'R. C. Collins Use Of Satire In Get Out'

Merriam Webster defines satire as a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn. In order to be able to execute satire there undoubtably has to be a base level of common human values or “standard against which to judge the folly [the satirist] sees” as R.C. Collins describes in his essay “The Satirist and Society.” However, any assumption about satirists being the true “preservers of tradition” or satire serving to “operate within the established frameworks of society, accepting its norms” is incomprehensible and convoluted at best.

Jordan Peele’s Get Out is a very successful work of satire that directly opposes everything Collins’ proposes as the elements of effective satire. The comedy, and in turn satire of Get

out, lies in the absurdity of the depiction and story. It is implausible that white people would literally kidnap black people in order to steal parts of them. However, the literal is almost always peripheral in satire. Peele is satirizing the way in which white people, who might otherwise appear racially conscious, steal aspects of black culture while leaving the actual black bodies and the black people inside them to suffer in silence. The neurosurgical implantations are just a visual exaggeration of the literal cultural appropriation.
Peele, in satirizing cultural appropriation, is not appealing to any traditions of racial justice or accepting the norms of prejudice.

Peele pushes the boundary of thought. Though cultural appropriation might appear to some as a minor chasm in the abyss that is racial injustice, Peele suggests it is something that is capable of enormous damage and danger, or at the very least he presents cultural appropriation as a finger or a hand of the giant beast that is racism. He is perfectly aware of the history of race in America, and any suggestion that Peele is appealing to the the time honored tradition of racial tolerance or acceptance is laughable given that there has never been a moment in American history where we can truthfully say racial prejudice, along with cultural appropriation, has not existed, much less time where we could have called racial acceptance “a tradition.” In fact, anything more than a glance at Collins’ quote shows that the main error is how Collin’s uses the words “value” and “tradition” interchangeably. Where as “values” might signify an number of romantic notions we might have about ourselves and our societies principles, “traditions” must be founded in history and action and can therefore be subject to a much more thorough and skeptical analysis. So where as the satirist might fancy himself the “preserver of values” the idea that he is the preserver of tradition” is

incorrect.
Voltaire’s Candide further refutes Collins’ claim that satire serves to “operate within the established frameworks of society, accepting its norms.” As with most satirists, Voltaire’s writing directly critiques the Optimism that was ever-present during his time. Candide, the protagonist, even after having nearly every awful experience imaginable, remains a steadfast optimist, highlighting how Optimism can deeply distort your understanding of the world. Martin, holds the opposite world view of Candide but is equal convicted to it. He believes with absolute certainty that everything is awful, and Voltaire mocks that world view as well. A simple close inspection of Voltaire’s view and translation into the modern era makes it clear that Voltaire is also critiquing organized religions and any organization that would allow someone to simply adapt a collective of world views that they simply regurgitate into any situation. Voltaire is not operating within the established framework of his or any other society.
The satirist begins with the common human values of fairness and compassion as well as possibly a few others, that they then use as a magnifying glass to inspect the world through. They do not start with human traditions, because frankly there hardly any, and there are even fewer worth preserving. The satirists mainly serves to directly oppose the current state of being; to oppose the current framework. What is satire if not critical and introspective? Peele is opposing aspects of institutionalized racism, Voltaire is critiquing collective oblivion, partially when it relates to religion. Stating that satirists are the true “preservers of tradition” only serves to raise a multitude of questions such as what counts as tradition? Who determines that? One which Collins makes no answers for. As well as saying that satire means “operate within the established frameworks of society, accepting its norms” is difficult to comprehend. It seems to be the direct opposite of satire by definition.