University of Hertfordshire: The Simpsons and American Culture Wars

This essay, submitted to the University of Hertfordshire, analyzes whether The Simpsons has made a serious contribution to the culture wars in America, or if it is simply a comical reflection of these societal conflicts. The essay delves into the history of Fox, the television landscape, and the differing political viewpoints of the creators of The Simpsons and Rupert Murdoch to understand the external influences and limitations on the show's contribution. It assesses the roles of Bart Simpson and Sideshow Bob in representing the battle between highbrow and lowbrow culture, utilizing relevant episodes and sources to evaluate the extent of The Simpsons' impact. The essay explores the show's use of satire, parody, and its commentary on issues like political corruption and capitalism to determine if The Simpsons extends beyond mere comedy and actively participates in the ongoing culture wars.

With reference to Bart Simpson and Sideshow Bob,
has The Simpsons been simply a comical reflection
of the culture wars in America, or has it made a
serious contribution?
Submitted to the University of Hertfordshire in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the Degree of Bachelor of Art (Honours) Film and Television Production.

Abstract
This extended essay examines whether The Simpsons has made a serious
contribution to the deep-rooted and far-reaching culture wars in America; battles
between orthodox and progressive views and the country’s struggle with social
changes that began in the 1960s. By delving into the history of Fox, The
Simpsons and the television landscape in America, this essay considers the
external influences and limitations on The Simpsons’ contribution. To understand
how The Simpsons could be seen as more than simply a comical reflection of the
American culture wars, this account assesses the differing political and ideological
viewpoints of the creators of The Simpsons, Fox and Rupert Murdoch – left-wing
versus right-wing – whilst investigating the ongoing battle between highbrow
elitism and lowbrow mass culture, and how this is represented in The Simpsons’
characters Bart Simpson and Sideshow Bob. With added insight into pop and
alternative culture, this dissertation utilises available literature, journal and
newspaper articles, relevant episodes from the show and other salient sources, to
evaluate the extent of its contribution to the culture wars and discovers that The
Simpsons’ core purpose extends far beyond simple comedy.

With reference to Bart Simpson and Sideshow Bob, has The Simpsons been
simply a comical reflection of the culture wars in America, or has it made a
serious contribution?
Debates in America over politics, class, intellectualism, highbrow and lowbrow
culture are included in the umbrella term ‘culture wars’. This account will discuss
the role of The Simpsons (1989 – present, Fox, USA) in the culture wars: does
The Simpsons make a serious contribution to the debate and, indeed, threaten
core traditional American values, or is it merely a comical reflection? This will be
discussed with particular reference to how these questions are represented
through the show’s characters Bart Simpson and Sideshow Bob. This essay will
explain the culture wars in America to provide a context for the discussion. As The
Simpsons airs on the network channel Fox, it is important to have an
understanding of the history of Fox and its sphere of influence, the television
landscape in America, and the commercial television limitations and external
influences on The Simpsons. As the two sides in the culture wars are orthodox
versus progressive, an integral part of the discussion is a consideration of the
differing political and ideological viewpoints of Fox, Rupert Murdoch and the
creators of The Simpsons, and how the media is manipulated for the purposes of
each of these powers. This leads to investigating the battle of highbrow
Republicanism against lowbrow mass culture, which of these appears to be
winning the battle and how, primarily, the character Sideshow Bob fits into this.
This account also takes into consideration the character Bart Simpson and his
pop icon status, and the extent to which he and The Simpsons represent the
progressive side of the culture wars debate. Finally, this essay will look at a
philosophical perspective on The Simpsons, and the fact that the show is a multi-
billion dollar merchandising machine, before drawing a conclusion.
Turner (2005) referred to "The Golden Age" (p.39) of The Simpsons, specifically
designated Seasons 4 to 8 - “more than 44 hours of near-perfect satire” (p.40).
This essay will focus on seasons from The Golden Age, particularly episodes that
feature both Bart Simpson and Sideshow Bob: Season 5, Episode 2 ‘Cape Feare’
(1993), Season 6, Episode 5 ‘Sideshow Bob Roberts’ (1994), Season 7, Episode
1

