Lessons From South Park: A Comic Corrective To Environmental Puritanism

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/232958862
Lessons from South Park: A Comic Corrective to Environmental

Puritanism
Article in Environmental Communication A Journal of Nature and Culture · August 2011

DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2011.584545
CITATIONS READS
7 1,414
2 authors, including:
Thomas D Clark
Xavier University
28 PUBLICATIONS 181 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Career communication View project
environmental communication View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas D Clark on 13 November 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cincinnati Libraries], [Julie Stewart]
On: 06 October 2011, At: 17:32
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Environmental Communication: A
Journal of Nature and Culture
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/renc20
Lessons from South Park: A Comic

Corrective to Environmental Puritanism
Julie Stewart & Thomas Clark
Available online: 09 Aug 2011
To cite this article: Julie Stewart & Thomas Clark (2011): Lessons from South Park: A Comic
Corrective to Environmental Puritanism, Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and
Culture, 5:3, 320-336
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2011.584545
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Environmental Communication
Vol. 5, No. 3, September 2011, pp. 320!336
Lessons from South Park: A Comic

Corrective to Environmental
Puritanism
Downloaded by [University of Cincinnati Libraries], [Julie Stewart] at 17:32 06 October 2011
Julie Stewart & Thomas Clark
This paper explores how South Park’s scriptwriters, consistent with Burke’s comic
corrective, employ populist storylines to satirize radical environmentalists and their
opponents. It analyzes three South Park episodes, examining its use of adult cartoon
media from two related and optimistic perspectives: Burke’s comic frame, to show how
South Park acts as a comic corrective to the sometimes boorish behavior of
environmental ideologues and Kazin’s analysis of populism, to show how South Park’s
message structure resonates strongly among its key demographics. Given South Park’s
longevity and popularity, this paper helps us understand how negative stereotypes of
environmental advocacy can be constructed in ways that may inhibit popular support for
sustainability initiatives, while serving as a reminder that if environmental advocacy is
to be broadly persuasive, its message, tone, and delivery must reflect widely shared
American values. In this sense, this exploration can serve as a tool for encouraging
productive dialog between populists and those who advocate rational care for the Earth.
Keywords: South Park; Environmental Activism; American Dream; Parody; Satire;

Animated Cartoon; Populism; Comic Corrective
Joel Kotkin (2009) has pointed out that a significant threat to the success of
the environmental movement is the behavior of its most outspoken supporters*
those who have embraced it ‘‘in a quasi-theological way’’. Identifying them as ‘‘the
cognitive elite,’’ he indicates that their ‘‘overzealousness and intolerance’’ led them to
denounce even mild skeptics as committing ‘‘treason against the planet’’ (Kotkin,
Julie Stewart is a PhD Candidate at The University of Cincinnati. Thomas Clark is Professor of Management and
Entrepreneurship at Xavier University. Correspondence to: Julie Stewart, Department of Sociology, University of
Cincinnati, 7709 Dearborn Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45236, USA. Email: stewartj4@xavier.edu
1
This essay is based on a paper presented at the National Communication Association convention in San
Francisco, 2010.
ISSN 1752-4032 (print)/ISSN 1752-4040 (online) # 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2011.584545
Lessons from South Park 321
2009). Like liberal essayist Thomas Frank (2009), Kotkin holds that this con-
descending attitude toward others makes such advocates easy targets for critics, who
use their example to portray environmentalists as ‘‘a highly motivated minority’’ that
acts as if its ‘‘superior internal sensibilities, intellect, and will’’ (Marafiote, 2008,
p. 165) give them the right to impose their views on people who are ‘‘fatter and
slower and dumber’’ (cited in Kotkin, 2009).
An example of a response to this alleged condescension is the popular, adult
animated cartoon, South Park. Inviting its viewers to empathize with its populist
themes, it parodies how some advocates promote environmentalism. It lampoons

ideological and patronizing rhetoric while consistently supporting dialog based on
experience and rational argument.
Adding to the growing rhetorical scholarship addressing adult animated cartoons,
this article is organized as follows: After tracing South Park’s trajectory from a
controversial cable show to an award-winning program deeply embedded in
American culture with T-shirts, mugs, dolls, and other commodifications of its
popularity, it indicates why South Park is a legitimate topic for rhetorical analysis.
Subsequently, it analyzes three South Park episodes, examining its use of adult
cartoon media from two related and optimistic perspectives: Burke’s comic frame to
show how South Park acts as a comic corrective to the sometimes boorish behavior of
environmental ideologues and Kazin’s analysis of populism, to show how South Park’s
message structure resonates strongly among its key demographics. It concludes by
describing how environmental advocacy is mediated in South Park, showing its utility
in gaining insight into the practice of ‘‘connected criticism,’’ a means of encouraging
a mutually respectful dialog between populists and those who advocate rational care
of the Earth.
History of South Park

