Joke’s on you. Some thoughts about humor.
All of which i’m not completely comfortable about
I’ve been having an ongoing conversation.
Can we joke around with anything? Is humor something that is above all, like freedom of speech? Or does it mean something?
One of the conversations I had went something along these lines:
A friend made a joke about fat people. It was pretty funny. And I know my friend and where he stands, I don’t believe he has any real bias or phobic thoughts about being overweight. We covered how usually humor is a great coping mechanism. And incorporating it, being able to laugh at ourselves, not cutting the flow of creativity for fear of our own thoughts, is great.
But then, if you are always making jokes about fat people, I don’t care that much what you think deep down, you are contributing to a less healthy, friendly social environment. Because humor is also a way of steering the conversation. It establishes ‘topics we can laugh about’ and ‘things that are not funny here’.
So, should we be drawing a line?
My friend’s answer was to taunt me about my sense of humor being limited. I click baited and now cannot get out of this banter about my narrow joking scope. Apparently my sense of humor is something I was proud about, and I’m still paying for that slip. .
But aside from that friendly competition, I am often wound up about this: when, if ever, should we put a cap on humor?
That question covers way more than I can chew. So I dumbed it down to categories divided by context. And the role I believe humor plays in each of these.
- Work, behind closed doors
- Work, beyond the private realm
- Social interactions, inner circles
- Social interactions, the public realm
- Creative writing, essays and texts (I believe they are always potentially public, even if discarded inside a drawer in antarctica. So I won’t split this category)
Work, behind closed doors
I’m talking from the organization’s point of view here. I’m sorry about the need to narrow this down so much, but things can get messy too fast. So, you are an organization with a certain organizational culture (which as a concept should be treated no different than culture) and therefore, tied to certain expectations to be fulfilled when you hire someone. People are expecting something from you, because of your employer branding, interviews, research and so on. And in turn, the behavior all this creates shapes the organizational culture too. How you choose to work has an impact on yourself. Humor, inside the scope of what is expected, can be an implicit part of the contract. If organizational culture changes (and it can since it’s made up of its people and new profiles get hired, context changes, etc.), that same sense of humor that once made people smile could be out of tune. To the point it could escalate to a public scandal.
But who can use humor and how?
Some companies are more bold in their internal comms strategies and values. And the smaller the organization, or the more comfortable we feel, no matter the size, the fuzzier boundaries can get round the edges.
If we can all joke around, and humor is horizontal, and there are certain safeguards that provide me the certainty that I won’t be unfairly punished for saying something, humor seems fine.
But If it’s an even slightly hierarchical organization, then joking about certain topics could be a way of silencing people. Of marginalizing. Or creating an uneasy work environment. If people don’t feel completely safe, it could be interpreted as a power move. If people are discontent and you make a joke about it from HR, it sounds like you’re making fun of the people you should be taking care of. Because, let’s not forget, that is the role the institution has. What happens in there, you are responsible for.
Also, what happens if there is an agreement everyone is happy with, and it’s, let’s say, racist? I won’t like it, but I believe racism is wrong, so the problem there isn’t really humor. Humor is just used as a way of expliciting something that is already happening. Thing is, from the explicitly organizational point of view: this will get out in the open.
Work beyond the private realm
My criteria changes slightly, but noticeably here.
Let’s rewind to this statement: “Some companies are more bold in their internal comms strategies and values”. And seem to be publicly exempt from any condemnation. If you come across and add from a techy startup that works on trending topics, humor won’t be as surprising. Some people have more of a license to joke about stuff and get away with it.
I believe this roots, asides from the preset expectations, from if you are a private or public organization, and how much skin you have in the game. Private or public because of the very basic rule: do whatever you want with your money, but not with mine. If you are publicly funded, you will have to give explanations. People have a say on what you say. If you are the government, it’s not funny to make certain jokes because you’re supposed to be the one handling them and it can be held against you. If you are a private company, then you have a hall pass of sorts to your advantage.
And then, skin in the game. The more involved you are on a topic, the more you can say about it. In a nutshell: “It’s funny ’cause it’s true”. Now, the less involved or far away from a topic you are, the more frowned upon it will be because you will likely be promoting stereotypes irresponsibly, and odds are you’re not intending on cleaning up the mess you make. Maybe you aren’t even aware you are making a mess, which is almost worst. Call yourself to silence.
Again, this is from a work point of view. You are an organization making a public stand about something, and you represent people inside your company, and influence people outside of it. You are not free of ties and it’s important to be aware of that. That is the limit of humor, be it because you’re being smart, moral or responsible.
If you can check the three items mentioned before and are willing to deal with the consequences of wreaking havoc, go for it. Debate is always interesting, it’s simply not always a good strategy and won’t make you likable. Again, kind of like freedom of speech, just make sure you have a mop at hand for the aftermath.
