‘That's not funny!’: The art of dehumanisation through humour
The practice of using humour as a means to conceal and normalise hatred and bigotry has a lengthy and unsightly past
Throughout history, it has been observed that catastrophic events are often accompanied by the emergence of xenophobia. During deadly events, it is common for people to seek someone to hold responsible, often targeting outgroups that have different religions, nationalities and ethnicities. This aligns with previous research in social psychology on pandemics, which indicates that othering plays a crucial role in symbolic coping.
At the onset of the Covid-19 outbreak, there was a surge in blame and animosity towards the residents of Wuhan. As the pandemic continued to spread, this discrimination expanded to encompass not only all Chinese individuals but also anyone who appeared Asian.
Eventually, it even targeted individuals who were considered outsiders in society, such as Africans residing in Guangzhou.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
In the realm of media, there has been a tendency to refer to Covid-19 as the 'Chinese flu' or 'kung flu,' even by the White House, assigning blame to China and its people. The Chinese people have been depicted in this discussion as uncivilised and barbaric, and they have faced criticism and ridicule for their perceived "unhygienic" or "immoral" eating habits.
Images and videos depicting Chinese or other Asian individuals consuming insects, snakes or mice began to circulate on social media platforms along with a continuous barrage of disparaging memes berating the Chinese.
A couple of hundred years before during the French Revolution, numerous pornographic pamphlets were created to mock Marie Antoinette. These pamphlets contained explicit content and were intended to ridicule her. It is worth noting that Marie Antoinette faced a significantly higher amount of gendered propaganda and vilification compared to her husband during this time.
A significant portion of it consisted of sexualized caricatures. According to scholar Pierre Saint-Amand, she was depicted as a combination of "assembled monsters, hybrid creatures, and a variety of deformed beings." This discourse criticises what it perceives as the feminization of culture by noblewomen, their active participation in intellectual discussions in salons, and their involvement in political debates.
Marie Antoinette was indeed targeted by extensive conservative discourse during the Age of Reason. Marie Antoinette's image as a liberated woman was turned against her through the use of devices of mockery, leading to her dehumanisation.
Humour, typically regarded as positive or harmless, can sometimes contribute to a greater acceptance of prejudice against the individuals being mocked. The most fundamental type of humour is based on stereotypes, which act as a convenient way to understand and interpret the world.
The use of humour that relies on ethnic and racial stereotypes promotes cultural racism. The dark history of Japanese internment in the United States took years to become a topic of public discussion. However, it is worth noting that during World War Two, there were popular comics that depicted the Japanese as laughably evil and incompetent. The imperialist history of Western aggression in the Middle East has largely been overlooked, yet the stereotype of Muslims' supposed inability to "take jokes" continues to persist.
Noted media scholar Simon Weaver wrote in a paper, comedy serves as a means to quickly convey what is believed to be the truth. Jokes reinforce stereotypes by momentarily making their central message appear true.
When the President of the United States suggests implementing a ban on people from Islamic countries entering the country, it can be tempting to align oneself with the exclusionary rhetoric that underlies this type of prejudice. Jokes have a way of sticking with us, sometimes blurring the line between humour and truth. They can serve as a simplified version of the intricate histories of the communities they target and can contribute to underlying biases, whether subtly or overtly.
Humour theorists attribute the superiority theory of humour to the explanation of jokes that target individuals or groups perceived as inferior. The purpose of joke-telling is to bring joy and amusement to both the teller and the audience, often through playful teasing or humour that is not meant to harm or offend others. The practice in question can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle's argument, which is considered the first notable theory of humour.
According to sociologist Ral Pérez, in his article titled "Racism without Hatred?" this argument suggests that humour and laughter serve the purpose of perceiving others as inferior.
Disparagement humour, also referred to as targeting humour, is a form of comedy that focuses on disempowered social groups, thereby reinforcing existing systemic inequalities.
Folklorist Alan Dundes and anthropologist Thomas Hauschild created the phrase "Executioner's Humour" in 1983 to describe the prevalence of anti-Semitic jokes in West Germany in the 1980s. The ammunition of those in power defeated gallows humour, the refuge of the powerless.