When South Park first aired on Comedy Central in 1997, many people disapproved of
its use of profanity and its disrespect toward institutions Americans hold sacred.
Peggy Charren, founder of Action for Children’s Television, wrote that South Park was
‘‘dangerous to democracy’’ (cited in Martin, 1998, p. 56). Elementary and middle
schools banned South Park related clothing or toys and sent letters home to parents,
objecting to its inappropriate language and racial slurs (Huff, 1998).
In part because of its groundbreaking, transgressive humor, the show became
popular, especially among younger audiences. During its first year, South Park was the
second most watched cable program, viewed in nearly three million American homes
each week, as well as by large numbers of college students who do not show up in
Nielsen ratings (Huff, 1998). Still one of cable television’s most popular shows, South
Park has been recognized with numerous awards. One critic admits, ‘‘One of the two
worst mistakes I’ve ever made as a television critic . . . was the day I decided that
South Park was an unpleasant, shoddily made, one-trick-pony of a cartoon show that
had run out of ideas’’ (Delingpole, 2007, p. 19). He explains that he now appreciates
South Park for its use of parody, politically incorrect plots, and irreverent storylines.
322 J. Stewart and T. Clark
Sienkiewicz and Marx (2009) add that South Park is a trendsetter, as it ‘‘represents a
mainstreaming of transgressive humor that had previously been marginalized in pop
cultural settings’’ (p. 6).
While the show reaches a wide group of viewers, South Park is extremely popular
among certain demographics: it is the No. 1 original series on cable for men 18!24,
18!34, and 18!49 years of age (Moss, 2007) and among viewers who identify
themselves as Republicans (Nielsen, 2008). Its creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone,
are ‘‘adamant that the show has no political affiliation’’ (Leo, 2010). While ‘‘they have
certainly mocked conservative groups on their show . . . they tend to skewer liberals
more often. . . . Matt explained, ‘It’s so much more fun for us to rip on liberals only
because nobody else does it, and not because we think liberals are worse than
Republicans but, just because it’s like fresh snow’’ (Leo, 2010).
Beyond its popularity, analyzing how South Park scriptwriters lampoon extreme
environmental advocates deserves the attention of rhetorical critics. Television, which
the average American watches 7.4 hours per day, both reflects and impacts cultural
attitudes and beliefs. Situated as a ‘‘crucial pop cultural artifact communicating and
reflecting the concerns of contemporary subjectivities’’ (Larsen, 2001, p. 70), South
Park portrayals of environmental advocates invite readers to adopt the scriptwriters’
critique of social and political attitudes. As Gray (2005) points out, it is important to
create ‘‘an awareness of both its ideological apparatus and the strategies it uses to
offer this ideology (p. 227).’’ Studies like this facilitate understanding ‘‘the complex
ways in which perceptions of the environment are produced and consumed’’
(Anderson, cited in Meister & Japp, 2002, p. 3).
Second, the simplicity of its animation, which results in the rapid speed with which
Stone and Parker can bring to viewers a parody of a contemporary issue, also sets
South Park apart from many prime time animated cartoons, both in terms of how its
form affects viewers and its ability to address social and political issues more quickly
than other adult animated cartoons. Unlike The Simpsons, Family Guy or King of the
Hill whose sophisticated approach to animation takes six months from script to being
shown to viewers, in South Park ‘‘The animation technology that the creative staff
now uses enables them to produce a show in a week, allowing for a quick response’’ to
contemporary topics (Richardson, 2008, p. 25). ‘‘This timeliness adds to the show’s
distinctiveness in that it often moves beyond simply referring to cultural situations to
interacting with them in a way that becomes part of the experience. By integrating the
subject matter quickly, South Park stays in a consistent satiric dialogue with
contemporary culture’’ (Richardson, 2008, pp. 25!26).
Third, environmental communication scholarship offers critical analysis of the
‘‘persuasive efforts of advocates from across the political spectrum’’ (Depoe, Delicath,
& Elsenbeer, 2004, p. 4). The study of South Park’s negative characterization of
environmental Puritans and their antagonists reinforces the scholar’s quest, as Lewis
(1955) claims, to look ‘‘not only for major terms of discourse, but also for major
pairs of opposed terms which, by their very opposition, carry discourse forward’’
(p. 2). As such, South Park is an appropriate rhetorical forum from which to examine
the verbal and visual strategies used to engage its viewers in discourse about the
environment. Significantly, it is important to consider both South Park’s medium and

message structure given that the anti-authority, anti-elitism, and anti-hypocrisy
themes that drive its plots and the images that animate its ideas are developed in a
narrative structure of cartoon characters that is gaining increased attention from
rhetorical scholars.
Adult Cartoons as Social Documents

Alison Crawford (2009) observes that The Simpsons ‘‘instigated a renaissance for
animated sitcoms,’’ including King of the Hill, Futurama, Family Guy, Beavis and
Butthead, and South Park (p. 53). She claims its ‘‘commitment to realism changed
viewers’ perceptions of television animation, which very much became the status
quo’’ (p. 53). Lewis (2002) indicates that animated features are legitimate media for
study by rhetorical scholars because of their inherent tendency to subvert mythic
traditions and time-honored institutions. Additionally, Bruce asserts that by offering
‘‘adult messages in children’s programming,’’ animated cartoons are ‘‘social docu-
ments’’ that are the rhetorical heirs of nursery rhymes because they say, do, and show
all kinds of things that would be forbidden in more serious cultural forms. This
is why animated cartoons can often address issues in ways that sitcoms cannot.
Viewers do not see the animated cartoon as responsible television journalism. Its
characters can demonstrate all manner of anti-social unacceptable behaviors and
‘‘display overt political, social, and economic messages without arousing much ire
from the viewing public’’ (Bruce, 2001, p. 231).
Cartoon characters are also allowed freedom from hypernormatic
characterizations*while each new episode works within the expectations set up
through previous episodes, in many cases, the audience does not expect characters to
suffer the consequences of their actions taken in prior episodes (as exemplified by
numerous injuries Wily Coyote and Tom at the hands of the Roadrunner and Jerry,
respectively, and Kenny’s deaths in South Park), nor do viewers expect cartoon
characters to evolve much from their one-dimensional portrayals (Bruce, 2001).
John Alberti points out that the cartoon form has creative benefits that define the
history of animation. ‘‘Not bounded by the physical laws governing 3-D space,
animated programs can feature casts of hundreds and take place in any geographic or
historical time frame (2004, p. xiii).’’ These ‘‘cartoons for grown-ups’’ combine the
form of a traditional children’s medium, the cartoon, with the social and political
content of prime-time programming. ‘‘This ambiguous cultural space allows
producers and writers to take advantage of the resulting uncertainty regarding
generic expectations from this mixing of the childlike and the adult, the supposedly
trivial and the serious, by being able to treat serious and even controversial issues
under the cover of ‘just being a cartoon’’’ (2004, p. xiii).
Beyond addressing controversial issues in what may be viewed as a non-serious
format, Gray points out that as a ‘‘comic corrective’’ used to interpret and comment on
controversial ideas, the cartoon medium is audience-friendly. As ‘‘jokes make us laugh,
many viewers are likely to seek out parody, and few of us are likely to feel imposed upon
in the way we might react to overtly didactic messages’’ (Gray, 2005, p. 234). He asserts,
parodies can criticize social norms or ideals and point out flaws in dominant ways of
thinking without offending the audience because viewers see themselves as on the
‘‘informed inside’’ rather than being alienated by positing them on the ‘‘ignorant
outside’’ (Gray, 2005, p. 234). As Todd (2002) indicates, Burke’s analysis of the comic
frames helps us understand this phenomenon. ‘‘The comic frame fosters more than an
ironic self-awareness, but also constructs a position of semi-detachment, where one is
able to reflect and comment on human foibles without guilt, shame, or other negative
emotion, or without undue involvement in the human comedy’’ (p. 66).