9 ‘Sideshow Bob’s Last Gleaming’ (1995), and Season 8, Episode 16 ‘Brother
From Another Series’ (1997).
To answer the question posed, it is essential to consider the cultural and political
background of America, about which there have been continuous debates “over a
variety of social and political issues” (Henry, 2012, p.1). These debates, named
“culture wars” by Hunter (1991), analysed contending orthodox and progressive
ideas, providing a description of the Regan-Bush era – the society that The
Simpsons was born into. The Simpsons can be seen to embody progressive
politics “from a leftist political position” (Henry, 2012, p.7) through its use of
comedy, parody and satire to incorporate culture war issues, and provides within
itself an analysis of television and society. Hartman (2013) believes that the roots
of the culture wars lay in the 1960s, being the face of America’s struggle with
social changes, as the norms that presided over American life began to give way
to new ideas of what it meant to be an American. Hot-button social topics, such as
gun ownership, abortion, and religion (Gosse, 2003), became part of the large
social struggle as conservative America began to acknowledge fundamental
changes in American life, creating deep-rooted anger and insecurity.
Thompson (2010) believes the culture wars take place amongst “political
partisans and cultural elites” (p.2), and that those involved are not concerned with
what people think, but seek to frame how they think. Fiorina (2008) suggests that
elites direct the culture war debates and control media entities that convey
information to the masses using television. This involves the populace in culture
wars, whether they like it or not. This is very important, as The Simpsons airs on
Fox, part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which uses media outlets and
wealth to promote Murdoch’s “staunchly conservative” political instincts and
policies that benefit his company (Cassidy, 2006, p.70). Therefore, television and
the media are important to both The Simpsons and Fox, as it could be seen as
their platform for contributing to the culture wars and involving their audiences. It
is vital to understand the history of Fox in the network system and how The
Simpsons came to air to try to understand whether The Simpsons can truly
contribute to the culture wars.
2

In 1986, Fox Broadcasting Company was launched to challenge The Big Three
Networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) to become a fourth over-the-air network.
Although originally met with ridicule, during the mid-1980s Fox was able to start
competing due to “a variety of factors – including the success of cable and
satellite transition, the appearance of new broadcast networks, increased
ownership conglomeration, decreased regulation, and the emergence of new
technologies – combined to usher in a new era of industry competition, forcing
adjustments by the traditional broadcast companies” (Lotz, 2004, p.23). Fox
Broadcasting Company, backed by money and resources to keep programming
and talent, also programmed just under the amount of hours to be legally seen as
a network by the Federal Communications Commission. This allowed Fox to grow
and profit in ways that established networks were prohibited from doing
(Shawcross, 1997), which meant that it was able to compete better as the fourth
network compared to previous contenders. By the 1990s, Fox was profitable and
this was mostly down to the fact that, in 1990, Fox had made the top thirty in the
Nielson Ratings with The Simpsons (Thomas and Litman, 1991). By 1994, Fox
was able to take the rights to the National Football League from CBS, which
established them as the fourth major television network in America.
After the first season of The Simpsons, Zoglin (1990) argued that The Simpsons
should be credited with building the Fox Television network, and stated that it was
the “most telling sign of Fox’s success” (p.64); this assertion is supported by both
Henry (2012) and Turner (2005). Gray (2006) also writes that this gives The
Simpsons power over Fox to continue to contribute to the political and ideological
debates within American culture, and to air beyond the long period of time it
already has; “no other program is as important as [The Simpsons] in creating the
televisual space for the satire TV boom” (p.25).
However, whilst it can be argued that The Simpsons has gained power over Fox
because of the reasons outlined above, ultimately Fox Television has also gained
power, being an “exemplar of social and economic conservatism” (Henry, 2012,
p.21) as well as a ruthless corporation. Knox (2006) speaks of a “complex double-
codedness” (p.72) regarding The Simpsons, due to the fact that, whilst the show
has become a strong cultural force, Fox, in the wake of The Simpsons’ success,
3

