Henry Jenkins Is Too Optimistic...

Henry Jenkins has often been criticized for being overtly optimistic about the possibilities for social change of participatory culture. I think this is because Jenkins finds the possibilities of participatory culture more compelling than its limitations. In his article, "Why Mitt Romney Won't Debate A Snowman," Jenkins focuses on one particular participatory practice - political parody. Here, he outlines the nuances and possibilities of parody as political intervention, while also engaging its downsides. As in typical Jenkins fashion, however, Jenkins ends on a positive note.

"Democracy has always been a messy business; the politics of parody offer us no easy way out, yet parody does offer us a chance to rewrite the rules and transform the language through which civic life is conducted" (206).

While I too find the possibilities of participatory culture compelling, I find its limitations/downsides more interesting. A digital democracy is messy, and while in this messiness we can uncover engaging democratic practices, like political parody, in this messiness we also find troubling extremes. Jenkins touches on the ways corporate interests and political establishments, with  appropriate such practices, the types of racist/sexist/homophobic extremes that such practices enable, and the ways that in these ways it reinforces hegemonic cultural values and identities. This reminded me about the discussion we had in class about the ways parody plays into politics and how it seems that the only way people pay attention to politics is if it's made a joke. I think this is one of the main problems with the pairing of parody and politics. While I see how parody can open dialogue around tough issues, and while I do enjoy it, at what cost is it doing this?

This article was written around the 2008 presidential election campaigns. During this time, in California, Proposition 8 was a prominent talking point. The "Yes on Prop 8" ads seemed like parodies in of themselves, thus lending themselves to be parodied.

The "Yes on 8" political ad I remember the most was National Organization for Marriage's "Storm Gathering, but only because of the parody ad made in response to it. I actually saw the parody before I saw the "original." The parody was actually done by Barely Political which Jenkins mentions in his article.

Here is the original ad:

And here is the parody:

While I did find the parody ad funny, I feel like they in a way preach to the choir. You can see in the YouTube comments that the people who laugh are those who agree and people who don't continue to stand by their belief. And are these parody just giving these issues more air time?

Furthermore, Jenkins glosses over some issues of capital and power that really undermine most of his argument. Why do these practices matter when they are either appropriated by corporate interests, and thus don't do much to undermine capital or shift the scales of power?