The adult cartoon genre allows South Park’s scriptwriters to build episodes around
such politically sensitive topics, including environmentalism, political correctness,
and sexual identity. Parker and Stone give children the agency to challenge adult
perspectives*and to specifically parody the absolutes that accompany ideological
rigidity, absolutes that prevent adult characters from viewing events realistically and
people empathetically.
The Populist Message

While much has been written about South Park’s transgressive humor, little has been
published about its populist message structure. Part of South Park’s success is that it
simultaneously parodies and plays upon different themes central to popular
conceptions of the American national character, subverting some mythic traditions
while reinforcing others. That is, part of its appeal stems from a message system that
resonates with populist themes long embedded in American culture.
Kazin (1995) describes populism as ‘‘a language whose speakers conceive of
ordinary people as a noble assemblage not bounded narrowly by class, view their elite
opponents as self-serving and undemocratic, and seek to mobilize the former against
the latter’’ (p. 1). He sees the tradition of populism in a way that is consistent with the
optimism central to Burke’s comic frame: ‘‘Through populism, Americans have been
able to protest social and economic inequalities without calling the entire system into
question. . . . Populism is thus a grand form of rhetorical optimism; once mobilized,
there is nothing ordinary Americans cannot accomplish (Kazin, 1995, p. 2).’’ That is,
the populist perspective celebrates the triumph of the common sense of the common
man over an elite variously characterized as ’’condescending, profligate, artificial,
effete, manipulative, given to intellectual instead of practical thinking, and dependent
on the labor of others’’ (Kazin, 1995, p. 2).
As it uses populism as a consistent theme, South Park serves as social commentary
on class structure, addressing, within the conventions of parody and satire, deep
divisions on political, ethnic, cultural, and economic issues. It reinforces populist
‘‘themes that have a strong hold on the American imagination, a persistent yet
mutable style of political rhetoric with roots deep in the nineteenth century’’ (Kazin,
1995, p. 4). Additionally, the heroes of South Park’s episodes embody traditionally
populist attitudes and behavior, and a corresponding contempt for what the
scriptwriters portray as narcissistic, self-serving elites.
This paper examines three episodes of South Park that address environ-
mental issues, showing how its medium and populist message are reflected in the
episodes’ narrative structure and themes. Its appeal often stems from attacks on
the overzealousness of cultural warriors of the left and the right who are
portrayed not as visionaries, but as bullies. For example, in the episodes analyzed,
figures of authority*school teachers, television reporters, environmental activists,
and media celebrities*are subjects of ridicule. Each parodies extreme manifesta-
tions of ideological activism, with its harshest barbs aimed at overzealous
environmentalists.
‘‘Rainforest Schmainforest’’ (Parker & Stone, 1999) lampoons the pastoral ideal of
the peacefulness and moral purity of the Garden, a myth central to the American
consciousness (Marx, 1964). This episode shows Nature to be hostile, and technology,
‘‘the machine in the garden,’’ to be what saves humankind from Nature’s violence.
‘‘Smug Alert’’ (Parker & Stone, 2006) parodies the presumption that elites have a
right to impose their preferences on others*the idea that progress is best embodied
by limiting choices to environmentally approved purchases, such as the hybrid car.
‘‘Two Days Before the Day Before Tomorrow’’ (Parker & Stone, 2005) plays on a
variation of another theme popular in American culture*the Rousseauian idea that
children, untouched by the corruption of experience, are agents of realism, seeing
things as they are, whereas adults, weighed down by ideological blinders, represent
delusional thinking. In all three episodes, the children bring order from adult
generated chaos.
‘‘Rainforest Schmainforest’’
In ‘‘Rainforest Schmainforest,’’ Miss Stevens, a teacher, takes the South Park
Children’s Choir to the Costa Rican rainforest. This episode weaves together anti-
authority, anti-hypocrisy, and anti-elitism themes, with images of masculine heroism,
to achieve its effect, parodying the privilege Miss Stevens enacts in insisting that
children’s thinking conform to her thinking while exposing her naı̈ve idea that Nature
is a benevolent ‘‘Garden of Eden,’’ rather than a dangerous place where plants,
animals, and people can all threaten the lives of others. It follows a plot structure
familiar to South Park viewers: ‘‘Cartman is a provoker of action . . . the adults often
do not listen to reason, and the . . . people burying their heads in the sand illustrates
the often ridiculous nature of popular ‘solutions’’’ (Richardson, 2008, p. 29).
Initially the writers parody Miss Stevens as she repeatedly tells students that she
will change the way they think. After being recruited to join the choir to save the
rainforest, the students, some of whom yawn and fart, a convention consistent with
South Park’s carnivalesque humor, explain, ‘‘but we don’t even care about the
rainforest’’ to which the teacher replies, ‘‘and that’s exactly why you need to go.’’ On
the bus she confronts Cartman stating, ‘‘And you must be Eric Cartman. I’ve heard
about you. You don’t respect nature or other cultures.’’ Eric agrees that she has
described him accurately, to which she replies, ‘‘Well, I’m gonna to change the way
you think, kiddo!’’
The conflict between Cartman and Miss Stevens reflects the show’s frequent anti-
authority theme*portraying it as unearned privilege, exercised because of age, rank,
and station, not because of superior insight, as well as another populist theme, that
privileges experience over ideology. As the bus rolls into Costa Rica, the children see
dirt on the faces of the citizens, shanty houses, paint falling off brick buildings,
windows barred, piles of burning trash, and three prostitutes with bare midriffs and
male voices. Eric cries out, ‘‘It smells like ass!’’ to which Miss Stevens responds, ‘‘Eric
Cartman, you respect other cultures this instant!’’ He replies, ‘‘I wasn’t saying anything
about their culture, I was just saying their city smells like ass.’’ Indeed, her reaction is not
to see if Eric is correct in his perceptions, but to direct Eric to deny his senses and insist
that his outlook conforms with her sympathetic view of a third-world culture.
Subsequently, after leading the choir into the rainforest, Miss Stevens loses her
direction and cannot find a way out. She advises the class ‘‘Shh. Children, okay, let’s try
to listen to what the rainforest tells us. And if we use our ears she can tell us so many
things.’’ The teacher repeatedly instructs the kids that the ‘‘Spirit of Maya’’ will save them
and to worship Mother Earth and the rainforest, implying she is replacing a traditional
god with a naı̈ve and primitive faith in Nature as a loving god, while simultaneously
reflecting the idea that the Garden was Eden before Adam and Eve corrupted it. In short,
she is anthropomorphizing the rainforest, relating to it as if it were perceiving the choir’s
plight and communicating a way to safety for ‘‘true believers.’’ Cartman, her antagonist,
represents the realistic perspective. He calls Miss Stevens a ‘‘god-damned stupid hippie
activist!’’ and gains agency by leaving the group.
Predictably, Miss Stevens’ ‘‘greeting card’’ view of Nature as ‘‘hospitable, comfor-
table, and welcoming’’ (Rehling, 2002, p. 23) is proved wrong as multiple encounters
end badly, and predators do what comes naturally*kill weaker species as part of the
will to survive. When the group runs into a snake, the children are assured that, ‘‘This
snake is more afraid of us than we are of it’’ right before the snake devours the guide
whole. As one of the students stops to touch a flower, Miss Stevens scolds him, ‘‘Oh no,
no, no! That fragile flower is very delicate, okay?’’ when, to her surprise, the flower’s
petals wrap around the student and lift him off the ground.
Next, the choir encounters a soldier. While the kids are legitimately terrified, Miss
Stevens explains, ‘‘Now kids, let’s be a bit more ‘open-minded.’ I read all about this in
Newsweek; this is a ‘people’s army.’ They are fighting the fascist policies of their fascist
government.’’ After she makes the choir perform for the army, Miss Stevens asks to
use a phone, to which the soldier replies, ‘‘Hee hee yes, we have a phone. It’s right
over there next to the 12-person Jacuzzi. Now, get out of here before we kill you!’’ The
soldier is offended by her naı̈veté, which has been established through the revelation
that her preexisting ideas about the rainforest have been constructed from what she
has read and heard and not on actual experience.
The anti-elitism message of the episode is expressed by the leader of the People’s
Army: ‘‘You white Americans make me sick! You waste food, oil, and everything else
because you’re so rich, and then you tell the rest of the world to save the rainforest
because you like its pretty flowers.’’ In other words, American elitists have no true
concept of Costa Rica or the rainforest; rather, they reinforce their self-esteem by
believing romantic myths rather than having a deep understanding of how their
consumerism is the basis for much environmental degradation in third-world
countries.
An American reporter shown briefly describing the Save The Rainforest Summit
reinforces the show’s populist anti-hypocrisy themes, saying, ‘‘We’re here live in San
José, Costa Rica, where hundreds of rich Americans have gathered for the Save The
Rain Forest Summit. Everyone is here, so they can feel good about themselves, and
act like they aren’t the ones responsible for the rainforest’s peril.’’ In short, this
commentator’s dialog invites viewers to share the rebel commander’s perspective:

