Laugh at poor people?
Dear Middle Class South Africa, Have you ever laughed at someone with cerebral palsy? No? Is that sick? In the nineteenth century people thought it was pretty standard to go to the mental asylum and laugh at the inmates. It was wholesome entertainment. Like DSTV, but with just one channel. What we think is ok entertainment is often screwed up. This post is about… wait for it… racism. When we go on about racism the typical response in Sandton is: *Yawn* “Racism? Yeah, fine, my kid Suzie is best friends with Tulu. We’re not racists.” But five seconds later they are singing about “kullids” (I hate this word) who are obsessed with circles and killing themselves at how Julius Malema talks. Is this normal and healthy? I want to explain why I think it isn’t. First we need to understand that we get three sorts of racist. There’s the Eugene Terreblanche type – raw, old school. There’s the Steve Hofmeyr “laizzes-faire racist” type (his own description). And there there’s liberal racism. Liberal racism is the type of racism that pretends it isn’t racism. Liberal racists usually look down on the other types: “Those Afrikaner racists are crazy man”. It’s the hardest to nail because we all pretend its normal. And its by far the most widespread and most dangerous. Like any addict half the battle is getting the junkie to admit they have a problem. Liberal racists are obsessed that they have no problem. In fact its part of how they create themselves. They see themselves as progressive. Most importantly they are multicultural and multiracial. We’ve gotten past the blindingly obvious realization that being racist is not about whether you are white or not. Part of the problem is the word “racism” itself. Race is so simple an idea as to be useless. Liberal “racists” judge people for more complex reasons than merely that they are black/white/Indian. In fact they often are black/white/Indian themselves. One of the biggest criticisms of black consciousness, for example, is that it comes at the expense of a variety of other categories such as gender, class, ethnicity and sexuality. This needs to be broken down a lot further to be intelligible though. The easiest way to explain it is around accents in SA media and comedy. Take the Steri Stumpy ad. It’s all about the flavour “nation” (“nation” is a very dangerous word). The ads are funny, usually because they have a crazy sounding guy who speaks a bit like Gwede Mantashe:
The politics of comedy and Loyiso Gola:
There’s been some debate, so I would like to write why I believe Loyiso Gola is the most relevant social satirist in SA today. I’m mildly prejudiced because I am a writer on his TV show, and my best friend, Mr. Chester Missing (@chestermissing on twitter) is a regular on it. However, I held these opinions long before the show, so here goes. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that laughter is: “sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly.” (1650/1999 in Provine, 2001:14) While, academically, it is more complex than this, the point is deeply valid, and particularly when examining South African comedy. Who we joke at, and, even more relevant, who laughs at your jokes, say volumes about what is commonly agreed in a room and in a country. In many ways comedy is a process that reinforces social relationships and reconfirms power dynamics in any social group. A bit of social theory: all societies have what anthropologists call ‘in groups’ and ‘out groups’, which is by no means a reference to being gay… that was a very ironic sentence. In and out groups explain how some people are more socially central – the cool kids. They are what we might see as the normals. The out group are the weird ones, the ones who say and do things that are simply not kiff for the in group power holders (which is why they generally go and form their own in groups… for e..g Black Consciousness). This is the biggest problem for people of colour, women, gay and working class people in SA workplaces. Consider that our most intrinsic assessment of the competence of another person is profoundly cultural. If you speak with a certain accent, have certain body parts, have certain tastes, or hold certain beliefs your competence is assumed more readily than for people who don’t have these qualities. We all claim that we don’t see race/gender/ethnicity/age… but that’s generally rubbish. Our ability to trust people, the most basic building block of social interaction, is based on our ability to read the cues of competence and reliability that they give. The opportunities people get in life are hugely affected by their ability to convince us that they are ‘normal’. Back to comedy then: comedy and humour have become pivotal