Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Stand Up Comedy

Ruben Reyes Jr. on Humor’s Ability to Fight White Supremacy

Posted on by nwilson

Ruben E. Reyes Jr. wrote a nice article for The Harvard Crimson (8/14/2017), advocating fighting racism with comedy.

His points

Reyes notes,

[M]aybe someday, when the wounds are not so fresh, there’ll be a joke to be made about tiki torches and the ridiculousness of chants like “you will not replace us.” Joking about white supremacy might be the way we begin to dismantle it.

He notes that although straightforward racism is easy to deal with, it’s trickier in the face of so-called “allies” “who continue to uphold white supremecy.” If we approach the manner in a straightforward way, they express white fragility, leading to “whitelash.”

If we want to address all levels of white supremacy, some activists have to cater to white fragility, as unjust as that might feel. The fight then becomes a matter of messaging, one that stand-up comedians of color seem to have perfected.

He cites Ali Wong’s Baby Cobra, and Hasan Minhaj’s Homecoming King as examples:

Through her comedy, [Wong] addresses the very real effects of white supremacy but does so in a way that does not threaten white fragility.

…

Minhaj’s stand-up routine shows how white supremacy strips the American Dream from too many Americans of color, but laughter serves to soften the discomfort that reality brings. Stand-up comedy can help us achieve social equity by presenting the injustice of our racialized lives in a way that will ease whitelash.

…

We still need activists who speak radically, whose words are demonized for their directedness, and who will not cater to white fragility. But if we intend to address the multiple levels on which white supremacy functions, less threatening messaging—like comedy—is critical. There is no one-stop solution to breaking down the insidiousness of social systems that hold whiteness as a gold standard.

The good

Most scholars and activists alike agree that jokes alone won’t get it done, and I agree.  However, my questions are: is there a line between action and humor? And if so, where is it?

What I like about Reyes’ position is that he gives humor a task that it can achieve: presenting injustice, making the unjust seem ridiculous, perhaps even taking “allies” to task – all in a less threatening way.

The problems

My problem is with the way he introduces it: that it’s merely a matter of “messaging,” and that it inherently might “cater to white fragility.”

Messaging

One of the ways that humor is commonly separated from the serious is by reducing it to stylistic choices: the material can be either inherently serious and important or inherently trivial, but it’s the choice to put it into a non bona fide joke form (vs. bona fide speech form) that makes it funny.  That joke work is something a comic adds to the inherent message, not that humor is something inherent in the message itself.

Of course, we know a lot of life is ridiculous, so sometimes there’s not a lot of work that goes into pointing that out; however, we could still phrase it to bring about laughter, or we could phrase it to bring about tears.

On the other side of this, is the postmodern idea that the material just is – that events, objects, people, practices and institutions are pre-discursive – and the form taken to express the material is what makes it meaningful and/or funny – and it could be both.

Catering

The other important point here is that, while it might be critical, it might also be undermining the movement as it softens the proverbial blow, which feels unjust – why do we have to coddle white supremacists? They need to change NOW!

Of course, you attract more flies with honey (who wants more flies?), and it’s best to start with the points on which we agree, and move to the points on which we disagree, and it takes a long time for the elephant to turn (who’s abusing elephants?), and all those other old saws.

The question is, is there a better way? Does active violent or nonviolent protest do more than what comedy does: humanizing targets of bias, increasing likeability, broaching sensitive topics in an approachable way, etc.?  People who think in terms of direct action have an inherent dislike for more creative approaches that come in from the sides; however, they may be just, if not more effective with some people.

Summary

Comedy does have a role in fighting racism and hatred – it can definitely handle what Reyes and others say it can. My question (always) is: Are the ways that we conceptualize it preventing us from letting it do more?

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand Up Comedy

Maysoon Zayid on Why Words Matter

Posted on by nwilson

In an article by James Watkins for Ozy.com, Maysoon Zayid talks about her mission in comedy (8/14/2017).

