In our tutorials for Atheism in Debate this last week we discussed Feuerbach. The week before that was Strauss, and before that was Hegel. Understandably, its usually around this point where the energy of the course begins to wane. In order to try and remedy this, I tend to use video clips, usually of one of the four ‘New Atheists,’ to break up the monotony of just talking about the reading. For this round of clips I tried to find ways to connect the ‘anthropomorphism’ of Feuerbach’s deconstructive theory about religion being ‘human nature reflected, mirrored in itself,’ with the way Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens diminish religion to infantile self-creations. For those interested, these are the clips that I chose:
As I was searching for these I came across this interesting video:
Here was a listicle of ‘Generation Xero Film’s’ “Top Ten Anti-Religion Comedy Routines.” This got me thinking. What is the difference between these ‘comedy routines’ and the statements being made by the ‘New Atheists?’ Are they not equally ‘scripted’ critiques of religion? Do they not function the same way as the rhetorical use of the ‘Atheist discourse‘ being presented by Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens?
I thought I’d look into this a bit more.
I came across the work of Patrick McKearney at the University of Cambridge who, for a few years, was the ‘Atheist comedy guy.’ Aside from the four conference presentations he gave on the subject (“Public Belief and Civil Society: A Case-Study of Contemporary Anti-Religious Stand-Up Comedy;” “The Ridicule of Religion in Contemporary British and Irish Stand-Up Comedy;” “‘What are you laughing at?’ The Role of Ridicule in Non-religious Identity Formation;” “Methods for Investigating Non-religiosity in Stand-up Comedy”), he also participated in a BBC 4 discussion on Comedy and Religion, and published two articles on the subject in The Guardian (“Heard the One about the Pope?”) and Varsity, the independent student newspaper for the University of Cambridge (“Slap in the Faith“). The latter is focused on issues of comedic criticism and the reactions we might see in fundamentalist religion striking back (such as we saw with the attacks against Charlie Hebdo a few months back).
Likewise, my good friend Katie Aston deals with this a little bit in her Doctoral Thesis.
So how might these comedic criticisms present a useful example of an Atheist discourse? I believe the answer lies in some specificity. For pragmatic reasons, then, I will be using two methodological points made by Norman Fairclough in his Analysing Discourse (2003).
First, in consideration of the utility of discourse analysis in the study of texts, let’s broaden our conception of that term itself:
“written and printed texts such as shopping lists and newspaper articles are ‘texts’, but so also are transcripts of (spoken) conversations and interviews, as well as television programmes and web-pages” (Fairclough, 2003, 4).
In this way, these video clips, as edited versions of the stand-up comedian’s routine, are texts, filled with, and exemplary of, particular ‘language in use.’ In other words: ‘discourse.’
Second, let’s specify how we might more directly consider these texts via a three-part interpretation:
“the production of the text, the text itself, and the reception of the text” (Fairclough, 2003, 10)
In this way, we can be a bit more specific about the discourse being used, as well as establish a contextual boundary within which it emerged, was presented, and subsequently received.
These things established, let’s look at three examples, two of which were also on ‘Generation Xero Film’s’ “Top Ten Anti-Religion Comedy Routines.”
The first comes from Ricky Gervais, and focuses on a critical analysis of the Biblical story of Noah’s Ark:
The second comes from Bill Maher, and focuses on examples of religion ‘doing harm:’
The third, and perhaps most famous, comes from George Carlin, and focuses on religion as ‘bullshit:’
From out of a cursory analysis of these three clips as ‘texts,’ we can establish a number of discursive specifics:
- Each are reactionary, and thus present a criticism directed at a particular subject.
- The first (Gervais) presents a critical assessment of the fictionality and inherent unbelievability of a Biblical myth through the lens of modernity.
- The second (Maher) is directed at issues of morality, and the fact, as he sees it, that ‘religion’ is harmful and immoral.
- The third (Carlin), like Maher, presents a critical assessment of the harmful and equally immoral dangers of religion/religious belief (though with the caveat that his ‘Sun Worship’ (not ‘prayer-to’) is still practical.
- The ‘religion’ of their collective criticisms is somewhat vague, though we can presume via their language they are reacting against a particular monotheism, likely Christianity (though Maher intermixes this with critiques of Islam).
- While seemingly problematic, these differences tell us a great deal about their contextual discursive language use. Gervais’ routine was given in 2010, the same year as Maher’s. Carlin’s routine comes from 1999. So, we might concede that Gervais’ and Maher’s routines stem from a ‘New Atheist,’ or post-September 11th discourse, though that might be presuming a bit much.
- However, simply as ‘texts,’ they do not tell us much about their ‘Atheisms.’ Yes, we might assume (or presume) that they are being inherently ‘Atheist’ by means of their criticisms, it is not as specific as, say, an informant telling us about his or her ‘Atheist identity,’ and how he or she has constructed that identity in a specific way.
So how might we use them as textual discursive sources? By taking up Fairclough’s three-part interpretive method, we can begin to shift them from mere textual examples to more direct discursive ones.
- Learning about how they were produced (written) we can learn a great deal about the individuals doing the writing, the context that writing took place, the type of Atheism they themselves identify with, and the influences that shaped their texts based on that type of Atheism.
- Then, our cursory analysis (such as above) becomes a bit more nuanced.
- Finally, we can look at how they are received by individuals (audience or viewers) who equally identify as ‘Atheist,’ while equally deciphering how these texts assist these individuals in their own identity constructions.
By weaving these together, we begin to form a much clearer (in my opinion, at least) conception of ‘Atheism,’ such as we might use to better understand the discursive elements that influence the New Atheist clips presented above. While this isn’t a better means of approach then conducting interviews and ethnographically shaping a textual representation, as a means of understanding the discourse that might underscore or influence the identities that make up such an ethnographic textual representation, this seems quite beneficial. Likewise, I believe this works much better than merely speculating or theoretically stipulating what we think these sorts of things (like Atheism) mean, and is therefore a much more useful (and, to be honest, more enjoyable) means of researching precarious concepts such as ‘religion’ or ‘Atheism.’
Norman Fairclough, Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research (London: Routledge, 2003).
*As an extra bonus, here is an animated version of Louis CK (who is not an Atheist) talking about ‘God as a shitty girlfriend,’ and the oddity of ‘saying Jesus Christ with a shitty attitude.’
3 thoughts on “Comedic Criticism: A Discursive Source of Atheism”
Pingback: ‘Statistics can prove anything’ (and other fictions used by New Atheists) | everything is fiction
Pingback: Identity Matters | everything is fiction
Pingback: Everything is Fiction: A Discursive Year in Review | everything is fiction