“The cynic’s irony and his apparent disenchantment and disillusioned idealism merely reflect the duality in much of the phenomena of cynicism. The cynic resorts to irony, to overstatement, and other forms of figurative language that play on the duality of apparent and real virtue. The rhetorical force of his remarks against sham and pretense take on a note of exaggeration, distortion, and despair that easily lead to the conclusion that the cynic is disillusioned or mistaken about reality. But one can easily interpret mistakenly the cynic’s stance by taking cynical remarks too literally. The cynic in his resort to irony, tongue-in-cheek statements, overstatement, caricature, and distortion easily confuses those in his audience who are the object of his cynicism. A basic lack of sincerity and ambiguity of intention displays itself in loose and figurative ways of speaking. His irony becomes unstable. The language of cynicism is the source of much of the confusion about where the cynic stands.” (Yoos 61)
Although the language of the cynic makes it difficult to pinpoint the merit or exigence of the speaker’s criticism, the methods used to manipulate and distort language suggests that perhaps cynicism is a rhetorical appeal capable of extending and identifying the rhetorical theories of Kenneth Burke and Michel Foucault. Through the language and rhetorical appeals of the cynic, one comes into direct contact with the rhetorical theories of Identification and Consubstantiation, the power of discourse, and the deconstruction of reality through the manipulation of unstable sign systems. I will argue that South Park, a television show that is commonly referred to as cynical, relies on the rhetorical appeal of cynicism in order to expose an ambiguity between the relation of power, language, and reality that is strikingly similar to the inquires aroused by the theorists mentioned above.
Before I explore the rhetorical implications of South Park, let’s first compile a foundation to critically asses “cynicism”. In his article “The Rhetoric of Cynicism,” George E. Yoos articulates how cynicism has become a pejorative term in spite of the critical applications of the truths and discourses critiqued by the cynic. As Yoos states, “Cynicism has been frequently confused with skepticism. If all cynics were sceptics, the confusion might be innocent or trivial, and no real confusion would obtain. They are, however, quite opposite in many respects” (57). For Yoos, skepticism characterizes attitude towards belief concerning fact, while cynicism is an “attitude toward the realization of value or the value of a presumed value” (57). Yoos goes on to note that many cynics such as Jonathan Swift “are objecting cynically to prevailing pretensions and hypocrisies.” (58). He suggests that, “the rhetorical force of their remarks is provocative of either reform or reaction,” noting that Swift’s Modest Proposal was cynical, not pessimistic (58). In Yoos view, “pessimistic remarks rhetorically tend to disincline one to action, not provoke it.” Does South Park promote or disincline action? I am not entirely sure. What I do think, is that the cynicism exhibited by South Park does evoke critical insight into many of the theoretical discussions occurring within the field of rhetoric.
Although the language of the cynic makes it difficult to pinpoint the merit or exigence of the speaker’s criticism, the methods used to manipulate and distort language suggests that perhaps cynicism is a rhetorical appeal capable of extending and identifying the rhetorical theories of Kenneth Burke and Michel Foucault. Through the language and rhetorical appeals of the cynic, one comes into direct contact with the rhetorical theories of Identification and Consubstantiation, the power of discourse, and the deconstruction of reality through the manipulation of unstable sign systems. I will argue that South Park, a television show that is commonly referred to as cynical, relies on the rhetorical appeal of cynicism in order to expose an ambiguity between the relation of power, language, and reality that is strikingly similar to the inquires aroused by the theorists mentioned above.
Before I explore the rhetorical implications of South Park, let’s first compile a foundation to critically asses “cynicism”. In his article “The Rhetoric of Cynicism,” George E. Yoos articulates how cynicism has become a pejorative term in spite of the critical applications of the truths and discourses critiqued by the cynic. As Yoos states, “Cynicism has been frequently confused with skepticism. If all cynics were sceptics, the confusion might be innocent or trivial, and no real confusion would obtain. They are, however, quite opposite in many respects” (57). For Yoos, skepticism characterizes attitude towards belief concerning fact, while cynicism is an “attitude toward the realization of value or the value of a presumed value” (57). Yoos goes on to note that many cynics such as Jonathan Swift “are objecting cynically to prevailing pretensions and hypocrisies.” (58). He suggests that, “the rhetorical force of their remarks is provocative of either reform or reaction,” noting that Swift’s Modest Proposal was cynical, not pessimistic (58). In Yoos view, “pessimistic remarks rhetorically tend to disincline one to action, not provoke it.” Does South Park promote or disincline action? I am not entirely sure. What I do think, is that the cynicism exhibited by South Park does evoke critical insight into many of the theoretical discussions occurring within the field of rhetoric.