From: nmouawad@waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad)
Subject: (About humour ...) Re: just a joke!
Organization: University of Waterloo
	<12412@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:28:43 GMT


There is a definite tendency to misunderstand, misuse and misjudge
humour.

In this brief note, I would like to outline why I do not believe that
humour and racism are as closely connected as one would want them to
be.

It may serve a great deal if you would refrain from answering as you
read. Answer without quoting would be best.

One of the stricking aspect of the curent moral trend accross the net,
and accross the North-American cultural bassin is in its ability to
apply what I may call "linear backward interpretation" to humour.

Before you press the "N" key allow me to explain ...

One form of humour is based on the concept of "scape goat".
Antropoligists tend to agree that one universal treat accross social,
historical and psychological boundaries is one which is based on a
"scape goat". Lebanese for instance, or maybe I should say some
Lebanese target the citizens of "Hama", known as "HamaSneh" as their
scape goats. French targets "Belge", Canadians targets "Newfees", that
is people from "New FoundLand". 

It seems that no social group is immune to this form of humour. The
common explanation _ which is hailed by some as an almost scientific
justification_ is based on the "linear backward interpretation". 

As an example, consider the following joke:

  Why do people of Hama have the biggest paper toilet in the world ?

  Because the instructions about using the paper toilet are written on
  them...

The expected reaction is laughter. Such a reaction is partially based
on the cultural background of the listener, an important aspect of
which is his proximity to the victimized group, namely the people of
Hamma.

The expected reaction from a person of Hamma may not be laughter. That
does not mean that each and every person of Hamma will not laugh. We
are saying that "we expect" a person from Hamma not to laugh, whereas
a person from Lebanon is expected to laugh.

Linear backward analysis says: making fun of a victimised group is a
hidden way of expressing your true opinion of this group. That is
making fun of the "HamaSneh" is in fact a clear indication of a
disdainful, disrespectful and even "racist" behaviour.

The analysis is linear because it functions in a "cause-to-effect"
fashion: "making fun of" implies ,among other things, racism.

It is backward because it strives to go from the perceived behaviour
to the fundamental intention which gave it birth.

It is an interpretation because it rests primarly on the hypothesis
that the frame of reference for the maker of the joke and the listener
are the same or at least compatible.


What is wrong with this picture ? As far as I can tell, Linear
backward interpretation is a crude aproximation to the complex
mechanism of humour based on a scape goat. Such a humour may have its
origins in a historically distressing position which gave birth to
such jokes (am I wrong if I assume that people from the South make
fun of the Israelis or at one point of the Palestinians ? Similarly,
that people from Beyrouth made fun at one point or another of certain
militias or the Syrian Army ?), it may also be caused by a feeling of
"restricted liberty" (whether founded or not), it is also related to
self-esteem. Humour is often a safety valve which allows one to deal
with situations perceived as threatening or difficult, and whenever it
refers to a scape goat (actually, if you examine closely any joke, you
would notice that often than not a person or a group is being
victimized, meaning that it is being taken as a scape goat), it
probably does so because of some form of unease or mistrust.

One of the greatest assets of stable societies is their abilities to
laugh about themselves, or even to laugh with those who laugh about
them. Laughter is liberating. It is often a sign of peace within.

The current trend in North America is for "political correctness",
something which is aken to the policing of humour. It then becomes
"politicaly correct" to make fun of certain concepts and not of
others:

It is politically incorrect to make fun of:

-Women - Gays - Blacks - Aid's and Cancer's victims. It is not
politically correct to make fun of the American Flag, American troops,
American democracy.

I could go on, the least is alarmingly long.

It is politically correct to make fun of:

Saddam
Saddam
Saddam.

(Did you laugh or smile ? Did you feel that this joke contained in it
"some form of the "truth " ? Would you expect an American who is
convinced of the values of his country to laugh with you ? Would he be
right if he would treat you as a "racist" ?)

It does not take much to extrapolate to other societies. In
particular, many of the coutries of the Middle-East are not flexible
enough to host this form of humour (could you make fun of the Prophet
? The King ? Assad in Syria ? Sadam in Irak ? Could you make fun of
Aushwitz ?) much less any other form of freedom of expression. This
trend is visible on s.c.l. where the ratio of humourous versus
humourless posts is almost zero.

Woody Allen in "crimes and misdemeanours" makes Allen Alda say:
"Humour is Tragedy plus time". To a certain extent this is the most
consice if not precise definition of humour I know of. 

Bottom line, before one accuses another person of "racism" one ought
to ponder whether a shift in the lables "from Arabs to Jews" say would
not have made one to burst into laughter: either you never laugh at
any joke based on a scape goat (that is you almost never joke !) or if
you do, let others laught at you.

As far as I am concerned, please be my guest.

naji.

--
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Naji Mouawad  |          nmouawad@watmath.waterloo.edu            |
    |  University   |---------------------------------------------------|
    | Of Waterloo   |   "The Stranger in us is our most familiar Self"  |
     -------------------------------------------------------------------