disdain for a Euro-centric group which, firmly ensconced in a commodity culture,
retains multiple privileges in education, race, class, and wealth, while claiming
kinship with the oppressed who are more concerned that others see them as socially
conscious than actually acting to promote environmental improvement.
Subsequently, the choir encounters Yanogapa tribe who Miss, Stevens says ‘‘are
gentle native people that live in the rainforest, but bulldozers are destroying their
homes. Soon, they will have nowhere to go. So we must stop bulldozing the rainforest
so that they can live.’’ To her horror, the Yanogapa, portrayed with huge mouths and
living in a camp decorated with human skulls on spears, are cannibals, and the choir
is forced to run for its life!
Last, they get trapped in quicksand, and once they have gotten out of it, Miss
Stevens experiences a reversal of attitude: ‘‘All right, that does it! Blast these stupid-ass
rainforests!! This place fucking sucks!! I was wrong!! Fuck the rainforest!! I fucking
hate it, I fucking hate it!’’ Alienated from her dream, alone and powerless against the
violent forces of Nature, Miss Stevens becomes disillusioned and bitter.
In an ironic twist, she is liberated by the very agents and technology she initially
despised. After leaving the group, Cartman discovers American construction workers
clearing out trees from the rainforest and exclaims, ‘‘I’m saved!’’ When he tells them the
choir is in trouble, the construction crew comes to the rescue. Each of the enemies: the
Yanogapa, the giant flower, and the snake that ate the guide are crushed by the bulldozer.
Subsequently, a muscular worker exclaims: ‘‘Let’s get you back to civilization.’’
This scene subverts the romantic idea that machines are an emblem of an ‘‘unfeeling
utilitarian spirit, and of the fragmented, industrial style of life’’ (Marx, 1964, p. 18) that
corrupt the morals of a society, and instead posits machines as agents that can protect
man from Nature’s predations. Significantly, the people who have been vilified by
rainforest advocates, construction workers, serve as a masculine reflection of the
populist ethic and are the agents who save the choir. Embodying both technological
and physical strength, their portrayal invites viewers to celebrate their confidence and
self-sufficiency and correspondingly undermines the view that natural settings should
be protected from human encroachments (see Gardiner, 1999). As Corbett (2002)
indicates, ‘‘Such exaggerated domination intentionally positions humans at the top of
the pyramid, instead of belonging equally to a biotic community’’ (p. 150).
As in most episodes of South Park, a monolog, a convention characteristic of satire
and burlesque, expresses the show’s populist view. In ‘‘Rainforest,’’ Miss Stevens
rewrites the lyrics of the choir’s song to reflect her metamorphosis:
There’s a place called the rainforest; it truly sucks ass

