Can the performance of satire function as an effective catalyst for social change? If so, how? If not, what factors hamper comedy's subversive efficacy?

Satirical comedic performance may sometimes be a catalyst for social change because it creates space for the performance to mirror the society or societal customs that define a culture. A purely satirical performance by itself (without comedy) is insufficient to be deemed acceptable by the culture that it represents. A comedic theme is necessary because it allows a frivolous theme to be interwoven into the performance and this is how safe space is created. Having a comedic theme both sets and maintains the overall expression of ideas in a way that provides an "escape route" to be used before encountering real trouble through audience rejection. For example, if I were to produce a satirical performance, the concept of my production would be non-comedic, and therefore could be taken seriously or personally - which would open the door for a flood of other negative emotions. However, if I deploy my satirical performance in the form of a comedy, then I have established a "not to be taken seriously" mantra for the production that will serve to protect it from harsh judgment or negative emotion. I am able to deliver my message bluntly, but will have the insurance policy of "just kidding" to insulate my production from overreaction.

To address the question of effectiveness here, I feel that it would be best to state that the satirical comedic performance has the potential to inspire social change, but may not necessarily do so. Simply put, it depends on the blend of comedy with the satirical content. Too much comedy and the audience will take very little away from a performance; too little comedy and an audience may recoil with feelings of resentment or anger. I believe the appropriate mix of satire and comedy will contribute much to the effect of the performance.

It is easy, then, to see how a performance with too much comedy can cause a production to have no effect beyond mindless entertainment. Conversely, a satirical performance with too little comedy can lose subversiveness and, through negative reactions, serve to reify the culture that is sought to subvert. So, then what is the perfect mix of satire and comedy that will allow subversion to occur and act as a catalyst for social change? If we could answer that question, there would be no need for study or reflection here.

We can know that subversion is possible because of the works of Dario Fo. As Scuderi points out, Fo enjoyed using the telling of bible stories as a means of criticizing the upper class. In a method known as Commedia dell' Arte, Fo has found the correct balance of satire to blend with comedy in order to find subversive success. Fo has used the mix to masterfully (and dangerously) use performance in order to criticize both the notion of religion, and the abuse of its influence.

Why was poetry considered a proper literary from of expression for Victorian ladies?

Poetry was considered "proper" for Victorian ladies because of the societal limitations placed on women during the Victorian period. Emotions were considered to be the opposite of logic and rationality. For men, the expectation was to be completely logical and rational in their lives in order to facilitate the ordinary fixed workings of the world. More than this, men were considered to be "hardwired" as purely logical and mechanically thinking according to the Victorian mindset. Women, on the other hand, were presumed to be emotional and excitable. Just as men were viewed as being "hardwired" as rigidly mechanical in their thinking, so too were women viewed as being emotional and, as a result, somewhat frivolous and certainly less valuable and significant.

It was presumed in the Victorian period that poetry was best suited for women because of the assumption that they were equipped with the emotional capability to deliver it. After all, poetry is frequently considered to be designed to invoke emotion - as well as being notably deficient in any physically significant performative aspect. Combine this concept with the intolerance and prejudice that actresses (and actors) were viewed with and it becomes extremely difficult for a woman to venture outside of her societally "designated space".

In the case of Anna Cora Mowatt, it is a testament to her performative ability that Edgar Allen Poe had criticized (or at least remained largely unimpressed with) her poetry. As a noteworthy and supportive critic of Mowatt, I believe that Poe only remained unaffected by Mowatt's poetry because he knew her to be capable of so much more. He wasn't saying that she was incapable of producing poetry as much as he was saying that he was uninterested in it because he knew how vast her talent was, and poetry simply did not accommodate such tremendous talent. In a sense, this was an affirmation of her true ability to write, read, perform, and maintain her status as a "lady" in the intolerable eyes of a Victorian society in which she lived.

1.) All of the performers mentioned in the articles were solo performers. What were the advantages to performing alone? What made it appealing to to performers during this time period?

The advantages of performing solo were many. To begin with, the performer had full control of all executive decisions regarding his or her performance. The content, structure, pace, style, and duration are all determined by the performer. This meant that the performer was free to include any content that might otherwise have been considered 'taboo' in society at the time. As a result, many social and political issues of the day were topics of the Platform Readers, and were delivered to their respective audiences through comedic means. To illustrate this point, one need search no further than David Ross Locke, who, under the guise of alternate-persona "Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby", used satiric wit and humor to publicly lobby on behalf of many paramount civil rights issues. McManus states that Locke, "...advocated reforms that are incorporated in six ratified or proposed amendments to the Constitution: the 13th (slavery abolished), 14th (equal rights), 15th (right to vote), 19th (vote for women), 24th (barring poll tax in federal elections), and proposed 27th (womens rights)." The article by David Thompson lends insight into the great creative control that performers had over their work and how it impacted the performance. In regard to Charlotte Cushman, Thompson states that, "By reading all the characters, she [Cushman] became, in effect, the director of a company of Charlotte Cushman."