Comic intent

Watkins notes that she advocates, both in her bits and offstage, “to challenge stereotypes and give a voice to underserved issues,” she notes:

My No. 1 duty is to make people laugh. If I ever feel like I’m going out on stage just to preach and not make people laugh first, I’ll quit comedy and become an evangelist.

So here again we have the assertion of comic intent – laughter first.  But her goal has another purpose:

Making friends

I realized that laughter makes people who hate you and want to harm you, listen to you…. it was really important for me to get people laughing and get them to relate to me so I could make my enemies my friends.

Yes, humor is a psychological reward, and giving people rewards creates liking. When they like you (or even when they are just rewarded), they are more likely to listen to you. Although above she recites the “make people laugh” line, here she switches to “getting” people laughing, a more participative model, but one that, in turn, makes them like her, makes them her friends.

Words matter

Zayid notes,

If I grew up with social media, I wouldn’t be doing the career that I’m doing right now, because the bullying that people with disabilities face, especially teens and young adults, is paralyzing. We were raised to believe that ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.’ That’s completely untrue. Words matter.

I agree, which is why it matters how one makes the jokes, the laughs one goes for and gets, and how and why people laugh. I’m not sure that humor will make friends as easily as Zayid seems to think; however, it seems like a nicer path, if it works.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand Up Comedy

Jason Goliath and Jeannie D Talk About Stories and Laughing

Posted on by nwilson

Nontando Mposo of IOL interviewed South African media personality Jeannie D and stand-up Jason Goliath about their upcoming episode of “Celebs Stand Up” (8/11/2017), and they managed to touch on a few interesting topics.

Jason Goliath

Goliath gets the softball questions, like this one:

What makes your stand-up comedy unique and different from other comedians?

I’m a storyteller not a joke-teller. My stories are brutally honest and that’s where I find the funny. At the end of the day, most of us are going through, or have been through, similar things, so people relate to honesty.

So here we see some typical themes, beginning with a differentiation of humorous stories from strict jokes [I will write something up on this eventually, but basically: where’s the distinction? When does a bit become a story, and are there ever stories without injections of jokes?]. Then there’s the idea of honesty, or truth-telling (parrhesia). It may not quite be speaking “truth to power,” but he’s on the road. As Jay Leno says, it’s great if it happens.

Jeannie D

Jeannie D, on the other hand, gets a better question:

What is your take on jokes that may offend people?

I am one of those people who do not get offended easily, but I do understand how certain subjects may be sensitive to the audience. My idea of comedy is that sometimes the only way to get through tough times is to be able to laugh at yourself and the circumstances. I believe that when you’re able to laugh at yourself and your situation, you will be happier.

Laughing with vs. at

Her answer strikes me as one a privileged person would give. Laughing at your circumstances, when you are the victim of the story, is a good coping mechanism – it’s either laugh or cry.

However, the idea of laughing at yourself, making yourself the butt of the joke and thereby allowing the audience to laugh with you is great, if you are in little danger. We can laugh at trivial things about ourselves or our past with little consequences. It’s much more damaging to laugh at yourself when it’s something about yourself you care about. This is why I’m skeptical of marginalized personas – the Josh Blues and fat comics galore.

Hyper-masculinity

The idea of “lighten up,” “where’s your sense of humor?” “laugh it off,” are at their root hyper-masculine, coming from a culture of “taking it.” Men can “take it,” handle themselves and their emotions (especially fear), suck it up, don’t get riled. People who can’t are less than men, wusses and worse.  This culture has a lot of problems and consequences, as it frequently punches down.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe some can laugh it off and not be emotionally damaged, but the sad clown is a salient exemplar for a reason. I am aware that not everyone has the same hang-ups and sensitivities, yet I’m also aware that just because people are laughing with us, doesn’t mean they’re on our side. Our actions have consequences.

Truth

This also assumes that if the audience isn’t laughing, it’s because it hits too close to home, when in fact the joke or statement might just not be funny, be inappropriate for the audience or occasion, or a host of other problems. We can also get offended on behalf of other people. The presumption is still that there was a truth there that we couldn’t “handle,” when in fact, the problem might be that there’s no truth there at all.

