I have mulled over writing this piece – a critical review of the infamous University of Cape Town annual rag, SAXAppeal, and its place in the South African sphere of satire – for some time now. Alas, events conspired against me (the digital version was only made available online for download two weeks after print, so tough shit if you live outside of Cape Town; and it would seem my email to the SAXAppeal editor has been unanswered for weeks now – meaning that this entire controversy was irrelevant and dated by the time it reached me in Hermanus) and so it went unwritten – until I stumbled across older copies of the satirical publication in a coffee shop.
Reading previous editions and this latest one (entitled 197SAX) and seeing the glaring, stunning disparities between them made me change my mind. After all, it’s no secret to readers of this blog and those who know me that I have deep, deep love of the artform: satire has the power to shine a light on ridiculous topics and subjects in a way that traditional media or critiques cannot; unburdened by ‘factuality’, honed with wit and steeped in irony, the biting, scathing tone of satirical ‘journalism’ is what makes people like John Oliver and Charlie Brooker respected less as comedians and more as purveyors of quality reportage that not even ‘real’ newspapers can compete with.
SELLING SAX
For those of you who don’t live in a place where work starts at 9am, every year students at the University of Cape Town dress up (or down) and take to the streets of the Mother City to sell SAXAppeal, a satirical, humourous Uni rag that contains a variety of pieces – both funny and critical – that shed light and levity on student life.
This year, however, it would seem that a fit of puritan progressive wrath has swept through the editorial team: decrying their history as “problematic”, “sexist” and “elitist”, this year’s production has focused (almost entirely, but we’ll get to that in a bit) on serious pieces aimed at “a new narrative…. to amplify the voice of the students… pushing boundaries and challenging the status quo.” In a single word – stamped incessantly in bold, scary red through its pages – they’re looking for “controversy”.
“Today, when people think of SAX Appeal, they think of drunk, scantily-clad students selling an equally explicit magazine. A magazine that has been filled with blatant misogyny, racism and discriminatory statements, a magazine created by an overwhelmingly white editorial team, a magazine with no meaning or substance.”
And by throwing the baby out with the bathwater, controversy is what they’ve found.
BUT IS IT SATIRE?
Sitting in that coffee shop, paging through old editions of the ‘zine, it suddenly struck me how very much SAXAppeal had changed. The contrast is stark: a side-by-side comparison with any of the editions pre-2016 (or should that be ‘pre-woke’?) shows quite clearly how this fundamental shift in editorial vision has changed the publication.
Where before I could expect funny and unapologetic illustrations and articles that took on topics as varied as space, sex, sport, religion, homophobia, and how to use a condom, the latest pages are stripped bare of anything resembling satire. In the over 100 pages of content that the 197SAX brought me, I’d say that maybe 8 articles or images echoed the self-aware, self-deprecating humour of the previous writers.
The definition of satire is not, of course, fixed. While it is intended to be humourous, the main aim is social criticism – but a key marker of any satire is irony. Sarcasm, exaggeration, comparison, analogy, and a whole host of other tactics can be deployed, but the key here is that there exists some kind of an irony between the writing and the subject matter.
The most historic examples of the genre, like ”Johnathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal show that a biting, dark irony in the writing is what drives the art and how powerful it can be.
And yet it is this core idea that is sorely missing from the pages. Instead, a croaky, dry, humourless husk of “political correctness” (the mot du jour bandied about by critics on social media) is what greets you: but worse yet, this Politically Correct don’t-wanna-offend-anyone mantra has pervaded the publication to the point where the satire and jokes are explained or countered with disclaimers, author’s asides or outright explanations of why they’re just joking and we shouldn’t take it seriously.
“But maybe that’s the point?” I asked myself. “Maybe their shift in vision is aimed at introducing critical thinking and serious reflection into the student body? Maybe giving up laughter is the price we pay for a more equitable society?”
And yet I can’t believe that, because as serious and reflective as the included pieces are, they, too, are treated with this opt-out mentality: right at the very beginning of the publication, in stark, BOLD letters, says:
But before I generalise with brush strokes too broadly, I want to critically review the “satire” contained within.
ALLERGEN WARNING: CONTAINS SATIRE?
