A difference between satire and some of the other forms taken by the
literature of accusation is that the author of a satire on sexual mores may
himself be an inveterate lecher and pervert; in fact, the satire will
probably go better - have more of a swing to it - if he is.
When it comes to some of the things of which we now like to accuse ourselves
and each other - racism, sexism, homophobia etc. - there tends to be a
presumption that the accuser is innocent of the vice in question. This
presumption can go so far as asserting that members of ethnic minorities
*cannot* by racist, women *cannot* be sexist, queer people *cannot* be
homophobic (or if they are, it's because they've absorbed the negative
stereotypes of the surrounding culture: they need only return to themselves,
restore their depleted amour propre, to be purified of that taint).
One might then go on to presume that members of ethnically privileged groups
*cannot not* be racist, men *cannot not* be sexist, straights *cannot not* be
homophobic, so that accusing them is rather like shooting fish in a barrel:
one need only learn the appropriate rhetorical manouevres, and one can winkle
guilt out of straight white males without noticeable effort, time and time
again. It's amusing - up to a point - that straight white males themselves
have proved quite adept at doing precisely this.
Whatever else it may be feasible to write in the context of presumptions like
these, good satire is probably out of bounds.
Dominic
|