has also become its own strong cultural force. The power that Fox possesses
creates an equilibrium of power between the company and the show, which could
suggest that The Simpsons simply cannot make a serious contribution to the
culture wars because Fox’s growth may potentially have an impact on the show’s
content.
Additionally, Pinsky (2011) agrees that there are limitations on The Simpsons’
participation in the American culture wars, as Fox is a commercial network that
relies on advertising and sponsorship deals. The Simpsons, on commercial
television, and in need of advertising dollars, meant that the Simpson family has
gradually become more middle-class to adapt to the licensing contracts with
“products associated with the middle-class and white-collar professionals (e.g.
technology and commerce, namely, Intel and Mastercard)” rather than companies
selling products that were “stereotypically associated with the working-class and
poor (e.g. fast food and candy, namely Burger King and Butterfinger)” (Henry,
2012, p.137). Consequently, because the creators of The Simpsons have been
required to appease advertisers’ needs, it could be argued that The Simpsons is
therefore more of a reflection of, rather than a contribution to, the culture wars.
This idea is supported by Neuhaus (2010), who discusses whether pop culture,
such as The Simpsons, can ever provide collective resistance to certain
viewpoints when they have to function in the interest of capitalist dominant
ideology by relying on commercial television with a mission to provide advertisers
with a market.
However, according to Alberti (2004), Bart and the rest of the Simpson family are,
and will always continue to be, working-class, which is clear from their economic
status and social behaviour. The show often exposes how capitalism and free-
market ideology of the upper-class, such as the Republican Sideshow Bob, badly
affect the average family. An example of this is seen in the episode ‘Sideshow
Bob Roberts’ (1994), where, as soon as Sideshow Bob takes power as
Springfield’s right-wing mayor, he condemns the Simpsons’ house to be
demolished so as to make way for a new commercial expressway. This could
imply that, with issues such as this in their storylines, the show is trying to
4

seriously contribute to the culture wares - specifically by raising awareness of
political corruption and capitalism.
When discussing the Fox Network, an outlet of News Corporation, it is important
to take note of owner Rupert Murdoch’s “right-wing political bias” (Shawcross,
1997, p.24). He expects this bias to be reflected by News Corporation outlets,
whilst backing conservative politicians who push free-market capitalism that will
benefit his company. Neil (in McKnight, 2003) stated that Murdoch wants his
companies, such as Fox Television, to stand for what he believes: “right-wing
Republicanism from America… a radical-right dose of free market economics, the
social agenda of the Christian Moral Majority, and hardline conservative views on
subjects” (p.349). Alongside Murdoch, is Roger Ailes, a key player at Fox, and
former Republican strategist who helped to sell Nixon (1968), Reagan (1984) and
Bush (1988), who boasts of his disdain for the Left and liberals (Jones, 2010).
Murdoch and Ailes are pro-Republican and willing to manipulate the media to
promote their side of the culture wars. They do this by using notoriously right-wing
media personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh on Fox, who has openly backed the
presidents mentioned above, with Reagan even writing him a personal letter to
thank him for all he is doing “to promote Republican and conservative principles”
(Suddath, 2009).
The Simpsons acknowledges this and satirises it within the episode ‘Sideshow
Bob Roberts’ (1994), in which the show’s writers parody Rush Limbaugh with the
character Birch Barlow, a right-wing radio and television character who helps
Sideshow Bob to manipulate the media in order to escape prison and run for local
office. When Birch Barlow talks about Bob to his audience, he says, “My friends,
isn’t this just typical? Another intelligent conservative here, railroaded by our
liberal justice system”; this is in spite of the fact that Bob is a convicted criminal.
The Simpsons, with its use of satire, tries to seriously contribute to the culture
wars by attempting to expose the true nature of Fox and the right-wing agenda of
those who work within it. However, it could be argued that, when on a network
that is run by people with such strongly differing views, each with their own
agendas, The Simpsons must simply remain a comical reflection, as they cannot
anger those who are really in charge of their network.
5

