The Limits of Comedy

Every so often a comedian will say something really racist or sexist or homophobic or in some other way controversial (for some reason this usually tends to occur at the Laugh Factory) and it creates a huge media buzz. The resulting discussion is the same every time and reveals that there is a gaping chasm regarding what people consider to be acceptable territory for comedians. For those who are wondering, yes, this post was prompted by Tosh’s rape joke.

So, it always turns out that some people are totally offended, while others insist that nothing should be off limits. Personally (and from a partially amateurish social scientific point of view), I do think that the exploration of societal boundaries is a useful function that comedy can perform. Comedy provides a useful means of juxtaposing the expected/stereotypical/acceptable with the unexpected/transgressive/taboo, as well as demonstrating the fuzziness, instability, and arbitrariness of the boundaries and categories we construct. In short, comedy reveals all the intricacies of social life that normally exist below the level of conscious awareness.

But there are other types of comedy that do not perform this function. For example, certain forms of humor serve the purpose of making people feel better about themselves at the expense of others (it may be worthwhile to note, in that regard, that the middle school boys who taunted their bus monitor were inspired by their experiences watching Tosh.0 and their desire to get on the show).  This type of comedy includes the brand of “stupid humor” that portrays fictional characters acting unrealistically idiotic, to satisfy people’s pleasure in feeling superior to someone less intelligent.

[I should add that not every portrayal of stupidity falls into this category. For example, the Dylan character on Modern Family is used partially to mock the stereotypical suburban teenage boy and to highlight the disparity between the parents’ expectations for their daughter and the reality of her choices; furthermore, an exchange such as –

Father: I mean, it's the tux I got married in so it's double breasted.
Dylan: Perfect. So am I.

– also serves as a clever linguistic quip.]

Then there is the brand of humor that is based on a desire to liberate oneself from any social norms and say everything that normally goes unspoken (the Saying Poop for the Sake of Saying Poop brand of humor). Some (but not all) of the practitioners of this form of humor argue that boundaries should not exist, and comedians must have free rein. Every time a controversy occurs, these people insist that anyone who is “too sensitive” should not go to comedy clubs, and that comedians can say whatever they want – because, after all, “it’s just comedy.”

Despite all my radical anarchist/antiestablishment tendencies, even I see the necessity of some social norms. Certain boundaries exist because they protect oppressed populations. In particular, certain limits on discourse are necessary to erode assumptions that specific types of people are inferior to others. For example, if it were not taboo to say (overtly) that black people are less intelligent, then there would certainly be more people who believe such nonsense actually expressing it openly, and these open affirmations of belief would reinforce one another, further entrenching racism in the collective conscious of society. To those who doubt the power of the Word, I would point out that the prevalence and circulation patterns of discourse always affect social reality, and that is why efforts at social control always begin with discourse (propaganda). I should also point out that I am NOT arguing that: 1) Social norms require legal enforcement; or 2) We can make problems go away simply by not talking about them. My claim is simply that discourse – any kind of discourse – has social consequences, and therefore, limitations on discourse may be useful in mitigating (though not necessarily eradicating) certain negative consequences for oppressed groups.

I believe that only the first form of humor that I described above is socially productive. I think the second lacks insight and can be personally damaging in many cases. And the third tends to be employed (by coincidence and not necessity) by comedians who are ultimately unable to think beyond commonplace assumptions. These comedians, in their quest to eradicate boundaries, are not attempting to challenge the social order or dominant ideologies, but merely fighting for their ability to express already hegemonic ideas (about race, gender, sexuality) in the crudest possible terms.

I also want to respond to the common argument that these controversies are the fault of people who are too easily offended. For example, in Louis C.K.’s odd and inconsistent reaction to the Tosh/rape controversy on the Daily Show, he made the “joke” that “feminists don’t have a sense of humor.” There are a couple of reasons why I don’t find this funny. Number one is that, from a purely comedic standpoint, lines get progressively less funny the more they are repeated and I have heard this one far too many times. But more importantly, this “joke” about feminists is generally used to undermine the legitimacy of their claims. It is a license to not take feminists seriously. It is also a power-trip. What angered me most was when Louis C.K. said, “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” It reminds me of being at work, when I compile reams of data and logical arguments to try to influence courses of action within my department.... and I’m told, in effect: “Okay, we’ve listened to you. Now shut the f*** up.” The fact is this: Louis C.K. is not only absolutely wrong, but is also perpetuating gender stereotypes, when he says that all women want is for someone to listen to them. No. What feminists (assuming, for the moment, that they are all the same) want is to be taken seriously, to have a seat at the table, to participate in social decision-making, to enact change. Who gives a crap about listening; what about an end to discrimination, stereotyping, and violence?