Let’s knock it all down and get rid of it fast.
You say, ‘‘save the rainforest,’’ but what do you know?
You’ve never been to the rainforest before.
Getting gay with kids is here!
To tell you things you might not like to hear.
You only fight these causes ‘cause caring sells.
All you activists can go fuck yourselves.
This song parodies the presumption that Nature is benign, just as Cartman and the
construction workers expose the naı̈veté of the urge to withdraw from civilization’s
complexity and competitiveness to the simplicity of an idealized Edenic past. The
show reveals this predisposition to be an impediment to clarity of thought and, from
the children’s point of view, to acknowledging the advantages of human technological
progress (Marx, 1964, p. 7). At the same time, while viewers laugh at Ms. Stevens’
ingenuousness, they see her flaws arise from the best of intentions and recognize ‘‘the
potential clown in all human beings’’ (Carlson, 1986, p. 448). Consistent with the
comic frame, Ms. Stevens survives her ordeal so that her ‘‘faults may be recognized,
then chastised. After the clown’s foibles are revealed from a safe distance, the ritual
demands a rapprochement . . . a joyful reunion’’ (Carlson, p. 448). Once her
experience changes her perspective, she rewrites the lyrics of the choir’s song and
joins the children in joyfully mocking her prior views and ‘‘the properly chastised
clown is allowed to return to the social order’’ (Carlson, 1986, p. 448).
‘‘Smug Alert’’
In ‘‘Smug Alert,’’ South Park parodies the self-righteousness and condescending
classism of Gerald, Kyle’s father, who has purchased a hybrid car, and is portrayed as
smug, self-satisfied, and condescending. His license plate reads ‘‘1tmympg,’’ one too
many miles per gallon. At the parking lot of a True-Value Hardware store, he begins
writing fake tickets and placing them on non-hybrid cars. He exclaims, ‘‘Okay, there’s
another one . . . Aw, man! Look at that! Can you believe this? An SUV with a V8
engine, makes me sick!’’ While Gerald denies*under the cover of environmental
awareness*that his behavior is anti-social, others see him as sanctimonious. His self-
definition as a committed environmentalist makes him indifferent to the impact of
his behavior on those most affected, allowing him to dismiss his critics. After finding
a ticket on his SUV, Randy objects.
Randy: The problem, Gerald, is that ever since you got a hybrid car, you’ve gotten
so smug that you love the smell of your own farts!
Gerald: I didn’t think it was ‘‘high and mighty’’ to [closes his eyes] care about the
earth!
Randy: And that too! Stop talking with your eyes closed! That’s what smug people
do!
Darryl (another driver who was ticketed by Gerald): Who the hell put this faggy
fake ticket on my truck!?!
Gerald: All right, that does it! Come on, Kyle, I don’t want you hanging around
with these ignorant idiots!
Seeing himself as a victim of the collective intransigence of small town parochialism,

Gerald is hopelessly pessimistic that the middle-class residents of South Park will ever
share his enlightened views. He explains to Stan why Kyle has to move, ‘‘I’m sorry,
Stan, but unfortunately you live in a small-minded town filled with ignorant boobs.’’
Moving his family to San Francisco, which its residents say is more like Paris or Milan
than an American city, Gerald hopes to find a progressive community that cares
about the environment as much as he does.
The following exchange takes place among the new neighbors:
Peter: Oh, of course [everyone here drives a hybrid]. We’re a little more progressive
and ahead of the curve here in San Francisco. [he then farts, bends over to smell it,
then stands up again] Ahhhmmmm. . .[he licks his lips to savor the fart].
Paul: Yes, you’ll find that San Francisco is pretty much more open-minded and
grown-up than the Midwest. [he farts, bends over to smell it] Ahhh, [sniff] ahhh,
[sniff]. We’re just a little bit more protective of our environment here in San
Francisco.
Peter and Paul are portrayed as members of the ‘‘coastal elite,’’ and their identity is
wrapped up in being residents of a city that is ‘‘more open-minded and grown-up
than the Midwest.’’ Their smug attitude is reflected in their perception that only
people in the cities on the East and West coasts hold enlightened values, in distinct
contrast to the vast majority of people living in the ‘‘flyover territories.’’ While Peter
and Paul disparage the many Americans for whom big powerful cars are the highest
incarnation of American industrial genius, (Hope, 2002, p. 169), their self-
congratulatory attitudes blind them to the giant smug cloud that they are creating,
which is pictured as a greater environmental threat than global warming.
Cartman is Gerald’s primary antagonist. A caricature of conservatism, he is not
portrayed as trustworthy or worthy of emulation. Yet, as Michael Chaney (2004) points
out, ‘‘this fourth-grade, trash-talking ne’er-do-well may be only the latest incarnation
of a familiar American picaro*the morally errant, often classed, but sympathetic white
youth from Huck Finn to Holden Caulfield, Dennis the Menace to Eminem’’ (p. 172).
Acting to save Kyle from certain death, Cartman, wearing a full body bio-suit,
heads for San Francisco, which he describes as ‘‘the breeding ground for the hippie
movement in the 60 s; those hard-core liberals, lesbian activists, and diehard modern
hippies young and old.’’ This statement is a comical critique of the way some
conservatives might view San Francisco*as the most famous stronghold of the
secularist left, reinforcing a populist view of the city as separating its inhabitants from
the common sense of the common man; a corrupting force on people whose artifice
undermines the values of those who live there and only a return to simpler, small
town values will save its inhabitants from moral corruption (Marx, 1964).
Additionally, despite the self-centeredness that governs most of his behaviors,
Cartman exhibits heroic qualities consistent with populist narratives. He takes action
to do what he knows is the right thing*to rescue his classmate from a toxic
environment. His behavior is consistent with Lewis’s characterization of
the archetypal American hero as ‘‘an individual standing alone, self-reliant and
self-propelling, ready to confront whatever awaited him with the aid of his own
unique and inherent resources’’ (1955, p. 5).
An anti-authority theme is also evident in ‘‘Smug Alert.’’ Gerald is portrayed as
foolish as even his son rejects his condescension toward SUV drivers as incompatible
with democratic values. Kyle complains, ‘‘Dad, all you ever do since you got this car is
drive around and show it off!’’ He sees things as they are*his father is an elitist who
feels morally superior about driving a hybrid car. Another child, Stan, serves as the
voice of reason in this episode, pointing out that while the energy efficiency of hybrid
cars is good, smugness is unappealing. The South Park adults cannot see this, on the one
hand vowing to eliminate hybrid cars rather than change their own behavior and
Gerald, on the other, attempting to impose his version of environmental consciousness
on others. Consistent with the tradition of burlesque, in this episode as in the
‘‘Rainforest’’ and ‘‘Day After,’’ a ‘‘chief actor steps into the breach to tell us what is
wrong, who is to blame and what is to be done to set it right’’ (Appel, 1996, p. 272).
Such a critique is made palatable for viewers because it builds ‘‘a framework of limited
exclusion, denying opponents a place in the fellowship of the righteous, but not
denying them a place in the sun’’ (Appel, 1996, p. 272). Consistent with Burke’s comic
frame, in the closing monolog, as Stan criticizes Gerald’s behavior, he aligns himself
with the positive persuasive strategies of what Spangle and Knapp (1996) identify three
approaches to environmental advocacy: radical functionalists, resources functionalists,
and environmentalists. ‘‘Smug Alert’’ parodies the messenger, Gerald, more for the
condescending way he delivers his message on energy conservation than for the
message itself. As Burke explains, ‘‘the progress of humane enlightenment can go no
further than in picturing people not as vicious, but as mistaken. When you add that
people are necessarily mistaken, that all people are exposed to situations in which they
acts as fools, . . . , you complete the comic circle’’ (Burke, 1937, p. 41), a circle in which
inheres a humility about human limitations and a faith in the power of human reason
and community to restore social order. In subsequent episodes, the social order of
South Park is restored, as Gerald and Kyle are again living in South Park, far away from
the corrupting influences of San Francisco and its obnoxiously self-regarding residents.
‘‘Day After Tomorrow’’