features of how South Africans negotiate this ‘normality’. We all want our place in the sun, and we are generally inclined to support social dynamics that benefit this, sometimes even unconsciously. Imagine a (white) comedian comes to a work event and makes a few funny ‘black’ jokes/accents. Of course, I don’t mean blunt racist ones, just ones that would fall into the easy South African bucket of ‘laughing at each other’. Imagine that the audience is mostly white (which in my experience of corporate comedy, which is extensive, they usually are). The comedian kills. He (we are usually men) was so funny. He also just redefined anyone who has that accent as outside of the norm… that’s what made the joke funny in the first place. Yes, you do get black comedians who will provide this inspiring experience to largely white corporate audiences, but this is even better – guilt free racism. Delicious. Obviously these situations are far more complex than a blog post allows. My point is that comedy always drives certain norms and enforces certain hierarchies. What comedy audiences have to ask is where people are being placed in the hierarchy of competence. Comedians on the other hand are very aware that if they push certain topics they get bigger laughs with certain audiences, which means there is a strong temptation (consciously of otherwise) to play to the prejudices on offer... we all want to pay off our bonds! Back to Gola: I remember Loyiso, shortly after he had started out, saying to some white guys in a very white comedy club in Cape Town (black comedy clubs were totally non-existent back then), ‘Do you know where Gugulethu is? Well you should. Your grandparents put us there’. Audiences would scream with laughter at these socially provocative, intelligent jibes. Please understand, it would have been far easier for Loyiso to do jokes about how he’s doing comedy so he doesn’t have to steal cars, or make hilarious accents helping rich/white people to feel better than poor/black people. He didn’t. He worked his ass off to create comedy that would be both funny and say the right thing, that would normalize the ‘out group’. He’s a young voice of colour who is getting 1.2 million viewers an episode for his TV show… he has succeeded where other far more experienced comics were given TV shows and failed. Etv received a tidal wave of emails when the LNN 2nd season ended, demanding that they bring it back immediately. Don’t get me wrong, Loyiso is by no means an angel. He’s loud. He’s off the wall. He’s not above the odd stereotype. But in all this his comedy is thoughtful and poignant. Now, a dynamic is that there are other liberal type voices that do the same. There are, but the devil is in the detail. The question is, who are their audience, and what is that audience actually laughing at? Laughing at politicians is essential. Laughing at a politician for having a working class accent, or having ‘African’ features… that’s counter-revolutionary, comrades. We justify it because it’s political, but the actual social drive is discrimination. Julius failed woodwork. Hahaha… only a racist judges a black guy by how good he is at manual labour. On the other hand, the only white guys Julius Malema doesn’t hate are Colonel Sanders and Johnny Walker. To take this sentiment a bit further. The micropolitics of the actual jokes (who is at the butt of the twist), and the comedian’s analysis of the political landscape (e.g. do you see every newspaper headline as evidence that SA is turning into Zim?), together show the political agenda of the commentator. We need voices outside of overly-opinionated ventriloquists and excessively caffeinated Daily Maverick columnists to help define what is true. To cite again, JanMohammed and Lloyd, (1987: 7): “To date, integration and assimilation have never taken place on equal terms, but always as assimilation by the dominant culture. In relations with the dominant culture, the syncretic movement is always asymmetrical: although members of the dominant culture rarely feel obliged, in order to survive, to master the hegemonic culture (without necessarily gaining access to the power that circulates within the dominant sector).” Ps, I by no means claim to live up to the agendas I have extrapolated here. I do aspire to them though.
Jokes and the Japanese disaster.
The first thought in my head after hearing about the Japan disaster was: ‘This earthquake is playing more cities than Lady Gaga’. I tweeted it. Some people laughed. Some people told me it was insensitive. I agree with both. When we go through pain we have to joke about it… eventually. Here is a piece I wrote after the 2004 tsunami that explains why: “Why dost thou laugh? It fits not with this hour.
Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus
Until the 26th December 2004 I sincerely believed that laughter belonged anywhere and everywhere. I believed that in the right context there was no topic that should not be probed with the scalpel of humour. But on the 26th December the Tsunami that hit southern Asia did so with such immediate force and complete and horrific destruction that it literally blew my opinion “out of the water”. With personal connections to several people involved, and such heart stopping coverage, I found myself in tears in front of Sky News. This was not funny. Even seeing my mother die five years ago had had more room for laughter, I thought. That is, until that first sms. It was the one about Thai real estate now being in Sri Lanka. My response? Shock, and then a smile. Then I remembered 911 and those Mc Donalds Fly Through jokes. I remembered the space shuttle disaster and the 7 UP / NASA jokes. I remembered “Life is Beautiful” (a comedy film set in the Holocaust!). I remembered my African Grey parrot who still laughs in exactly my late mother’s laugh at the most uncanny times. Laughter seems to persist. Is this right? Is this the product of a sick personality? Or is this a coping mechanism that has a place and a purpose? These questions are age old. From classical literature we have taken the term “Sardonic laughter”. The phrase derives from the effects of a herb that grows wild on the island of Sardinia, which when eaten makes your facial muscles force a grin. (They should have given some to our Idols contestants). In fact it seems that there are numerous physiological reasons for people laughing at inopportune times: types of seizures, schizophrenia, certain diseases, Alzheimer’s and even frontal lobotomies1 (Another idea for the Gareth Cliff?). There was an amazing example of this recently in the Star2. A few Sundays ago they premiered the film “Sometimes in April” (a movie about the Rwandan genocide) in front of 18 000 Rwandans in the Kigali stadium. Everyone responded as they were meant to, but with one bizarre exception. At the moments where strong sentiment or foreboding around the killings was expressed, instead of crying or going quiet the audience laughed. Psychologically the “joke” is usually seen as a way of coping and of releasing emotion3. We build up ideas in our lives of what we should and should not do. Such as the realisation that: “laughter is like sex… you can’t do either at a funeral”. At some level we feel scared that life is uncontrollable, that bad things just seem to happen (e.g. White graduates, who are trying to BEE positive). The expectations of society, our own feelings of insecurity, and a desire to release the resulting tensions are the driving forces behind joking. Perhaps this is why when comedians do well we say we “killed”? Laughter is the release on the pressure cooker. In the workplace this manifests as jokes about figures of authority and power dynamics, relating to management and the controlled working environment. This works because it is a small and allowable rebelliousness. The jokes we see around retrenchments (eg. A few years ago MultiChoice aired “Honey I Shrunk the Staff”), disasters like 911, the Tsunami, and such life changing events are an exacerbation of this. “sick humour allows human beings to take a distance from uncontrollable, unpredictable, and harmful objects, events and situations, and to relativize their importance.”4 This is a complex topic. From the research it seems that people who would not ordinarily enjoy sick jokes are more open to them when the humour eases the tension that such disasters create4. In a sense the only ways for us to fend off the powerlessness we feel when we see these events is i) to deny it, ii) to blame and iii) to joke about it (i.e. acceptance). The trouble is that one needs to be able to do this without trivializing the event. Grieving has a clear psychological process. Someone who has just returned from Phuket will not be ready to laugh about their experience, and nor should they be for some time to come. However when and if they do recover the laughter creates an incredible healing. In short the lesson we can take from the joking after these disasters is that we need an outlet for our occasional fears and feelings of powerlessness. Much rather people be allowed to express this as clear joking, which has a place and means, than as a brooding bad attitude which appears as office politics and resentment. Obviously caution has to be taken that the joking is not used as a weapon, and is gently applied. The best ways to do this are to regularly share jokes, to have frequent communication sessions, and make sure office getaways have a place for laughter in which people are allowed to clear the psychological air in honest, transparent discussion and banter. A major issue in this is that people must not be scared of saying what they think. This requires leadership that is not afraid of criticism, and a climate that is firm with those who abuse the system. A simple example of this is a project I worked on at a large SAA corporation in the last two years. My business partner Mr. Chester Missing, was employed full time as a sort of corporate agony uncle. Whenever difficulties came up internally at the company Chester was used to communicate the situation in a way that made people laugh, but respected the gravity of the complaints. By doing this we got the issues out in the open for discussion without the venom of heated antagonism. When used sensitively humour is extremely effective in this kind of emotional and organizational “surgery”. Let’s learn to laugh at life… it literally is only a temporary situation. Sincerely,
Conrad” Amazing how jokes and articles can make a come back! I do think today is too soon to joke, but the time will come, probably by tonight. [1] R. R. Provine, Laughter, a Scientific Investigation, 2000.