I think what I hate most about the “feminists don’t have a sense of humor” bit is the assumption that it is not possible to simultaneously care about things and have a sense of humor. Although I am quite a politically correct person, I have a sense of humor that constantly throws people for a loop. The faulty assumption is a case of boundary-phobes seeing things in black/white, and not recognizing the existence of people who both appreciate boundaries and like to explore them as well (in fact, it is impossible to explore something that is being destroyed). For example, to those who say my disapproval of Tosh’s joke indicates my lack of a sense of humor... would I automatically get upset about any joke that mentions rape in any context whatsoever? No! (For example.) But do I believe that there are inappropriate contexts and executions of rape jokes? Sure.

The fact of the matter is, I don’t see any reason why comedians should be granted complete immunity. Every social actor bears responsibility for the social implications of their work. The idea that the world of comedy operates by different rules is, to me, a cop out answer.

Freedom and the Necessity of Coercion

I had a conversation with someone a few days ago which relates to my argument (from my previous post) that "freedom" is a problematic term that, in its use, glosses over a complex social reality.

We were discussing associations - groups that supposedly exist for no other purpose than a specific need common to its members.  In particular, we were talking about how associations will raise the price of their products (publications, certifications, dues, etc.) while members complain about the burden of the costs.  Our debate hinged on the question of whether members should have any say in the matter (or whether the solvency of the association is more important).

I provocatively asked, "Well, don't the members have a right to run their association into the ground, if they want to?  It is THEIR association, after all.  It exists for them."

The response:  But these associations MUST exist.  Otherwise there would be no professional ethics, regulations, standards.... no way to ensure that people keep their knowledge up to date.  It's like the federal government. Most people wouldn't pay taxes if they were given a choice.  Plus, people don't agree on what they want.  I would pay more in taxes for defense spending; you told me you wouldn't pay anything.  So you can't let people decide what they want for themselves because society wouldn't be able to function that way.

Now, obviously complete anarchy in a society like ours would be a disaster.  And in general some degree of social coercion is necessary.  That's why the term "freedom" is not very helpful for a nuanced understanding of social life.

The issue is, then, the means and ends of social coercion.  It is also the type of society that necessitates certain (undesirable) forms of coercion.  It is important to remember that most of us live in societies that are large and lack clear boundaries (globalization).  We operate in a system that is structured by forces that redistribute the majority of wealth toward a handful of people.  So, if I don't have any say in how my tax dollars are being used, that is not an evil because I have to bow to communal interests; rather it is an evil because the allocation of my tax dollars is being dictated by the agenda of an insanely wealthy ruling class, whose decisions do NOT benefit either me or society as a whole.

I understand that in a large society like that of the U.S. it would be impossible to have a true democracy (assuming, that is, that we have any democracy at all, which I would dispute).  Rather than resigning ourselves to current conditions based on that fact, though, shouldn't we think about whether or not large societies are really beneficial to most people?

And going back to associations.  Yes, I understand that when groups of people work together that some sacrifice and compromise is necessary.  But associations exist within a context of a stratified, exploitative capitalist system.  When prices of membership and membership benefits become too high, then it becomes a barrier to participation, further exacerbating the stratification of society.  We have developed a society in which the costs of basic social necessities (medical care, education, etc.) rise at astronomical rates, and become prohibitively expensive for a critical number of people.

You can throw your hands up and say "it's the market," or "it's the industry," or "that's what it takes to live in society."  But really, that is what it takes to live in this society.  And there is no reason why we should not be able to critically evaluate the particularities of our current system, and weigh the harms against the supposed gains of social progress.  As always, I just wish this was something that could be discussed or thought about.  It seems that the really interesting questions can never rise to the level of conscious consideration and debate.