In ‘‘Two Days Before The Day After Tomorrow,’’ a parody of the eco-thriller, The Day
After Tomorrow, a flood threatens South Park. As the episode begins, Stan and
Cartman are sitting in a speed boat making boat noises when Cartman pressures Stan
into driving it. When Stan accelerates, the boat shoots backward, breaking the dock.
Trying to regain control, Stan runs into the beaver dam, the boat catches on fire and
explodes, causing a flood.
This episode presents a critique of people who personalize politics, as the adults
pick either a liberal or conservative political identity which dictates their choices and
how they see reality, even as it blinds them to having an accurate understanding of an
unfolding disaster and how to deal with it. It also parodies what the scriptwriters see
as the pessimism of those whose ‘‘it’s later than you think’’ spirit reflects a ‘‘prolonged
and intolerable hopelessness,’’ (Lewis, 1955, pp. 195!196) which is at odds with the
optimism and can-do spirit of populist heroes. The adults fail to react rationally,
exhibiting a desire to blame people rather than Nature and reflecting a type of
paranoia where reality is interpreted in terms of the characters’ pre-existing world-
views. Such a mindset is revealed as the Geologists discuss global warming as a
possible cause for the flood:
Randy: My colleagues in the scientific community are still running tests, but . . . we
believe [global warming may strike] the day after tomorrow.
Geologist 2: Excuse me, I’m sure we’re all very impressed with your wild theories,
Doctor Marsh, but the fact is no statistical proof has ever been confirmed that
global warming exists. Are you suggesting that we shut down the economy?
Randy: With all due respect, cliché dissenting Republican, the economy isn’t going
to matter . . . the day after tomorrow.
This exchange parodies the way global warming is turned into an entity in The Day
After Tomorrow. It reflects, as Slawter (2008) points out, ‘‘A lot of environmentalism
has been doom and gloom, negative, inspired by fear’’ (p. 223). Second, this satirizes
the argument between global warming advocates and disbelievers. Each character is a
parody of each side’s ‘‘imagined other’’ as their dialog reflects what Hofstadter (1965)
calls the paranoid style, rhetoric which is ‘‘overheated, oversuspicious, overaggressive,
grandiose, and apocalyptic in expression’’ (p. 4).
Geologist 1 is portrayed as an affected and arrogant global warming alarmist who
brands Geologist 2 as a ‘‘cliché spouting Republican.’’ Likewise, Randy, a caricature of
the central character in The Day After Tomorrow, treats global warming as an actual
entity that will destroy the world in one day. He claims a new ice age has arrived and
temperatures will fall to ‘‘70 billion degrees below zero’’ within the hour. Parodying
the movie, Randy, dressed in winter clothing with walking sticks and gloves, sweats
profusely and, rather than accept the simple explanation that he is overdressed,
believes that he is suffering from the last stages of hypothermia. Geologist 2, the adult
antagonist of the environmental activists, is lampooned as one whose rationality is
compromised by ideological blinders. He does not buy into the ‘‘wild theories’’ of
global warming and has inoculated himself against any idea that might interfere with
free market economic activity.
The episode attacks the adults’ weak reasoning in assessing the causes of the flood.
For example, while liberals blame George W. Bush, conservatives are quick to blame
‘‘terrorists and Al Qaeda’’ for the flood, stating ‘‘they’ve been secretly building beaver
dam WMD’s for years now.’’ In short, the adult characters are parodied for letting
ideology blind them to reality and to appropriate action: Geologist 2 is ignoring the
needs of the collective and thinking only about the economy. Randy refuses to allow
room for dissent and is reactionary rather than reasonable in his examination of facts.
Exhibiting gloom and despair, he leads the adults to retreat to the Park County
Community Center where they seal doorways and board up windows to await the
impending disaster.
As often the case in South Park, a child, Stan, who was instrumental in causing the
flood, sees things clearly. He addresses the adults arguing over the cause of the flood:
‘‘Stop it! Stop it!! First it was terrorists, then George Bush and global warming . . . for
something that’s very simple! It’s MY fault! I broke the dam!’’ He follows with the
reasonable view that when a natural disaster strikes, placing blame is less important
than saving the people who are affected by it. Within the tradition of satire, Stan’s
monolog moves the story ‘‘toward a ‘moral resolution,’ thus attaining a place of true
social critique’’ (deRochi, 2008, p. 37).
This episode promotes the theme that the kids are the agents who remain calm and
rational, as the adult perception of events becomes cluttered with ideological
arguments. While the adults are panicking about the imminent global warming threat
and self-righteously debating over who is to blame for the flood, the children are
worried about the people stranded in Beaverton, repeatedly asking the adults if
anyone is ‘‘going to go help those people.’’ The children have a clear picture of
the crisis and see no connection between rescuing people and placing blame, while
the adults seem paralyzed, unable to focus attention on rescue efforts because they
are blinded by their arguments over the origin of the flood. In short, the children
expose the adults’ behavior as pathological, more connected to personal identity than
to the situation at hand. This plot reflects the comic frame with its rejection of the
inaction fostered by Randy’s rhetoric of hopelessness and its advocacy of the
children’s position that the community must unite to do the right thing in saving
the flood’s victims.
Conclusion
As this paper explains, South Park successfully employs Burke’s comic corrective in
highlighting which environmental strategies are effective mechanisms for social
change by lampooning those that are not. By parodying one-dimensional adult
characters who have good intentions but are intolerant of and condescending to
those who disagree with them, these three South Park episodes portray environmental
antagonists as ‘‘human and therefore imperfect’’ (Carlson, 1986), reflecting an
optimistic belief that human beings, while prone to error, are capable of self-
reflection and changed behavior. In each episode, the children use reason to correct
the excesses of the adults and achieve rapprochement by returning to normal social
relationships with the adults in subsequent episodes.
In addition to using a comic frame to lampoon extreme rhetoric, part of South
Park’s appeal is a narrative structure which highlights some of the myths that underlie
‘‘the American national character.’’ In ‘‘Rainforest Schmainforest,’’ it uses dark humor
to question socially constructed norms of the myth of Nature as Eden. In this
episode, Nature is a source of violence and humankind’s salvation comes from
technology, addressing the American paradox of ‘‘the machine in the garden,’’ of
admiring both the purity of Nature and simultaneously the ability of humans to use
their rational powers to exploit it. At the same time, all three episodes play on
another populist theme, Rousseau’s idea that man is born free yet is everywhere in
chains: it is the children who clearly see reality, whereas adults are blinded by
ideological filters. The screenwriters are especially critical of ‘‘do-goodism,’’ in their
view a perversion of the American ethic of individual self-improvement. Playfully
lampooning adults for failing to see reality accurately by letting unjustified
assumptions obstruct their perceptions of reality, South Park allows the children,
the agents of common sense, to demonstrate the courage to object to this behavior,
often bluntly saying what characters on conventional sitcoms cannot.
This analysis adds to our understanding of how environmentalism is mediated in
South Park: ‘‘Unapologetically crude and controversial, the show, nevertheless, asks
viewers to revise and to examine cultural views’’ (Richardson, 2008, p. 27). South
Park encourages viewers to engage in self-reflection, to understand why their ideas
and the way they are presented encounter resistance from many people (deRochi,
2008, p. 45). Its cartoon form allows it to open a dialog of engaged criticism about
issues related to authority, elitism, and the illegitimate influence of a celebrity culture,
as well as the folly of using exaggerated rhetoric that is based on assumptions