Why did such a large number of Jews end up at Auschwitz?
The fare was free.
These types of jokes, which subtly implied that Jews as a group enjoyed being gassed, served to allay Germans' guilt about the Holocaust. Jokes with a hygiene theme played on the "dirty Jew" image and supported beliefs about Aryan purity. They were also a metaphor for the German attempts to make soap out of the bodies of the Jews they had murdered.
In the 1960s, waves of Turkish immigration sparked a cycle of jokes that disparaged both Jews and Turks. In these jokes, Turkish people, the new outsiders, were associated with dirt, while Jews were metaphorically reduced to "ashes." They were already destroyed.
The use of executioner's humour allowed Germans to acknowledge the Jewish slaughter while also downplaying its atrocities. When it comes to disparaging those we consider to be different from us, humour frequently supports the cause of hatred since it makes it simple to deny, dissociate and become detached. It enables the joke-teller to downplay any racial, sexist or ableist motivations, thus normalising those unfavourable perceptions of the marginalised and demeaning horrors they endure.
European literature from as early as the 16th century has hilarious expressions that normalise anti-blackness. Theatrical traditions have created the same racialized associations of stupidity, folly, and irrationality as have been identified in minstrelsy characters and other forms of blackface comedy. These associations include the role of the black-masked devil, who was both silly and bad. These depictions, according to Renaissance researcher Robert Hornback, contributed significantly to the justification of slavery.
In particular, when "the Negro" was left to his own devices, "antebellum whites were determined to 'prove' a connection between blackness and irrationality," he argues. The legal denial of liberties like the right to vote and Jim Crow practices, which were named after the first-known minstrel figure, was founded on the untrue assumption that black people have "natural" mental debility. The fact that these images were prevalent before the transatlantic black slave trade was formally established shows how the dehumanisation of some social groups began before their historically documented slavery and mistreatment.
Comedic anti-blackness played a role in fostering a sense of "white solidarity" that transcended other distinctions. Pérez discovers that using ridicule against black individuals has resulted in the development of a shared symbolic language.
The pleasurable ridicule of blacks served as a social activity that allowed European immigrants from different classes, national and ethnic backgrounds, each with their unique interests, cultures, traditions and languages, to perceive themselves not only as 'white' but also as racially superior.
Pérez points out that racist joking is deeply ingrained in the culture of American police departments. It is often justified as a "necessary evil" that helps build camaraderie among colleagues who face the challenging task of fighting crime. Humour is often believed to play a role in fostering a sense of community.
Jokes that involve racial stereotypes, such as "How does a black woman fight crime? The fact that she had an abortion and the release of a video trailer featuring police dogs in KKK imagery from the Fort Lauderdale police department in 2015 both highlight the undeniable connection between anti-Black police brutality and the circulation of racist jokes within law enforcement.
In the journal Sociological Perspectives, Pérez's article discusses: Public defender Howard Finkelstein strongly asserts that individuals who find amusement in the beating of black young men are more likely to engage in acts of violence against them without hesitation.
Internet memes played a significant role in conveying alt-right messaging during the 2016 US presidential elections. According to media studies scholar Viveca Greene, Donald Trump's presidential bid and successful campaign effectively utilised memes as a means of communication, harnessing their previously untapped political influence.
Trump's actions ignited the hidden fuel of online white supremacy while media outlets played a crucial role in amplifying and spreading its message. These memes have popularised Islamophobic, sexist, racist and homophobic ideas from white supremacist messaging, thereby increasing their appeal among a younger audience.
According to Greene, the alt-right movement uses irony, humour and memes as key tools for recruiting and radicalising individuals on the internet. The global internet's interconnectedness facilitated the rapid spread of these memes across vast distances.
The rise of the alt-right is often linked to the rise of Trump, but the cultural moment that brought the alt-right out of obscurity can be traced back to the Gamergate harassment campaign of 2014 and 2015. During this time, the vitriol against women gamers escalated to a dangerous level with the use of misogynistic humour and the alarming practice of violent doxxing.
