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?
