South Park is one of the most controversial shows on television today. Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone push the boundary of what is socially acceptable to say about sensitive subjects and current events. Everyone is fair game as subjects of ridicule. Their arguments and messages take a stance on less desirable aspects of American ideology and challenge the status quo. Despite its controversy, the show is beyond creative and is revolutionary in the world of animation.
Parker and Stone generally do not clearly favor one side in a debate. However, they openly favor gay rights and oppose censorship. The article “Contentious Language: South Park and the Transformation of Meaning” highlights how these two issues coincide in the episode “ The F Word” which made quite a statement that sparked great controversy (Schulzke 23).
The power of words and their meanings, as well as their ability to offend, is an integral motif of South Park. They continually challenge linguistic convention through parody. In this particular episode, they attempt to redefine the word “fag.” The episode begins with a group of annoying engine-revving bikers riding around South Park attempting to draw attention to themselves, and in response, Eric Cartman calls them fags. He and the other children launch a campaign against bikers. When the show’s two main homosexual characters see the children’s message, they are offended and see it as an attack on gays. This is where the central idea of the episode comes into play. The children believe that fag means annoying and attempt to redefine the word. However, the adults of South Park are reluctant because they are used to the old meaning of the word. The division between the views of adults and children is another common theme throughout the series. The adults see the word as harmful and attacking, where as the children see no connection, until they realize they have different definitions. The children, in turn, become concerned with tolerance, and the adults must teach them about sexual orientation (Schulzke 24).
As the episode continues, Big Gay Al, who was initially offended by the children’s remarks, decides to support the redefinition of “fag.” This idea is reflective of an argument made by Herbert Marcuse. He argues that the meaning of a word is defined by its use; therefore, people can actively change a word’s meaning by changing how it is used. Reflecting this idea, gay rights activists and the kids get the mayor to officially change the meaning of the word to refer to annoying motorcyclists. When everyone accepts this change, the town holds a campaign against Harley riders, which is reflective of what actually occurred in the anti-gay movement. “Fag” was used the same way but with a different intended meaning. A character resembling Hilary Clinton says that the old meaning of “fag” remains. The children then contact dictionary creators in attempts to make the change official. In response, the bikers attack South Park to prevent this, and it is the gay community that saves the town. The episode concludes when the definition is officially changed to refer to an annoying Harley rider (Schulzke 25).
Once aired, the episode proved to be quite controversial. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) took offense at the episode, and while they did acknowledge that the intent was in the right, the word was still harmful. Ironically, Parker and Stone were trying to show that exact point: the meaning of a word is permanent and will not change. Even through attempts to redefine words, old definitions remain, and in the case of “fag”, whether meant as annoying or as a derogatory term, it always going to be hurtful (Schulzke 25-26). Despite any harm that “The F Word” caused, viewers appreciated the statement that Parker and Stone were trying to make. It made people think about the power of words (Schulzke 28-30).
South Park also engages in the discussion of race, and the article “Respect My Authori-tah”: South Park and the Fragmentation/Reification of Whiteness” explains the compelling argument the writers are attempting to make. The presentation of people of color in the media is generally minimal. The fact that minorities are often not represented reinforces the idea that one race is better than another, and contributes to whiteness continuing to rise in racial hierarchy. Race distinction is of our own creation, but the consequences of white privilege are real (Chidester 403-406).
Stone and Parker present the few African-American characters in a very stereotypical manner. Through the show’s four main characters, they are attempting to show us that Caucasian’s perception of race is constructed by our perception of other races. Stan Marsh is your average white guy, and this white identity is protected from insecurity. Throughout the show there is little negative critique on Stan’s character, which speaks volumes about South Park’s presentation of whiteness, and the privilege it allows. His whiteness is unwavering even when faced with such stereotypical presentations of the Other. Stan’s sense of superiority is increased by the inferior depictions of whiteness represented in his friends Kyle, Kenny and Eric; he is immune to imperfections and insecurities that plague his weaker friends. This presents a powerful argument in regards to white superiority over other races, all communicated without the actual presentation of people of color (Chidester 405-410).
