“Doing the Work” Through Mockumentary: A Rhetoric of Irony in Daily Wire’s Am I Racist?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

"'Doing the Work' Through Mockumentary: A Rhetoric of Irony in Daily Wire's Am I Racist?" is an engaging paper. Except for a few minor errors, it is almost flawless in content and presentation. It is a paper that could find home not only in the academic field of religious studies, but also in communication studies and in film and media studies. What the authors have accomplished is an amalgamation of the three academic disciplines, an uneasy task that could disintegrate in the hands of a neophyte with scholarly ambition. The thrust of the paper is on the creation of a satirical documentary, Am I Racist? (2024), by Matt Walsh, in which he uses irony as a combative and pugnacious rhetorical devise against the pundits and ambassadors of the emergent anti-racist phenomenon in America. The purpose of the documentary, among other things, was to obstruct the influence of antiracist adherents thereby inoculating political and religious conservative viewers from being infected by the antiracist doctrine. It is discernible that the authors' approach to the study is qualitative methodology through an analysis of the documentary that relies heavily on Mikhail Bakhtin's dialogic opposition as its theoretical foundation. 

The introductory section of the paper clearly articulates the problem that the authors set out to address in the paper, principally how the political pendulum that was in full swing at the political left remained there long enough to witness the birth and support of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, civil and political unrest in the wake of George Floyd's death in the hands of the police, the birth of the "Black Lives Matter" movement, and the stifling and rejection of the political right's competing and dissenting voices concretized in the "All Lives Matter," and I should add since the authors left it out,  the equally provocative "Blue Lives Matter" movement ostensibly in support of the police establishment that was accused of killing Floyd. It is in this climate that anti-racist ideology rose. Although the authors are quick to point out that their "current research is not concerned with the validity of anti-racist claims," they do acknowledge that the "discursive dominance of the [anti-racist] ideology during 2020-2024 is important to the state of public discourse as well as the role of dialogic opposition seen in this case by conservative media outlet The Daily Wire."  The two main characters on which the paper rests--Bakhtin and Walsh, one a secular theorist, the other a Roman Catholic religious conservative--are given a good introduction as they relate, one (Walsh) to the creation of the documentary, Am I Racist? and the other (Bakhtin) to the academic analysis of the documentary. 

Bakhtin's idea that when "hierarchical, elite discourses rigidify [....], carnivalesque characters arise to mock and parody its seriousness" finds a practical exemplification in Walsh's creation of a documentary in "the mockumentary subgenre." Thus, Am I Racist? was created by Walsh through divine inspiration. The authors point out that "God had him create the film [....] to expose the dangerous nature of the anti-racist ideology," and that he chose irony to carry out this divine mission because the anti-racist ideology is "an evil that not only deserves to be mocked but must be mocked ruthlessly and mercilessly as [is done] in the film." The authors are fair in including in their analysis of the documentary the perspective that some Christians have questioned Walsh's ethical probity in using "deceptive means" to achieve his aim. 

The authors bring into their analysis the placement of monologue and dialogue in opposition as a means to appreciate the intellectual depth of the documentary as it transitions to mockumentary. Their insight into the elenctic strategy used by Walsh hits the mark. Walsh is not interested in winning the argument only. Like the ancient Greek philosophers, he is determined to shame publicly the opponents on the left that are parodied in the documentary. He makes them hypocrites and fools. It seems that what Walsh has done on the political right is an answer to what Michael Moore has done on the political left. What perplexes the viewer then is the nature of truth when faced by what these two opposing makers of mockumentaries have done. It would have been good if the authors have shed more light on this, but the silence on that in the paper does not weaken their interesting and powerful examination of Am I Racist?   

The paper's conclusion is strong, especially in proposing what future researchers could do. Their recommendation is that such researchers "would do well to consider other conservative figures and outlets' rhetorical strategies of dialogical opposition as a means of cultural resistance. Just as important is the future research on the ethical uses of irony and deceit being employed by Christians in authoritarian contexts." The references are good, but the authors should correct the entry on line 722 where the first four words are all in capital letters. 