Independence Day

Today I have been and will continue to be bombarded by emotional displays of patriotism.  I will hear "God bless America" more times than I can count.  The people around me will discuss their appreciation for democratic values and the freedom that we enjoy.

Freedom is a loaded word - that is, a word that is employed more for the purpose of stirring up emotional reactions than to denote any meaningful reality.  What does "freedom" actually mean?  In the case of the U.S., freedom is generally synonymous with representative democracy and capitalism.  However, representative democracy is a form of oligarchy, and capitalism runs on slavery and exploitation.  If one looks at material reality, the conditions to which the term "freedom" are generally applied render the word absolutely meaningless.  We're dealing with Orwellian linguistics here.

But, we have freedom of the press!  Yes, anyone has the ability to publish official narratives and mainstream viewpoints, without impediment.  Of course, there are many issues (particularly related to global affairs) where you will only find one perspective in any American media source.  Alternate points of view are nowhere to be found... except in foreign newspapers.  And try to publish anything that the Powers That Be find truly threatening - say, start a site called WikiLeaks - and you will be hunted down like Osama Bin Laden.

But, we do not jail and torture dissidents!  Or.... do we?  Arbitrary detention of U.S. citizens is permissible by law, and torture does not seem to be beneath us either. Heck, we can just send a drone over to annihilate someone who is saying things that bother us.

But we have freedom of religion!  No one is forcing me to pray, or go to church, or wear a veil.  Now, if you happen to be Muslim, you just have to put up with a little surveillance here and there, and probably should plan to always be detained at the airport.  And you may be ridiculed and called a terrorist by everyone around you.  No big deal.

Well, at least the state isn't telling us what to buy and where to work.  Good point.  The small number of mega-conglomerates who control the production and distribution of most consumer goods tell us what to buy and where to work.  That is so much better than the state.

Well goshdarnit, at least I don't have any King George telling me what to do and making me pay taxes on my tea.  If only power were vested in a single individual.  Revolution would be SO MUCH easier!  Get rid of the King, and restore power to the people!  But that is not how it worked in 1776, and that is not how it works now.  The King is a symbol, and democracy is a symbol, both used to legitimate what is actually an oligarchic social reality.

The American Revolution was NOT a case of people rebelling against a tyrant and fighting for their freedom.  It is a case of structural transformations and adjustments, spearheaded by capitalist interests, for the benefit of capitalist interests, and to the detriment of every common person.  You don't even need to look at Canada to realize that the Revolution was of little consequence.  It followed from the internal logic of the capitalist system - the birthing pains of the emerging world order.

Now, I will not be waving any American flags today.  Not because I hate America.  (I generally do not direct my emotions toward symbolic, intangible objects.)  But because patriotism is simply a euphemism for nationalism, and nationalism is a form of state manipulation of emotions, which is often paired with racism/xenophobia.  

I would prefer to celebrate universal, trans-national values.  Peace, tolerance, equity.

Capitalism and the War On Drugs

I just read this article, and it got me thinking again about law, drugs, capitalism.  Have I talked about drugs yet?

There is so much more that can be said about this topic than I could ever write. I know I am biting off more than I can chew. And really, the whole thing is still something that I'm trying to make sense of. This post, then, mostly revolves around some unanswered questions.

The biggest mystery is WHY any drugs are illegal. The fact that prohibition is totally ineffective and promotes the formation of black markets and organized crime leads one to believe that social welfare is not the primary objective, else this strategy would have been rejected (like it was in the case of alcohol). Then, of course, there is the fact that some drugs (e.g. marijuana) are relatively harmless compared to others. There does not seem to be any logic undergirding this system.

In opposition to the idealistic "social welfare" explanation of drug policy, there are a number of conspiratorial explanations.

1. Targeted enforcement of users allows for the imprisonment and control of certain populations (e.g. poor, young African Americans)

2. The formation of black markets and crime rings creates markets for arms manufacturers

3. The formation of black markets allows for redistribution of wealth (further drains money from the poor - the population that is most associated with drug use); furthermore, accumulated capital from the drug trade exists "outside" of the system and leads to the formation of spaces free from laws of taxation, etc.