With titles like “Dear White Boys”, “White South Africans”, “Ableism” and “Your Forgotten Privilege”, you can guess that this year’s edition wasn’t exactly packed with light-hearted chuckles. But before you’ve even given a peek at an article, readers are treated to a Trigger Warning-esque disclaimer in glaring red giving us an ALLERGEN WARNING that this mag contains SATIRE, CRITICAL THOUGHT and CONTROVERSY. Immediately following is a glossary of terms that will get you up to speed with how much of a privileged, problematic asshole you are, and then finally, a lovely condescending piece explaining how to “read” SAX and her “satire”.
Well, undeterred, I checked my privilege thrice, said a dozen “Hail bell hooks” and dove right in. After all, I’ve seen satire used to amazing effect in subversive themes: Key and Peele, Dave Chapelle, and dozens of other comedians have used irony and humour to shed light on serious ideas and make you think about your beliefs. Excited to see how SAX would use this as a tool to educate and inform us on controversial ideas, I scrolled down.
But as a satirist, I was wholly disappointed. With only 8 too-short-but-sweet satirical pieces peppered intermittently between heavy pieces on race, gender and privilege, there isn’t much in here that justifies the huge SATIRE stamp they overuse. (There’s lots of passable slam poetry, if that’s your thing).
The first, The State of the Nation Address, is a strong piece of satire taking the perspective of President Zuma. It’s filled with hard-hitting irony and snarky, dark jokes such as “I congratulate Miners Shot Down on winning an International Emmy. Maybe one day South Africans will see it” and “I have once again focused exclusively on the interests of the middle class, and neglected the important issues of land redistribution, affordable quality education and inefficient service delivery. Maybe those issues will make it into next year’s speech.”
However, it’s only 22 pages later that we’re treated to a second helping. Ameera Conrad’s Dear White Boys uses the stereotypical Plumstead-living, Mumford and Sons-consuming White Boy to dig at the idea of privilege and prejudice relating to your skin colour. A White Boy myself, I’d have to admit that I was kind of disappointed: is this the worst my skin colour can earn me as a stereotype? I was thinking that my premature baldness, tiny dick and rich father giving me a small loan of a million dollars would have Trump’ed these relatively benign traits, but each to her own I guess.
But it is right here that we start to see the cracks appear in SAX, thanks to tensions between their editorial mandate of Attacking Prejudice and Privilege and SAX’s mission as a comedic outlet. If we should be less prejudiced and steer away from stereotypes, then how can they turn a blind eye to the jokes in this piece that Muslim boys are misogynist and that Black Boys only want to fuck white girls? While satire can be an effective weapon in combatting stereotypes and educating readers, I don’t believe that the goals of humourless PChood and SAX’s vision this year are at all compatible. Satire *is* problematic. And that’s exactly what makes it so powerful and entertaining.
MAY CONTAIN TRACES – BUT ONLY TRACES - OF SATIRE
A few pages later, we’re treated to the shining example of the entire magazine: Pierre de Vos’s delightful, cheeky, self-deprecating and moving column looks back on the irony of learning under violent figures (“a torturer and a murderer”) from South Africa’s colonial history, and the fact that these monuments still stand in their places of reverence today. It’s a great piece that reveals how 197SAX’s vision could have been fulfilled without ditching the old humour and sharp writing.
But straight after that, we are shown how the goals of new leadership and the paper’s old identity do not gel. The next piece, a board game parody entitled MeNOPOLY, is a scathing indictment of the ANC’s actions and betrayal of their central tenets and vision. It acerbically pokes fun at how cronyism can infect a noble movement. But, again, in a quest not to offend, a clunky, awkward Disclaimer is tacked on, effectively making the joke completely redundant:
And this is 197SAX’s problem: that they’re afraid to commit to making a joke (even one that would otherwise perfectly meet their goals). In the next example, You’re Not That Liberal (Shannon Krausey, Nicole Dunn and Mikhail Moosa), that favourite White Liberal stereotype is the centre of focus. But rather than letting the joke speak for itself – the irony that the beliefs of this stereotype are self-contradictory and ridiculous though parodic quotes – they stop mid-joke and explain why this brand of liberalism is left wanting.
This is a huge disappointment. These kinds of White Stereotypes have been done so, so well: from Hard Eddy’s Gaaide To Laaif, Anton Taylor’s Jozi Shore, The Wayan Brothers’ White Chicks, or our local Tiger’s Guide, it’s incredible that such a huge opportunity was squandered. Apart from failing to recognise that “liberal” is a description and not a prescription (it’s a No True Scotsman fallacy - you can show liberal values without being liberal – ie egalitarianism or libertarianism), the tone comes across as a bossy mom telling you why you aren’t good enough.
