![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Notes on humour
Feb. 15th, 2014 03:47 pmIn response to a conversation on whether a marketing copy using a racial joke ('You Ling We Bling') was racist.
--
Person:
And what do you make of it after reading the explanation: "You ling we bling" is the slogan used to promote the home delivery service of which misschu is famous for. Like many people who understand and respect the role of humour in society misschu has decided to use the awful slurs she grew up with and still feels lies just beneath the surface of many interactions with White Australia and turn it into comedic commentary. We kindly request that you see this use of language by the misschu brand as a humorous toying with, not a handing over of power to, those who wish to mock Asian accents.
Me:
The only race jokes I found funny (though it could be I'm Malaysian) are those that talk about being Bumiputra. There's a reason it is funny -- the laughter at the unjust nature of the Bumiputra favouring policies is cathartic, and the people articulating it are from a position of privilege themselves (most times Bumis).
Humour is a cathartic process that's much more difficult to analyse than tragedy, but it does address pain.
The image is funny because it deals with pain 'underlying tensions in White Australia'. The question is, what is the nature of the catharsis that creates the humour?
If the catharsis is in White Australia reasserting dominance because of the pain from suppressing the slur, it is racist. If the catharsis is from its migrant community expressing frustrations with facing underlying racial tension, it is not.
Person:
so you're saying things can be racist or not depending on who's saying it?
Person:
I was thinking about a similar topic with regards to 'Bobo-gate'. I'm gonna paste this note I wrote here... Bobo Cha-Cha
February 7, 2014 at 11:54am
Thinking about the Lord Bobo fracas. The main responses so far include:
an appeal to constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression (if you feel offended, too bad, it's my right)
an appeal to psychological reality (i personally didn't feel offended, so what's the problem?)
an appeal to a greater good (this is a small thing, why aren't we focusing on bigger problems instead?)
I'm going to try and break them down.
The first argument rests on calls to censor Lord Bobo. As far as I can observe, the censorship calls consist of Pang tweeting that LB should apologise. That's a weak threat to LB's freedom of expression. The analogue suggested by one article likened Pang's tweet to the Malaysian Royal Police shutting down a sexual freedom event. Hardly the same thing, in degree or in kind.
The second argument relies on a peculiarly constructivist ontology: Things exist only if my mind perceives them to exist. If sexism was not perceived in the article, then it doesn't exist. Even if it does exist, its real effects are questionable. One of the issues with constructivism here is that it's not very useful in bridging the epistemic gap between the sexist-feelers and the un-feelers.
The third argument is a crude form of utilitarianism. Resources should be spent on the actions that produce the greatest amount of social good (or maybe happiness, as classic utilitarianism has it). Actions that distract from the mission of resource allocation are necessarily undesirable. Such as debating over this article. It's a storm in a teacup, utilitarians say.
So those are the current arguments. One argument that hasn't been used is discourse analysis. I suspect this is a more productive route.
Me:
We can also encounter objects that exist outside of their essences. You have probably encountered the argument that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. The flaw of that thought imo is that unlike golf clubs, kitchen knives or frozen turkeys, guns are created with the explicit purpose, or essence, of killing a human being. The same applies to a samurai sword -- it is possible to use a sword like a decoration in the home, but the essence of a sword is in killing.
People also have existence, and they have essence, but that is a far more complex phenomena.
I recently made two jokes on my FB status that only two of my friends understood. I made another joke along a similar vein -- 'if a joke is made and nobody laughs, is it a joke?'. This is a variation of the 'tree falls no one hears' analogy -- the question of tying the existence of something to its essence. A sound must be heard, a joke must be funny. Scientists argue however that because a sound has properties of a sound (it is a wave) the answer to the sound and tree falling analogy is that it is undisputably yes. Therefore, a joke that no one laughs at is still a joke, though one that fails to fulfill its essence.
So the placard bears a joke.
Does the joke exist? Yes.
Does the joke fulfill its essence? Yes. It is funny. I thought it was funny. So at least one person has laughed.
Is the joke ethical? Ah, then we encounter more questions.
The aesthetic philosophy of humour is probably extremely overlooked. It probably comes from an Aristotleian bias against comedy -- that tragedy is what makes us more moral, through catharsis, but comedy is unethical and useless. In much of human history, the rewarded great works of art have a tragic nature. And yet comedy persists as a huge part of human art and entertainment, and when ethical objections are made concerning comedy, comedians resort to arguments that call upon the nature of comedy's existence (It's just a joke).
