Humour is an essential need. And, there have been innovative and multiple delivery sources of it now. Be it a standup on youtube, a reality TV show about comedians, or just our regular meme page. All of this has, undoubtedly, taken its place in pop culture as a major influence. Humour today is colorful, lively, real, wry but most dangerously: “relatable”. Furthermore, in our country, the emergence of comedy clubs and open-mic has presented enormous opportunities for people to indulge in comedy and give extensive freedom of expression. That this is a revolution, there is no denying, however, there also is a huge concern here. Of whether it’s the joke or the offense that makes you laugh? Some people argue that a joke should only be laughed upon and not altercated, while some argue that there is a need to be censored. This definitely is sensitive as the stake of harm is higher while looking at it argumentatively, but too urgent to be overlooked.
A joke literally is something that makes people laugh. So does it really need to be politically correct all the time? This idea has been advocated by many comedians around the globe. But the kinds of arguments aren’t black and white. Thus arises a need to evaluate all perspectives.
Too much scrutiny can literally destroy one’s career and damage them in a permanent way. A demand for persistent alertness and censoring, while creating their jokes is damaging. This also, as some argue, limits their freedom of speech and expression and thus “kills” their talent. Most comedians claim that they don't challenge the need to condemn heinous jokes but argue that some comedians do have good intentions. As claimed, the idea behind offensive jokes is not always to spread hate or reinforce those problematic norms, but rather just to have a laugh at the state of society. Nevertheless, the most problematic characteristic remains that no amount of lists can define what’s offensive and what is not, as it is unfeasible to socially take into account everyone’s opinion. Furthermore, the friction of inference and intention can never be overcome fully.
However, the idea of political correctness “killing” comedy is invalid in the current scenario. There is a prominent shift in what’s laughable and the ideal comedian is not the one who makes you laugh at anything at all anymore, but someone who's sensitive and yet still cracks you up. The audience is no more reactive to jokes which are toxic even in disguise. This has induced a sense of reformation in the way artists today perceive “funny” by making it more evolutionary than coerced. As for written static content, the problem of disguise is larger. In the name of dark jokes, some of them are dipped in racist, homophobic, xenophobic and misogynistic propaganda. A meme’s comment section is pretty explanatory of the intention behind it, and of those who follow such content, thus giving more definite grounds for declaring it as hurtful. And the lack of accountability makes it easy for people with such vile beliefs, to encourage this more as far as to make it a cultural slur.
So a bigger question arises, “what is the point of offensive comedy anyway?”. Disparaged humour, provenly, has caused people to strengthen their prejudices. Studies have shown that men were likely to have a decreased sense of the seriousness of rape when exposed to jokes that are sexist. Some women and men started viewing themselves as objects and limiting themselves to problematic norms of body image which were often joked upon. Contrary to this, some researchers have also found out that jokes about stereotypes have acted opposite to promotion in a way that they rather created awareness, by belittling the stereotype. This is called, “reversing a joke”. This practice is on the lines of satire, thus falling in the grey area of this issue.
So what about these jokes that are on social problems but don’t create a moral issue?
It is subtle but surprisingly poignant: the context is the key here and rhetoric is placed correctly on the wrong side. The victim isn’t victimized further and self struggles are highlighted. The overall contribution is not toxic or welcoming of a bully-mindset, but will make you laugh at what’s already deprecated by both your moral and the ethical value set. An example of this would be Chris Rock’s opening at the Academy Awards, where he jokes about how choosing a host isn’t an award category or he would have never had the chance. The joke doesn’t threaten the community or shows that having a host colors a sufficient fix for the issue. It did not dismiss or defocus, but highlights the issue of underrepresentation. This sort of satire doesn’t need to be self-inflicted, but could also be on collective struggles. Another example here would be, Tina Fey’s opening monologue for Golden Globes in 2015 when she listed out all achievements about Amal Amaluddin and joked on how her husband, George Clooney, was getting a lifetime achievement award that evening. This again is a non-hurtful joke on how people often don’t see star wives for more than that. These jokes can be inuendos and make you realize how generically we objectify sex and women. Once again, Sarah Silverman doesn’t normalize but also makes you laugh and also give a flash thought that “yeah maybe that’s wrong to judge”.
What all these share in common is definitely context. Context is the reason that today, a show like The Office is still watched. The characters who’re offensive, have a background that explains the context and doesn’t glorify their joke at all. It makes you cringe, but with laughter. And it gives you an ample negative reaction such that you do not end up idolizing the character, even if it’s an iconic one. Lastly, there is always the argument that funny doesn’t need to be offensive. Plenty of examples to quote here, the Brooklyn Nine-Nine for once has the witty most jokes and never offends any community, rather shows true upliftment. Memes as well, a very acceptable source of humour now, are only able to gain fame if they have the right context to it.
In conclusion, it is certain that the audience has the power here, and we must realize it. Artists thrive on the audience. Thus we control the narrative in this case. Calling out the right joke proportionately is the key. Humour can co-exist with wokeness characterized well. We all can keep our thresholds high while not being a social jerk. As an audience, we must be the filter and judge here and assess the joke placement. However, it is important that we realize, that an overreaction is also harmful. There should be tolerance towards artists even while dismissing their jokes. And as a comedian or content creator, one must use the right tools to assess whether their humour is producing the effect they intend. Because in the end, a good sense of humor can go a long way in affecting people's lives.
Comments