In 2007, Matt Groening (creator of The Simpsons and a self-proclaimed liberal)
stated that he and his writers “love biting the hand that feeds [them and they] love
attacking Fox”. This suggests that he believes that The Simpsons could be seen
as a threat to the right-wing media empire of Fox. With the differing political
alliances between Fox and the creators of The Simpsons, there is a need to delve
further into the role of politics. Bitzer (2008) states that Groening is a committed
democrat and that many of the writers and producers of The Simpsons are known
to be left-leaning. Turner (2005) believes that The Simpsons favours the Left, and
is politically liberal because of its “satirical values: a deep distrust of authority and
a permanent commitment to subverting it” (p.23). The suggested leftist agenda of
The Simpsons is supported by Sedgwick (2014), who feels the show exposes
potential dangers of capitalist and right-wing ideologies.
Turner (2005) believes that The Simpsons’ progressive ideas were deemed a
threat by the Republican Party, as, in 1992, President Bush said in a speech, “We
need a nation closer to The Waltons than The Simpsons” (p.225), First Lady
Barbara Bush called the show “dumb” (p.226) and Bush’s former Drug Czar
William Bennett is said to have asked recovering drug addicts: “You guys aren’t
watching The Simpsons are you?” (p.226). Alters (2003) also discusses how
Republicans have lamented that The Simpsons is a representative image of
traditional American family values, believing that it “provides inappropriate role-
models for well-behaved children” (p.167). This is represented in The Simpsons
with the fact that, no matter how much the Republican Sideshow Bob wants to
quash the liberal Bart Simpson, Bart always outwits Bob’s outdated and orthodox
ideas. An example of this is in the episode ‘Sideshow Bob Roberts’ (1994): when
Bart learns of how Bob has rigged the election, he uses Bob’s vanity about his
schemes to put his outdated ideas against him in order to trick him into explaining
how he cheated the system and gets him sent back to prison.
The Simpsons continuing to be seen as a threat to Republicans and right-wing
ideologies suggests the show is making a serious contribution to the culture wars.
This is supported by Turner (2005), who discusses how The Simpsons has
spawned other similarly satiric and anti-authoritarian shows, such as South Park
and Family Guy, suggesting that The Simpsons is more than just a comical
6

reflection of the culture wars – The Simpsons instead initiated a progressive
movement that challenges the orthodox system.
Matheson (2013) argues that The Simpsons wants to seriously participate in the
culture wars with an agenda of pushing left-wing values, but cannot be a threat
because of how their humour works. Matheson believes The Simpsons puts its
ideas forward only “to undercut them” through “hyper-ironism” (p.118); political
philosophy is sacrificed for the sake of a joke. Furthermore, Cantor (1999) writes
that The Simpsons is politically neutral because the writers will “forego anything
for humor”, and “have been generally even-handed over the years in making fun
of both parties” (p.745). Studies conducted by Woodcock (2008) and by White
and Holman (2011) both conclude that The Simpsons is non-partisan. Hunter
(1991) believes that with the hot-button defining issues in American society, there
must be two defining polarities, orthodox and progressive, and a society that
divides along those lines, thus creating two warring groups. Therefore, to
contribute to culture war debates, you have to hold a clearly-defined ideological
worldview, which The Simpsons cannot do if they are seen as not holding a true
liberal agenda or are non-partisan.
Sedgwick (2014) discusses how Sideshow Bob is highbrow because he loves
classical music, old books and other aspects of the pre-pop period; as well as this,
his being voiced by Kelsey Grammar of the popular television show Frasier, who
is notably a Republican, adds to the effect of his character’s his upper-class
elitism. Further parallels have been drawn between Sideshow Bob and Frasier
Crane within the episode ‘Brother From Another Series’ (1997), where David
Hyde Pierce, the actor who plays Frasier’s brother Niles Crane in Frasier, appears
as Bob’s brother Cecil in The Simpsons. Cecil also possesses the same snobbery
and highbrow elitism that Niles does in Frasier, and even mentions his much-
loathed wife “Maris”, a reference with which lovers of both The Simpsons and
Frasier will no doubt connect. Emphasis of Sideshow Bob’s highbrow culture is
seen in the episode ‘Sideshow Bob’s Last Gleaming’ (1995), where the prisoner
number on his uniform is ‘24601’ - the same as Jean Valjean’s in Les Misérables.
The Simpsons tie in these classical allusions neatly, which are there for the astute
observer to decipher, whether consciously or subconsciously. This illustrates the
7