The closest thing I have seen to comedy analysed is the statement by Vorhaus which says 'comedy is truth and pain'. There has been several twists on this, but I think the original statement is still the best in analysing it -- the best comedy are all funny because of its slightly malicious nature in acknowledging truths about human life. In a sense, while Aristotle overlooked it, catharsis also happens in comedy. In a cruel joke, there is catharsis. In a racist joke, there is catharsis.
In Lord Bobo's joke, there is catharsis -- the breaking of social taboos by articulating sex in the open about a truth submerged in human discourse, that women give oral sex to pleasure their male partners. The catharsis however reveals a truth about patriarchal structure in society, that women are understood as obligated to give oral sex to pleasure their partners.
In the joke You Ling We Bling joke there is catharsis. It articulates a truth about Australia that reveals its submerged racism. But whose catharsis is it? Is it the catharsis of the racist who has broken taboo and thus articulate her racism? Or is it the catharsis of the immigrant who can acknowledge the racism? We know that Australia wants to portray the image of multi cultural acceptance while dealing with an undercurrent of xenophobia.
The ethics of a joke, as the ethics of a number of things, is more difficult. Social discourse analysis frequently point out that jokes often articulate and also reinforce structures of social prejudice. Comedians resent this control because it hinders their freedom to articulate these submerged prejudices upon which much humour is drawn from. Both of them are dealing with the ethical question based on the end in view -- how a moral stance creates consequences of further harm or mitigation of harm.
I approached the ethics question slightly differently -- that the ethics lies in the nature of catharsis, and the morality drawn on metaphysical principles of goodness and evil. Hypothetically, even if Pi laughed at the joke while sitting in his boat in the ocean, Pi's laughter still is moral or immoral depending on the nature of what truth he is acknowledging with his laugh.
(Now take a moment to observe that I wrote a whole damn essay on Facebook in response to four words on a placard juxtaposed with a stern face)
--
Person:
And what do you make of it after reading the explanation: "You ling we bling" is the slogan used to promote the home delivery service of which misschu is famous for. Like many people who understand and respect the role of humour in society misschu has decided to use the awful slurs she grew up with and still feels lies just beneath the surface of many interactions with White Australia and turn it into comedic commentary. We kindly request that you see this use of language by the misschu brand as a humorous toying with, not a handing over of power to, those who wish to mock Asian accents.
Me:
The only race jokes I found funny (though it could be I'm Malaysian) are those that talk about being Bumiputra. There's a reason it is funny -- the laughter at the unjust nature of the Bumiputra favouring policies is cathartic, and the people articulating it are from a position of privilege themselves (most times Bumis).
Humour is a cathartic process that's much more difficult to analyse than tragedy, but it does address pain.
The image is funny because it deals with pain 'underlying tensions in White Australia'. The question is, what is the nature of the catharsis that creates the humour?
If the catharsis is in White Australia reasserting dominance because of the pain from suppressing the slur, it is racist. If the catharsis is from its migrant community expressing frustrations with facing underlying racial tension, it is not.
Person:
so you're saying things can be racist or not depending on who's saying it?
Person:
I was thinking about a similar topic with regards to 'Bobo-gate'. I'm gonna paste this note I wrote here... Bobo Cha-Cha
February 7, 2014 at 11:54am
Thinking about the Lord Bobo fracas. The main responses so far include:
an appeal to constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression (if you feel offended, too bad, it's my right)
an appeal to psychological reality (i personally didn't feel offended, so what's the problem?)
an appeal to a greater good (this is a small thing, why aren't we focusing on bigger problems instead?)
I'm going to try and break them down.
The first argument rests on calls to censor Lord Bobo. As far as I can observe, the censorship calls consist of Pang tweeting that LB should apologise. That's a weak threat to LB's freedom of expression. The analogue suggested by one article likened Pang's tweet to the Malaysian Royal Police shutting down a sexual freedom event. Hardly the same thing, in degree or in kind.
The second argument relies on a peculiarly constructivist ontology: Things exist only if my mind perceives them to exist. If sexism was not perceived in the article, then it doesn't exist. Even if it does exist, its real effects are questionable. One of the issues with constructivism here is that it's not very useful in bridging the epistemic gap between the sexist-feelers and the un-feelers.
