The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (2 page)

The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy: Respect My Philosophah!
Edited by Robert Arp and Kevin S. Decker

Forthcoming
:

Ender’s Game and Philosophy
Edited by Kevin S. Decker

Sons of Anarchy and Philosophy
Edited by George Dunn and Jason Eberl

Supernatural and Philosophy
Edited by Galen A. Foresman

This edition first published 2013
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Wiley-Blackwell is an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, formed by the merger of Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical and Medical business with Blackwell Publishing.

Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offices
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at
www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell
.

The right of Robert Arp and Kevin S. Decker to be identified as the authors of of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and ­neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The ultimate South Park and philosophy : respect my philosophah! / edited by Robert Arp, Kevin S. Decker.
pages cm – (The Blackwell philosophy and pop culture series ; 83)
Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-118-38656-9 (pbk.) 1. South Park (Television program) I. Arp, Robert. II. Decker, Kevin S.
PN1992.77.S665S68 2013
791.45′72–dc23

2013006624

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Cover image: Background © Roman Okopny; spacecraft © Sven Herrmann; city © Murat Giray Kaya (all istockphoto); boy © Tim Kitchen/Getty Images.
Cover design by
www.simonlevy.co.uk

12013

Robert Arp and Kevin S. Decker

We’re convinced.
South Park
is one of the most important series on TV.

Why? Because the show isn’t afraid to lampoon the extremist fanatics that are associated with any social, ethical, economical, or religious position. This is extremely important and necessary in our diverse society of free and autonomous persons who hold a plurality of beliefs and values. Why? Because someone who thinks they have the “corner on truth” can become fanatical. Fanatics usually stop thinking issues through and, ultimately, they’re primed to cause harm to others through their actions. We want to be critical thinkers, and part of thinking critically means that we’re committed to having beliefs that aren’t treated as
so
sacred that we never, ever doubt them—or laugh at them. In other words, we need a healthy dose of skepticism about any belief, and this is one of the important lessons that
South Park
teaches us.

Unfortunately, even philosophers have caved in to the temptation to be “dogmatic” about their beliefs. But in the long, long dialogue that is philosophy, every dogma has its day, and other philosophers sweep in to point out the extremist (if not very fanatical) views of their predecessors. This can be done in a number of different ways, each equally interesting. The American pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), for example, pounced on the fact that all our thinking is done through the medium of signs, and that the meaning of every sign is incomplete since it has been shaped by previous thinking—earlier signs—each of which is even less complete. Although you would never confuse him for Peirce, the French deconstructionist Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) wrote that all our concepts are defined negatively by what they’re
not
—that is, by their difference from other concepts. For Derrida, thinking is the “play of differences” that ­presents alternative possibilities, rather than hard realities. The ­penetrating insights of Peirce and Derrida provide excellent case studies in the healthy type of skepticism that
South Park
affirms.

There are other important lessons to be gained from
South Park
, and the chapters in this book are a testament to this fact. First, and foremost, we need to laugh. We need to laugh at the extremist fanatics not just because their ideas are usually, well,
extreme
and
fanatical
, but because when their reasoning is exposed to sunlight, it withers. Critical thinkers need to be fair-minded, pragmatic, and balanced in their recognition that people’s perceptions of the truth are just that, people’s perceptions. The creators of
South Park
intend their show to poke fun at the “kooks” of any position, and, according to Parker in an interview with Charlie Rose, “What we say with the show is not anything new, but I think it is something that is great to put out there. It is 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.”
¹

There’s been a lot of laughter
and
philosophy that
South Park
has offered us over the years. In 2006, the book
South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today
was published, and in that pioneering book, philosophers tackled issues like whether it’s morally appropriate to laugh at the nurse with the dead fetus attached to her head, or the fact that Scott Tenorman has just been fed his own ­parents, or that Mr. Garrison’s parents did
not
molest him when, apparently, they should have. A big part of us says no, this isn’t ­appropriate, but another part affirms a joyous yes! (Take that, Nietzsche!) Other issues they took on included Cartman’s “­authoritah” and the source of the binding force of laws; whether a robot can understand; the ethics of capitalism; the fear and question of death; arguments for the existence of a divine being; how people are objectifying, or turned into things; and what makes you who you are—the question of
identity
. Such is the depth and breadth of
South Park
that the earlier book needed to dive into disciplines like sociology, ­psychology, and political science, as well as philosophy.

