Whilst modern satire is characterised by cynicism and a desire to replace the current power with a more favoured alternative, its origins have had other motives as well. Satire has existed for multiple millennia, notably popularised as a political and artistic form in Ancient Greek. It has also been influential in the carnival culture of the Medieval and Renaissance eras in Europe. One of the key aspects of these festivals were to challenge the dominant Christian ideals and rigid socio-heirarchial structures of the time.

​

There are four key characteristics:

1. ​Familiar and free interaction between people who would normally not mingle due to the divisions.

2. Eccentricity and the permission of inappropriate behaviour creating free indivualistic expression

3. Carnivalistic mésalliances in which the binary ideas (like rich and poor or good and evil) were dissolved in favour of human relationships.

4. Profanation, treating sacred things with disrespect, allowed for celebration of blasphemy and obscenities.

​

Overall, it aimed to create a situation where those of lower status could have companionship with those of higher classes, without fear of judgement in the eyes of the rich or of God. ​​Therefore, mocking and satire were permitted and encouraged to "uncrown" the elites, remind them of their shortcomings, and remind them that they are still human with all its bodily functions and desires. 

​

The carnivalesque reminds people that status does not mean they are gods, and the satire was a mutual desire to dismantle the elitism (even if things would proceed as normal in the morning). However, in our contemporary culture, it could be argued that satire, while still usually aimed at someone with power (be it politicians or celebrities) it does not aim to change the structures. Cynicism is thinking things can not change, and is thus accepting elitism as natural. Joking that "this is just how the world is" implies this is objective fact.​

Cynicism is not Activism, its Apathy.

​

Satire thus gives an almost mythic status to the people it condemns. Take for example a certain US president. While there is a surplus of jokes about his mortal body (wigs, and dementia, and micropenises to give a few examples) and his personality and descions, they only mock him as a person. In turn, unintentionally, the jokes reinforce that the man himself is a problem or a figure of fun while his status as rich, or a businessman, or president is unquestioned. Satire laughs at his egotism, while not acknowledging the socio-economic structures that give a single man enough power to rename gulfs or start wars. 

​

So, what can be done to change satire? Maybe not much. The carnivalesque relies on a mutual acceptance of mockery, and its unlikely Trump would want to be roasted, let alone admit his elitism as a flaw. However, we can do more for our satire. Instead of explaining the events as a set-up, do the punch line then question them as well. One format in comedy is the story telling set, where the comedian discusses a personal problem as the set-up, and then talks about potential solutions in thematic punches. Thus, satire should adopt this too: name the major problem and give solutions (silly or serious). 

​

Its not enough now to say that these politicians, or celebrities, or CEOs are being ridiculous, we know they are all idiots. Now we need to admit that they are human, no different in body to us, and should not be granted such special status.

​

In other words:

The Best Satire Should Name the Problem AND Shame the Specific People Creating That Problem​