I recently watched the Netflix film Don’t Look Up. I thought it was very well done. Critics tended to disagree. A lot of the criticism seemed to be that the satire was too blunt, too obvious, not clever enough, and so on and so forth. Some said it was too smug, self-serving, and mean. In a Reddit thread on /r/movies, I got into an argument with one such person, who said that the film wasn’t going to change anyone’s mind, that it was just going to cause more polarization on the issue, and that it existed only to make people who agree with it feel self-righteous.
For the past 5 years or so especially, I’ve thought a lot more about how to change people’s minds. The topic seems more and more pressing because there seems to be more and more people, especially in America, who are believing and acting upon crazier and worse information. Maybe that is or isn’t true. That’s a whole other topic. But in terms of changing minds, there are a number of approaches. This particular poster on Reddit said they had convinced three reluctant friends/relatives to get vaccinated by being non-judgmental and empathetic, learning what was really causing their hesitancy. In one case, they said an older relative was just afraid, and they needed someone to help them through their fears and support them. That sounds nice, but I haven’t met anyone like that. The people I know who are against vaccines either watch Fox around the clock or have gone down the Brett Weinstein rabbit hole into conspiratorial heterodoxy. Try offering to hold their hand when they go get vaccinated and see if that works.
Another approach is shame and ridicule. Not of the person, but of the idea. A lot of the time these get conflated. Some ideas are so wrong and poorly grounded in anything like good evidence or rationality, that they need to be pointed out as being stupid ideas. Is this ever effective?
Well, if it’s not, then satire as a genre is never effective. One of the most famous early examples of satire is Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. The essay intends to draw attention to the plight of the starving in Ireland. Is it subtle? Well, he suggests eating babies, so I think that’s a no. Does it mock the position of inaction and callousness towards the plight of other human beings. Why, yes. Yes it does. It’s a fairly savage critique of privileged indifference.
So was it effective? Well, it definitely got a lot of attention. But did it change anyone’s mind? I don’t really know. Not sure there’s been an academic study trying to measure any change in the amount of charity or governmental action taken as a result of the essay.
Was Swift’s proposal really any more indirect and clever than the central plot of Don’t Look Up? I don’t really think so. At it’s core, the point of satire is to mock and ridicule a particular stance or frame of mind. It’s a fine line to pitch it just right. Say it too indirectly and people will miss the point. Make the connection too obvious and people will say you’re satire is blunt.
Dr. Strangelove ridiculed the inherent madness of nuclear warfare. Was it subtle? No. No, it wasn’t. Much of the comedy was overly broad and farcical, right down to the final scene. It didn’t even really hide behind any sort of allegory. Nuclear war was nuclear war, not a food fight.
So in a sense, I feel like the people who overly criticize Don’t Look Up are probably just not big fans of satire in general. Because I’ll be damned if I can think of famous, acclaimed satire in any medium that was delicate to the audience it intended to criticize.
But is it effective? I don’t know. It would be interesting to try to measure the effect of satire. I’m the camp that thinks that often it’s very useful to call out bad ideas as bad ideas. I think some thoughts need to be shamed. Empathizing with a bad idea feels like a form of dishonesty or even tacit endorsement. If someone’s thinks another race isn’t entitled to the same rights, you could play 4D chess and try to empathize with them, really see their point of view, and work from there. But I tend to think that’s not going to get you very far.
Shame can be a very powerful motivator. Ultimately the number one factor determining its effectiveness is going to be the size of the in-group and the out-group. If enough people are on board with a particular practice or attitude being socially unacceptable, then shame can act as a tipping point to drive that view into the fringe.
Ultimately, what should be the most effective tools to convince someone are evidence and reason. But if you need to make an emotional appeal, sometimes shame seems like a viable strategy. And that’s basically what satire is.
It's a good point, for all the notoriety of Swift and Strangelove, I don't actually know if they changed minds, or were just therapeutic for those already in agreement.