It’s also around the same time that 197SAX shows its one-dimensional flatness. The next satirical piece up is “White Tears”, and – you guessed it – it’s about white people. But rather than being purely satirical, it’s really just a bunch of things that people say that - depending on context – may or may not be worthy of ridicule. Had this been fleshed out more – Christ, has no one watched Safferland’s incredible Tiphany’s (with a pee-aych-why) Guide to Sandton Survival? – it could have been a fantastic and biting piece that dismantles and ridicules first-world problems.
And while Shesus* writes a rather splendid piece called Feminism and Christianity pt3, the power of her irony is again undone by the incessant use of SATIRE trigger warnings and editorial disclaimers stating that :
Finally, the last in a too-sparse offering of laughs, the “News25” parody. It’s probably as close as any of the pieces come to Poe’s Law, that extreme of “wait, is this a joke or actually real, I can’t tell” (you know, unless the entire 197SAX was some ultra-subversive Poe’s Law parody of MustFallism and the progressive left – in which case I’m fucking blown away, well bloody done, mate, you got me). I’m not sure if merely recreating the hateful slurs of News24 actually says anything clever about society, but hey, I love me a good Penny Sparrow reference. If I could, I would bus in a dozen more.
BUT MATT, YOU’VE MISSED THE POINT!
… I hear you cry. “This is about CRITICAL THINKING. Who cares if it’s CONTROVERSIAL? It’s just SATIRETRIGGERWARNING. You haven’t even spoken about the serious, hard-hitting content in the rest of the magazine!”
Well, I’ve thought about that, and quite frankly if 197SAX is a project aimed at serving marginalised voices and repoliticising the students, I would say it’s too filled with awkward contradictions and small hypocrisies to be called a success.
In its opening, it denigrates magazines like Cosmopolitan and Heat. I don’t disagree – I’ve never like them; but then, they’re not my aimed at my demographic. They aren’t written for me – and besides, attacking a publication and dismissing everything they publish as mindless or irrelevant is fallacious. It would be like me saying “don’t buy SAX, it’s fuckin’ garbage”. Content should be judged on its own merit, and not prejudiced by where it’s published.
Then we have the awkward space of cultural appropriation and “marginalisation of lived experience in sex workers” to deal with. The former comes around once a Halloween, but often those brandishing the tar and feathers forget that the very concept of Halloween – right down to the costumes, masks, trick or treating, and candy – was ALL ‘appropriated’ from various cultures and systems of belief, going all the way back to Paganism and Wiccan beliefs. The same goes for “Mexican” sombreros or dreadlocks : Sombreros originate from 13th century Spain, and are thought to have been brought across by the Mongols before that; dreadlocks appear in a variety of cultures, societies and religions across history. No culture is pure, and any culture that tries to exist in a vacuum withers and dies. Just look at the Afrikaans (if you’re feeling butthurt, just remember my surname).
The latter is slightly more jarring. One of SAX’s first articles, written by the erudite and ‘woke’ Caitlin Spring, Selling Sax, throws itself on the altar of next-level liberal ultra-correctness, likening the act of selling a magazine on the streets (if you’re scantily clad, that is) to a heinous act that mocks and spits on the mistreatment of sex workers.
Now, I’m not sure what kind of massive leap of the imagination it took to make this tenuous, ridiculous link, or the selective vision that ignores the massive body of counterexamples and themed dress-ups and says, “yes, every woman selling SAX in the past few years has been dressed like a prostitute”, but if woman wearing heels and short skirts is being attacked, then isn’t that policing what women can and can’t wear? How is this massive jarring dissonance – between their apparent beliefs about being ‘woke’ and their policing women’s bodies instead of attacking legislation and politicians – be accepted? How is this hypocrisy not self-damning?
And that’s not even taking into account some of her more ridiculous claims: “As long as some men rape, all men are potential rapists”. I’m not even going to justify that with a rebuttal, except to say she is stupid, so therefore I’m going to treat all women as potentially stupid. Let’s just hope a minority doesn’t commit a crime: that might make things racist up in here.
And what about Nigel Patel’s The Decolonial Sex Project? This so-called “intersectional intercourse over colonised cocks” states in no uncertain terms that “your Tinder preference for white people is racist” but ALSO that “when you fetishise bodies of colour you participate in… racist throwback”. So you’re racist either way, I guess.