importance of Sideshow Bob’s character when discussing the intellectual elite and
mass culture.
Arnold (2004) suggests The Simpsons portrays the worst fears for mass culture
theorists and intellectuals. He states that people with “more refined tastes and
sensibilities…must assume stewardship of culture before it’s lost” (p.2), and that
this is the case for Sideshow Bob’s characteristics, as discussed previously.
Arnold also sees Bart as “a representative of mass cultural interests…a lethal
threat of mass culture hegemony” (p.18), something that the elite, like Sideshow
Bob, see as wrong with society. This is seen in the episode ‘Sideshow Bob’s Last
Gleaming’ (1995), where Bob becomes obsessed by the detrimental effect that
television – the tool for creating mass culture and lowbrow people such as Bart –
has on society. This leads him to steal a nuclear bomb, and he threatens to
detonate it unless television is abolished in Springfield. Moreover, Arnold
discusses how Bob’s persistent attempts to kill Bart are, in Bob’s eyes, “an attack
on and defense against the gradual evacuation of high cultural tastes and values”
(p.13), and represents the battle between high culture and low culture; between
the intellectual elite and the masses. Turner (2005) states that Bart is “born of
mass culture” (p.137), and agrees with Arnold that Sideshow Bob’s hatred for Bart
Simpson is “the war between highbrow and lowbrow culture” (p.139). He also
goes further in suggesting that Bob is representative of the critics of The
Simpsons and mass culture. Skoble (2013), believes that The Simpsons often
champions the average person of lowbrow culture, like Bart and the Simpson
family, by illustrating that schemes by elite individuals, such as Sideshow Bob,
“tend to be ill-conceived, or are power-grabbing schemes masquerading as the
common good” (p.33).
The way The Simpsons portrays Bob in such a negative light compared to Bart,
who is a representative of the show’s audience and the mass culture, suggests
that the show’s writers are trying to demonstrate to the audience that they can win
out against those with orthodox and outdated views. Bart, and his defeats of
Sideshow Bob’s murderous efforts, is The Simpsons’ way of signalling to
audiences that lowbrow, mass culture is winning against highbrow culture. This
can be seen in the episode ‘Cape Feare’ (1993), in which Sideshow Bob’s
8

highbrow culture is used against him by Bart, who, as a last request before his
slaying, asks Bob to sing the entire score of H.M.S Pinafore. Bob is unable to
resist this chance to educate and show off his intellectualism to the lowbrow Bart.
This stalls Bob’s plan of killing Bart, until, at last, the boat crashes ashore and Bob
is apprehended by Springfield’s policemen, ensuring Bart’s safety. Thus, it could
be argued that The Simpsons is making a serious contribution to the culture wars,
as the show leads its audience to believe that it is acceptable to hold progressive
views, even when highbrow culture would suggest otherwise.
It could be argued that The Simpsons is a comical reflection of lowbrow and
highbrow culture battling each other in the way discussed above because, like
Sideshow Bob, who is Yale-educated, most of the writers of The Simpsons “are
Harvard graduates as well as many other Ivy Leaguers” (Sterngold, 1997).
Between Seasons 2 and 8, no less than 80% of the staff working on The
Simpsons were Harvard graduates (Kendall, 2011), suggesting there was a
highbrow elitism behind the scenes of the show, possibly further indicating that
their personal viewpoints were closer to those of Sideshow Bob than Bart and the
Simpson family. Can they truly be in the position to champion the progressive
views as represented by Bart, and therefore seriously contribute to the culture
wars?
Furthermore, Rushkoff (2004) believes that Bart Simpson embodies “youth
culture” (p.294); culturally alienated and part of Generation X, his exploits reveal
the complexity of current pop media. Rushkoff speaks of how he believes the
creators of The Simpsons make Bart self-reflexive, fully aware and understanding
within his mass culture world, where he is allowed to “interact with it, satirize it or
become it” (p.295). An example of this is in the episode ‘Cape Feare’ (1993),
where Bart is clearly aware of his pop culture status when he says, “But who’d
wanna hurt me? I’m this century’s Dennis the Menace.” This alludes to the notion
that The Simpsons can encourage its audience to question the ways institutional
forces are presented through the media and to “urge us to see the fickle nature of
our own responses” (p.300). Rushkoff suggests that the writers of The Simpsons
use television and mass culture through Bart, in the form of a Trojan Horse, so as
9