Jeannie D might well consider these things a bit more.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Stand Up Comedy

Truth to Power, an Update from Jennifer Hansler

Posted on by nwilson

Jennifer Hansler of CNN compiled a list of some of the legal (and illegal) action taken against comics around the world (8/10/2017). While some would have us believe that comedy exists in a protected space that allows the comic to speak truth to power, that it has always been thus, and in every society (see for instance Mulkay), others, like Anton Zjiderveld have pointed out that this is not true, has never been true.

It’s in this spirit that Hansler talks about Egypt, Turkey, Thailand, Myanmar, Venezuela, Kuwait and Algeria.  Though the people were fired, sued by their governments and political figures, arrested, jailed and sometimes beaten, these incidents merely display the more extreme examples. Comedians here in the U.S. of A. face problems as well, if not so extreme.

What’s her point?

Hansler’s point is a bit obscure.  She says,

In the United States, the parodying of the nation’s most powerful is generally considered protected speech under the First Amendment. However, in some countries, such insults — even in jest — are no joke. Under certain regimes, political comedy is an act of dissidence.

Is she implying that political comedy is also an act of dissidence here, or that it isn’t/can’t be? Is it only dissident in proportion to the expected backlash (and does our First Amendment adequately protect against backlash)?

There’s no summary to the article; we’re left hanging. One could walk away saying, “Those people have real problems, Kathy Griffin needs to suck it up!” – the appearance of hyper-masculinity, telling us to “take it.” I think that would be the wrong way to go – how long before a more severe backlash happens here?

Comedy is an important space, but it needs constant vigilance to remain protected. We need to see what happens elsewhere, and ensure that it doesn’t happen here.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand Up Comedy

Judd Apatow on a Comic’s Role

Posted on by nwilson

Judd Apatow recently spoke to Vulture’s David Marchese about a number of things, including his return to stand-up (8/7/2017). Apatow says that, “Stand-up is what I love more than anything else.” He also says it makes him more “connected to audiences,” “in touch with what people out in the world are actually laughing about. It’s easy to lose touch with reality when you’re just sitting in your house.” Then Apatow gets a bit more into the comic’s role.

Stand-up’s job

Two questions, and Apatow’s answers, are particularly interesting to me here:

But you’re not shy about being pretty aggressive on there. Are you ever concerned that by being so active on Twitter and speaking out so strongly about politics, you’re just adding to the feeling that we’re all yelling at each other all the time?
No, because comedians are supposed to point out madness and hypocrisy. What I’m doing is pretty straightforward: I think we have an incompetent, corrupt president, so I point that out. And it’s also the comedian’s job to give people some levity — we’re all so stressed out now from not being able to trust the person in charge of the country. Every comedian has to decide the tone of the joke that they’re comfortable with, but what are we all going to do? Not talk about what’s going on? Should we have not made jokes about Monica Lewinsky or George W. Bush invading Iraq? This is how we have our national discussion.

It wasn’t that long ago when all mainstream audiences expected from comedians was to wear a blazer and tell inoffensive one-liners. Why has there been this shift in comedy toward moralizing and self-confession?
It’s because people are hungrier for honesty now, which is something they’re not getting from other places. Comedians have no motivation to lie and almost every other public figure we encounter nowadays does. Politicians are lying to you all day long; comedians are telling you what they really feel. I think it also has to do with the enormous media need for content. People uploading their personal experience, in whatever format, has become modern entertainment. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I’m as interested in a guy telling me about his daily difficulties as I am in a well-crafted movie.

Marchese is right to point out that mainstream comedy has changed. Apatow seems to be one of those, like George Lopez, that believes comics have always been truthsayers (parrhesiastes), speaking truth to power. However, Jay Leno is right to point out that comics do have motivation to lie, if their sole goal (comic intent) is to get a laugh.

The truth is most comics just want a really good laugh. That’s what you’re going for, and if there happens to be some truth in it, well that’s really nice, too. But most comics will lie their teeth off if it gets them a good laugh.

