George Lopez gave an interview to NPR’s Stacey Vanek Smith for All Things Considered (8/5/2017). in which he talks about the limits on his comedy. The extended quote is necessary for context.
Smith: So last month, you got some backlash after you posted on social media “The Trump administration is deporting Latinos to make street safer. You wanna make the street safer? Deport the police.” And, of course, Kathy Griffin got a lot of backlash for her photo of holding a severed head that looked like President Trump. It sort of seems like the boundaries of comedy are shifting right now, and I was wondering if there’s anything that’s off-limits to you.
Lopez: Well, yes. Of course. But, police brutality is not off-limits. You know? It can’t be. You know, holding up a severed head of the president, would I do that? No. Would anybody that worked with me allowed me to do that? No way.
Smith: Why not?
Lopez: Because, you know, that’s … I’ve always had a certain amount of respect for the office of the presidency, up until, and even a little bit now….
It’s that the sensitivity is so high. Unfortunately, people are losing their lives, unfortunately, in things that no one should die over.
And, listen, I’ve always been a supporter of law enforcement, but also, the police aren’t off-limits to me….
Listen, I’m positive that there are good cops and bad cops. Just like there’s good fat and bad fat. You know, in life, there’s a ying and a yang and a balance. And when you don’t have balance, you have comedy. And when you can’t take a joke, it is a sad indictment of our society right now that a comedian would be looked at as a truthsayer, and a politician is bending the truth.
When you don’t have balance, you have comedy
This last part is the most interesting. First off, that comedy is the result of a power imbalance. It reads like he’s quoting someone, but I (and Google) haven’t heard it before. Nevertheless, I think he’s right. Relief theory proponents might say that when you have a power imbalance, you have tension, and tension needs release. But incongruity theorists would point to their theories, and of course superiority proponents would say that their theory is better, though we can note that this last theory only attempts to explain “punching down,” and making fun of.
Taking a joke
Next is the idea of taking a joke, which folklorist Moira Smith notes is a staple of American society. We value people who can take it, and devalue people who can’t. Yet she also notes that we target people at the margins with our jokes and more frequently “test” their sense of humor as a way of creating and maintaining social boundaries. [I’m working on this one.] Nevertheless, when those in power act like they can’t take a joke, society usually judges them harshly.
Parrhesiastes
Finally, there’s the idea that comics are “truthsayers,” (parrhesiastes in ancient Greek and the work of Michel Foucault), not just wise fools speaking truth to power, but ones who frequently speak truth – who are allowed to speak truth. I think this is becoming more and more the norm; not just that we’re allowing comics to speak truth, but that we’re looking to them to speak truth about partisan and social issues.
Free speech
He says later about the space of stand-up,
Lopez: I love it. Yes. It is the freest form of expression, even though people get upset. It is the only place that you can truly have free speech. Politically, you can’t. And you skirt around issues. And I think skirting around issues and being politically correct is what’s dividing the country, in a sense. You don’t want to get to where you’re using words that incite. But images and misperceptions, those should always be funny.
Lopez is right to make a distinction between people getting upset and the speech not being free; as Patton Oswalt has said the same thing: you’re free to speak, but not free from the consequences of your speech. However, comics still “skirt around issues,” or choose not to exercise their right to free speech. Stand-up doesn’t strike me as all that different than other forms of speech in that regard.
Finally, he addresses the crux of the matter: that comics “should always be funny,” not inciting or offensive. Others I’ve written about disagree, saying that comics can have other intentions, and other messages, get serious, and then return to the humor. True, it’s better if they can do both at the same time, but many (like Caty Borum Chattoo) call that ability into question.
Summary
Lopez seems to view being a truthsayer as an obligation in our current political and social environment, in which power is out of balance, and those in power seem unable to take a joke. He knows that free speech isn’t easy, and that he’ll meet with opposition, and he’ll try to make it funny, yet he’s not backing away. He says in the interview:
I’m owning it and I don’t apologize.
And I applaud that.
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
