mind, perhaps even leading to a change in state.

Variously referred to as master narratives, metanarratives, universal myths and master stories, the idea as mentioned by Hill (2013:327) that individuals within society have a “shared understanding” that helps and colours our interpretation of the world, becomes useful when attempting to analyse how particular

storytellers convey meaning and messages in their tales. Within these stories there also appears repetitive and recognisable character or personality types, which are often called archetypes. As we will see, this is a

psychological concept as much as it is a literary one.

However, before doing so it is worth pointing out that despite their claim to a universal understanding, there is not universal agreement on the legitimacy of these ideas. Criticism of metanarrative, has come particularly from scholars of postmodernism. Notable among them French philosopher and sociologist Jean-François Lyotard, who stated in his 1979 book The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, that the concept of universal metanarratives in society is“simplifying to the extreme” (1979:xxiv), which is a claim also frequently levelled against theories of archetypes.

Despite this, to attempt a more profound understanding of the performative functions in the satirical discourse of the fictional show South Park, I argue it is valuable to examine the effect these ideas have on the function and delivery of this discourse. Thus for the purposes of this study I will outline some key theories to do with what will be referred to as metanarrative, universal myth, and archetypes.

i. The lenses we see though

“Narrative is one of the ways in which knowledge is organised. I have always thought it was the most important way to transmit and receive knowledge.”

Toni Morrison quoted in Bordwell & Thompson (2009:79)

Morrison, an author, describes his understanding of the power of narrative in society, as a way people understand the world. This way of thinking and discussing the function and effect of storytelling is referred to by scholars as the narrative turn, “that has taken place across multiple fields of study (e.g., psychology, education, medicine, law, theology, cognitive science, communication) over the past several decades… to understand how narratives help individuals make sense of the world—not only how it works but also their place in it.” (Hill 2013:326).

A key idea in the narrative turn has been an investigation into metanarrative and universal myths. Rosemary Huisman explains these metanarratives as, “the stories, or myths, through which a culture tells itself its ideology, its idea of what is natural in its social order.” (Huisman in Fulton 2005:15/16). These

events that we experience. They become “a natural part of our interpretative process…many master

narratives are socially indispensable, allowing us to make sense of ourselves and one another in part by tying us to cultural groups that provide us with a sense of group identity” (Hill 2013:326).

Thus, they are important to be aware of when analysing a media text such as South Park and its performative function in the public sphere. Not only do metanarratives play a part in the organisation of stories and how people understand them, they can contribute to the creation of a group identity amongst this audience. As Hill sums up, looking at narrative texts we must remember, “although we may exchange one pair of frames for another, the lenses we see through remain the same.” (2013:327).

In terms of how metanarratives might affect a viewer’s interpretation of a text Huisman suggests that “your understanding of the experience itself is structured by the kinds of stories with which you are familiar.” (Huisman in Fulton 2005:16). This can relate to specific intertextual knowledge, but also a deeper culturally ingrained understanding of the grand tropes of an individual culture’s narrative tradition. When a villain appears, we as audience recognise them as villain due to characteristics in keeping with a metanarrative tradition of how a villain behaves. This then leads us to understand that the villain will most likely meet their end at the hands of a hero. This shows how people’s expectations can be managed, or a story presented in a comprehensible form. It also demonstrates a link between the kind of shared understanding at work in

metanarratives, that we will see in an examination of the effect of genre classifications in the next chapter. We can see how the understanding of a storyteller, that certain characters and narratives will be easily recognised and meaningful to a viewer, might affect how they choose to construct their discourse. A particular character/casting choice can change how a story is interpreted, could suggest a critique, or simply be designed to increase the emotional impact of the story.

Presented in the recognisable language of storytelling a message has potential to imbue a depth of

understanding far greater than if it was delivered with a focus on objective reality. Facts, events, and specifics can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, misused or lost to memory, but as anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss points out, “What gives myth an operational value is the specific pattern described is timeless; it explains the present and the past as well as the future.” (1955:209).

From this we can surmise that metanarrative, universal myth, and the archetypes that so often constitute them, can impact on the performative functions of a discourse, can work to increase the authority of the performative utterances, and can be seen as performative themselves.

Different authors and scholars have offered theories and lists of metanarratives and archetypes that seem to permeate literature, film and television, all of which cannot be explored here. However, it is worth outlining a few of these, to see how South Park might utilize ideas of universal understanding in its discourse.

ii. Metanarratives and Universal myths

In his 1957 book Mythologies, literary theorist and linguist Roland Barthes describes myth as a type of speech which has an historical origin and a “signifying consciousness” (1957:108). For Barthes, speech of this kind has a meaning and significance to the receiver above and beyond the substance of the text, and as such “myth is not defined by the object of its message, but by the way in which it utters this message (1957:107).