2 The Star, 25/01/2005.
3 Herbert Strean, Jokes, Their Purpose and Meaning, 1993.
4 Study in Humor, International Journal of Humor Research, 2004, vol. 17-3, pg 259.
Racism, comedy and the Kuli Roberts article:
“When ‘race’ is enunciated at the contemporary historical moment, the black-white binary is immediately invoked, and race becomes the marked term designating ‘black’ of ‘people of colour’, while ‘white’ remains the unmarked site of privilege.” (Kondo, 1977: 6) If I was any more uptight about this I’d make my middle name ‘Sphincter’, but here goes: I want to deal with this Kuli Roberts thing, but lets start by realizing: race is a fallacy. It is a socially created, not scientifically accurate way to define people. There is nothing you can say about black/coloured people that is true for all black people… not even that they are brown. This is the trouble with the word ‘coloured’, and even the term ‘mixed-race’: the concept only has credibility if we believe the original ‘black’ and ‘white’ were real in the first place. They’re not. Let’s bear in mind that race was invented by ‘white’ (they aren’t actually) people to subjugate ‘black’ (they aren’t actually) people. An additional difficulty for ‘coloured’ people is that ‘they’ (Its an imaginary category. There is no ‘they’.) have never been at the receiving end of the political power play: they’re perceived as too black AND too white. The next question then is whether racial humour impacts on people’s lives? With the discussions around race and jobs in SA and particularly after ANC spokesperson, Jimmy Manyi’s comments about coloured people the answer is resoundingly, and uncompromisingly ‘YES’. In my research on diversity in two of SA’s biggest banks I found example after example of where negative stereotypes impacted on people’s opportunities in the workplace (I even met one white woman who had decided to stop hiring Indian people). I understand that you, the reader, would never entertain a stereotype… however consider how powerful the impact of incessant repetition can be. Prejudice is the result of a million micro racisms, which slowly normalize what is sayable in a very discriminatory direction. I recently saw a senior white exec shout to a middle aged ‘coloured’ woman at an awards ceremony: ‘make the circle bigger’. My entire table cringed – there was no way for this lady to rebuke the exec. That being said, the dynamic with South Africans and race is complex. In his book ‘Cultural Intimacy’ Michael Herzveld suggests that people propagate stereotypes of themselves! In anthropology we call this ‘strategic-essentialism’. As a comedian we can all relate to the times audiences have encouraged one to take the Mickey out of ‘them’, and we all know SA comics of colour who quite happily stereotype themselves. Consider that:“The received notion of polities [groups] based on cultural homogeneity and horizontal fraternity, real or fictive, is giving way to imagined communities of difference, of multiculturalism, of ‘ID-ology’.” (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2000 in Comaroff and Comaroff, 2004: 190) In simple English this means some of us are trying to be more ‘coloured’ or more Indian or more Zulu now than ever before – because only through solidarity with others who we type caste as ‘like us’ do we stand a chance: “Earnings regression show that even after the abolition of apartheid, after controlling for education, age and location, race is by far the most important predictor of earnings, which is related in part to differences in the quality of education and the legacy of discriminatory access to jobs in the past… Jansen (2004) predicts that the non-racial utopia in SA is receding fast, which becomes clearly evident in the widening gap between poor Blacks and Black elite. Additionally, the ‘comfortable accommodation of an inclusive Black (i.e. the fragile bond of Colored, Indian and African solidarity) is easily fragmented when the chips are down (p. 9). Provocatively, Jansen asks if ethnic identities will again be mobilized to make demand on dwindling resources.” (Urban, 2006: 175) Obviously I am not suggesting we should pretend that we have no differences. We can, however, deal with difference intelligently. Take Steve Biko. He propagated black consciousness in SA – the idea that being black is a positive thing, that it is a place of pride and power. This is why many ‘coloured’ people associate themselves with ‘black’ rather than ‘coloured’. In fact I over heard Stuart Taylor (one