Though the paper is generally well written, there are still some areas that require minor corrections by the authors:

1. line 4: insert "In" before 2024; insert a comma after "outlet" and after "Wire"; italicize "Daily Wire" and do so consistently throughout the paper
2. line 5: insert a comma after "author" and after "Walsh"
3. line 6: insert a comma before "Justin"
4. lines 11-12: In the "Keywords," there are too many phrases on "rhetoric" while there is none on Christianity that is central in submitting this paper to Religions. So, delete "Whiteness and Rhetoric" and "Conservative Rhetoric" since they may be subsumed under "Rhetorical Criticism." Also delete "Humor and Racism" since that is covered by "Race and Representation." Add "Christian Culture" to the keywords. For the future, authors should keep keywords to about five as the ideal number. They should also try to include some single words instead of makin all of them phrases. 
5. line 23: insert "the" before "riots"; insert "private" before "companies"
6. lines 45-46: change "carnivalistic" to "carnivalesque"
7. line 254: italicize "The Mandalorian"
8. line 275: italicize "What is a Woman?"
9. line 276-277: italicize "The Postmillennial"
10. line 305: italicize "Am I Racist" and go through the entire paper to do the same
11. line 318: italicize "The View"
12. line 341: italicize "White Fragility"
13. line 355: add quotation marks after "people" to close the quote
14. line 417: insert a comma after "Brown"
15. line 597: insert quotation marks after "pain?" to close the quote     

 

 

               

     

Author Response

Comments 1: line 4: insert "In" before 2024; insert a comma after "outlet" and after "Wire"; italicize "Daily Wire" and do so consistently throughout the paper

Author: commas were inserted and Daily Wire was italicized throughout the entirety of the paper

Comments 2: line 5: insert a comma after "author" and after "Walsh"

Author: a comma was inserted after author and after Walsh

Comments 3: line 6: insert a comma before "Justin"

Author: a comma was inserted before Justin

Comments 4: lines 11-12: In the "Keywords," there are too many phrases on "rhetoric" while there is none on Christianity that is central in submitting this paper to Religions. So, delete "Whiteness and Rhetoric" and "Conservative Rhetoric" since they may be subsumed under "Rhetorical Criticism." Also delete "Humor and Racism" since that is covered by "Race and Representation." Add "Christian Culture" to the keywords. For the future, authors should keep keywords to about five as the ideal number. They should also try to include some single words instead of making all of them phrases. 

Author: Said keywords were deleted as proposed by the reviewer. Christian Culture was added to keywords. 

Comments 5: line 23: insert "the" before "riots"; insert "private" before "companies"

Author: "the" and "private" were inserted

Comments 6: lines 45-46: change "carnivalistic" to "carnivalesque"

Author: carnivalistic was changed to carnivalesque

Comments 7: line 254: italicize "The Mandalorian"

Author: The Mandalorian was italicized.

Comments 8: line 275: italicize "What is a Woman?"

Author: What is a Woman? was italicized.

Comments 9: line 276-277: italicize "The Postmillennial"

Author: The Postmillennial was italicized.

Comments 10: line 305: italicize "Am I Racist" and go through the entire paper to do the same

Author: Am I Racist was italicized throughout the paper.

Comments 11: line 318: italicize "The View

Author: The View was italicized

Comments 12: line 341: italicize "White Fragility"

Author: White Fragility was italicized

Comments 13: line 355: add quotation marks after "people" to close the quote

Author: Quotation marks were added after "people" to close the quote

Comments 14: line 417: insert a comma after "Brown"