This book is such a bigger project that it required taking on an additional editor and several consignments of Chef’s Salty Balls to keep up the pace of writing and editing. It’s made up of wholly new chapters and some of the best chapters, revised in the face of new philosophical problems and fresh
South Park
heresies, from the earlier book. We think you’ll find it’s equally engaging a read, for sure. For example, along with Kevin Murtagh, whose chapter deals with ­blasphemous humor, you might cringe at the thought of a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding out of its vagina. But you might also agree with Murtagh that there is value in metaphorically “hitting people over the head with a sledgehammer” to get them to start thinking. Philosophers will often do that simply by introducing philosophical ideas to students for the first time. Still, if you look at Willie Young’s chapter, you’ll likely agree with him that the claim that
South Park
corrupts people is “a lot of hot air.”

Religious fanatics get hit pretty hard by the creators of
South Park
and rightly so. The kind of connection between fanaticism and harm we mentioned already is most obvious in the countless examples of ­terrorist actions committed in the name of some god throughout ­history. As Henry Jacoby says in his chapter, this link between ­fanaticism and ­violence can be blatant or it can be subtle. And the point Jacoby makes through the words of the famous philosopher and mathematician, William K. Clifford, is that you’re intellectually “wrong,” as well as morally wrong, when you think you’ve got the corner on truth with little or no evidence. However, in another chapter, Jeffrey Dueck argues that it’s possible to be a rational, reflective individual and still be a believer in some god. “It’s good to beware the Blainetologists of our world,” Dueck thinks, “but we should also be careful about ­surrendering rationally justifiable ways of life that may help to define us.”

These days, when you think of fanatics the next thought that comes to mind is the religious right and its connection to American politics and government. In his chapter, John Scott Gray considers recent American politics as discussed in the
South Park
episode, “Douche or Turd.” Did we really have a decent choice in the 2004 presidential election? Religious fanaticism and politics make another appearance in Jacob Held’s chapter about those “faggots who want to get married” but
still
face a social “glass ceiling” many places in the world.

As you’ll see throughout this book, philosophy deals with the love and pursuit of wisdom, and this quest makes us ask what kinds of things really exist, what we’re justified in believing, what we ought to do, and how we ought to be living, among other things. In the context of this book, it also forces us to face whether the threat of Manbearpig is real or not, or whether the greater threat is an Al Gore unleashed on the world. The authors have skillfully deployed characters, events, and situations in
South Park
episodes in order to drag important and interesting philosophical issues, kicking and screaming, into the light. Our hope is that (if you are, in fact, able to read), you’ll have indeed “learned something today” as a result of your reading the following chapters. So, let’s go on down to
The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy
and meet some philosophical friends of mine …
ours
, really, since there are two of us editing this book.

1
.
The Charlie Rose Show
, September 26, 2005.

Willie Young

In the episode “Death,” Kyle’s mother leads a boycott of the boys’ favorite cartoon show,
Terrance and Phillip
, because of its continuous farting, name-calling, and general “potty humor.” While the parents are up in arms over this supposedly “moral” issue, the boys wrestle with the problem of euthanasia and Stan’s grandfather, something none of the parents will discuss with them. “Death” brings together many central issues that have made
South Park
successful and controversial—vulgarity, the misplaced moral concerns of American culture, the discussion of controversial moral topics, and the criticism that
South Park
itself is a “disgusting” show. Since “Death” that criticism has only grown—getting even bigger than Cartman’s fat ass—drawing fire for its obscene language, making fun of religion, and emphasis on freedom of speech.

Like the parents protesting
Terrance and Phillip
, critics of
South Park
make claims that are strikingly similar to those that have been leveled against Western philosophy since its beginnings. Philosophy, it’s been charged, also mocks religious beliefs, leads younger folks to question accepted authority and values, and corrupts our children and culture. These condemnations formed the basis for Socrates’ (470–399
BC
) trial and execution in Athens.
¹
So in this chapter we’ll explore the heretical possibility that people perceive
South Park
as dangerous precisely because it is a form of philosophy. The “danger”
South Park
poses has to do with its depiction of dialogue and free thought. In the end, we’ll have learned something: like Socrates,
South Park
harms no one. Philosophy and
South Park
actually instruct people and provide them with the intellectual tools they need to become wise, free, and good.