of SA’s top comics, and of colour) say he’d like the term ‘coloured’ to be treated on par with the word ‘n****r’ - you can only call someone ‘n****r’ if you are black. I am not saying there can’t be immense pride in being ‘coloured’, but surely this can be achieved without referring to stereotypical accents, lack of teeth or alcoholism? Finally, we need to consider the politics of a comedy show. Generally it’s a middle class audience – you need money to go to comedy, or to hire a comedian. Generally the funny accents are working class (yes, we take the piss out of ‘model c’ accents, but far less frequently). Often, and most definitely in corporate situations, the demographics of the audience are not those of our comedic targets. This is my problem with Julius Malema jokes. Are you laughing at him for being a working class black guy (his accent and education), or are you laughing at him for being a political lunatic? A danger is that these comedians are often very good looking, young, utterly charming and often of colour, which makes their racism/sexism/classism all the more beguiling. This is about cultural sensitivity. The difference between a white guy such as myself joking about ‘coloured’ identities and the guys from Joe Barber doing it are immense. When Kagiso Lediga describes people (who often happen to be black) it’s hilarious, but we in no way look down on those people as he is telling it. We in no way feel superior to them. The question is, does our comedy confirm race and prejudice or does it pull it apart, undo assumptions, and reject the racist historical status hierarchy that placed people of colour at the bottom? A dynamic in this is the ‘laugh at yourself’ argument. I dislike it thoroughly, because it recasts someone who felt like they have been prejudiced against as someone who can’t take a joke. Lets keep our context in mind: this is South Africa, one of the most racially divided societies on earth (we just had apartheid for fuck’s sake!). It is usually those with social power who get to define a comment as ‘just a joke’, and let’s not forget also that most humour is a form of attack. Please be very certain that when people see a comedian make light of racial difference they often think they have a right to do the same (in the board room for example – I’ve seen it happen). If you are a coloured woman and your white boss decides to do his ‘no-teeth-coloured-accent’ impression I assure you it is not at all funny, and expecting this woman to find it funny is despicable. Some of the proponents of the ‘its just a joke’ philosophy think that if we stop being racist, sexist, ethnocentric and classist we will have no comedy left. South Africa has a long list of world class comedians who prove otherwise. Now, about Kuli - many people on twitter have pointed out: ‘but comedians make these jokes all the time’. It’s true. We do. Even the inimitable Khaya Dlanga questioned whether this piece was actually a rather misguided attempt at satirical debunking of racial fixities. Let’s not forget that Kuli was herself in a mixed race marriage and has mixed race children. That being said, that her article made it to print without someone suggesting that there were issues in how it came across means we live in a society where such humour is acceptable. The cultural slide that makes it acceptable is massively influenced by whether YOU, our audience, laugh next time someone makes that accent… whether you see that we are being expected to look down on the comedic target and decide to watch another comedian instead.
The apple still hasn't dropped. Replies to replies about liberal racism:
David Newton is not living up to his surname’s illustrious history. He responded to my initial post with: “@Conrad: I really don't think this is the place to debate race relations or sociology. I will however say that to label me as a 'liberal racist' is dangerous! I fight for equal rights! The equal right for a man with achondroplasia (midget) to make it into one of my jokes! Equal rights! The equal right for a black man to be treated with the same level of anger for pissing me off as a white man! I refuse to treat people with differently simply because of their perceived disadvantages...because I believe it's condescending and I believe that to be treated equally is to build dignity! Am I unaware of unequal playing field?? No!! Am I unaware of the concept of restitution?? No!! But I believe that dignity is first and foremost...and I believe you build that with equal respect.
