Epidemiología Prevalencia del síndrome metabólico

The idea that satire constitutes a form of therapy is commonplace, albeit there are different interpretations of what the genre supposedly cures and how. Since the inception of the genre in Roman times, it has been popular to claim world morally and socially out of health; and, if this holds good, the satirist is a kind of Wight 1964 [1936], 8). Accordingly, in literary criticism, it has become common to

J

he applies appropriate therapeutic treatments: the whip, the scalpel, the strappado, the K T a curative and punitive practice, which heals through painful remedies, remained influential during the Renaissance and was further developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, when satirists often framed their work in relation to contemporaneous medical practice (Gallagher 2013). Augustan satirists commonly presented satire as a medicine against moral ills (Elkin 1973, 74/79). Similar ideas about the therapeutic function of satire are also evoked in other historical contexts. Discussing late-18th century Dutch satire, Marijke Meijer Drees. E. and Ivo N as a bitter but necessary medicine for a society that wants to cure itself from all sorts of social and moral ills, and the satirist is the

209, my translation).

However, although common, the idea of the satirist as doctor who cures the moral ills of the world is problematic. Throughout my investigation, I have argued that the social and political impact of satire must not be overestimated. Similarly, many satirists have acknowledged the limits of satire. Take Jonathan Swift, who ridiculed the consensus about

A

intending] to use the public much at the rate that pedants do a naughty boy ready horsed 2009 [1704], 32 A “ ‘ quoted in Elkin 1973, 86). Nevertheless, the idea of satire as therapy remains informative, if construed differently. Here, I take a lead from Jon

196

F I “

the real outcome of satire is typically catharsis I

F “

I “ J “ P

literally wh

undoubtedly the result of a spontaneous, or self-induced, overflow of powerful indignation,

L C K ts

J T

E -hop, who, like Juvenal, programmatically suggests ‘ B 2002, 114). The therapeutic benefit of satire is not changing the world as much as coping with it. This

unexalted aesthetic pleasures associated with its pursuit of entertainment. Thus, instead of stressing the bitterness of J “

“

1962, 154). The

same therapeutic function of entertainment in satire has also been transposed to its audiences. While Jon Stewart avows ignorance about the cathartic effects of his satire on audiences, his role as a satirist on The Daily Show

“ “

A H “

in jokes, ironic comments, and such is a necessary ingredient of daily life for citizens within a totalitarian or authoritarian state if they are to maintain their own sense of worth, individuality, and self- H C J “ A ica may seem a very different context than the totalitarian Soviet Union, it shares an essential

J ‘ “ I W

socio-historical context, satire has often served as an outburst against an absurd social and political situation that seems unlikely to change. For this reason, David Nokes rightfully

The therapeutic dimension of satire puts its relatively moderate success as critique in perspective. Satire should not be understood as second-rate critique, but as a balancing act between the moral need to critique and the therapeutic need to accept the limits of

197

critique. Nevertheless, there is an obvious tension between these needs. Nokes clarifies

17). The

danger is that although the pursuit of entertainment in satire may be therapeutically beneficent, it may also stimulate undue acquiescence. In particular, the humorous and ironic techniques exploited by satire have often been mistrusted for allegedly breeding cynicism and indifference. Conversely, humour and irony have sometimes also been identified as a therapeutic panacea in the face of existential doubt and absurdity. The position I set out to develop below is that the therapeutic value of humorous and ironic strategies in satire lies somewhat in the middle. As opposed to detractors, I will argue that the distance introduced by humour and irony in satire need not necessarily compromise moral commitment. Yet, I will also mitigate claims by supporters who argue that humorous irony introduces a perspective from which the absurdities of life simply dissolve. Instead, I will argue that humorous irony in satire does not resolve the limits of critique, but can function as a mature way of coping with them. Accordingly, satire can have therapeutic value in addressing the fundamental conflict in ethical life between the concern for the common good and the care of self.

This conflict between the concern for the common good and the care of self has often been addressed in moral philosophy. Martha Nussbaum introduces this conflict by explaining

-

which hunger, illiteracy and disease are the daily lot of a large proportion of the human

W N

rs can actively contribute, she also introduces philosophy as a

N B W can we really believe that philosophy, properly understood in terms of rigorous argument, could be so directly related to curing real human misery, the kind of suffering that priests and doctors and indeed (1994, 25- I W

is fully justified, I do think that rigorous philosophical argumentation is apt to highlight existential issues which it cannot resolve by itself. The limits of critique strike me as one such existential problem which good philosophy highlights but cannot wholly attenuate. Irrespective of any therapeutic strategies philosophy may itself develop, I will investigate

198

humorous and ironic strategies in satire as coping devices that can complement this therapeutic process in significant ways.