I would contend that this practice was made appealing to performers of this time period by the puritan laws in the United States that forbid plays, such as the "Act for the More Effectual Suppressing and Preventing of Lotteries and Plays", as discussed by Kurt L. Garrett. The fact that there were negative attitudes toward plays simply incubated a movement of platform readers. If there were not going to be plays, then a creative performance community simply found a way to circumvent the law. The "unknown reader of 1769" came into existence as a reaction to the bizarre puritan laws forbidding plays. As a result of not being able to perform as a group, the unknown reader would simply recite poetry, song and plays. Although this method was still somewhat suspect by the puritan community, the unknown reader was largely successful in his presentation of material in a solo context.

1.) What was the socio-cultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi? How did these festivals serve as celebrations of "the body"? What socio-political groups interests were served by the festivities?

The sociocultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi was so unite the people and reaffirm their roles in society. In much the same way that a parade might serve the functions of both celebration and community identity, the feasts of the Corpus Christi did the same. The feasts were celebrations of "the body" because of the hierarchy of participants. The Guilds of the time were constantly competing for the right to present a display (or float) in these celebrations and this created a sense of status and hierarchy amongst participants. It would be easy to recognize the most successful organizations and guilds who compose "the body" based on their pomp and elegance. The town leaders and church elders would follow at the rear of the celebration and represent the head of "the body".


Clearly, the Guilds were a major group whose interests were served by the celebration. In a type of modern-day PR and advertising, these organizations would flex their muscle and display their power, and this served to affirm their integral position in society. The town leaders and church elders were also groups whose interests were served because they were being represented in the celebration as the powerful and controlling elements. It would be fair to say that all persons involved, and not just groups alone, had interests that were served in these celebrations. If you belonged to a Guild, then your interest was served indirectly by the success of that Guilds presentation. Regardless of your role in society, your status in society was reflected in some manner through your level of participation in the celebration, so it would be fair to say that everyone's interest was presented, yet not necessarily served.

1.) What role did women play in the performance of cultural texts in this era? Why were there differences between the performative roles of men and women? Were the contributions of one gender valued more highly than the other?

An exemplary illustration of women’s role in the performance of cultural texts can be found in the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus’ Germania. Where he states that, “The barbarian women, excluded from hand to hand combat, participated importantly through theatricalized performance on the sidelines.” Dwight Conquergood explains how women played an integral role on the battlefield through performative ritual in which they would literally cheer the men to victory. Conquergood states, “The women were not content to stay at home and await the outcome of the battle…” Conquergood further cites that women were witnesses to the valor of their men and in a sense served as performative directors through, “…womanly shrieks, applause, or scorn…” while the men engaged in battle.

Performative differences existed between men and women primarily because of the boasting custom. In a boast, men would proclaim their glorious past achievements in public. This practice of boasting would occur in drinking halls in front of community members, and as Conquergood point out, “Boasts, then, are personal narratives in which the speaker recollects and shapes past experiences into a sequence which inexorably calls for a sequel.” The role of these ‘boasting men’ was to fulfill their boast in battle and thereby the performative action was predicated by the boast itself. If a man were to not fulfill his boast, he would be ostracized and scorned. Although Conquergood gives one 'legendary' example of a woman baosting (Minutia), the boasting was largely a male tradition and served, primarily to be used in battle. As previously discussed, women would engage in their own form of performative action on the edges of the battlefield, although not held personally for these actions as in the case of a male boast.

We can discern from the text that contributions of both men and women were valued in Anglo-Saxon society. While they may not have participated in physical combat, Anglo-Saxon women were attached in a type of performative tandem to their men while a battle ensued. Just as it can be said that without men, there would be no warriors to defend a village, it can also be said that without women there would be ineffectual support for these warriors. It is certainly worth mentioning that absent the battle, men did very little, while women took over nearly all of the responsibilities in the village. Conquergood cites Tacitus’ report that when not in battle or hunting, men digressed to ‘sloth and feasting’, “surrendering the management of the household, of the home, and of the land, to the women….”