to contribute to the culture wars by serving him up as a lesson and thus raising
awareness of the prevalence of conservatism in American society.
Conard (2013) refers to Bart’s lineage to Nietzsche: he believes that Bart, the
“free spirit, the person who rejects traditional virtues” (p.60), and The Simpsons
can provide a commentary on contemporary society and contribute to the culture
wars due to being the Nietzschen ideal. Holt (2013) discusses hypocrisy as a
philosophical and moral viewpoint. He uses The Simpsons to illustrate important
features of hypocrisy, and one definition Holt gives is: “one acts deliberately in
violations of espoused principles” (p.184). He believes this has been illustrated in
the town of Springfield, by the Simpson family, and in particular Bart, because
whilst he tries to be “nihilistic” and “undisciplined” (Turner, 2005, p.134), he finds
most of his life’s meanings in pop culture whilst being a pop icon himself. This
suggests that The Simpsons’ lack of defined ideology through Bart means that
they cannot truly contribute their side to the culture wars. This is supported by
Cantor (1999), who argues that Bart Simpson’s “rebelliousness conforms to a
venerable American archetype” (p.738), and that he is a traditional American icon
of the like of Tom Sawyer. He writes that America was “founded on disrespect for
authority and an act of rebellion” (p.738), and that Bart behaves in more of a
traditional way than people may assume, and is therefore closer to conservative
American mythology – this, in turn, suggests The Simpsons is more of a comical
reflection of the culture wars.
Furthermore, Alberti (2004) discusses punk and progressive movements against
the version of progress put forward by American capitalism during The Golden
Age of The Simpsons, with Bart Simpson being seen as a punk icon during these
movements. Turner (2005) agrees with this, speaking of the new types of art and
media being created at the time, making specific references to Bart Simpson and
Kurt Cobain in particular. He discusses Nirvana and their album, Nevermind,
which “rocketed to the top of the charts” (p.146), where nihilistic views crossed
into the mainstream. Barrett (2014) also speaks of how, as Nirvana grew in
popularity, Kurt Cobain expressed hope that his generation could reject the
"Reaganite bullshit" they had to grow up with, making clear that he was actively
involved in the culture wars on the progressive side. The Simpsons was born in
10

the Reagan era, and Gray (2006) believes there is a connection between the
show and Nirvana, as they both took conservative society by surprise with how
their liberal views pierced through to the mainstream of American society.
Nevertheless, as Nirvana ultimately reached Number 1 on the Billboard Charts
with Nevermind, which was also certified triple platinum (Rosen, 1992), it could be
argued that Nirvana were no longer in a position to fully contribute to the culture
wars because they became part of the capitalist money-making system they were
supposedly fighting against. If The Simpsons has links to Nirvana, as Gray says,
then it, in the same way, could also be seen as unable to seriously contribute to
the culture wars.
When examining the culture wars, philosophical perspectives broaden the
discussion. Wallace (2013) takes a Marxist perspective as to whether The
Simpsons is a comical reflection of the culture wars or whether it actively
contributes to them. He believes it provides thought-provoking laughter and that it
“distances us momentarily from the prevailing ideology of capitalist America”
(p.237), but believes that, from a Marxist viewpoint, it is the worst type of
bourgeois satire, coaxing audiences away from reflecting on the current system
and encourages them to believe that, even though it is flawed, it is the best option.
Wallace writes that The Simpsons is contrary to the world the creators and writers
envisioned, because ultimately it “promotes the interests of the class that
maintains economic power over the masses” (p.251) by selling them all forms of
merchandise. As Henry (2012) states, “The Simpsons has become a monumental
merchandising entity” (p.1), whose worldwide franchise is worth an estimated $5
billion (Grala, 2007) – meaning they are part of the media-merchandising machine
that they are supposedly attacking. Thus, The Simpsons could be seen as limited
in its contribution to the culture wars.
In conclusion, there is no doubting that The Simpsons is more than just a mere
cartoon, as some might suggest. Matt Groening’s motto has repeatedly been to
“entertain and subvert” (Turner, 2005, p.57), to make people laugh, but also to
think and question the established order. If The Simpsons was simply a comical
reflection of the culture wars, it would be unlikely that they would have become
the “longest-running prime-time United States television series” (Friedlander,
11

