Satire in A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift

You can’t make fun of what isn’t real. When considering what lines can be crossed with satire, many people are most sensitive about protecting feelings; the common consensus seems to be that satirists should not overstep their boundaries by addressing touchy subjects and making fun of sensitive issues. While breaking hearts may not garner positive responses, it is important to understand that as a medium, satire is meant to offend one’s sensibilities. It serves as a platform to spark discussion through scathing and insolent hyperbole. It assumes that whatever outrageous portrayals are published push the reader towards enlightenment with their severity.

So, when does satire cross the line? Satirical writing uses humor and rhetoric to bring light to the truth. It is a cultural form of power, something that can be utilized to call out social problems, or in other scenarios, to attack the propagators of those very problems. The foundation of satire is reality, and any works satirizing something fabricated are simply invalid as satire. The cornerstone of satire is always going to be truth. The line should not, and will not, move. It should not have to if what the satirist is saying is based on the truth, as harsh and as brutal as it may be. Remember again, that it’s satire. Not objective unbiased news, though Fox news does seem to contradict that idea.

A Juvenalian satirical essay A Modest Proposal, published anonymously by Jonathan Swift in 1729, presents a not-so-modest proposal to stimulate the Irish economy and end poverty: selling human child meat. Imagine having a child around a year in age waiting to be prepared and cooked, then eaten, all in the name of relieving Irish society of the burden of caring for youths. As a result, ...

... middle of paper ...

...ions of terrorism at Barack Obama. If we operate under the assumption that such statements had indeed been made, then yes, the cover can be seen as illuminating and funny. But in truth, these comments were primarily made by the conservative media, and proliferated through social media – hardly accurate representatives of the Republican Party’s political views. The cover pointed a finger at the wrong group, therefore skewing its foundations and limiting its validity as a piece of satire. It simply crossed the line, stepping from an amusing caricature to a false satire.

The satirical line for feelings should not exist, because there is no ‘taboo’ in satire when all satirists are trying to do is inject a little more insight and knowledge into society. Instead, we must focus on whether they are staying true to the definition of satire, by staying true to the truth.