ungrounded in reality to explain complex issues, such as how to protect the
environment. It uses populist themes deeply embedded in the American psyche,
particularly the importance of treating everyone with respect, to lampoon environ-
mental Puritanism. It highlights for viewers that people react not only to facts and
reasons, but also to the unspoken attitudes toward others conveyed by an advocate’s
manner.
In short, in these episodes, South Park, by using a narrative structure of one-
dimensional comic book characters to create a message system that simultaneously
spoofs and reinforces many of the myths central to the American national character,
parodies the condescension and intolerance of environmental advocates and their
equally strident opponents. It employs a comic frame to ridicule extreme political
behavior and language while promoting, through the children, an ethic of
pragmatism and populism, with anti-elitism, anti-authority, and anti-hypocrisy
themes. And its central character, Cartman, while selfish and amoral, is also at times
appealingly independent taking on a politically correct world without submitting to
its demands, suggesting the ‘‘indestructive vitality of the Adamic vision of life’’
(Lewis, 1955, p. 198).
As Kazin points out, historically the language of the populist persuasion has been
adopted by both progressive and reactionary forces. He indicates in contemporary
times, the ‘‘vocabulary of grassroots rebellion is now serving to thwart and reverse
social and cultural changes rather than promote it (1995, p. 4).’’ And in recognizing
the power of populist rhetoric, Kazin also indicates that if liberal advocates are to be
persuasive with a mainstream audience, they need to practice ‘‘connected criticism,’’
both in content and presentation, to argue ‘‘within the bounds of national
traditions instead of railing against them’’ (1995, p. 9). In this sense, these episodes
serve as a ‘‘comic corrective,’’ identifying in a seemingly children’s medium, the
cartoon, the characteristics of environmental advocacy rhetoric and that of its
equally vociferous opponents that are most offensive to mainstream American
audiences.
As television helps shape social knowledge and influences viewer perceptions about
social and political issues, it is important to understand how popular visual media like
South Park can reduce ‘‘environmentalist and environmental advocacy to absurdity’’
(Slawter, 2008, p. 221) by parodying ‘‘negative apocalyptic versions of environmental
activism’’ (Slawter, 2008, p. 223) and the hyperbolic language that often characterizes
radical environmental rhetoric (Deloach, Bruner, & Gosset, 2002). Much as Deloach
et al. (2002) show how the term ‘‘tree hugger’’ has been used in print media ‘‘to
delegitimize and dismiss the rhetoric of environmental advocacy,’’ (p. 95) this analysis
helps us see how the language and behavior of some ideologically rigid environmen-
talists can be parodied in visual media such as South Park. Given its popularity, it helps
us understand how negative stereotypes of environmental advocacy can be
constructed in ways that delegitimize overzealous environmental advocacy while
also informing advocates how not to argue in advancing a green agenda to the general
public.
Future Research
Popular culture defines the arena in which Americans spend their time producing
and consuming, constructing meaning for their lives, and understanding or
modifying their ideas, beliefs, and circumstances. Television, in particular, can reflect
as well as impact cultural attitudes and beliefs. Examining the messages of adult
animated cartoons can guide understanding of cultural changes and ideals for a
particular time and place while establishing their utility as a medium for social
change.
Future research might include studying, alone or in combination, the operation of
the ‘‘comic corrective’’ in South Park and other animated adult cartoons; whether the
message structures in South Park episodes on other topics, such as education, war,
evolution, capitalism, corporate greed, legalization of drugs, sexuality, and political
correctness and those of other successful adult animated cartoons reflect populist
perspectives deeply embedded in the American psyche, or conversely, whether an
adult animated cartoon’s failure is due to an absence of either sympathy for its
antagonists, a comic corrective, or a populist message structure emphasizing themes
with which a significant audience could identify.
Another area of future research is to assess the extent to which and the ways in
which environmental issues have been presented in adult animated cartoons over
time, especially as the green movement has matured over the last decade and as global
climate change has become increasingly accepted as an issue of international
importance.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. John Lynch at the University of Cincinnati who was the thesis
advisor for the original version of this paper.
References
Alberti, J. (Ed.). (2004). Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the possibility of oppositional culture.
Detroit: Wayne Sate University Press.
Appel, E. (1996). Burlesque drama as a rhetorical agent: The hudibrastic ridicule of William F.
Buckley, Jr. Western Journal of Communication, 60(3), 269!284.
Bruce, D. (2001). Notes toward a rhetoric of animation: The Road Runner as cultural critique.
Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18(2), 229!245.
Burke, K. (1937). Attitudes toward History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Carlson, C. (1986). Gandhi and the comic frame: ‘‘Ad Bellum Purificandum’’. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 72, 446!455.
Chaney, M. (2004). Coloring Whiteness and Blackvoice minstrelsy: Representations of race and
place in Static Shock, King of the Hill, and South Park. Journal of Popular Film and Television,
31(4), 167!175.
Corbett, J. (2002). A faint green sell: Advertising and the natural world. In M. Meister & P. Japp
(Eds.), Enviropop (pp. 141!160). Westport CT: Praeger.
Crawford, A. (2009). Oh Yeah: Family Guy as magical realism. Journal of Film and Video, 61(2),
52!69.
Delingpole, J. (2007, March 27). Why every right-thinking person should watch South Park. The
Sunday Telegraph London, pp. 19.
DeLoach, M., Bruner, M., & Gossett, J. (2002). An analysis of the ‘‘Tree-Hugger’’ label. In
M. Meister & P. Japp (Eds.), Enviropop (pp. 95!110). Westport CT: Praeger.
Depoe, S., Delicath, J., & Elsenbeer, M. (Eds.). (2004). Communication and public participation in
environmental decision-making. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
deRochi, J. (2008). What have you learned: Considering a new hermeneutic of satire in Family Guy.
Studies in American Humor, 3(17), 35!48.
Frank, T. (2009, July 29). The gates of political distraction. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A13.
Gardiner, J. (1999). South Park, Blue Men, anality, and market masculinity. Men and Masculinities,
2(3), 251!271.
Gray, J. (2005). Television teaching: Parody, The Simpsons, and media literacy education. Critical
Studies in Media Communication, 22(3), 223!238.
Hofstadter, R. (1965). The paranoid style in American politics and other essays. New York, NY: Alfred
Knopf.
Hope, D. (2002). Environment as consumer icon in advertising fantasy. In M. Meister &
P. Japp (Eds.), Enviropop (pp. 161!174). Westport CT: Praeger.
Huff, M. (1998, April 16). South Park still top dog on basic cable. The Daily News, pp. 102.
Kazin, M. (1995). The populist persuasion: An American history. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kotkin, J. (2009, July 20). The next culture war. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/20/
secular-left-christian-right-culture-war-climate-obama-opinions-columnists-joelkotkin.htm
l?partner"contextstory
Larsen, D. (2001). South Park’s solar anus, or, Rabelais returns: Cultures of consumption and the
contemporary aesthetic of obscenity. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(4), 65!82.
Leo, A. (2010, Feb 27). Matt Stone & Trey Parker are not your Political Allies alex@huffingt
onpost.com. Retrieved from http://www.multichannel.com/article/131173South_Park_
Rates_Big_With_11th_Season.php
Lewis, R. (1955). The American Adam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lewis, T. (2002). Religious rhetoric and the comic frame in The Simpsons. Journal of Media and
Religion, 1(3), 153!165.
Marafiote, T. (2008). The American Dream: Technology, tourism, and the transformation of
wilderness. Environmental Communication, 2(2), 154!172.
Martin, M. (1998). The rude tube. Newsweek, pp. 56.

