By: Nathaniel K.
I pose a question. What makes something offensive? In the context of comedy, which we are, you need to know what makes something funny first. A lot of people have theories on it, and lot of these opinions seem sensible. While these theories can explain why some specific thing is funny, there is almost always a joke that disproves it. For example, let's look at the incongruity theory.
The Incongruity theory states that “humor is perceived at the moment of realization of incongruity between a concept involved in a certain situation and the real objects thought to be in some relation to the concept.” In normal words, this means that once you realize that what you are talking about is not about what you thought you were talking about, you will find humour in it. The audience of the joke expects one outcome, but a different one occurs.
For example, most knock knock jokes fit into this category. Lets try one. Knock knock. [who's there?] Orange. [Orange who?] Orange you glad that you came to this TedX Conference? When I said orange in the middle of the joke, the expectation is that the remainder of the joke will be about oranges. Once you realize that I meant something that had nothing to do with oranges, you find it funny.
The problem is that there a plethora of jokes or funny experiences in which there is not any incongruity. Slapstick comedy does not rely on misdirection. The audience expects someone to get hurt, and then someone does. Its still funny, but there isn't incongruity.
Most other theories on comedy can be disproven by thinking of something funny that doesn't fit the idea. The problem with these theories is that they depend on the idea that everyone has the exact same sense of humour. Many things can cause different sense of humour between people. Age, gender, race, religious beliefs, political beliefs and environment are just a few things that form someones sense of humor.
There is a sense of individuality that needs to be incorporated into the theory, and I have found one that has done just this. It is the Benign-Violation Theory. The author of the Benign Violation Theory, Peter Mcgraw, spoke at a different TedX conference on his theory. As a result, I will try to keep this summary brief. The Benign-Violation Theory has three parts to it: 1) the situation has to be benign, 2) the situation has to be a violation, and 3) the perceptions of the situation must be both benign and a violation at the same time. What this means is that something must feel safe, yet intrusive at the same time. You have to feel both comfortable and uncomfortable. The joke has to be both innocent and offensive.
In my eyes, the wording of part three is important. “The PERCEPTIONS of the situation must be both benign and a violation at the same time. The word perception indicates that the experience is unique for each individual. How I perceive a joke may be different from how you perceive that same joke. I may find the joke to be very benign while you find it has high levels of violation.
Using the Benign Violation Theory, it is explainable why something can be offensive. If something is too much of a violation, it is offensive. Some see that Benign Violation as a cheap cop out to explain the complexity of comedy, because the definition of violation so broad in this context, therefore it can mean whatever is needed in order to explain why something is funny. To me, this subjectivity of the theory is not a cop out, but rather the reason that this theory is superior to others. Comedy is subjective, so it only makes sense for the explanation of comedy to be subjective. What one person finds funny may be different from what another person finds funny, and in turn what one person finds offensive may be different from what another person finds offensive. The term violation is defined differently for each individual.
If I make a joke about a gay man, there would be some people offended, probably those who are either gay or a gay rights activists, because they find the joke to be a violation to something they morally believe in. h*mophobes would find the joke humorous because they do not have any moral investment in treating h*mos**uals with equality, so the level of violation is not high enough to make it offensive. If I make a joke about the Holocaust, the majority of people would be offended, because the Holocaust is a clear violation of the moral belief “don't ma** k** people”. Although, neo-natzis would find it humourous, and not offensive, for the same reason a h*mophobe would laugh at a joke on h*mos**uals.
Now, with an understanding of what makes something funny offensive, we can use this to work backwards. We can take something that is pure violation, something that makes you upset or sad, and make humour in relation to it, in turn increasing the levels of benign. When your sense of benign increase, this offensive topic no longer seems offensive.
I'm not saying that we all need to go out and start talking about how hilarious the Holocaust was, because that wouldn't help. We can't just spike the level of benign, for people will take that as an increase in the violation. Take for example pieces of satire. In satire, some idea is being made fun of for the purpose of improving it. TV shows like “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” make fun of problems with the political sphere. Problems in the political sphere can have enormous impacts on our lives, and some people that are strong believers in their political ideals leave the potential for high amounts of violation. To help cope with incompetence and corruption, The Daily Show makes light of situations, thus increasing our levels of benign regarding the topics discussed in the specific episode.
Another method to add benign to a topic is to separate yourself from the topic. If a joke teller talks about a taboo subject, he or she can separate him or herself from the violating subject, thus avoiding any potential backlash. Some stand up comedians create another persona that they take while on stage. Therefore, when taking on the subject, the comedian avoids responsibility for any violations.
An example of both the separation from the material and the gradual inclusion of benign being disregarded is from Daniel Tosh. The topic was rape during a portion of Tosh's stand up, and a female member of the audience yelled out “Actually, rape jokes are never funny”. The comedian replied to heckler by saying “ Wouldn't it be funny if that girl got raped by like 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her…” It is well established that rape is a sensitive topic, Tosh joked about rape too directly, making the audience feel uncomfortable. The comedian received immense levels of well deserved backlash for his comments for the following weeks.
A better example of making a joke about rape is from comedian Bo Burnham. In his song “From God's Perspective”, he talks about many different topics from the perspective of God, including rape. the verse is “ You shouldn't abstain from rape just 'cause you think that I want you to. You shouldn't rape 'cause rape is an f'd up thing to do. (Pretty obvious, just don't … rape people, please, didn't think I had to write that one down for you)” Burnham separated himself from the subject by making the song from the perspective of God, and also kept the situation benign by discussing how rape is unacceptable, which is the belief held by the audience. By stating that rape is a negative experience, the audience has opened up and is more willing to hear his thoughts about rape. Through this, Burnham has made it more acceptable to discuss rape.
These are the two extremes of the offensive and acceptable spectrum on rape, but there is a middle ground. Comedian Sarah Silverman is known for being edgy and occasionally offensive. She tries to discuss every socially sensitive topic, but with the intent of expanding societies level of acceptance. In her 2014 standup special “We Are Miracles”, she talks about rape and rape jokes. She says, “Rape, obviously, the most heinous crime imaginable. Rape jokes are great. No, because they make a comic seem so edgy and so dangerous. And the truth is, it's like the safest area to talk about in comedy. Because who's gonna complain about a rape joke? I mean, I would say rape victims, but they're traditionally not complainers.” Some people feel violated because they think that she is making light of a stereotype about rape victims, but in reality she is trying fix a problem she sees in rape. She is satirizing this idea of not being complainers, with the hope that the victims will get help and report the crime. This joke can be taken either way. Some simply see it as a tasteless joke about rape that does nothing but violate, while others see it as a way to reform this violation ridden topic by adding a sense of benign.
Comedy has the potential to open the world to taboo topics. Trevor Griffith wrote in his 1976 book Comedians , “A real comedian- that's a daring man. He dares to see what his listeners shy away from, fear to express. And what he sees is a sort of truth about people, about their situation, about what hurts or terrifies them, about what's hard, above all, about what they want. A joke releases the tension, says the unsayable, … But a true joke, a comedians joke, has to do more than release the tension, it has to liberate the will and the desire, it has to change the situation.” We all need to think about the effects of our jokes, and how we are expanding what we as society deem appropriate. So next time you say “Thats what she said,” know that you aren't making a bl**job joke, but rather you are making dirty jokes more acceptable in your community.
Thank you.