Stan’s three friends, Kyle Broflovski, Kenny McCormick, and Eric Cartman, play a vital role in the shows depiction of whiteness. Stan’s friends portray whiteness along with a quality that is viewed as less favorable by society, a stain on their whiteness. Kyle is Jewish but does not have any of the stereotypical features. He is often in conflict with his faith and ethnicity and attempts to disassociate himself. He is constantly the victim of Cartman’s verbal abuse, and while Stan never joins in on Eric’s “Jew-bashing,” he is noticeably uncomfortable with their differences (Chidester 410).
Kenny McCormick is a depiction of “poor white trash” (410). His sweatshirt pulled tightly around his face mirrors his silence. The things that little Kenny says are usually offensive. His character is “hypersexualized,” a stereotypical quality of low class individuals (411). While the boys often envy this quality, they also put him down for his many ill characteristics poverty has caused. Kenny’s character makes Stan aware of the privileges of his whiteness; this is confirmed through Kenny’s repeated deaths. Stan is never really saddened when Kenny dies, and is more shocked at the fact that it happened in South Park. Stan’s life is not affected by poverty. Every time Kenny dies, Stan is reminded of his privilege, reaffirming his whiteness (Chidester 410-411).
Eric Cartman is a representation of whiteness at its worst. He is controlling, racist, and hateful. Eric’s sense of self-entitlement is embodied in his motto “respect my authori-tah” (412). Everyone is a victim of his abuse. Stan’s whiteness is supported by Eric’s character because no matter what Stan’s position is on race, ethnicity, or sexual preference, Eric’s opinions and offensive speech are worse. However, as mean as Cartman is, he is constantly teased for being overweight. This point illustrates the fact that those who see their whiteness as a superior are also subject to criticism and distaste. Together these four characters create a picture of Americans stereotypical view of whiteness and privilege. Through parody, Parker and Stone create a captivating argument about society’s view of race in America (Chidester 412).
Despite how controversial and often offensive the show is, it has become increasingly popular with the younger demographic. The article “Adults watching children watch South Park” talks about why children are interested in the show and their parents concern due to the questions it raises about the relationship between adults and children, the offensive language, and the stereotypes presented. A lot of the controversy it spurs is caused by its political incorrectness, a result of the creative freedom allowed by Comedy Central (Nixon 12-13).
Parents and teachers continually report the shows influence on young children; they mimic the characters traits and voices, and are captivated by Kenny’s constant death and rebirth. His sometimes-violent death raises concern with parents, however this is not the reason he appeals to children. They are constantly wondering when and how Kenny will die next, and anxiously anticipate Eric, Kyle and Stan’s comical responses. Children also find immense humor in their crude jokes, and where as much of what the boys say is quite inappropriate, kids generally do not pick up on this fact. Parents see the show as controversial while kids see the show as a great cartoon that creates lots of laughs (Nixon 14-16).
Parents are not the only people who have issues with the show. The article “South Park & the Law” is about the case Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners which was litigation brought against South Park accusing the creators of copyright infringement. In the episode “Canada On Strike,” Stone and Parker make a parody of the insanely popular YouTube video “What What (In the Butt)” which originally featured an African-American man dressed in questionable attire, singing a crude song. The parody video features Butters singing the chorus of the song dressed up in innocent outfits, like a teddy bear. The court ruled to dismiss the case “prior to discovery” (48). This particular episode was making fun of America’s fascination with pointless YouTube videos. While the YouTube video creator saw this as copyright infringement, the court ruled that the parody was a form of criticism, which is protected under fair use. The parody video was even more ridiculous than the original, and only the essential premise of the original video was included in the new version. The work was creative and transformative (Chiger 47-52). The court’s ruling is important to the future of parody; the court’s decision promotes creativity and a future of boundary-pushing forms of humor (Chiger 58). Despite the controversy, for now, the adventures of Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Eric are here to stay.
Works Cited
Chidester, Phil. ""Respect My Authori-tah": South Park and the Fragmentation of Whiteness." Critical Studies in Media Communication 29.5 (2012): 403-20. Tandfonline.com. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.
Chiger, Kristen. "South Park & The Law." Texas Review Of Entertainment & Sports Law 14.1 (2012): 47-58. SPORTDiscus with Full Text. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.
Schulzke, Marcus. "Contentious Language: South Park and the Transformation of Meaning." Journal of Popular Film and Television 40.1 (2012): 22-31. Tandfonline.com. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.
Nixon, Helen. "Adults Watching Children Watch South Park." Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 43.1 (1999): 12. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.