Is the "Carnivalesque" Politically/Socially Effective?

Bakhtin's theory of the "carnivalesque" presents us with a way in which dominant or oppresive regimes are subverted through "folk humor." While Bakhtin applied this theory to Rabelais, I would like to apply it to the modern day example of a political cartoon. As an example, I have included a political cartoon depiction of President Barack Obama. Certainly here in the United States we are given the license to criticize and mock our leaders; however, is the carnivalesque (here seen in the "folksy" form of a cartoon) a truly effective or dangerous threat to ruling powers? I would argue that it is not. I read these cartoons more in terms of being a type of critique, or the "safety valve" that we encountered in our readings, a valve that releases built up pressure and unrest amongst the masses. These cartoons help to suppress or quell discontent and to make us all complacent. Though the Stalinist regime that Bakhtin lived under judged the carnivalesque to be a serious threat to its own authority, I think that the modern day political cartoon does not hold the same power as a Rabelaisian play, which would be viewed by a large group of people who could immediately mobilize and rebel. Readers of a political cartoon in a newspaper are a much more fragmented population who are probably not likely to mobilize simply because of a cartoon.If anything, these cartoons subvert dissatisfaction since participators (the creators and readers of the political cartoon) feel a sense of satisfaction in the fact that their ideas are being expressed publicly and not stifled, as they would have been under Stalinism.

Our readings of "carnivalesque laughter" state that this laughter is directed at everyone, including those identified with the carnival, and this is definitely true in the case of these political cartoons. These cartoons cause us to "laugh away" discontent so that, ultimately, the joke is on us.