In regard, particularly, to number 3, it is important to remember that law is not a set of rules but a constitutive practice of modern social formations. The act of making something "illegal" does not put it "out of bounds." Notions of legality/illegality are, rather, means of creating different spheres of action which are required to maintain the inequalities that fuel capitalist accumulation.

All three of the above theories are plausible and to some extent supported by evidence. However, it seems unlikely that any one of the three in itself could be held entirely responsible the whole global War On Drugs, nor is it particularly easy to see how they might fit together (even including an actual concern for social welfare, which is at least slightly plausible as well).

Any ideas?

Is The Center Always Better?

Despite the polarization and passion involved in politics, no one directs their rage at the Center. If you can establish yourself as a moderate, you are pretty safe. No, more than safe: moderates usually command the most respect and wear it as a badge of honor. I have already discussed the discurve association between "radical" and "irrational"; there is, likewise, a parallel association frequently made between "moderate" and "rational." Moderates are more reasonable because they avoid the simplicity of the extremes and recognize contingencies on both sides.

That's not how I see things.

I have joked to friends that moderates are people who are too lazy to apply a consistent set of principles, or follow them to their logical conclusions. Now, setting aside my critique of the concept of the political spectrum, I think it is fair to say that the extremes are more ideologically "pure" than the Center. It could logically follow that ideological purity (or consistency) results in simplistic thinking (and from that, that the Center is more complex). But I think there is something more sinister going on in the Center.

Those who occupy the Center do not reject any of the ideologies embedded in the current social structure (neoliberal ideology, social contract ideology, etc.). In fact, dominant ideologies find fertile ground in the discourse of the Center. Thus, it cannot be said that the Center eschews the simplicity of ideology. Rather, the Center represents what is manifestly exigent at any moment, regardless of ideology (even when strategically employing it). It is the arena in which various forces of dominance struggle to satisfy their most immediate needs. It is, indeed, a place of comprimise - but comprimise among the base interests of the most powerful members of society. For that reason the Center can more easily command the network of state and non-state institutional resources, and control the messaging that is propogated as "public discourse" (making it seem more widely accepted and pragmatic).

It is Centrist parties, politcians, and policies that most effectively support global structures of domination. Both the Right and Left tend toward a degree of isolationism/protectionism that is obstructive of global networks. And both are often wary of state and transnational authority. This is what the Right and Left have in common: both are more likely to support system-threatening changes. It is in this way they are more "radical" (and that is also by virtue of their very definition).

One need only look at the Greek elections for a demonstration of this point. It is the Centrist parties that support the status quo as regards economic issues: essentially, acquiescence to the interstate system. Now, although I do not think the proposals of the Left and Right (which are essentially the same on this front) fundamentally challenge the system, both propose actions which are at least somewhat contrary to more dominant European interests.

The Center appears the most rational only because it is the least threatening to those who determine what rational is.

Neoliberal Falsehoods

I enjoy reading media from other parts of the world, if only because it generally presents a wider variety of perspectives than my own regional alternatives.  I wish it were easier in the West for people not drinking the neoliberal kool-aid to reach a general audience.  But I will just have to satisfy myself with the fact that people like this Namibian can.

Book Review: Fordlandia

...The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford's Forgotten Jungle City

This account of Henry Ford’s ill-fated Amazonian rubber plantation also provides some history of the rubber and auto industries as well as the life and work of Henry Ford himself. I enjoyed it, mainly because I thought it was well-written and just plain interesting. Sometimes it’s nice to have a break from philosophical gymnastics and pedantic intellectualism, to just enjoy a story.

Yet the story was not without a point. The author, Greg Grandin, clearly emphasized the impossibility of controlling the negative effects of capitalism and the naivety of technocratic idealism. Henry Ford served as a symbol of the Ideology of Progress, the hope that science and technology can perfect society.

In fact, from a philosophical standpoint, what I found most interesting about the book was the way it illustrated the relationship between capitalism and government (the impulse to rationally control society). Henry Ford embodied these two forces better than anyone else. As such, he serves as a good entry point for an examination of the ways in which these phenomena both mutually reinforce and undercut each other, how they can spring from disparate ideals yet still be manipulated by the same dominant groups.

Common ways of construing the relationship between capitalism and government are simplistic. The two are seen only as opposing forces. Government interferes with capitalism; such interference may be viewed as beneficial, to the extent that one acknowledges any shortcomings of capitalism. To this end, capitalism and government are seen as the province of independent entities, the latter generally of the state.