Marx, L. (1964). The machine in the garden. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Meister, M., & Japp, P. (2002). A rationale for studying environmental rhetoric and popular culture.
In M. Meister & P. Japp (Eds.), Enviropop (pp. 1!12). Westport CT: Praeger.
Moss, L. (2007). Comedy Central’s signature animated show marks best Nielsen performance since
1998. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/do-dems-
and-gopers-respond-to-tv-shows-differently/
Nielsenwire. (2008). Do Dem & GOP viewers respond differently to TV shows? Retrieved
from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/do-dems-and-gopers-respond-
differently-to-TV-shows?
Parker, T. & Stone, M. (1999). Rainforest Schmainforest (Eric Stough, Director). In T. Parker &
M. Stone (Executive Producers). South Park. New York, NY: Comedy Partners; Comedy
Central.
Parker, T., & Stone, M. (2005). Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow (Matt Stone and Trey
Parker, Directors). In T. Parker & M. Stone (Eds.), (Executive Producers). South Park. New
York, NY: Comedy Partners; Comedy Central.
Parker, T. & Stone, M. (2006). Smug Alert (Matt Stone and Trey Parker, Directors). In T. Parker &
M. Stone (Eds.), (Executive Producers). South Park. New York, NY: Comedy Partners;
Comedy Central.
Rehling, D. (2002). When Hallmark calls upon nature: Images of nature in greeting cards. In
Richardson, K. (2008). ‘‘Simpsons Did It!’’: South Park and intertextuality of contemporary
animation. Studies in American Humor, 3(17), 19!34.
Sienkiewicz, M., & Marx, N. (2009). Beyond a cutout world: Ethnic humor and discursive
integration in South Park. Journal of Film and Video, 61(2), 5!18.
Slawter, L. (2008). TreeHuggerTV: Revisualizing environmental activism in the post- network era.
Environmental Communication, 2(2), 212!228.
Spangle, M., & Knapp, D. (1996). Ways we talk about the Earth: An exploration of persuasive tactics
and appeals in environmental discourse. In S.A. Muir & T.L. Veenendall (Eds.), Earthtalk:
Communication empowerment for environmental action (pp. 3!26). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Todd, A. (2002). Prime-time subversion: The environmental rhetoric of The Simpsons. In
View publication stats

Lessons From South Park: A Comic Corrective To Environmental Puritanism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lessons From South Park: A Comic Corrective To Environmental Puritanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Lessons from South Park: A Comic Corrective to Environmental

Article in Environmental Communication A Journal of Nature and Culture · August 2011

Career communication View project

environmental communication View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Lessons from South Park: A Comic

Available online: 09 Aug 2011

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2011.584545

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Lessons from South Park: A Comic

Julie Stewart & Thomas Clark

Keywords: South Park; Environmental Activism; American Dream; Parody; Satire;

ISSN 1752-4032 (print)/ISSN 1752-4040 (online) # 2011 Taylor & Francis

themes, it parodies how some advocates promote environmentalism. It lampoons

History of South Park

environment. Significantly, it is important to consider both South Park’s medium and

Adult Cartoons as Social Documents

emotion, or without undue involvement in the human comedy’’ (p. 66).

The Populist Message

commentator’s dialog invites viewers to share the rebel commander’s perspective:

There’s a place called the rainforest; it truly sucks ass

Seeing himself as a victim of the collective intransigence of small town parochialism,

‘‘Day After Tomorrow’’

Martin, M. (1998). The rude tube. Newsweek, pp. 56.

View publication stats

You might also like