Several theories of humor address the idea of the spaces where it takes place as being in part, how we approach it. Johan Huizinga has one such theory.
Play and seriousness
For Huizinga, play is not the opposite of seriousness, but logically prior to it. Seriousness cannot be played, you either are speaking earnestly, or you’re playing. However, play can be conducted seriously, but only when it plays by the rules.
Rules
These rules are implicitly created by the participants, agreed upon in advance and limit the spaces and times in which play can take place, and the behaviors allowed by the participants.
So, for instance, we have a lot of implicit rules in stand-up comedy as to times and spaces: You may do stand-up in this particular club, on the stage, Monday (open mic) night after 9pm, when your name is called. You can’t take the stage or address the room at other times. You will end your set promptly when you get the light. You’re free to tell jokes to your friends at the bar or on the patio before or after your set, but it’s not a part of the set, and it’s generally frowned upon to do your set before you will do it or after you have already done it. Unless you go to a different club.
As far as behaviors go, word usage is big, particularly with the N-word, but also with many others, and a lot of clubs won’t let you work blue (obscene) material. This is mainly enforced by the audience, though if it gets to be a problem, you can be banned. However, there aren’t a whole lot of other rules in stand-up, for as Huizinga notes, when over-encumbered by rules, play ceases to be fun.
False play
And fun is the goal of humor, for Huizinga. Like John Limon’s absolute form of stand-up, when the object is something other than fun or laughter – for instance, when the primary objective is to forward an argument–Huizinga would classify it as false play, a form of play that is “used consciously or unconsciously to cover up some social or political design.”
Freedom to disengage
To maintain the sense of fun, Huizinga argues that a play space must be free of obligation–one must be free to engage in it or to disengage at any time, and there may be no necessity of dealing in it at all. Nobody’s forcing you to stay in the club. You can always stop watching, walk out, change the channel, etc.
Political Potential?
Huizinga’s notion that seriousness cannot be played, and the notion of a “false play” causes some problems for political potential. You’re either serious, or you’re joking. However, this position still acknowledges that a form of–if not humor, at least joking that seeks to influence people does exist.
The elective quality of the humorous space is also frequently referenced as limiting our political possibilities. If people can walk out, change the channel, or just shrug it off–if they don’t have to engage, then can we really accomplish anything? On the other hand, if people are having fun, are they more likely to stay and listen to the parts they wouldn’t normally have?
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
Do you think that so-called social comedians, or those who are trying to further a message are not doing good comedy – is it false play?
References:
Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. New York: Harper-Row, 1970.
Wilson, Nathan. Was That Supposed to be Funny? A Rhetorical Analysis of Politics, Problems and Contradictions in Contemporary Stand-Up Comedy. Dissertation in partial completion of the Ph.D. August, 2008.