According to Andrew Anglin, the founder of the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, Gamergate served as a direct pathway to the alt-right movement. He claimed that Gamergate attracted young white men who felt marginalised by feminism and political correctness. These individuals became increasingly frustrated when they perceived aggressive social justice warriors encroaching on their online communities and imposing their demands.
As a result, they delved into the "dark corners of the internet" in an attempt to understand the situation. The contemporary use of disparagement humour is often portrayed as a way to challenge what some perceive as the excessive political correctness that has affected America.
Socialists in the 1940s were among the earliest individuals to employ the term "political correctness" as a means of satirising the rigid ideologies prevalent within the American Communist Party. The term was adopted by conservatives in response to the progress made by the Civil Rights Movement, whether it was actual or perceived.
In an era where overt racism was stigmatised, racist humour was framed as an attack against the excesses of political correctness. The surge in popularity of joke books during the 1980s, exemplified by titles like Truly Tasteless Jokes, can be attributed to their bold claim of being able to "offend everyone. These books gained traction by presenting a wide range of jokes that were designed to provoke a reaction, including the following examples:
What do you call a black boy with a bicycle? Thief!
What's the new Webster's definition of the word "confusion"? Father's Day in Harlem
Racist jokes like this shatter the myth of a colourblind America because readers "must be colour-conscious' rather than colour-blind' to 'get the joke.'
While initially seen as anti-establishment, political incorrectness is now primarily used to reframe status quo-ist defences of discriminatory behaviour as revolutionary truth-telling.
Humour's tools have aided in this process of subverting meaning by making it cool and edgy to be "politically incorrect." The work of Pérez demonstrates that during a time when serious forms of racist discourse were becoming more and more unacceptable, "the success of the 'equal opportunity offender,' as a challenge to 'political correctness,' was in deflecting charges of racism while simultaneously allowing individuals, whites in particular, to circulate racist jokes in public under the guise of 'just jokes' and 'free expression."
The advent of the Internet era has also expedited the spread of knowledge and awareness regarding the concepts of free expression and free speech. The First Amendment was established to safeguard citizens' rights to express dissent against authoritarian decisions made by the state. In other words, it ensures that ordinary people are protected from facing punitive actions from the government.
According to Greene, on social media platforms, the concept of political incorrectness being equated with free speech serves as a means to propagate "white supremacist thought, Islamophobia and misogyny through the use of irony and understanding of internet culture.
Similar to political correctness, the redefined concept of free speech is not limited to right-wing circles but is widely recognised as a fundamental principle of liberalism worldwide.
The killings of journalists at the French periodical Charlie Hebdo, which occurred due to its publication of cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammad (PUBH), were widely portrayed as an assault on free speech.
According to communications scholar Matt Jones, simplifying an editorial take that prioritises taunting marginalised communities in French society over the politics of anti-oppression and integration as a mere free speech issue overlooks the long-standing power imbalances between the French state and its Muslim constituents.
A naive interpretation of free speech and secularism can inadvertently enable a "black humour" publication like Charlie Hebdo to promote an Islamophobic agenda, all while being protected by the widely supported principle of freedom of expression.
Despite Charlie Hebdo's dedication to anarchic humour, which includes the use of violence, explicit language and pushing the boundaries of conventional morality, it sometimes falls into the trap of promoting exclusionary and oppressive messages. According to Jones, it is impossible to completely separate a pure anarchic spirit from the social conditions in which it exists.
Contrary to popular belief, the extent to which a cultural product promotes anarchist ideals is determined more by the social interactions it stimulates than by its explicit adherence to principles such as opposition to government, rejection of authority, independent thinking or collaborative efforts.
Notions that once justified the tragic histories of slavery, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, violence against women, and more can sometimes appear alluringly subversive when presented in the form of a joke. However, if individuals neglect to challenge prevailing stereotypes and instead continue to uphold exclusionary beliefs that have been ingrained for a long time, they cannot be considered subversive in any way.
Hatred, even when disguised as a green frog with a doleful gaze, remains hatred.