2009), or would have won the Peabody Award in 1996 for what they on their
website describe as “biting satire as social commentary, [still delivering] humor
and insight, on many levels, for audiences of all ages”.
Nevertheless, the extent to which The Simpsons can be seen as seriously
contributing to the culture wars is limited. The culture wars have been very deep-
rooted and far-reaching debates in American society, with May (2011) explaining
how the culture wars have not been just marginal distractions from the main
issues of the day, but profound struggles over the very foundations of what it
means to be American. In his 1992 Republican National Convention speech, Pat
Buchanan claimed that the culture wars were as critical to American society as
the Cold War was (Zurcher, 2014).
Taking into account evidence in this essay, The Simpsons cannot be seen as
having made a serious contribution to the culture wars, considering the breadth
and depth of the debate, and the ways in which the show itself and other factors
may have undermined their position. However, The Simpsons has endeavoured
to contribute to the debate in the best way it can, in that its core purpose extends
far beyond simple comedy.
12

Bibliography
Alberti, J., ed., 2004. Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of
Oppositional Culture. Michigan: Wayne State University.
Alters, D. F., 2003. “We Hardly Watch That Crude Show: Class and taste in The
Simpsons. In: C. A. Stabile and M. Harrison, eds. 2003. Prime Time Animation:
Television Animation and American Culture. New York: Routledge. Ch.9.
Arnold, D. L. G., 2004. “Use a Pen, Sideshow Bob”: The Simpsons and the Threat
of High Culture. In: J. Alberti, ed. 2004. Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and
the Possibility of Oppositional Culture. Michigan: Wayne State University. pp.1-28.
Barrett, D., 2014. King of the Outcast Teens: Kurt Cobain and the Politics of
Nirvana. [online] Available at: < http://portside.org/2014-01-07/king-outcast-teens-
kurt-cobain-and-politics-nirvana> [Accessed 9 February 2015].
Bitzer, M. J., 2008. Political Culture and Public Opinion: The American Dream on
Springfield’s Evergreen Terrace. In: J. Foy, ed. 2008. Homer Simpson Goes To
Washington: American Politics Through Popular Culture. Kentucky: The University
Press of Kentucky. Ch.3.
Cantor, P. A., 1999. The Simpsons: Atomistic Politics and the Nuclear Family.
Political Theory, 27(6), pp.734-749.
Cassidy, J., 2006. Murdoch’s Game. New Yorker, 6 Oct. p.68-85.
Conard, M. T., 2013. Thus Spake Bart: On Nietzsche and the Virtues of Being
Bad. In: W. Irwin, M. T. Conard and A. J. Skoble, eds. 2013. The Simpsons and
Philosophy: The D’oh! Of Homer. Illinois: Carus Publishing Company. Ch.5.
Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J. and Pope, J. C., 2008. Culture War? The Myth of a
Polarized America. 3rd ed. New York: Longman.
13

Friedlander, N., 2009. The Simpsons to become longest-running US TV series.
[online] Available at: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4860381/The-
Simpsons-to-become-longest-running-US-TV-series.html> [Accessed 5 March
2015].
Gosse, V. and Moser, R. eds., 2003. The World the 60s Made. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Grala, A. , 2007. A Salute to The Simpsons. License! Global, [online] Available at:
<http://www.licensemag.com/license-global/salute-simpsons> [Accessed 5
December 2014].
Gray, J., 2006. Watching with The Simpsons: Television, parody, and
intertextuality. Oxon: Routledge.
Groening, M., 2007. Interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Interviewed
by Jon Stewart [television] Comedy Central, 18 July 2007.
Hartman, A., 2013. An Emerging Historiography of the Culture Wars. [online]
Available at: <http://s-usih.org/2013/01/an-emerging-historiography-of-the-culture-
wars.html> [Accessed 4 February 2015].
Henry, M. A., 2012. The Simpsons, Satire and American Culture. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Holt, J., 2013. Springfield Hypocrisy. In: W. Irwin, M. T. Conard and A. J. Skoble,
eds. 2013. The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh! Of Homer. Illinois: Carus
Publishing Company. Ch.12.
Hunter, J. D., 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York:
Basic.
Jones, J. P., 2010. Entertaining Politics: Satiric Television and Political
Engagement. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14

