Lecture 8 Flashcards
The problem
Humour –be it in the form of jokes, cartoons or comedy- in a diversity context can be a controversial and contentious issue when it includes ethnic, racial, religious or gender stereotypes.
Examples: Mohammed cartoons, Charlie Hebdo -> humour contentious and can be dangerous
Why and when is this the case?-> when contentious
What are the “sociological rules” of humour in a diversity context?-> implicit rules of society
Do we need to “mind our jokes” in a diversity context, or not?
I. Approaches to humour in a diversity context
The legal perspective: humour discussed in terms of (the limits of) freedom of speech-> limits to freedom of speech-> dominant tradition that there is no limit, but now recognize there is a limit: not to inflict harm (incitement to violence)-> offence principle: harm principle not enough, words can be offensive and inflict in that sense harm -> limiting freedom of speech when it is offensive: hate speech-> ambiguous in humour: is joke a special case?, courts have ruled that humour is more protected because realm of arts
The psychological perspective: humour discussed in terms of the function of humour for the individual psyche, and/or relations between individuals-> Freud-> mainstream perspective-> humour can relief tension-> in Freud relief of tension in saying things that are usually repressed
The artistic perspective: humour discussed in terms of its quality-> aesthetic perspective-> what makes a good/ bad joke-> no such thing as offensive joke-> offensive not so much of an issue
E.g. “There is no such thing as an inappropriate joke. There are only funny or not funny jokes. It’s all about having a good sense of humour. Or not having it.” (ascribed to Dutch comedian Youp van ‘t Hek) - The sociological perspective: humour discussed in terms of its social function
A sense of humour is not randomly distributed, but strongly related to educational status (distinction)-> higher educated appreciate a different type of joke than lower educated-> function of humour very traditionally in terms of social distinction: by having particular sense of humour we belong to a group that has that sense
Humour is socially contested: it can lead to discussion, heated debates, and even violence. The cause of this must go beyond “a sense of humour” (social relations)-> not just about sense of humour otherwise not
a heated debate-> humour is related to social relations between groups in society
II. The sociology of humour: the rules of the ‘ethnic joke’
Video: Russel Peters ‘Arab Men’ and Chris Rock ‘Black people vs. Niggaz’-> usually students don’t find them inappropriate and offensive-> social rules - The general rules of the joke:
Jokes should be signalled as jokes-> if not then things go wrong
Jokes should be responded to appropriately by the hearer-> laugh
The listener should speedily indicate that they have ‘got the joke’-> reaction should be timed otherwise wrong interaction
Jokers are not held responsible for the joke’s content-> ‘just a joke’, offensive not responsibility
Comedians in official theatre-> comedians, audience evening of good laugh-> so in the clip all rules met
Clips included stereotypes about Arab men and African American (even N word)-> why not inappropriate/ offensive-> belong to racial minority and allowed to make those jokes, inappropriate if white background made these jokes, matters who is in the audience, if only white that makes it uncomfortable-> part of the answer: why matters the background? two extra rules:
Sociological rules of the ethnic joke (D. Kuipers)
Groups with higher social status should not make jokes about groups with lower social status-> Controversiality is linked to social inequalities between group (economic, social, power)-> inequality element is crucial-> indicator of inequality-> if not then no inequality
The audience should trust the intentions of the joker (or comedian)-> trust person, know the person
III. The problem of political correctness
No jokes of groups of domination unless trust
Do we have to mind our jokes? Personal judgment no sociological
Addition to rule 1.: mind status inequalities
Rule 1 explains why ethnic jokes can be controversial and considered “offensive”;
The conclusion could be that ethnic jokes are only acceptable as self-mockery;
For the dominant group however, such jokes should –as a rule of thumb- remain taboo.
Critique: this becomes political correctness -> deny rule one but remain rule two
John Cleese: from artistic perspective-> humour should always be transgressive: address taboo-> break rule one
Halfway decent idea-> makes jokes about white people different countries but not coloured people-> hold back-> protected from uncomfortable emotion-> any kind of criticism where any group can be labelled cruel-> all human is critical
Slavoj Zizek: psychological perspective-> political correctness that even though respectful not respectful in terms that it doesn’t lead to contact between groups, creates distance-> with relief tension then creates contact and signalling need equality-> political correctness does nothing to change the difficult relationship
Create atmosphere in such a way that establishes proximity to interact-> self-dicipline which doesn’t allow to overcome racism-> cold respect
IV. The problem of irony
Addition to rule two: good intentions is what counts
In humour, ethnic stereotypes are often used in an ironic way: a “racist” joke is then not the expression of racism, but on the contrary a way to ridicule racism (or a racist);
As long as this is clear to the hearer, ethnic jokes are OK, even when they are expressed by a representative of the dominant group.
Ironic statement is saying the opposite of what we intent to say
Irony plays with the idea of intentions-
> need to understand the irony to understand statements
Ethnic stereotypes used in an ironic way-> not racism but ridicule racism, as long as its clear than ethnic jokes are okay even when they are represented by the dominant group - Criticism:
Howitt and Owusu: Archie Bunker-effect-> irony can be taken seriously-> archival type of a bigot making sexist, racist statements etc. program to criticise him-> but may work for one part of the audience (progressive) and other opposite effect on the others how identified with Archie-> enforces racial-ethnic images alive
Ambiguity of irony: Ali G. (S. B. Cohen) and Milo Yiannopoulos: ambiguous what the intentions are
Milo: world build by men-> rather Cancer than Feminism-> cultural appropriation-> is he playing a role or is it really him?