The third argument is a crude form of utilitarianism. Resources should be spent on the actions that produce the greatest amount of social good (or maybe happiness, as classic utilitarianism has it). Actions that distract from the mission of resource allocation are necessarily undesirable. Such as debating over this article. It's a storm in a teacup, utilitarians say.
So those are the current arguments. One argument that hasn't been used is discourse analysis. I suspect this is a more productive route.
Me:
[something about Lord Bobo]
My approach to this is existence and essence.
An object exists, but each object created does not fulfill the objective of its existence until it commits it's essence. It starts from theatre - the playwright Anton Chekov would leave objects on stage that seem to have no purpose (like a gun) until suddenly it gets used in a particular scene. It ends with industrial design -- the effectiveness of a good UX relies on how a computer or tablet fulfills its essence.We can also encounter objects that exist outside of their essences. You have probably encountered the argument that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. The flaw of that thought imo is that unlike golf clubs, kitchen knives or frozen turkeys, guns are created with the explicit purpose, or essence, of killing a human being. The same applies to a samurai sword -- it is possible to use a sword like a decoration in the home, but the essence of a sword is in killing.
People also have existence, and they have essence, but that is a far more complex phenomena.
I recently made two jokes on my FB status that only two of my friends understood. I made another joke along a similar vein -- 'if a joke is made and nobody laughs, is it a joke?'. This is a variation of the 'tree falls no one hears' analogy -- the question of tying the existence of something to its essence. A sound must be heard, a joke must be funny. Scientists argue however that because a sound has properties of a sound (it is a wave) the answer to the sound and tree falling analogy is that it is undisputably yes. Therefore, a joke that no one laughs at is still a joke, though one that fails to fulfill its essence.
So the placard bears a joke.
Does the joke exist? Yes.
Does the joke fulfill its essence? Yes. It is funny. I thought it was funny. So at least one person has laughed.
Is the joke ethical? Ah, then we encounter more questions.
The aesthetic philosophy of humour is probably extremely overlooked. It probably comes from an Aristotleian bias against comedy -- that tragedy is what makes us more moral, through catharsis, but comedy is unethical and useless. In much of human history, the rewarded great works of art have a tragic nature. And yet comedy persists as a huge part of human art and entertainment, and when ethical objections are made concerning comedy, comedians resort to arguments that call upon the nature of comedy's existence (It's just a joke).
The closest thing I have seen to comedy analysed is the statement by Vorhaus which says 'comedy is truth and pain'. There has been several twists on this, but I think the original statement is still the best in analysing it -- the best comedy are all funny because of its slightly malicious nature in acknowledging truths about human life. In a sense, while Aristotle overlooked it, catharsis also happens in comedy. In a cruel joke, there is catharsis. In a racist joke, there is catharsis.
In Lord Bobo's joke, there is catharsis -- the breaking of social taboos by articulating sex in the open about a truth submerged in human discourse, that women give oral sex to pleasure their male partners. The catharsis however reveals a truth about patriarchal structure in society, that women are understood as obligated to give oral sex to pleasure their partners.
In the joke You Ling We Bling joke there is catharsis. It articulates a truth about Australia that reveals its submerged racism. But whose catharsis is it? Is it the catharsis of the racist who has broken taboo and thus articulate her racism? Or is it the catharsis of the immigrant who can acknowledge the racism? We know that Australia wants to portray the image of multi cultural acceptance while dealing with an undercurrent of xenophobia.
The ethics of a joke, as the ethics of a number of things, is more difficult. Social discourse analysis frequently point out that jokes often articulate and also reinforce structures of social prejudice. Comedians resent this control because it hinders their freedom to articulate these submerged prejudices upon which much humour is drawn from. Both of them are dealing with the ethical question based on the end in view -- how a moral stance creates consequences of further harm or mitigation of harm.
I approached the ethics question slightly differently -- that the ethics lies in the nature of catharsis, and the morality drawn on metaphysical principles of goodness and evil. Hypothetically, even if Pi laughed at the joke while sitting in his boat in the ocean, Pi's laughter still is moral or immoral depending on the nature of what truth he is acknowledging with his laugh.
(Now take a moment to observe that I wrote a whole damn essay on Facebook in response to four words on a placard juxtaposed with a stern face)