Nonsense, Postmodernism, Academia, and Cartoons
I finally had time to wade through that article. Wow. This is Exhibit A for why some people think academics all have our heads in the clouds.
Let's leave aside the fact that Michael A. Chaney writes like I dance. Let's leave out the fact that he apparently got an A+ in Jargon 101. Let's leave out the fact that he is deconstructing cartoons, and that like many academics who write about things like music and make it dull, sex and make it unsexy and humor and make it unfunny, he is writing about entertainment and making in unentertaining.
No, let's leave all of that aside for now. And let's just get to the heart of the matter: In his dour, witless account in which irony and satire seem to be utterly lost on him, his is like so many works of theoretical cultural criticism. It does not pass the"What if you're wrong?" test. In other words, when most historians write articles or books, we hook it on something empirical. The Freedom Riders left on May 4th from Washington DC, met with violence in Alabama on Mother's Day, May 14th, students took over to continue the Rides, change eventually occurred. Only after laying that out and telling a story (hopefully well) do I engage in slightly more speculative ventures, and even for those I use evidence. So when I levy an argument I say,"Here's why -- I have this and this and that and that and x and y and zed."
None of that manages to be a part of Mr. Chaney's politically loaded but intellectually empty ejaculate. Instead we get idiocies like"Already named and positioned in the buddy role, Chef plays a dichotomy familiar to African Americans in representation. He is in a posterior relationship to the circumstances affecting the determination of his role." Now again, let us forget the wretched writing. Let's forget phrases such as"posterior relationship to the" blah blah blah. I just would like to know one thing -- has this guy ever actually watched (I think I'd know the answer if I asked if he'd"enjoyed") South Park? Seriously. Chef is in a"posterior relationship"? Beyond the fact that his dissertation advisor ought to lose tenure instantly for allowing this drivel to pass through without red ink all across it (Chaney is still finishing his dissertation), Chef's role is one of advisor to the children. Most of the time he is the only one to treat the children seriously, and in turn the children, save for Cartman, and perhaps Kenny, are the only ones who see their world in a way that is sane. The (white) parents of South Park are almost always the ones who make the biggest messes. Yet somehow Chaney misses this. Baffling.
I won't even get into the issues of how patronizing this whole take is given that Isaac Hayes, who gives voice to Chef, is not some sort of hapless victim here, that when Parker and Stone approached him Hayes was famous and they were nobodies. I especially will not get into the truly offensive assertion that Chef (and by extension Hayes) plays an “Uncle Tom” role except to note that use of the term “Uncle Tom” in this sort of context is meant simply to chill all discussion, and not to further it. Oh -- and it is 100% wrong.
Finally, I will try to avoid the inevitable self-justification that my own work is primarily centered on race and politics, if only to inure myself to criticisms that by criticizing a piece about race I must of necessity be hostile to the endeavor. I am not. I am simply hostile to crappy work that so facilely engages in these accusations.
No, worst of all? I have no idea, after all of this nonsense, if he even likes or hates these shows. That, at the end of the day, may be the most damning criticism of all -- I cannot tell if this essay is critical or merely (as I suspect) idiocy couched in the accoutrements of the po-mo's.
Truth is, I don't think I care to know.