Social interactions, inner circle
This will be the briefest category. And the freest. I believe the sky’s the limit here. Dark humor, acid humor, tasteless jokes, clever ones. The comedy of the absurd. It’s extremely important for thoughts to run wild somewhere. To properly develop ideas, consciousness about stuff, big or small, we need to have the courage to think, question and understand them. If you can joke about it, then you have clearly harnessed the concept.
Here I also think frequency, not topics, play a key role. If someone is fixated with a certain topic, there’s something to dig into. Maybe something to take up to the manager: social interactions in the public realm. I think your inner circle is a safe space to express yourself.
I may not like the full potential of people in these scenarios. I do not want to see the full power of my great aunt and her bridge club unleashed. It’s unlikely anyone there will interrupt to ask out loud: “should we be saying this?”. But a private space to freely be is to me a human right. Any censorship in this bubble has more negative consequences than positive outcomes.
Social interactions, the public realm
This to me is the hardest. Enter the void.
Small reminder: I am not arguing for or against the right to joke about anything (that I take for granted, for freedom of speech above all), but the weather I believe we should. Or what repercussions doing so has on our surroundings.
What you joke about in the public realm establishes baselines. Humor is a resource that helps us grasp reality, so I believe humor is a powerful lobbying tool and the things we joke about are a reflection of our society. It’s a social cohesion tool.
This doesn’t mean other people should zip it because it is potentially dangerous. But, tied to the frequency variable, an “Oh, c’mon we’re just kidding” tends to be an understatement used to dismiss that maybe you just said something real shitty.
Its double edged impact is exactly what I love about humor. It can be innocent while it can also disregard and discredit the greater good. Sometimes both simultaneously. It can sweet talk us into many things because, well, I can’t help making room for someone who makes me laugh.
So should we, with this in mind, censor ourselves? Probably not. What’s more, humor tends to censor itself. Many people say “you can’t joke about anything anymore”, but a comedian I like a lot said “yes you can, but what’s funny changed and some people are just lazy and don’t want to change they’re jokes”. Some things age well, some don’t. Plenty of people make super risky jokes and society is fine with it. We all need humor to cope. But but but but, I want to advocate on how humor has a lot of power to it. Layers and layers of depth to unravel. It’s magic, but it’s not impartial and we should keep that in mind.
That was the crux of our matter. My friend argued that humor is simply humor. I believe humor has an agenda. It shows parts of who we are, what we believe, what is funny, what is wrong, what should be taken less seriously and what we want to promote. Even if that agenda isn’t direct. I’m not saying if you make jokes about disabilities, you have no respect for this huge slice of the world population. We are more complex than that. Irony, sarcasm and layered jokes are just a few ways that can be untrue.
Which is why all of the above doesn’t mean I won’t laugh at certain jokes. It means I’ll probably analyze them like any other variable (very into psycoanalisis, can’t help myself) and ask “where are you taking this conversation?” and also “Are you aware you are doing it so?”.
Creative writing, essays and texts
I almost forgot.
I love this category. This is my job and my hobby. Once something is in paper (digital paper, in bytes, in 1’s and 0’s, a notebook, take your pick) it can be shared. Read by someone else. Published. Stolen.
What’s more, once something is in writing it’s not yours anymore. I find that super scary. It will be read without knowing the intention behind it, your personal background. It will develop multiple meanings: the one you gave it, historical meaning, personal connotations…And they’re all real. They’re all valid. And they will all have an impact regardless of what you want it to be, whether you want it or not.
They can be reinterpreted through time. They can reach people much quicker than conversations and stories we can tell face to face (side note: you decide for yourself if video diaries, recordings and the lot can be jammed into this category. It’s words crystalized in a defined format that can be reproduced any time at whim).
So what’s the key difference between the social categories and this one? In the end, shouldn’t it be the same criteria? Comic strips, jokes in newspapers, poems, an essay, they can all lobby with humor, steer the conversation at a much wider level. The perks are better, the risks are higher, what’s the difference?
I’m not sure this is a solid argument, it’s a selfish and self indulgent one for sure. But if this category is completely free there is just so much to work with. Think of it as a giant collage. That’s what transmedia storytelling creates anyway. We take different platforms, jokes, mix them, reinvent them, resignify them. That is a Meme. I can take something horrible and make it funny. Distort it to make it say the exact opposite. It’s simply something we shouldn’t miss out on. And the fact that we have time to take it home and work on it, unlike real time conversations, kind of sets a more level playing field.
This is as far as I get. But I’m definitely open to stretching this conversation indefinitely if you have any thoughts.
