The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (22 page)

Popper’s problem with totalitarianism is based on the difference between what he calls
closed societies
and
open societies
. Popper’s closed societies have social customs that are especially rigid and resistant to criticism. The key to a closed society is “the lack of distinction between the customary or conventional regularities of social life and the regularities found in ‘nature’; and this goes often together with the belief that both are enforced by a supernatural will.”
³
As a result, the rules and customs of closed societies are relatively clear and ­uncontroversial. “The right way is always determined by taboos, by magical tribal institutions which can never become objects of critical consideration.”
⁴
It’s no surprise, then, that ways of life in closed ­societies rarely change. When changes do occur, they are more like “religious conversions” or “the introduction of new magical taboos” than careful, rational attempts to improve the lives of the society’s members.

On the other hand, Popper’s
open society
has customs open to the “rational reflection” of its members.
⁵
In an open society, reflection and public discussion are important and can ultimately change the society’s taboos, rules, and codified laws. In fact, this power extends even to whole governments. Popper claims that the key mark of a democracy is its ability to facilitate wholesale governmental changes without violence.
⁶

Popper’s critique of closed totalitarian societies is in large part a practical one. To Popper, the most successful societies are able to apply the ideal of uninhibited criticism that lies at the heart of the scientific method to new social problems they might face. As Bryan Magee writes, “because problem solving calls for the bold propounding of trial solutions which are then subjected to criticism and error elimination, [Popper] wants forms of society which permit of the untrammeled assertion of differing proposals, followed by criticism, followed by the genuine possibility of change in the light of criticism.”
⁷
So, open societies are preferable because they permit—or even better,
promote
—a free and critical exchange of ideas. This ultimately leaves them more flexible than closed societies, and they’re more capable of creatively dealing with the problems that inevitably confront them.

Of course, not every society is an open society, nor is every open society as open as it should be. Given his experiences in Europe just before World War II, Popper was particularly interested in why democracies are sometimes attracted to the closed totalitarianism of, for instance, Nazism or Fascism. As a result, he devotes considerable attention to this in both
The Open Society
and his later book
The Poverty of Historicism
. The bulk of Popper’s work here investigates the political philosophies of Plato and Karl Marx, but what’s more important is that Popper understands those on both the extreme right wing and the extreme left wing of the political spectrum as “enemies of the open society.” Representatives of both extremes have difficulty tolerating the free and open public discussion that is so necessary in a democracy. Moreover, both left and right are impatient with the imperfections of the democratic process, and both are too quick to reject the possibility that their views might be mistaken.

Despite the over-the-top themes of most
South Park
episodes, it’s likely that co-creators Parker and Stone would share Popper’s distrust of political extremism. Time and time again, they develop characters and circumstances that ridicule various “enemies” of the open society. For Parker and Stone, as much as for Popper, democracy is endangered by extremist threats from both the political right and the political left. Recall Parker’s claim during the
Charlie Rose
interview that the ­“people screaming on this side and the people screaming on that side are the same people, and it’s OK to be someone in the middle, laughing at both of them.” While the strategy of Parker and Stone is not so much to argue with extremists as to mock them, there is no question that the duo consistently singles out fanatics of all sorts for especially vicious treatment.

Consider Cartman. Anti-democratic and authoritarian, Cartman is often portrayed as a ridiculous, albeit unusually young, right-wing fanatic. In an interview with NPR’s
Fresh Air
, Parker explains, “We always thought of him as a little Archie Bunker.”
⁸
For example, Cartman brings the dramatic presentation style of conservative tele­vision personality Glenn Beck to South Park Elementary’s morning announcements in “Dances with Smurfs.” He also embraces the role of a xenophobic border patrol agent for a backyard game of “Texans versus Mexicans” in “The Last of the Meheecans.” In fantasizing about a career in law enforcement, Cartman yearns not to help people or serve his community, but to have others, as he drawls, “respect my authoritah.” (To our horror and amusement, Cartman actually manages to get himself deputized in “Chickenlover.”) And Cartman’s unchecked interest in making money leads him to webcast fights between cocaine-addicted infants in “Crack Baby Athletic Association.” For these and countless other extreme actions, Cartman rarely makes it through an episode without being ridiculed or otherwise punished.

