Comedy may very well always act as a catalyst for social change but as the song says it nothing but a little bit of history repeating. Nothing truly new will come of any given performance, the current performance may only replace the traditional performance, but again, this is nothing new. Dario Fo may have done well to use comedy to subvert and dispel cosmic terror as he saw fit and the outcome for many audience members may very well have been a more agreeable and even peaceful perspective of God. However, any such performance is merely the exercise of Fo’s power as performer to challenge the power of the traditional persuasion. The question is posed: does this not constitute social change and has not comedy been the catalyst of that supposed change? Well to both parts of the question I suppose the answer is yes and no. The ocean is both changing and unchanging. Waves keep the form of water evanescent while and tides constantly rise and fall all the while our oceans remain constantly wet and blue our ocean is unchangingly changing.
Fo’s art is another wave in the sea of social history all the while society remains subject to the structure of coercion and power that it has always been subject to. The structure that allows the church to disseminate what Fo called cosmic terror is the same structure that allowed him to perform and perpetuate his comedy. Power, coercion, oppression and liberation, even goodness and evil all constitute the structure that does give opportunity to the church, performers, and any other entity lucky, talented, or aggressive enough to seize that opportunity. Each characteristic of the structure is empty until it is filled with a particular ideology. I think of the structure as a suit of armor empty until someone with ideas and intentions fills that suit and uses that suit as their vehicle or “catalyst” to do things as they would see things done.
I enjoyed reading your take on this question. I found the analogy to the ocean particularly significant. I suppose a thorough discussion of the question that you chose to answer would necessarily hinge on the definition of "subvert". Are the old power structures still in place? Yes. Are they the same as they once were? No. In one sense, work such as Dario Fo's was subversive in that it allowed erosion and weakening of a power structure (the church). Yet, in another sense, that power structure continues to exist, albeit in a modified form. So then, has Fo's work subverted the church, or has the church found new ways to exist despite Fo's work, thus making it even stronger? Has Fo won because he has affected the church, or has the church won because they have adapted in light of Fo's work? The answer is unclear, yet we can be certain that his work has had an effect on the church regardless. Is it possible that Dario Fo has enabled the church to assume a more subtle posture of control, thereby strengthening and making it's power structure more immune from critique?
ReplyDeleteLove the title! A fun read. You wax poetic in this one. I agree with Tim, though. Could be more specific in the point you try to make about Fo's work.
ReplyDelete