Kendall, D., 2011. Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty
in America. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Knox, S., 2006. Reading the Ungraspable Double-Codedness of The Simpsons.
Journal of Popular Film and Television, 34(2), pp.72-81.
Lotz, A. D., 2004. Textual (Im)Possibilities in the U.S. Post-Network Era:
Negotiating Production and Promotion Processes on Lifetime’s Any Day Now.
Critical Studies in Media Communication, [online] Available at:
<http://sites.lsa.umich.edu/lotz/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2014/02/CSMC-
ADN.pdf> [Accessed 4 March 2015].
Matheson, C., 2013. The Simpsons, Hyper-Irony, and the Meaning of Life. In: W.
Irwin, M. T. Conard and A. J. Skoble, eds. 2013. The Simpsons and Philosophy:
The D’oh! Of Homer. Illinois: Carus Publishing Company. Ch.8.
May, E. T., 2011. America and the Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation.
New York: Basic Books.
McKnight, D., 2003. “A World Hungry For A New Philosophy”: Rupert Murdoch
and the Rise of Neo-liberalism. Journalism Studies, 4(3), pp.347-58.
Neuhaus, J., 2010. Marge Simpson, Blue-Haired Housewife: Defining Domesticity
on The Simpsons. Journal of Popular Culture, 43(4), pp.761-81.
Peabody Awards, 1996. The Simpsons (Fox) – Winner 1996. [online] Available at:
<http://www.peabodyawards.com/award-profile/the-simpsons> [Accessed 21
January 2015].
Pinsky, M. I., 2011. The Gospel According to the Simpsons: Bigger and Possibly
Even Better!. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
15

Rosen, C., 1992. Nirvana Achieves Chart Perfection!. [online] Available at:
<http://www.library.nhs.uk/guidelinesFinder> [Accessed 22 December 2014].
Rushkoff, D., 2004. Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence. In: J. Alberti, ed. 2004.
Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture.
Michigan: Wayne State University. pp.292-301.
Sedgwick, J., 2014. We Put the Spring in Springfield: Chronicling the Golden Era
of ‘The Simpsons’. [e-book] Brooklyn: Thought Catalog. Available at: Google
Books <http://booksgoogle.com> [Accessed 9 December 2014].
Shawcross, W., 1997. Murdoch: The Making of a Media Empire. 2nd ed. New
York: Touchstone.
Skoble, A. J., 2013. Lisa and American Anti-intellectualism. In: W. Irwin, M. T.
Conard and A. J. Skoble, eds. 2013. The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh! Of
Homer. Illinois: Carus Publishing Company. Ch.2.
Sterngold, J., 1997. As Writers and Producers, Young Alumni Find They Can
Make a Lot of Money Fast. New York Times, 26 Aug. p.11.
Suddath, C., 2009. Conservative Radio Host Rush Limbaugh. [online] Available
at: <http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882947,00.html>
[Accessed 7 January 2015].
Thomas, L. and Litman, B. R., 1991. Fox broadcasting company, why now? An
economic study of the rise of the fourth broadcast “network”. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35(2), pp.139-157.
Thompson, I. T., 2010. Culture Wars and Enduring American Dilemmas. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Turner, C., 2005. Planet Simpson. London: Ebury Press.
16

Wallace, J. M., 2013. A (Karl, not Groucho) Marxist in Springfield. In: W. Irwin, M.
T. Conard and A. J. Skoble, eds. 2013. The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh!
Of Homer. Illinois: Carus Publishing Company. Ch.16.
White, K. M. and Holman, M., 2011. Pop Culture, Politics, and America’s Favorite
Animated Family: Partisan Bias in The Simpsons. Studies in Popular Culture,
34(1), pp.87-107.
Woodcock, P., 2008. Gender, Politicians and Public Health: Using The Simpsons
to Teach Politics. European Political Science, 7(2), pp.153-164.
Zoglin, R., 1990. The Fox Trots Faster. Time, 27 Aug. p.64-67.
Zurcher, A., 2014. Did liberalism win the US culture war?. [online] Available at:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-29697169> [Accessed 19
January 2015].
17

Filmography
‘Brother From Another Series’ (1997) The Simpsons. Season 8, Episode 16. Fox,
23 February.
‘Cape Feare’ (1993) The Simpsons. Season 5, Episode 2. Fox, 7 October.
‘Sideshow Bob’s Last Gleaming’ (1995) The Simpsons. Season 7, Episode 9.
Fox, 26 November.
‘Sideshow Bob Roberts’ (1994) The Simpsons. Season 6, Episode 5. Fox, 9
October.
18