Parker and Stone satirize the political left, too, especially when left-wing politics lead to the sort of hypocrisy inconsistent with an open society. For example,
South Park
often targets liberal efforts sometimes tagged as “political correctness.” This is especially true of politically correct attempts to limit offensive language, such as the slurs and epithets in “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson” and “The F Word.” But
South Park
targets heavy-handed efforts to control behavior as well. In “Ike’s Wee Wee,” Mr. Mackey attempts to convince Kyle, Stan, and the rest of Mr. Garrison’s class that smoking, alcohol, and drugs are bad. Alas, his presentation doesn’t reveal a sophisticated understanding of substance abuse or addiction. Instead, in a rather paternalistic and condescending lecture, Mr. Mackey simply tells the children: “Smoking’s bad; you shouldn’t smoke. And, uh, alcohol is bad; you shouldn’t drink alcohol. And, uh, as for drugs, well, drugs are bad; you shouldn’t do drugs.”

The left-wing liberalism of many Hollywood celebrities also receives brutal treatment on
South Park
. Indeed, Parker and Stone seem to reserve some of their most merciless attacks for outspoken stars like Tom Cruise, who is portrayed as a litigious hypocrite, fervent cult leader, and closeted homosexual in episodes like “Trapped in the Closet,” “200,” and “201.” Indeed, Cruise was allegedly so upset by “Trapped in the Closet” that he threatened to back out of a promotional blitz for Viacom’s
Mission Impossible III
if the episode was rebroadcast. After “Trapped” was pulled, Parker and Stone responded with a satirical statement issued to
Daily Variety
.

So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!
⁹

Cruise is not the only liberal star subjected to
South Park
’s unflattering portrayal; scores of celebrities join forces in a class-action ­lawsuit against the town in “200.” One of the plaintiffs is U2’s Bono, who’s upset by his portrayal as an emotionally fragile limelight seeker whose humanitarian work fronts for his overinflated ego (in “More Crap”). Likewise, Rob Reiner appears willing to lie, cheat, and sacrifice Cartman’s life in order to further his heavy-handed anti-tobacco agenda in “Butt Out.” Barbara Streisand’s moralizing criticism of both
South Park
and Mike Judge’s
Beavis and Butthead
led Parker and Stone to portray her as a Godzilla-like robotic monster in “Mecha-Streisand.” And in “Trapper Keeper,” Rosie O’Donnell’s proposal to resolve an unsettled kindergarten election with questionable vote recount strategies leads Mr. Garrison to erupt:

People like you preach tolerance and open-mindedness all the time, but when it comes to Middle America, you think we’re all evil and stupid country yokels who need your political enlightenment! Well, just because you’re on TV doesn’t mean you know crap about the government!

South Park
clearly exhibits a pattern of criticism of extremist “enemies of the open society,” whether right-wing fascist types or sanctimonious liberal celebrities. Some episodes are even constructed to target both the left and right
simultaneously
. “Dances With Smurfs,” for example, mocks Glenn Beck’s paranoia while attacking the pious liberalism of Hollywood blockbuster films
Avatar
and
Dances with Wolves
. “Whale Whores” satirizes both the whalers and the protesters fighting them. “1%” targets Occupy Wall Street activists while also lampooning the Tea Party’s animosity toward President Barack Obama. (For good measure, “1%” also critiques the typically shallow political reporting of mainstream television news outlets that struggle to cover such movements, including Occupy Red Robin.) And “About Last Night …” mocks both the overblown elation of Obama supporters and the overblown fears of his Republican opponents in the aftermath of the 2008 election. As Stone explains in his previously mentioned
Fresh Air
interview, “I guess our political attitude is, ‘
South Park
’s bigger than both the Republicans and the Democrats.’” Parker then follows up:

So many episodes are, like, this side of an issue and that side of an issue, and they’re all yelling at each other and calling each other evil and stupid, and the boys are in the middle, going, God, just both of you shut up. There’s a reason the show’s like that, because that’s basically who we are.
¹⁰

Popper’s contributions to democratic political philosophy also include a component dubbed the
paradox of tolerance
. According to Popper, the sort of tolerance required to keep a democracy healthy requires, ironically, an
intolerance for intolerance
. In other words, those who refuse to let others ask questions and speak their minds ought to be prevented from doing so; otherwise, the open discussion so essential to a healthy democracy will become impossible to maintain. As he puts it, “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
¹¹

South Park
’s special concern with criticizing and countering intolerance might explain its surprisingly nasty treatment of groups like the Church of Scientology. Popularized by the endorsement of such celebrities (and
South Park
foils) as Tom Cruise and John Travolta, the Church of Scientology also suffers from the public perception that it silences former members and others who criticize its beliefs and practices. In fact, Isaac Hayes, a Scientologist who had long provided a voice for the beloved character Chef, left the show in 2006 because of its treatment of Scientology in episodes like “Trapped in the Closet.” (We can only imagine his reaction had he stuck around for “The Return of Chef,” an episode produced just after his departure in which Chef joins a cult-like group called “The Super Adventure Club.” His lines in “The Return of Chef” were voiced by splicing together bits of his singing and dialogue from earlier episodes in a distinctly awkward but amusing way.)

South Park
’s willingness to criticize intolerance earned the show a Peabody Award in April of 2006. According to Peabody Awards Program director Horace Newcomb, “We see [
South Park
] as a bold show that deals with issues of censorship and social and cultural topics. My line on
South Park
is that it properly offends everybody by design and by doing so it reminds us all that it’s probably a good idea to be tolerant.”
¹²

Before we conclude, let’s connect Popper’s ideas to earlier American thinkers, especially since Popper viewed himself as part of this tradition. Students of American history may notice similarities between Popper’s views on free and open expression and those of the great scholar and US President Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826). Jefferson is known as the primary author of the American Declaration of Independence (1776), but he was also one of the foremost intellectuals of the Revolutionary era. Under the influence of some of the same thinkers who later inspired Popper—especially Francis Bacon (1561–1626) and John Locke (1632–1704)—Jefferson pursued a wide range of philosophical interests throughout his life. He was, by all accounts, deeply committed to freedom of thought and expression, a commitment that showed itself in his steadfast defense of religious freedom and tolerance.

While it might be easy for us to take religious freedom for granted today, Jefferson lived in times after the very long and very bloody conflict that engulfed Europe following the Protestant Reformation. He knew well the high social, political, and personal costs of reli­gious discrimination, coercion, and war. Jefferson’s preeminent contri­bution to the defense of religious liberty was his
Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom
, a document first drafted in 1777 and passed into law in 1786. Jefferson was so proud of the Bill that it was one of the three items that he listed in his self-penned “Epitaph” of 1826.
¹³

Rereading the Bill today, it’s easy to discern a Popper-like conviction that free and unfettered inquiry is the only good method for gaining knowledge, whether in science, politics, religion, or any other area. “Truth,” Jefferson writes, “is great and will prevail if left to herself; […] she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate.” Jefferson continues, “Errors ceas[e] to be dangerous when [truth] is freely permitted to contradict them.” There’s also something of a divine hand in free inquiry here, as when Jefferson proclaims that “God hath created the mind free.” He concludes with the bold universal declaration that “the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind.”
¹⁴
All this prompts Julian Boyd to write in his editor’s footnotes to the Bill: “The Preamble to [Jefferson’s] Bill provided philosophical justification, as of natural right, not merely to the ideas of religious toleration and separation of state and church but also for the right of the individual to complete intel­lectual liberty—‘the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.’”
¹⁵