Response to "Sociological Perspective: Lead Blog Post"
Paige brought up many interesting points in her lead blog post, but I'd specifically like to focus on one aspect: not the fact that people can be swayed by political satire, but more specifically whose opinions are affected by those of others. To put it as a question, who is the most susceptible to influence, and why? I would assert that Paige's example of a conservative reexamining his political views and reconsidering his support of Trump as a result of his friend's off-handed comment is highly unlikely. Why? Because he has already made up his mind, and is likely to dismiss his friend's jab at the Trump administration as either a joke or a misinformed critique. I think it's possible for people's views to drastically change, just not that rapidly, and not because of such an insignificant interaction. Rather, my (largely anecdotal) assertion is that those who are most vulnerable to the influences of political satire and the opinions of others are: A) the uninformed, and B) the undecided. When I started high school, I was both. I knew a little bit about politics and current events, but not much, and I was torn between a very conservative family and a very liberal community. Being from Austin, the only blue city in a flaming red state, I was bombarded with arguments and perspectives from both sides of the aisle - all from people I trust and care about, and whose opinions I still value today - but, I didn't know what to make of it. AS a result, I was very easily gulled into believing most things that I heard or read. Unfortunately, I didn't realize this until my english teacher assigned an article on the causes of the gender wage gap. We were supposed to read it and analyze the rhetoric utilized by the author, and I wrote my essay on how effective the writing was and what wonderful points the author made, when in fact, he was reinforcing sexist gender stereotypes and using them to explain away a significant issue. I completely fell for his rhetoric, and after listening to the responses of other students, I looked into the facts more deeply and realized I had been fooled. I learned from then on to take all information with a critical and skeptical eye, and now I am no longer as easily swayed as I was when I was uninformed and undecided. Essentially, in order to ensure that people make political choices for themselves, I believe that it is important to (unbiasedly) inform the uninformed and encourage the undecided to explore their personal opinions, then allow the influence of others, of political satire, etc. to come in to play.
View the gender wage gap article here.
View the gender wage gap article here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAwesome post, Lindsey! I really enjoyed reading your response and completely agree with your conclusion that people who are politically undecided better benefit from factual information--as opposed to ambiguous satire and jokes--in order to form their opinion on a topic. So then what is the role of political satire in shaping opinions? I was intrigued by Faith's comment about conflict theory, which is a topic I'm interested in exploring more. From an anthropological perspective, conflict theory states that internal conflict between two groups, such as an in group and out group, promotes the solidarity of the larger group as a whole (see link at the bottom for the full reading). Within the context of political satire, there is still a sense of camaraderie created because the jokes are ultimately different reactions to the same event. Yet, the jokes themselves further polarize the groups because, I would argue, they don't like the stereotypes about their preferred ideology to be mocked, especially when they're true. But, because of this, political jokes have the ability to instigate a more factual discussion about the topic (if both parties are mature enough) and cause potential changes in beliefs.
ReplyDeleteSorry that was long-winded :/
More about conflict theory: https://www.jstor.org/stable/173014?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Great discussion everyone. I wonder Lindsey if maybe it was the experience of being fooled or tricked that was more persuasive, and if that might convince people who were already set in their ways too? I agree that it is the undecided and uninterested who will be most persuadable, but can we learn some lessons?
ReplyDeleteCaroline, do you think that satire might be better in other circumstances then? What?
As discussed in "The Irony of Satire", satire is a "playful distortion of reality" that is used to ridicule institutions in power. So in this way, I think that satire is actually most applicable in controversial social and political situations because it's a tool that the polarized ideologists use to show the "stupidity" of decisions made by those in power. To more concisely state my argument in the above comment, I think I was trying to say that the ambiguous satire may go over the heads of impressionable and uninformed people when they're trying to form opinions on controversial topics. :)
Delete