Comedy and the Politics of Representation

Mocking the Weak

Helen Davies, Sarah Ilott, Helen Davies, Sarah Ilott

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9783319905068
• Topic: Sciences sociales
• Subtopic: Culture populaire

This edited collection explores the representations of identity in comedy and interrogates the ways in which "humorous" constructions of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, class and disability raise serious issues about privilege, agency and oppression in popular culture. Should there be limits to free speech when humour is aimed at marginalised social groups? What are the limits of free speech when comedy pokes fun at those who hold social power? Can taboo joking be used towards politically progressive ends? Can stereotypes be mocked through their re-invocation? Comedy and the Politics of Representation: Mocking the Weak breaks new theoretical ground by demonstrating how the way people are represented mediates the triadic relationship set up in comedy between teller, audience and butt of the joke. By bringing together a selection of essays from international scholars, this study unpacks and examines the dynamic role that humour plays in making and remaking identity and power relations in culture and society.

© The Author(s) 2018

Helen Davies and Sarah Ilott (eds.)Comedy and the Politics of RepresentationPalgrave Studies in Comedyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90506-8_1

Begin Abstract

1. Mocking the Weak? Contexts, Theories, Politics

Helen Davies¹ and Sarah Ilott²

(1)

Newman University, Birmingham, UK

(2)

Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

Helen Davies

Email: [email protected]

Sarah Ilott (Corresponding author)

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

Comedy and the Politics of Representation: Mocking the Weak seeks to explore the diverse ways in which comedy is a vehicle for social and cultural identities to be consolidated, constructed, or even challenged. Comedy is an ambivalent mode of expression when it comes to the representation of identity; it can range from the reactionary and conservative to the radical and subversive. Questions related to comedy and the representation of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, class, and disability are becoming increasingly prominent in contemporary political debate and news journalism. For example: what are the limits of free speech in relation to humour aimed at marginalised social groups? What are the limits of free speech with regards to comedy that pokes fun at those who hold social power? Can taboo joking be used towards politically progressive ends? Can stereotypes be mocked by being re-invoked? And what are the hierarchies of power that shape the multiple, often contradictory answers to such questions? This collection examines the dynamic role that humour plays in making and remaking identity, and in negotiating power in culture and society.

This collection breaks new theoretical ground by focusing on questions of representation, and the important role that they play in mediating the triadic relationship negotiated between the teller, butt, and audience in a joking exchange. Where previous studies have often overlooked or not brought to bear the politics of representation in considerations of comedy, it is our contention that representation—whether via a visual/textual depiction, or verbal utterance—is integral to the mediation of this relationship by encouraging audiences to identify with or against the joker and/or butt. To paraphrase Richard Dyer (2002), representation matters, and this is nowhere more clearly the case than in comedy, wherein power relations are confirmed, negotiated, or undermined. Whether stereotypes are reiterated or subverted through comedy comes down to questions of representation. How characters are represented structures audiences’ responses to laugh with or laugh at them. When characters are constructed as failures, it is down to their representation to illustrate whether the satirical attack is directed at a flawed character or a flawed system.

Our subtitle is a play on words based on the popular British panel show, Mock the Week (BBC 2, 2005–) but, as we shall demonstrate, it also has resonance with various contemporary controversies about the politics of identity and representation beyond the UK. Mock the Week takes a satirical look at the week’s news, and features a selection of rising and established stars of the stand-up comedy circuit. However, it has developed a controversial reputation for various reasons. In 2007, regular panellist Frankie Boyle made reference to the Queen’s “pussy” in a joke , garnering complaints from both viewers and politicians. David Davies, the Tory MP for Monmouth in South Wales, was quoted as saying: “It was a disgracefully foul comment to make about any lady” (Quinn 2008). In an episode broadcast in August 2008, Boyle made several derogatory jokes about the appearance of Olympic swimmer Rebecca Adlington. Considerable public outrage followed, with the BBC Trust upholding complaints and deeming the comments “humiliating” for Adlington (Singh 2009), but Boyle remained unrepentant and, in an interview for Time Out discussing why he left the show in 2008, remarked:

It was all bollocks. Especially when you consider we’re fighting two wars, there’s fucking swine flu and the global economy is going down the toilet. There’s all this stuff people expect you to talk about, and what do the production team send us? A picture of Rebecca Adlington. (Arthur 2009)

An incident which took place on Boyle’s “I Would Happily Punch Every One of You in the Face” stand-up tour of the UK in 2010 provoked further debate about the ethics of his comedy. In a performance at Reading’s Hexagon theatre, he joked about the voices, clothes, and haircuts of people with Down syndrome. When he asked a couple (Sharon and Kieron Smith) in the front row of the venue what they were speaking about, they told him that their own daughter had the condition. His response was again unapologetic, and afterwards Sharon Smith expressed her thoughts on the incident in a blog. Her comments were picked up on Twitter, and received widespread media attention (Walker 2010).