I have already argued that government originates and extends beyond the state, in contrast to the view that the two are synonymous. On the other hand, it is also overly reductive to assume that capitalism and government work seamlessly together, managed by an elite conspiratorial cabal. A capitalist may be interested in social engineering, but may also come into conflict with the state, transnational organizations, nonprofits, community groups, and other capitalists, any of which may also be interested in the same governmental projects.

Henry Ford was motivated by profit. No doubt. Yet he was also an idealist, who sometimes let his drive for profit take a backseat to his quest for a better society. Unlike the stereotypical capitalist, Ford was interested in conservation, cared about the lifestyle and wellbeing of his employees, and vehemently opposed war. He expended a considerable amount of money developing a "sociology department" (which kept tabs on the habits of his employees) as well as providing quality healthcare, and in some cases (for example, Fordlandia) housing and meals. Ford bought into the promises of the Ideology of Progress - that technology could liberate humans from hard labor and dependence on the whims of nature; that capitalism could effectively regulate the distribution of resources and labor; that wage labor could build moral character and generate prosperity; that modernization could have a "civilizing" effect around the globe. Thus, Henry Ford was compelled to act in certain ways purely due to his belief that people should be healthy, productive, and morally upright. He was interested in people in their own right, and not just as forms of capital.

Yet he also opposed projects of other organizations that were motivated by the same concerns. He fought against state intervention (even when it mimicked his own projects) and despised FDR's New Deal programs. He pioneered the Five Dollar Day (a high wage at the time) and provisioned health care, but he was ruthless in his treatment of unions.

There is, I think, a better way of understanding the complex relationship between capitalism and government. It is true that individual capitalists (and others in positions of dominance) are able to wield disproportionate control over the distrinbution of resources, organization of production, and other aspects of social reality, even if they are only able to do so by virtue of the existing social structure, based as it is on inequality. However, one must not assume that they are all working together, or that there is some master plan. Of course everyone looks after their own self-interest. This necessarily leads capitalists into conflict with each other, because every individual succeeds at the expense of many of the others.

Yet, there are some general conditions which are necessary for the capitalist system to function, and this forms a base of shared interests. The state is one important arena in which shared interests are negotiated and protected. Even here, though, there is not total coordination among the members of the supposed capitalist "class." Many cannot connect all the dots and are unaware of the necessity of these general conditions - possibly because their understanding is distorted by ideology - while some are so concerned with short-term personal gain that the long-term prospects of the system itself are of no consequence to them. It is this fact, more than any other, that accounts for "politics" (as opposed to, say, the harmonious coordination and brainwash-based consent of the world of 1984).

But I must take better account of ideology in this scenario. It is true that ideology derives from and often works to support the system (and in that way furthers capitalist aims). It is also true that it may be strategically employed in a disingenous way. Yet it is not just a "lie" used to brainwash the masses (once again, a la 1984). Ideology fundamentally shapes the consciousness of many, many people from all levels of the social hierarchy. As such, when ideology is embraced by capitalists, it may hinder an awareness of what is really necessary for the system to function, and it may even cause a capitalist to knowingly act contrary to the profit motive. Henry Ford demonstrates both of these cases. For example, he did not realize that his refusal to cooperate with unions would result in dramatically increased worker unrest. It was not until a series of violent episodes and the success of a sit-down strike that he realized the necessity of cooperation as a general condition. And Fordlandia is the ultimate example of ideology before profit. Fordlandia was a drain on Ford's resources, and yet he continued to invest in the operation, with the rationale that it was a "civilizing mission."

Ideology, like profit, represents both shared and conflicting interests among the capitalist class. Most accept the set of ideologies associated with modernity (as these represent a dominant mode of thought overall). At the same time, some may emphasize different aspects over others, or hold different opinions regarding how best to achieve these ideals.

It may be said, given all of the above discussion, that the "forces of dominance" in our world are less individual people, and more the complete assemblage of social artifacts (social structure, physical infrastructure, ideas, discourses, modes of communication etc.) that has accrued throughout the entire human history of production and interaction. We are really, in a sense, slaves to our own creations - and the "our" here includes our ancestors.