Comparing Hannah Arendt and South Park: From Totalitarianism to Television

For this conversation on Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, I’m going to veer slightly from our usual structure (general readers — quotes and questions — a deeper dive) and turn to popular culture as a means to interpret Arendt’s theories. In addition to Arendt’s writing being multilayered and dense, she can also be difficult to follow as she references history from over a century ago. So today, I’d like to approach her work through materials and issues more familiar to us. I will also model some of my personal analytical tools so that readers can get a sense of how to approach a complicated topic.

My popular culture selections are clips from the satirical cartoon South Park, which I presented for a brainstorming question in my April 25, 2025 piece. Satire, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “[a] poem or (in later use) a novel, film, or other work of art which uses humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize prevailing immorality or foolishness, esp. as a form of social or political commentary.”1 In satire, the audience sees a heightened reflection of the world around them, and the issues that are usually considered the elephant in the room are addressed far more directly.

Although South Park and The Origins of Totalitarianism may seem incongruous, they share something in common: a focus on issues of Jewish belonging and isolation. The cartoon offers raw commentary on antisemitism and has at least two episodes (Season 8, Episode 3 and Season 26, Episode 1) that deal directly with the issue. In addition, South Park’s satirical take on mainstream American culture offers a great opportunity to address difficult issues with humor — issues that Arendt raises — but can be less inflammatory in the context of comedy.

If you are just joining this series, please read the introduction, as well as the explanation of how this series is structured and why it is different from opinion essays.

Methodology: A Look at Context and Juxtaposition

A great way to understand how systems work is to pay attention to context and juxtaposition. When we change context for actions or actors, it can make it easier to see what role they play in a system. When we juxtapose two things, especially two things, that seem initially unrelated, it forces us to see commonalities and differences that point to how a system works.

Let’s take a look again at the South Park clips I provided previously, along with the question I asked: “The first clip is from the 1999 movie, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. In it, Sheila Broflovski instigates war against Canada. The second is from ‘It’s a Jersey Thing’ (Season 14, Episode 9), where Kyle learns the family is originally from Newark, NJ [a tough and diverse community with a large immigrant and African-American population]. Why does South Park make Sheila the one who foments an offensive strike on Canada?”

Questions About Context

To begin answering why South Park makes Sheila the one who foments an offensive strike on Canada, let’s first consider context:

• What does it mean to place a heavily-accented Jewish woman from Newark, NJ in the middle of a mostly white, Christian town with modest sensibilities?

  

• Who would Sheila be in her original context? What adjustments did she have to make when she moved to Colorado?

• Why does Sheila’s son, Kyle, become horrified when he learns that he can be “taken out of New Jersey, but the New Jersey can’t be taken out of him,” as the colloquialism goes?

And Now Let’s Try Some Juxtapositions:

• Compare Sheila’s dress and hairstyle to the other South Park moms. What can this tell us about the role she plays in the town and the series?
• Compare Kyle’s look with the snow hat and without it. What can this tell us about his role in the town and in the series?

Connecting South Park to The Origins of Totalitarianism

Now, let’s connect our observations about context and juxtaposition to Hannah Arendt’s theories about antisemitism in Origins. Arendt focuses heavily on how systems produce outcomes. While today we often ask questions about cause, effect, and intent in cases of antisemitism, Arendt doesn’t examine and evaluate individual acts as antisemitic or not, as a US criminal court might approach a case. Instead, she examines how systems of thought and action create and use antisemitism for political purposes.

• How do context and juxtaposition illustrate the system Sheila left, as well as the system she entered, when she moved from New Jersey to Colorado?
• What does context and juxtaposition tell you about how the South Park writers are positioning Sheila and her family in the series? What role do Jews and antisemitism play?
• Why is Sheila the character who incites war against Canada?

A Deeper Dive ...

In my May 6, 2025 post on Arendt and Holocaust education, I suggested that Arendt would be skeptical of combatting hate with education because she saw hate as a function of conformist behavior and lack of thought — not ignorance.

• How might this Arendtian position apply—or not—to the fictional town of South Park?
• Are the characters acting from ignorance, or are they mimicking what’s expected in their community without questioning it?

For Next Time …

In my next piece, I’ll go over your comments and broaden the South Park conversation to include how Arendt examines Jewish choices in the face of developing antisemitism and changing political systems.