Let’s not forget Nicole Dunn’s The Holy colonial Spirit, which argues that secularity and shunning Christianity is a necessary part of the project of decolonisation (I would agree, but I think that it’s a wood for the trees argument that still doesn’t evaluate the existence of a conventional Creator). Doesn’t this contradict Conrad’s earlier demand that “when you speak to Brown Girl, don’t say ‘you’re too educated to be religious?’”.
And what about Dan Corder’s claim in Dress to Oppress that Harry Potter, Star Wars and Game of Thrones are ‘not black enough’ and that you shouldn’t try to express your love of fictional characters through cosplay or dress-up parties because it’s so problematic. Add this to Jordan Pickering’s inflammatory white guilt and self-effacement through “if you’re a white South African, you are either a racist or you’ve joined the same lifelong recovery program” (White South Africans). No, fuck you very much Jordan, because I don’t make it a habit to casually smear an entire ethnic group.
Their hypocrisy is even more obvious when you consider that Spur – which they lambasted in their opening editorial as “People with a taste for Cultural Appropriation” – has an entire, full-page in this edition. They might say they don’t get to pick advertisers, but they must also understand that these things undermine their very message. It would be like me writing a damning article about tax evasion and my newspaper taking a full-page advert for Mossack Fonseca or Jimmy Carr’s upcoming comedy tour.
Indeed, their narrative is further undone where they employ weasel words and readily accepted ideas without a statistical basis. Merely writing that “classism, misogyny, and trans*-antagonism…. Is rife in our tertiary institutions” does not make it true, and while I’m not enough of an idiot to pretend they don’t exist on campuses (across the entire world) I’d never presume to state they’re a rampant, out-of-control scourge that unilaterally defines all higher education.
TOO MANY SHORTCOMINGS
As a political project, I would also say that 197SAX’s new mission has a dire lack of critical self-awareness. Much content – as it stated in their magazine – is sourced from the organisations this school of thought supports, such as several universities’ charters of FeesMustFall movements. Now, in and of itself, this isn’t a problem. But having been on the ground at the Rhodes University fees protests and seen some of the (to borrow a word) “Problematic” behaviour and attitudes of these organisations, I would say that a free platform to disseminate their views without the CRITICAL THINKING they’re so sure they practice is truly dangerous.
By their nature, these student movements are not democratically elected. There is no set, universal mandate. There are no policy documents or membership criteria that can control and discipline aberrant behaviour or violent acts of so called “members”. Their demands and powers are, in effect, unlimited and subject to sudden, erratic change. Factionalism is rife. Hijacking by subversive political groups is too common. Without a clear leadership structure, how can university administrators, politicians or journalists critically engage with the movement? And how can we protect journalists who are – as at Rhodes University – harassed and told to stop filming, stop tweeting, forced to delete tweets and reportage from their phones, or asked to leave a university hall and cease all reporting in a public space? Looking at the track record of petrol bombings, riots and incinerated university buildings and vehicles, we can see that being careful and thorough with our beliefs – instead of morally smug and self-righteous, claiming we are ‘woke’ with some hidden, members-only knowledge that believers are under no expectation to share with those who question them (see pg78, Educating the Intolerant for more details – you know, “go do your readings” because “it’s not my job to educate you”) – is singularly crucial to uphold the central tenets of our shaky democracy.
In oversimplifying and abandoning their ways as ‘racist, elitist, sexist dude-bro tacky mom jokes’ they’ve missed a golden opportunity to introduce new concepts and debate ideas in a way that people can understand and empathise with. To say that there isn’t good content or ideas in this edition would be in bad faith (I enjoyed the interviews, especially with McKaiser), but the entire publication just comes across as aggressive and inflammatory.
197SAX is a fundamentally flawed failure, given its incessant polarised views. It claims to be the voice of students, of enlightenment, of a new narrative of freedom and equality, but really, all it does is judge and seek to control people, to shame and guilt them into self-flagellation and apologies: to tell them what to think and what to feel and what to wear and who to love and how to do it.
This year, SAX sucks.
If you’d like to support SAXAppeal, SHAWCO and RAG in their noble efforts to raise funds for underprivileged youth, please, check out their website and make a donation. if you want to read it for yourself, please purchase and download a copy of 197SAX.
