Is This Funny: Can We Develop Non-Violent Humour?
"In its original historical meaning, a cartoon (from the Italian
cartone, meaning "big paper") is a full-size drawing made on
paper as a study for a further artwork, such as a painting or
tapestry. In modern print media, a cartoon is an illustration,
usually humorous in intent." http://en.wikipedia.or
g/wiki/Cartoons
The current representation of conflict over the freedom to
publish cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon
Him) in western media - as the conflict between 'freedom of
speech and expression' and Muslim sensitivities - obscures what
is really going on at the deepest level of our collective global
psyche.
I strongly believe that the publication of the infamous cartoons
in Danish Jyllands-Posten was very little about the "ongoing
debate on freedom of expression that we cherish so highly", as
argued by the editors. While I think that freedom of expression,
speech and press is one of the greatest human accomplishments,
these freedoms should be protected where and when possible and
sensible but not 'at all costs'.
That higher principles take precedence over human life is one of
the central tenants of society build on hierarchical and
patriarchal values. The central tenant of a society build on
values of centrality of human (and human - nature) relatedness
is to take seriously concerns and interests of global human
community, as well as the non-human community, future
generations of people and other living beings.
What is considered funny is always premised on the underlying
worldview. For example, for a racist joke to be seen as funny,
racism has to be an underlying worldview, we have to have an
'inner racist' within us. The joke about the difference between
a blonde and a shopping trolley (a shopping trolley has a mind
of its own) is only funny if we still have some elements of
sexism within us (as most of us, raised and living in
patriarchal societies almost inevitably do).
If on the other hand, the underlying worldview is the desire to
negotiate - to work things out - with 'the other' you become
sensitive about what you can say, when and where about such
group. You are also careful about what type of behaviours you
choose to engage in, preferring those that don't reaffirm
various forms of direct, structural, cultural, epistemological
and ecological violence.
Non-violent communication and humour
If jokes that deal in 'bigotry, sexism, racism, ageism and all
the other politically incorrect isms' are the quintessential
expression of bigoted, sexist, racist, orientalist, ageist and
politically incorrect/hierarchically structured and (using Riane
Eisler's term) 'dominator' society, what type of jokes would a
fundamentally different society with a fundamentally different
underlying worldview produce? For example, what would humour be
like in a society in which cultures of peace, compassion and
non-violent communication are firmly embedded?
Perhaps:
1. People own up of their own 'stuff'. There is an awareness of
one's own agenda, underlying worldview, assumptions,
perceptions, fears, beliefs about self and others is present.
There is also an awareness and understanding about what kind of
actions may have certain (violence promoting) consequences.
2. There is an overall understanding that your speech can be
part of the problem or part of the solution. That is, that your
speech can be expression of verbal aggression or an expression
of desire to negotiate and 'work things out'.
3. Humour becomes a means of reducing inflated individual and
collective Ego, thus you engage in laughing at self and your own
group more often then in laughing at her/him/them. You also do
the later, if you must, in a safe space - verbally, with 'your
own', removed from the eyes and ears of her/him/them.
4. Reducing your own Ego also means that you don't identify so
much with certain dogmatic principles and rules that help define
your own individual and collective identity. That is, you take
offence against yourself and your own group as lightly as
possible. And, most importantly of all, you don't respond to one
type of (ie. epistemological, cultural) violence with even more
intense one (ie. physical, direct violence).
5. Humour becomes a means of destabilising centres of oppressive
political, cultural, epistemological, economic and military
power - and hopefully a means that can help create a world
without institutionalised violence and social injustice.
Apparently, the Muslim world is full of Mullah jokes, and as far
as I know, portraying Mullahs is not seen as out of bounds by
the majority of Muslims. Such a simple editorial intervention
could have spared many grievances and intense escalation of
violence and still enable expression of the 'freedom to speak',
to express true feelings.
6. There is a consultation with local groups, and various
minorities (ethnic, religious, gender) in terms of the
boundaries of free speech.
7. You manage to differentiate between different humour styles,
e.g. between a 'Joy Master', 'Joke Maker', 'Fun Meister' and
'Life Mocker' (Loomans and Kolberg, 1993. p. 15). While the Joy
Master has mostly positive qualities, is inspiring, inclusive,
warm hearted, innocent, humanising and healing (ibid.) Life
Mocker has mostly negative qualities, and is cynical, sarcastic,
exclusive, cold hearted, worldly and dehumanising (ibid.). The
positive sides of a Joke Maker (e.g. wordplay, teaching stories,
parody, instructive, insightful) and Fun Meister (slapstick,
clowning, naive, imitative, entertaining) are to be balanced
with their negative qualities (JM: insulting, biting, satiric,
stereotyping, destructive; FM: ridiculing, dark humour, tragedy
and suffering, hurtful, degrading) (ibid.).
Whatever the societal principles, the main issue is what is the
spirit behind humour? Is it to put down others and get back at
them, in one way or another, or to create new depths of mutual
understanding and compassion?
Creatively, compassionately and honestly dealing with the
current conflict over values, freedoms and humour at the global
level has become the necessity of our times. It is only by these
means that we could possibly hope to avoid a further escalation
of violence and also to protect all our freedoms