Chattoo, The Laughter Effect V. Comedy Highlights and Strategies (part 2)

In May (2017), Caty Borum Chattoo, co-director of the Center for Media and Social Impact at American University and a comedy fan, released “The Laughter Effect: The [Serious] Role of Comedy in Social Change“, in which she summarizes the research and gives advice on how to use humor to further social issues.

Skipping ahead again, I want to discuss her Highlights and Strategic Recommendations in two parts. Some of these I agree with, some I question, mostly because I think we could do more, if we try.  Here’s a quick overview of her points (paraphrasing):

1. “Let the comedy be comedy.”
2. Don’t shoot for behavior change
3. Timing is key
4. Amplify the message
5. Satire mobilizes, but doesn’t convert
6. Use consistent portrayals to normalize people and ideas
7. Have a consistent, trusted messenger
8. Representation matters
9. Be self-deprecating, not mean
10. Work with news sources

I’ll hit the second five here; I agree with a couple of these!

6. Use consistent portrayals to normalize people and ideas

“Want to build empathy and connection to people? Consistent entertainment portrayals of characters can normalize people and ideas over time.”

Chattoo’s sources show that para social relationships create emotional effects in entertainment storytelling that accrue over time.

Seeing unfamiliar characters or divisive issues portrayed regularly builds a level of identification, even in a comedy format. Normalizing the existence of people and ideas happens best through consistent portrayals, not necessarily one episode of a fuller series.

However, I again question the limits of this theory. Can a comic play a role, then return to the stage and tell a consistent story to further normalize and identify? Can we watch their role, then encounter an older stand-up bit where they tell a consistent story and further normalize and identify?

What about consistent depictions by different comics? If all Muslim comics – Aasif Mandvi, Ahmed Ahmed, Dave Chappelle, Maz Jobrani, Dean Obeidallah, Hasan Minhaj, Maysoon Zayid,  – all seem like normal, down-to-earth people – if a little odd, as all comics are, but not in any ways that support any harmful stereotypes – doesn’t that serve to normalize and identify? Isn’t this consistent over time?

7. Have a consistent, trusted messenger

“A consistent trusted messenger may be the most powerful mouthpiece.”

Chattoo’s research documents that having a “consistent messenger or host” who is “trustworthy and liked” helps an audience form “a close parasocial relationship,” which creates effects over time.

Liking is easy to come by for comics, because of the perceived rewards laughter provides.  However, consistent and trustworthy? A bit more rare, at present, though things seem to be changing. As we get more examples like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Bill Maher, Zainab Johnson, Amanda Seales, Aditi Mittal, etc., we may come to expect their messages, and indeed, seek them out.

This may be preaching to the choir, but as I said before, we’re just proving what’s possible.  Persuasion is always possible under certain conditions, that doesn’t mean it always happens under those conditions, why should humorous persuasion be any different?

8. Representation matters

“Comedy is culturally specific. Issues of representation matter in comedy’s effectiveness for social issues.”

Chattoo says it succinctly,

Humor is culturally dependent on the ability of the audience to understand and identify. When using comedy or humor for public engagement around locally-specific issues, it won’t work to create the humor without local voices and perspectives. Be very sure about your audience—local, national, international? It matters in the talent who creates the comedy and the messages it promotes.

This just makes sense.

9. Be self-deprecating, not mean

“Self-deprecating humor is more powerful than mean-spirited humor in the context of social issues.”

If the goal is to attract attention and help raise awareness about a new issue, self-deprecating humor [horatian satire] is more powerful than mean-spirited or sharp-tongued humor [juvenalian satire]. Be careful about the target of the humor—it should never be the oppressed or powerless, even in pursuit of the laugh. Doing so risks back ring.

There are some mixed messages in this statement.  On the one hand, self-deprecating is better; on the other, you can’t target the oppressed or powerless. But what if you, the comic are oppressed and powerless? How do you call attention to your oppression in a self-deprecating way, without triggering mockery and ridicule?

I’ve talked about the victims of a joke, versus the butt of the joke, how the former is harmed and we laugh with her, at the latter, which is at fault. Surely, casting oneself as a victim and making the system the butt is not mean-spirited, though neither is it quite self-deprecating. Moving into self-deprecation would seem to make you, the victim, at least a bit “at fault,” and that’s dangerous territory. A distinction between victims and butts seems like a better way to go.

10. Work with news sources

“Comedy and news sources can be powerful allies, working together to fuel social change.”

As research documents, comedy does not have to compete with news—instead, it complements news coverage about social issues. In fact, comedy can open the cognitive doors for people to make sense of complex social issues, thus helping them to understand more serious news and information about them in the future. With careful partnerships between comedy game-changers and sources of serious news and information, this powerful connector role can be optimally synergistic in pursuit of social change.

I support these endeavors wholeheartedly, and it again returns to what comedy can easily do, which it should do.

Conclusions

Chattoo says a few important, new things in the conclusion I’d like to take a moment to address.

Humor is not a tactical tool

She says,

Most importantly, comedy shouldn’t be imagined as a simple tactical tool, as that thinking reduces it—falsely—to a lab-created mechanism able to create predictable effects.

I couldn’t agree more. The idea of just couching a social message in humor is ridiculous. First off, because as she notes humor isn’t that simply done or predictable, but secondly, and more importantly, because you have to find the funny.

It’s not a matter of “making it funny,” or “adding humor” to the serious message.  Yes, this can be done, but it’s not optimal and unlikely to be successful.  Instead we have to find in the situation something that is quirky, amusing, humorous when put in the right light – and not all issues immediately lend themselves to that. It takes finesse, timing, and a lot of work. This is why not everyone can do stand-up: it’s hard!

Directions for the future

She further notes,

[D]espite many notable case studies of comedy appeals or stunts attempted in social change, most do not include evaluations of social impact beyond reach.

Moving forward, expanding these lines of work—and creating intentional conversations between researchers, social-change strategists and thinkers, and comic talents—would inform and shape our public engagement solutions to issues that matter the most. Considering the challenges we face as global citizens, it may be well worth the risk.

Well, in trying to have an intentional conversation regarding her work, I’m furthering the latter.  In order to do the former, I’ve made some suggestions for finding a greater persuasive impact of comedy:

1. Can we find instances where comics state outright that they have a message, and are they still generally regarded as funny (not polarizing or niche)?
   • I have argued that many currently state their political intentions, but I know that many partisan comics, like Bill Maher, are considered polarizing. What about younger, hipper comics addressing social, non-partisan issues?
2. Can we find evidence of comics who are also actors, who tell stories that cast them as similar to the characters they’ve played?
   • Is there evidence of empathy and connection being created?
3. Can we find evidence to break down the central and peripheral processing dichotomy?
   • Can we show that people can do them in one or the other sequence?
     • If this study has been done, I’ve never heard it cited.
   • Can we find evidence of them happening simultaneously?
     • Can we identify moments where someone recognizes that they agree with the message, and yet honestly laughs simultaneously (or close enough; and it’s not clapter)?
     • Can we identify moments when an audience member both laughs at something in the joke, and yet disagrees with the message (and it’s not a fake laugh or a guffaw)?

I probably made some other statements, but these would be a good place to start.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?