Uncivil Mirth

Meer over het boek

Ridicule is a prevalent aspect of modern politics, often used to demean opponents and sway public opinion. However, it can also erode the foundations of political discourse, turning debate into hostility and silence. In contemporary discussions, some commentators express concern that ridicule is replacing more sincere forms of political engagement. Theorists of deliberative democracy argue that ridicule can be uncivil, trivializing, or morally questionable. Conversely, others believe that a politically vibrant society will naturally include ridicule as a tool against authoritarian figures who struggle to endure it. This book provides historical context by examining the role of ridicule in eighteenth-century Britain, a time when its place in politics was intensely debated. The 1690s saw a surge in political and religious satire following the easing of censorship and the deregulation of printing, particularly around the Toleration Act. Critics warned that excessive ridicule could harm character, undermine religion, and incite civil discord. Yet, defenders like the Third Earl of Shaftesbury viewed ridicule as a crucial means to challenge the arrogance of fanatics and zealous clerics, who posed threats to toleration. The author explores Shaftesbury's influence and how his followers and critics navigated the responsible use of ridicule in political and religious debates.