Recently,
an eminent professor at my university cracked a joke on twitter that implied
that women at an infectious disease conference were busy posing for photographs
while the men were in the trenches fighting everybody’s friendly neighbourhood
infectious disease- the coronavirus. The tweet quickly became viral and enraged
a lot of people at the university. They complained to the appropriate persons
and the professor shortly tweeted an apology, saying it was a joke and all in
good fun. This got me thinking: when does a joke stop being something to get a
few laughs and start becoming malicious? What implications does this have on
the general application of humour? As someone
who regularly shoots his mouth (I’ve always maintained that I spew more
feculent matter from my top end than my bottom- pardon my French), I’ve had to
deal with the consequences of a joke gone wrong multiple times. However, I have
never really given much thought as to why this happens until today. This article
is for me as much as it is for the reader and will hopefully give me the
clarity I need to manoeuvre through my non-existent stand up comedy career.
Historically,
those perceived as weak have been ridiculed. At a community level, select
groups that lack the ability to retort are easy targets due to a socially
untenable position in society. Often the ridiculing party truly believes their
objects of derision are inferior. Examples include Jews in the holocaust,
blacks throughout much of America’s history and the female sex since time
immemorial. On an individual level, people who lack the ‘gift of the gab’ and
do not conform to society’s perception of what is normal make the easiest targets.
However,
are those making fun of others always malicious? Aren't most jokes targeting a group done in humorous vein and not because people are closet KKK? If you're a Pakistani, Memons and Pathans are regular fodder. For Americans, many a snide comment will be passed about Asian drivers, the Village, WASPs, ghettos and everybody 'Boooorn in East LA!' We expect people to have a certain level of thick skin. Standup comics thrive on it. Just because it is accepted, does that make it morally correct? On the other hand, when it comes to our daily dealings with people, we all agree that making fun of anyone is wrong, malicious or not. Isn't this a contradiction in our moral code?
It is important to remember that a) the reason
cracking jokes at someone else’s expense is wrong because they may be hurt by
it and b) they may not necessarily be empowered enough to voice their
displeasure at being made the object of someone’s joke, no matter how
light-hearted it may be. Most people know how to laugh at themselves and will
enjoy a good old ribbing. However, the key word here is ‘most’. If even one
person feels slighted by a joke cracked, should it have left the speaker’s
mouth in the first place? Collateral damage sometimes cannot be avoided. This isn't one of those times.
Today, women empowerment is perhaps the strongest it has ever been in recorded history. Israel is a very powerful nation. Police brutality against blacks in the US has created an uproar and has fuelled #BlackLivesMatter. In the current zeitgeist, it is impossible to crack Jewish Mother/Light bulb jokes, tell a woman to make her man a sandwich and one needs to get a license to use the N word if non-black. Yet, such things were considered a normal part of comic nomenclature in recent history. Yet I am sure women, Jews and blacks were just as offended back then as they are today. They just did not have the lobby back then to remind the world that ridiculing them was morally reprehensible. The Republicans in the US, although in power politically, do not dominate the entertainment industry and therefore have no leverage there. In a way, they could be considered a minority and hence a 'weak' group in Hollywood. The Mullahs in Pakistan (a group particularly close to my heart), while very powerful among the masses, do not have the same traction in the upper middle class and are therefore a 'weak' group here. Does that therefore give the circles where they are 'weak' the license to make them the ‘Whipping-boys-of-the-day’? I am in no way comparing the struggles of women, Jews, blacks and other objectively marginalized groups with the ridicule Mullahs and Republicans face for their often ludicrous policies. The common pattern in humour I am alluding to related to all these groups is that they are made fun of where they are considered 'weak', where they have no voice and where they cannot respond on an equal footing. That is a cowardly move and often counterproductive (I am SPECIFICALLY referring to jokes cracked at their expense. Criticism with intention to correct what is wrong is always a good thing. It is just important to remember that the line separating constructive criticism and satire can be seen from outer space.You may disagree with someone and what they do may be plain wrong, but ridiculing them will never change their minds. If anything it will push them further away. The human ego is a powerful entity).
So what does this imply for the comic industry in its various forms (certain TV shows, Fox News, stand up, Comedy Central roasts)? The stars of some of our favourite comedies have said their shows would not stand in today’s climate. ‘Friends’, a perennial favourite, has strong homophobic themes. ‘The Office’ is notoriously sexist. Keeping principles a) and b) from paragraph 4 in mind, the implications of what I am saying are huge. The death of most standup. The death of roasts. The death of many of our beloved TV shows. And perhaps most applicable to me, the death of the traditional Pakistani young male ‘session’.
Today, women empowerment is perhaps the strongest it has ever been in recorded history. Israel is a very powerful nation. Police brutality against blacks in the US has created an uproar and has fuelled #BlackLivesMatter. In the current zeitgeist, it is impossible to crack Jewish Mother/Light bulb jokes, tell a woman to make her man a sandwich and one needs to get a license to use the N word if non-black. Yet, such things were considered a normal part of comic nomenclature in recent history. Yet I am sure women, Jews and blacks were just as offended back then as they are today. They just did not have the lobby back then to remind the world that ridiculing them was morally reprehensible. The Republicans in the US, although in power politically, do not dominate the entertainment industry and therefore have no leverage there. In a way, they could be considered a minority and hence a 'weak' group in Hollywood. The Mullahs in Pakistan (a group particularly close to my heart), while very powerful among the masses, do not have the same traction in the upper middle class and are therefore a 'weak' group here. Does that therefore give the circles where they are 'weak' the license to make them the ‘Whipping-boys-of-the-day’? I am in no way comparing the struggles of women, Jews, blacks and other objectively marginalized groups with the ridicule Mullahs and Republicans face for their often ludicrous policies. The common pattern in humour I am alluding to related to all these groups is that they are made fun of where they are considered 'weak', where they have no voice and where they cannot respond on an equal footing. That is a cowardly move and often counterproductive (I am SPECIFICALLY referring to jokes cracked at their expense. Criticism with intention to correct what is wrong is always a good thing. It is just important to remember that the line separating constructive criticism and satire can be seen from outer space.You may disagree with someone and what they do may be plain wrong, but ridiculing them will never change their minds. If anything it will push them further away. The human ego is a powerful entity).
So what does this imply for the comic industry in its various forms (certain TV shows, Fox News, stand up, Comedy Central roasts)? The stars of some of our favourite comedies have said their shows would not stand in today’s climate. ‘Friends’, a perennial favourite, has strong homophobic themes. ‘The Office’ is notoriously sexist. Keeping principles a) and b) from paragraph 4 in mind, the implications of what I am saying are huge. The death of most standup. The death of roasts. The death of many of our beloved TV shows. And perhaps most applicable to me, the death of the traditional Pakistani young male ‘session’.