So no, comics are not naturally truthsayers – at least, not any more than anyone else.  Their honesty is always tainted by the goal to make us laugh.  And are they really confessing themselves, or choosing to confess the funniest bits – and to fudge the details – in the funniest way possible for the maximum laugh?

However, Apatow is right: in our current times, comedy (and by comics on Twitter) is how we have our national discussion, if we’re going to.  Comedy might be an inclusive way to go about the conversation, and it might therefore be the most effective way, despite it’s long and circuitous route. Time will tell.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand Up Comedy

Jimmy Tingle is a Typical Comic and Activist

Posted on by nwilson

Jim Sullivan interviews Jimmy Tingle for the Cape Cod Times (8/6/2017) where he admits to being both a comic and an activist:

I consider myself to be a stand-up comic/social and political humorist and activist. Not everything I do makes a political point or leads to social change, but most of it’s pretty funny.

Despite the idea that he’s trying to do both, here we see a slight differentiation – he’s trying to be primarily funny, but also make some points.  He later expands on this:

I’m trying to use humor, where I can, for purposes beyond just entertainment. So, Humor for Humanity is a social enterprise. When I went to the Kennedy School I saw so many committed people doing great work around the state, around the country, around the world, I said “How can I use what I do, my skills as an entertainer? Maybe, they have a bigger value than just the entertainment.” I want to raise spirits, funds and awareness.

Admittedly, humor can’t do everything, and it is not always appropriate.  He admits here that humor and entertainment skills are something to be used, like a tool, and it could perhaps be used in a number of different ways.  I’ve talked about some of them here before; however, there is a difference between telling a joke that has a political or social intent, and telling random jokes at a fundraising event.

A political joke

Still later, he’s asked:

Q: I know you come from the liberal side of the spectrum, but you like to cast a wide net. While most of the audience probably agrees with you, some may not. Is it part of your job to get those people laughing and maybe convince them a bit.

A: Or to consider my point of view. Not that I’m necessarily right. You be the judge? What do you think? For example, the debate around immigration: First of all, Trump was asked on the campaign, “Why won’t you release his taxes?” and he said, “I’m being audited.” Asked why his company has been audited every year for the past 12 years, he said, “I think it has something to do with my very strong Christian faith.”

Yes, we can all see the influence of Jesus and Christianity on Donald Trump. I think it was Jesus himself who once said, “Build a wall across the Southern border, get the Mexican government to pay for it and keep out other people named Jesus.” So, how does the support of the Christian right and religious right reflect the principles of Christianity with his administration and with his rhetoric? I’m not telling people what to think. I’m just pointing out what I observe as a commentator or comic. It’s not all criticism. I’m trying to be as funny and entertaining and insightful as I can be.

Tingle claims he’s trying primarily to be funny, and simply broaching the topic and leaving it open, but the tone is definitely one of criticism, of satire; the implication is that 45’s rhetoric and actions have nothing to do with the principles of Christianity.  He’s right that the joke doesn’t explicitly say that, we have to infer, to supplement what he said with what we think (or what we think he thinks), but he also admits that he’s trying to provide insight: he has an angle and he knows we know that. It is commentary on 45’s lack of faith and anti-immigration stance, and we could infer that good Christians should oppose the wall.

Or we could just laugh again at what has become an overused trope: 45 is illogical, and does whatever he wants. Some who voted for him will laugh at that.  And there’s both the strength and flaw of doing politics through humor: we could read it a number of different ways, and each of us laugh for what may be wildly divergent reasons. In any case, it doesn’t seem to cut particularly deep.

The mix

Good public speakers and arguers know that you have to start from areas of agreement and work toward areas where you disagree.  Similarly, Tingle talks about warming up the audience with “the things they can understand and relate to, something that they feel comfortable hearing about and laughing about. You have to be able to set it up so they can identify.”

He also mixes it up:

I’d break it [the set] down to one-third autobiographical, one-third hardcore politics and one-third topical.