Author: a comma was inserted after Brown

Comments 15: line 597: insert quotation marks after "pain?" to close the quote 

Author: Quotation marks were inserted after "pain" 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors First, let me mention that--if nothing else--this manuscript is deserving of attention because of one aspect of its subject matter. Am I Racist, the film in question, is a product of The Daily Wire. As a scholar of media, I'm fascinated by the way that company has steadily built a sizable media empire. Yet, I've seen very little academic writing on this subject. I can do a quick Google Scholar search and find a lot of book chapters on the documentarian Michael Moore, but very little on Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, and other DW personalities, in spite of the large followings these podcasters have gathered.    Second, I found both the subject matter and analysis to be quite interesting. The film medium entails complexity that allows for a lot of interpretation, and the Bakhtinian analysis that the author performs is thought-provoking and leaves plenty of room for alternative areas of focus, and even for dialog in regard to the specific focus the author chose and the interpretation he/she provided. In fact, one of the key points of the paper is that to avoid authoritarianism we should welcome multiple voices. I do anticipate that if more scholarly attention eventually arrives for DW, it will have a different "voice" than this study.    Third, related to the final words of the previous sentence, I suspect there will be some readers of Religions who have great antipathy toward the Daily Wire, Matt Walsh, and his film. Those readers may be scandalized by both the conclusions of the paper and its tone. Given the two points I made before this one, I recommend that the author make changes to improve the manuscript, and that the journal publish it.    With those comments in mind, here are suggestions for improvement.    I think the author should restructure the paper a bit to convince a broader swath of readers that this study is worth their while. One example of the problem, as things stand, is that the paper begins with a proposition by Ben Shapiro. Quite possibly, some will stop reading at that juncture. If I may, I would recommend that the author begin with a more abstract introduction. What are the broader issues in religion, in documentary film, in rhetoric that this journal article will cover? To whom will this study be of interest? Then get to some of the particulars. The author will be using Bakhtinian analysis to demonstrate that modern "mockumentary" can be a way of inoculating against monologic culture. In this instance, the author will do so applying Bakhtin's ideas to the 2024 film Am I Racist. Once that broader approach is identified, I think the author wants to provide a literature review in that area (in addition to a summary of key lit on Bakhtin).      Along these lines, I do not think the abstract, as written, and the paper itself line up. The abstract is much less assertive. When I read the final sentences of the manuscript, I was surprised by how forceful the author was. I then returned to the abstract and sensed that the latter (the abstract) seemed a bit watered down. I have no objection to a scholar being assertive in what he/she is interpreting or communicating, so I was not bothered at all by the ending. I just think if the paper will be that strong-minded, the abstract should be too.    Given that I think the subject here is really worthy of study, and I have no objections to the approach the author takes to the subject, there's a potential problem I anticipate, and that I wish to help the author overcome. I see what could be a legitimate basis (or a good excuse, if I am cynical) to argue against publication of this work in Religions. The key is in that final word. The journal's scope is religion and theology. Though the manuscript delves into those topics, it does so briefly in the draft I read. I think there are many ways this could be approached. One would be to delve further into the religious dimensions of The Daily Wire and Matt Walsh's Catholic faith. Another would be to delve further into an issue the paper gives a bit of attention to, the intertribal discussions among Christians as to the way the film was made and the ethics thereof. Another, though it might be a longshot, is to note that there are religious dimensions to the "monologic lie" that Walsh's film is opposing. A number of scholars (e.g., John McWhorter) have pointed out the fact that some dominant elements of our presumably secular culture appear to have religious dimensions that are rather analogous to dimensions of more traditional faith systems. Personally, for example, I'm fascinated by how some things Am I Racist rails against were so thoroughly (and quickly) adopted by such a large swath of American culture. As a member of academia, and a close observer thereof, I was always astonished by how "DEI" suddenly appeared as a shibboleth at almost every university in the United States. Can one argue that there are religious dimensions to such an embrace?   Finally, whatever the author chooses to do with the advice I provide above, I do think the Conclusion section needs to be expanded. Yes, this is the opportunity for the author to summarize what the film seems to be communicating. In addition, however, this should be the section where the author circles back to some of the theoretical elements of the paper. The author provides suggestions for future research, but those are rather brief and there's more that I think this paper is pointing to as a field of inquiry. By the way, this aspect of the revision would relate to what I also asked for in the previous paragraph and the earlier paragraph about making this paper more appealing to a broader swath of readers. This section should circle back on issues/questions that were raised then.    I do want to thank the author for writing an interesting manuscript, and I hope my comments are helpful.    

Author Response

Comments 1: I think the author should restructure the paper a bit to convince a broader swath of readers that this study is worth their while. One example of the problem, as things stand, is that the paper begins with a proposition by Ben Shapiro. Quite possibly, some will stop reading at that juncture. If I may, I would recommend that the author begin with a more abstract introduction. What are the broader issues in religion, in documentary film, in rhetoric that this journal article will cover? 

Author: I very much appreciate the encouragement and aid in restructuring the paper. A new intro paragraph was written discussing the unique role of irony in political life and how conservatives are believed to be ineligible of succeeding at good humor/irony.

In A Conservative Walks into a Bar: The Politics of Political Humor, Dagnes argues that there is good reason as to why the political Left has historically dominated political satire and humor in the United States. Following her research, she concludes that the varying philosophies between Democrats and Republicans is the major reason, namely that conservatives aim at conserving while progressives seek to progress. From this perspective, Dagnes concludes that conservatives are doomed to fail at political humor when stating, “Satire aims at questioning the power structure—so why would conservatives want to do that? The short answer is, they don’t.”^[1] But, is reality this static? Can conservatives ever question power structures utilizing effective irony and satire? According to Hutcheon, the sharp edge of irony is, in fact, eligible to be used by any side because its “transideological identity” spans the political spectrum.[2] Thus, when conservatives are caught in the act of wielding irony and satire to question power structures, per Dagnes a unique angle of political humor is taking place.

