Stephen Colbert fights the closeminded
I don’t watch either that often, but while I do prefer the Daily show to Colbert, the later is a fascinating show both for it’s absurd level of satire, but also its deconstruction of punditry. In this recent interview in Rolling Stone magazine, I found this point particularly interesting:
Rolling Stone: A lot of people view what you do as liberal vs. conservative. But what you’re saying is that the show is really about people who are flexible in their beliefs vs. people who are fixed in their beliefs?
Colbert: If there’s a target in our present society, it’s people not willing to change their minds. If you’re not willing to change your mind about anything, given how much is changing and how the sands are shifting underneath our feet, then that dishonesty is certainly worth a joke or too.
Wow. Talk about satire aimed at high minded purpose.
The irony, of course, is that Colbert mocks a “closed minded” cross section of society by shouting stereotypes back into an elitist echo chamber. Colbert, Stewart, SNL, Fallon – all these guys go out of their way to one up absurd notions about those right of center, while often exposing themselves as moral and philosophical midgets. Oversimplified jabs at non-liberal positions don’t make for the compelling commentary that these people are often credited with.
“I’d like to give a shout out to Pelosi for passing health care. You’re my girl! I’d like to give a shout out to Lieberman for trying to get rich by denying health care to Americans. You’re gangsta!”
Socrates?
Hardly.
Easy now. Socrates would be a fan of what Colbert claims to be trying to do. Whether he achieves it or not is something else entirely.
I’m more inclined to follow Postman’s line of thinking (See my post: What’s wrong with TV, a theory), which, in short, is that commercial TV can not save us from commercial TV no matter how ironic or satirical it gets since many people won’t notice the difference.
“Easy now. Socrates would be a fan of what Colbert claims to be trying to do. Whether he achieves it or not is something else entirely.”
Em, are you sure about that, Scott? I suspect Socrates, being a socratic thinker, would draw out Colbert’s own hypocrisy in rendering flexibility of mind to an inflexible orthodoxy. The socratic method is not about changing ones opinion, but about questioning it – a pretty significant distinction.
Josh, I’m guessing Colbert can’t perform open heart surgery or hit left handed pitching either. Nonetheless he’s quick and he’s brilliant at dissecting what passes for right wing punditry these days. That you find his jabs neither erudite or funny shouldn’t surprise anyone. Lighten up. I have to believe that from time to time,even O’Reilly laughs out loud watching Colbert.
Having taught Plato since 1975, I would like to diabuse you of the thought that Socrates was only after “loosening up” the closed minded. Colbert might have that as a “noble” goal, but Socrates (as he says repeatedly thorughout the dialogues and as his execution and death showed)was rigorously and ruthlessly after truth, reality, goodness, and beauty. In fact, he was so “closed minded” about that pursuit that he refused to escape prison when he had the opportunity because that escape would make a mockery of the single-mindedness authenticity he had in discovering what he pursued and teaching what he might have come upon.
As it turns out, Socrates was much more rigorous than you give him credit for (especially by lining him up with someone like Colbert — someone who mocks the arrogant but leaves nothing like truth to fill the void created after the mockery has its way). Socrates was faced with a bunch of loose-minded (albeit arrogant) psuedo intellectuals that were exposed as such not by mockery but by “ellenchus” (the critical demonstration of the flaws and self-contradictory nature of the other person’s position). That is surely not mockery and mere satire, but a real terror for the too-loose (maybe too-“open”) minded becasue it shows them to be not all-knowing “sages” but confused (and rather silly) pertenders.
In short, Colbert does some good work in exposing the fool’s for their foolery. But he only does half the job that Socrates worked for: i.e., beating a straight path for the truth (and then living and dying for the right to look for it in serious dialogue with others who authentically have the same goal).
Sorry. This isn’t very bloggish, is it?
Dan
Hi Dan.
Actually, it’s very blogish. Certainly your comments are interesting, so no worries there.
Lets spin this around. What living person(s) do you think Socrates would be a fan of today?
Glenn Beck
Greg: Please tell me you’re joking.
It might seem to be a joke if your understanding of Beck is based on 3rd party reports, as opposed to listening to the man himself. As with any controversial person (Michael Moore included), his words routinely get pulled out of context and/or twisted. If you listen to the essence you will hear that he is seriously seeking the truth. However, he throws in a fair dose of comedy – which makes him a target for a) those who disagree and fail to see the humor, or b) those who think that the topics he speaks on do not lend themselves to humor, therefore writing him off in the process.
Those who fall into the former category, I believe, are compelled to misquote and generally denigrate him due to his skill in communication. They find it hard to refute, so they don’t bother trying.
btw, feel free to delete this msg … just wanted to say I found your blog today by accident, and love it. I can’t email atm due to work restrictions.
Beck and Moore are similiar in at least one way: they both are willing to use cheap shots, cherry picking and misrepresenting the statements other people make to suit their own purposes. I think there is a lack of intellectual integrity in anyone who willfully does these things, and most pundits do them. Even if they’re right, which sometimes these folks are, their arguments are defeated by the means they use to achieve them.
At least as far as Socrates go, or the ideal of Socrates I’m referring to, neither is a contender.