More recently, and in the context of the US, the power relations of “mocking” in comedy have been under scrutiny in relation to a photo shoot by Tyler Griffin with the American comedian Kathy Griffin. Released in May 2017, the pictures depict Griffin holding up a prop of a severed head that bears a distinct resemblance to the current US president, Donald Trump. In response to the frenzy of criticism that followed, Griffin apologised, tweeting “OBVIOUSLY, I do not condone ANY violence by my fans or others to anyone, ever! I’m merely mocking the Mocker in Chief” (cited in Mindock 2017). Donald Trump Junior, the president’s son, responded as follows: “Disgusting but not surprising. This is the left today. They consider this acceptable. Imagine a conservative did this to Obama as POTUS?” (@DonaldJTrumpJnr, May 30, 2017). Griffin has since retracted her apology, stating that “Trump went for me because I was an easy target” and citing her age and gender as the reason for the backlash against her (Bernstein 2017).

As indicated by Griffin’s naming of Trump as the “Mocker in Chief”, the current US president is now infamous for his derisive tweets aimed at a variety of targets. At the time of writing, Trump is locked into a war of words with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. While Trump’s insults to the North Korean dictator—often delivered via his presidential Twitter account—often take a mocking tone, the potential political consequences of these dispatches are hardly a laughing matter.¹ The North Korean state-controlled television station, Korean Central Television, features a comedy programme entitled The Stage of Optimism that Sangun Presented and in September 2016 it took the opportunity to satirise then-President Barack Obama in a sketch that represented “Obama ” with a bandaged head, having fallen over in shock at the news of North Korea’s latest military test.² Nevertheless, the nation does not appreciate being on the receiving end of jokes. In the satirical film The Interview (2014, dir. Seth Rogan and Ethan Goldberg), two US journalists arrange to interview Kim Jong-un and are then recruited by North American authorities to assassinate him. The release of the film was delayed by some months due to the North Korean government threatening action against the US. Sony was then hacked by a group named “Guardians of Peace”, who leaked private data (including, notably, racist jokes made about President Obama by Sony employees) and also warned that terrorist attacks would occur at screenings of the film. In response, many major cinema chains cancelled their scheduled screenings, and the film received only a limited theatrical release in the US. In the ensuing media furore about free speech and censorship of humour, Ranier Maningding noted that The Interview was more troubling for its reiteration of “tacky Asian stereotype jokes” and also condemned the film’s insensitivity to the everyday suffering of North Korean people (2017). Perhaps most disturbingly of all, Radio Free Asia (RFA) reported in September 2017 that North Korean authorities had been organising mass meetings to issue warnings against the use of sarcasm, which they said might be construed as criticism of the country’s regime:

The official conducting the meeting pointed specifically to commonly used expressions such as “This is all America’s fault,” which when spoken ironically could be taken to imply criticism of the regime. “The habit of the central authorities of blaming the wrong country when a problem’s cause obviously lies elsewhere has led citizens to mock the party,” RFA’s source has said. (Finney 2016)

Seemingly, “mocking” from the “weak” is perceived as dangerous to a dictatorship, and efforts are made to suppress it.

These examples give us an entry point into the process of thinking through complex relationships of power, agency, and oppression when it comes to identity politics and comedy. They also introduce contentious debates around “free speech”, the role of comedy in relation to social critique, and the significance of context and reception. David Davies’s defence of the Queen suggests that her public persona does not detract from her rights as a woman not to be a subject of sexist abuse. However, his choice of the term “lady” demonstrates how easy it is for condemnation of misogynistic joking to slip into quasi-chivalric, outdated terminology that rearticulates gendered power inequalities .³ Boyle’s justification of his comments suggests that a better subject of his comedy would be serious social issues, and that when provided with prompts about celebrity, misogyny is implicitly positioned as an easy default. Griffin defends her stance as an ethical, moral person, a...