A lot of comics mix things up, which can keep the audience laughing through the bits they don’t agree with.  However, others think that this dilutes any potential message; it gets lost in the swirl of thoughts.

Summary

I find Tingle to be a great example of the way comedy has been used for political purposes: it’s used to draw people in, to raise money and awareness, but only sometimes through the humor itself.  When it does so, it leaves the interpretation open, and doesn’t cut too deep.  But all this is mixed in with other jokes and thoughts, and so might not produce any effects.  I hope to find something better.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand Up Comedy

Michael Ian Black on His Persona and Goals

Posted on by nwilson

I was a fan of Kids In The Hall, way back in the day, and have followed all the members’ careers with interest, so I was happy to read Michael Ian Black talking to Milwaukee Public Radio’s (wuwm.com) Rachel Owens and Matt Kemple about stand-up comedy (8/5/2017). Black says a lot about who he is onstage, and what he tries to do that I find different than those we’ve looked at before.

Persona

The authors characterize Black’s relationship with the audience as one of reflection. They say,

[I]n the end, the audience is there not to see a performer reveal themselves, but to see their own lives reflected back on themselves.

They further note that this is what allows Black to be open and honest. Talking about what he tries to do in his art, Black says,

You can’t appreciate the entirety of somebody, or you can’t appreciate the entirety of even the moment that they’re talking about without having a real kind of intimacy that you can’t achieve through a book, or a film, or a stand up performance. All any artist can do…is edit those experiences to the best of their ability in hope that some part of it translates to a kind of shared experience that we all have. Because ultimately…you’re looking for a connection, not a revelation about yourself.

So while the authors characterize him as being open and honest, in order to reflect the audience’s reality, Black himself says he’s not revealing his true self; in Kenneth Burke’s terms, he knows that he’s editing (selecting), so he’s really deflecting away from the truth, toward what the audience wants to see.

We should further note, with or without Black, that this “reflection of themselves” is probably not how they really are, but how they see themselves – their best face.  It’s flattery, and maybe sometimes, polite mockery.

Intent

Noting that the current political climate connects us all, the authors state that “Black feels it would be disingenuous to not address it in his stand-up. However, he doesn’t feel it’s his job to try to change minds.” Black says,

I think what I can do is make people feel like they’re not crazy. To get on a stage and say, ‘Hey this is all bananas. And if you feel like it’s bananas, you’re right. It’s bananas.,’ and try to do that with as much levity as I possibly can.

So what Black is trying to deflect the audience to is a shared connection through the agreement that the world is crazy right now.  That can be reassuring, as sometimes it feels like we’re being gaslit – is this really the new normal? No. No, it’s not.

Enunciative modalities

However, what I like best about Black’s statements are that if you realize that you’re deflecting, then you can steer the conversation and connections in a number of different ways; how the comic chooses to connect may not be wide open, but it is also not fixed to one path.  It’s what Michel Foucault might call an enunciative modality, a place from which to speak.

In the Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault recognizes that humans make history, but that they do so under conditions not of their own making. They have opportunities to change the system, which he calls enunciative modalities – moments in which their speech and actions can change the discourse formation.  He describes enunciative modalities as “I”-slots, using the example of the old hockey game, where (a bit like foosball) each “player” can move in a preset, limited way.  While this setup is somewhat stifling for our ability to act (or agency), if the puck/ball comes to the player, they can make a difference in a few different ways. This is opposed to Jean Francois Lyotard’s notion of a différend, which presents an opportunity to change the rules in the current language game in a much more open fashion.

Summary

I’m impressed that, contrary to the authors’ views, Black understands that he’s deflecting to create a shared or common experience.  However, his intent at this stage is just to commiserate, and I think he could do more. Basically, while I recognize that Black doesn’t have free-reign to do whatever he wants, I hope that he could do more than just commiserate, and wish that he would choose to.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Stand Up Comedy

George Lopez on Being a Truthsayer

Posted on by nwilson

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?

Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Stand Up Comedy

Amber North is Woke and Doing Comedy

Posted on by nwilson

In an interview for Access Atlanta, Najja Parker asks Amber North some questions about her monthly show, “Wake Up!” (8/3/2017). The material “tackles race, class and other controversial topics, with live sketches, stand-up and music.”

Learn-medy

North tries to keep it balanced, matching terrible things with praising of excellence.  She says the show is unique:

No one is doing this whatsoever. There are couple of shows that talk about current events, but no one is keeping the theme of awareness throughout. People are learning. Some even come up to me at the end to say “thank you.”

So “Wake Up!” can be placed into a category of comedy (including stand-up) that would educate – what Sarah Silverman once awkwardly dubbed “Learn-medy.”

I wonder about the content and tactics in the show – whether they fall to Caty Borum Chattoo’s recommendation of keeping the comedy separate from the message, or whether they mix the two, and how much.

Medicine

North notes that “laughter is the best medicine,” and so we can posit that she’s looking to use it as a cure. She began this metaphor early in the interview:

Right after Tamir Rice (the 12-year-old shot by a Cleveland police officer in 2014) was killed, I got sick of not saying anything and using social media as my platform. I thought, ‘I have a microphone and a stage to do the same thing. Let’s try it out.

So maybe laughter is the cure for her sickness, and we can hope that this spills over onto us, the audience.  To prepare people for the show, North advises: “come in with an open mind and prepare to leave enlightened.”

Allies

When asked how white comedians can be “woke,” North says,

Listen. If you’re being called out about an issue, just listen. Be a friend. Be a comrade, and don’t make the plight of the oppressed the punchline.

Sound advice.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand Up Comedy

Jack Lewis on Political Comics

Posted on by nwilson

Jack Lewis wrote an article for The Diamondback about Hari Kondabolu (8/2/2017) that deserves some pixels here.

Political Comedians

Lewis makes a distinction between two types of political comedians:

He is a political comedian, but that label might do him a disservice. The term “political comedian” unfortunately often refers to white comedians who mistake controversy for activism. So when I call Kondabolu a political comedian, I don’t mean in the Bill Maher “I want to be able to say the N-word” sense, but in the Ta-Nehisi Coates New York Times Op-Ed on the N-word sense. He brings both a personal and an academic understanding of race to an art form that sorely needs it.

So the difference is between education and activism, versus trying to be humorous about controversies. We could call this activist and humorous, but that would repeat a distinction I’m trying hard to bridge. Lewis states later,

I hope political comedy can become about real activism. For too long, comedians have shrugged off the responsibility that comes with a microphone.

I couldn’t agree more; however, the common wisdom from folks like Caty Borum Chatoo is that the message kills the comedy.

Comic intent and punching down

Lewis also notes,

The culture of stand-up comedy has often rewarded jokes regardless of the damage they might do. The defense of so many racist jokes or accents has frequently been, “But it’s funny!” Kondabolu pushes back against this, pointing out earlier this year that “things can be funny and wrong. It’s not like those things are mutually exclusive. In fact, when things are racist and funny, they’re more dangerous. That’s how propaganda works.”

If we accept that the comic’s only respectable goal is the production of laughter, then the “But it’s funny!” line becomes a defense.  Further, it debunks, as did Colin Quinn, the notion that comedy only punches up – it can and frequently does punch down, and that can get a laugh.

Further, Lewis notes that there is,

[A] pervasive idea in comedy: It isn’t the job of joke-tellers to address social problems…. [However,] Comedians do not merely comment on culture, they help define it.

Here Lewis alludes to Kenneth Burke’s notion of selections of reality becoming deflections of reality – even when they’re merely trying to reflect reality.  What we see and enjoy shapes how we view the world – it is “equipment for living.”  Similarly,

Kondabolu knows it is important to be critical of the things people love because they most inform our culture.

Summary

So, in Lewis’ view, comics have power and responsibility not just to talk about controversies, but to actively try to intervene; to define culture in a productive fashion. I couldn’t agree more.  The problem is, how? And will we be allowed?

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?