Ali G.: sexist statements (irony) ridicule sexism-> bit complicated/ ambiguous due to character of Ali B.-> not just sexism also discriminate minorities due to character-> rejection of sexism of minorities groups? Irony in disguise
Possibility of ‘hipster racism’: white upper class, progressive use racist joke because due to background not racist-> Camp: e.g. watching Song festival because its bad. Allows you to do two things at the same time, reject and embrace it at the same time-> hipster racism the same: not a racism so I can make racist joke -> you reject joke and like it, you more like it then reject it-> enjoyment over distancing-> Irony as an excuse to enjoy racist statement
Against Lena Dunham: hipster racism -> sarcasm as a cover for racism
Summary
Four perspectives on humour in a diversity context: legal, psychological, artistic and sociological
Two sociological rules of the ethnic joke (1) Groups with higher social status should not make jokes about groups with lower social status (2) The audience should trust the intentions of the joker (or comedian)
The problem(s) of political correctness: (1) artistic (John Cleese) and (2) psychological (Zizek)
The problem(s) of irony: (1) The Archie Bunker-effect, (2) ambiguity and (3) ”Hipster racism”
Article chapter lockyer and pickering:
Joke by Berlusconi:
comparing German politician with SS guard-> are times where humour is not only inappropriate but also disastrous for social identities and relations drawn from it-> Berlusconi defended himself: it was only a joke-> common notion that a joke is sui generis and not same as serious discourse
humour
Relationship comic discourse and humour, and humour and offensiveness
No one wants to be politically correct-> lack of humour assault self-esteem
Humour is anywhere and extends comedy -> beneficial to laugh about thinks (including ourselves) but other situations its inappropriate (overstepping the mark)
Humour makes mockery of seriousness-> however when comic assault on someone’s sense of themselves as individuals or sense of social and cultural identity of particular group or category has seriously damaging results and repercussions than must take serious
Ethics of humour and aesthetics of humour
-> concerns and difficulties-> some places censorship warranted but by governance its denial of free of speech
Ethics of humour: offence, taboo, counterproductive etc.
Britain: bill on incite racial and religious hatred-> freedom of speech, racial satire
Tension between freedom of speech and protection minorities, oppressed or persecuted groups -> also about natural disasters -> jokes can cost jobs, cause assault etc.
We are held accountable as much for what we say and do
Jokes have contexts (British imperialism etc.)
> draw on stereotypes -> who is comically treated by whom and with what consequences are crucial factors -> telling joke own experience with own culture and religion is different from another telling that same joke, then it becomes comic offensive
Jokes not automatically funny-> needs to be accepted as comic-> comic meaning dependent on setting and context, competence of its delivery, identity of the teller and recipients of the joke -> humour volatile substance
Same situation can be comic and tragic at same time-> depends on interpretative work: depends on glide of what’s happening, becomes complicated when stop to think about it or in retrospect (especially subtle, nuanced shadings of meaning and significance) Two sides of offensiveness in humour:
Jokes can be made about anything, right to offend is paramount-> no-limit cases in humour
Should draw ethical lines
Argument for paramount is makes us strong-> two points: (1) those who take offence are humourless can not make distinction make-believe and real thing (2) jettison the cargo of offence, you jettison the joke -> too simple interpretation-> then the book is anti-humour
Identifying line between offensiveness and humour -> this one is very fine-> one that we should draw
Ethical lines:
hard to draw because ‘we’ keeps changing-> in western societies want to be tolerant in heterogeneous and diverse society (multicultural)-> needs negotiation between ‘we’ in relation to sources of laughter and rationale of ethical values and principles -> ‘we’ need to laugh on wider basis without prejudice
Paradox: humour only possible with boundaries in place: agency of overcoming them and satisfaction is reason to why we laugh -> help see alternative ways or cause deeper prejudice -> ethics of humour intertwined with aesthetics why we need open lines of dialogue -> may recognize no singular or absolute evaluative template and we are just flawed
To explore open-minded but avowedly serious way the question of humour and offensiveness and how this relates to social divisions and structures of power in society
What is standard of racist humour:
laughing at comic representations of violence against certain ethnic groups, not necessarily relies on stereotypes -> violence perpetrated against victims who are identified by race of ethnicity -> relates to features and context of joke
Racist humour can be viewed in two ways: (1) pleasures of humour may not be harmful or (2) what is harmful may be pleasurable-> depends on context: social conventions operative in any social setting or circumstance-> relationship humour and social conventions
Racial ideology racial jokes not value free nor separable from consequence of racism-> effective propaganda for racial stereotypes -> power asymmetry between different social and cultural institutions-> social superiority and whiteness escapes attention or invisible in racist humour -> absence of repertoire of jokes that appreciate richness of cultural diversity
Humorous amusement and negative emotions can displace one another-> humorous message is able to make people more flexible mentally than an emotional message: ask questions, think critically and see new possibilities and open to change-> think rather than feel -> move to either benefit or harm -> can construct the Other but can also expose the delusions etc.