In The Authoritarian Moment, Ben Shapiro contends that authoritarianism, like irony, is also transideological meaning that both the political Left and Right are tempted toward authoritarianism. Current conversations over the FCC and hate speech showcase the tempting power of authoritarianism even among conservatives who showcase their willingness to use governmental entities to quash political dissent.

Comments 2: Once that broader approach is identified, I think the author wants to provide a literature review in that area (in addition to a summary of key lit on Bakhtin). Another, though it might be a longshot, is to note that there are religious dimensions to the "monologic lie" that Walsh's film is opposing. A number of scholars (e.g., John McWhorter) have pointed out the fact that some dominant elements of our presumably secular culture appear to have religious dimensions that are rather analogous to dimensions of more traditional faith systems. 

Author: To provide literature additions, I felt it best to follow your advice on bringing in the religious nature of the ideology. Beginning on line 66, I made these additions: 

In Woke Racism, McWhorter claims that Americans are living through a new wave of antiracism since the 2010s. Whereas First Wave Antiracism fought and abolished slavery, Second Wave Antiracism protested segregation, Jim Crow, and, broadly speaking, social prejudice towards African Americans. To McWhorter, Third Wave Antiracism has morphed into an entirely different form than its predecessors. He writes,

Third Wave Antiracism, becoming mainstream in the 2010s, teaches that because racism is baked into the structure of society, whites’ ‘complicity’ in living within it constitutes racism itself, while for black people, grappling with the racism surrounding them is the totality of experience and must condition exquisite sensitivity toward them, including a suspension of standards of achievement and conduct.^[1]

Such a totalizing ideology, he argues, is nothing less than a religion based on race. Asen disagrees noting that anti-woke publics use the bogeyman of critical race theory to misrepresent anti-racist advocates.^[2] Furthermore at The New Republic, Pareene maintains that recent debates on CRT is merely a guise for “moral panic” by conservatives.^[3] The problem with these characterizations, critics argue, is that they are downplaying a true representation of these ideologies as they are in their purest form. Take for example Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility wherein she argues, “You’re a racist, and if you say you aren’t, it just proves that you are…”^[4] To Walsh and other conservatives, such discourse is not only religious in nature but authoritarian.[5][6]

Comment 3: Along these lines, I do not think the abstract, as written, and the paper itself line up. 

Author: I added to the abstract to show the same force of the conclusion:

In 2024, the conservative media outlet Daily Wire produced a documentary film entitled Am I Racist? Created by political commentator and author Matt Walsh and director Justin Folk, the film became one of the highest grossing documentaries of the last decade. Unlike traditional documentaries, Walsh employs a rhetoric of irony against anti-racist adherents to obstruct their influence and inoculate mostly conservative viewers. His method, however, is unusual and even questionable in conservative Christian circles. The film is analyzed using a Bakhtinian analysis of dialogic opposition wherein Walsh embodies three ironic characters--Rogue, Fool, and Clown--in order to expose the monologue of anti-racism. The analysis demonstrates the dialogization of the anti-racist monologue through rhetorical enactments of anacrisis and syncrisis. Through juxtapositions of anti-racist ideologists and their everyday racist opponents, Walsh obstructs the future effectiveness of the ideology. Even more, by becoming a DEI expert himself, he performatively distorts the monologue to victimize opponents and entertain viewers through the public spectacle. Ultimately, Am I Racist? demonstrates a unique modern turn and strategy in conservative and, more importantly, Christian rhetorical strategies that needs more attention in the future.

 

Comment 4: Finally, whatever the author chooses to do with the advice I provide above, I do think the Conclusion section needs to be expanded. 

Author: I agree and thus added to the conclusion. Space, however, is a worry considering the length of the paper already.

Ultimately, this analysis has shown the importance of multiple voices in society and a need for public dialogue and debate which can quickly and easily disappear if citizens are not vigilant in their efforts. Although this instance showcased the Left’s authoritarian tendency, the Right could just as quickly be possessed by authoritarianism.