Be very careful Conrad with your label dispersing, anyone who really knows me for 5min knows I don't have a fiber of racism in me...” I replied to this with: @Dave 1) I never called you a racist. I described your poster and arguments as liberal racism. That you don’t get the difference is telling. 2) Is this the forum? YOU started discussing social science the moment you made this attack on Blacks Only Comedy and posted it - don’t get in the pool if you don’t know how to swim (please, please, please make a race joke about this, I know you want to). 3) You want equal rights, but won’t acknowledge actual power dynamics in SA social politics. Academics have debunked your concept of ‘equality’, but I get it, you were too busy photoshopping yourself to do the research. The trouble is you call it ‘equal’, but it its not. When people like you and I invoke ‘equality’ re race and SA it is usually a version shaped to very specific sensibilities, sensibilities that favour middle class, masculine, heterosexual whiteness. We don’t know this because if it’s our fart we don’t think it smells. This ‘equality’ position is EXACTLY the angle used against affirmative action. It denies any historical consciousness, denies the suffering of millions, forgets that: “There is a pattern here: the more distant you are from western culture, the less you are likely to be heard” (Jimmy Manyi). 4) Your argument about treating people differently is extremely shallow. I know in your larger thinking this is how you have tried to explain away political correctness. You are wrong… Dangerously so. You believe you should extend one way of treating people to everyone – yourself and the midget (you use this midget anecdote to avoid the historicity of real SA examples). Generalizing one’s own culture to others is called ‘ethnocentrism’. Of course you should make jokes about everyone, but that’s not the point. The point is that we should do so RESPECTFULLY and cognizant of very real historical and current dynamics in our society (yes, for midgets, and oppressed Rondebosch Boys alike). Your above poster does not do so. In order to justify your aggression towards the assertions in ‘Blacks Only Comedy’ you claim that you are merely being ‘equal’. You’re not. You’re being incredibly biased, and in a way that helps to some small degree to entrench some serious problems in our society. 5) I understand that you are passionate about this, and you feel attacked. I by no means claim that I don’t make exactly the same mistakes as you. The difference is, when I make them I try and listen and consult with people who know what they are talking about. It’s patently obvious that you have not done this. 6) You claim not to be racist. Ok. I believe we are all racist, but we'll talk about that another day.
My response to @DavidNewtonHaHa 's liberal racism re Black Only:
This comedian in Cape Town has issues with Blacks Only Comedy (he created the above). To Quote JanMohammed and Lloyd (1987): "To date assimilation has never taken place on equal terms, but always as assimilation by the dominant culture" David, you are seriously misunderstanding how race works in South Africa. The idea of blackness came about as a political position against whiteness, which is how 'white' people back then justified their racist colonial objectives. Black intellectuals (e.g. Fanon, King… and in SA Steve Biko) turned this on its head with the idea of black consciousness, which was a political drive to encourage the millions who had been made black by colonialism to see strength, value and esteem in their blackness (remember, its us who told them they were black and inferior). Blacks Only is a satirical concept, in this vein, although… as Chris has said above… isn’t really ‘only blacks’ (I’ve done it several times). The racism that your argument promotes is profound, but subtle. The anthropologists call it ‘liberal racism’. Its nasty because it poses as fair minded equality, but ignores the fact that for people of colour the playing field has never been equal. An average white kid has a far far far easier time than an average black kid – the examples of this are in the millions, and utterly devastating to witness. Consider this: “Whiteness is a fairly new category of identification, only coming to have meaning within the context of European imperialism/colonialism within the last 500 years… White expands, constricts, and changes, creating a circle of privilege… At times whiteness is invisible. It becomes ‘the norm’ that undergirds the structures of society” (Dolby, 2001) What you don’t get, partly because you are white, is that race, in the majority of SA workplaces, only exists when a black person walks in the room, while whiteness is primarily invisible – its what we see as normal (or in SA, as normal middle class) – normal hair, normal accent, normal customs. Blacks Only is a playful way to speak back to this, to provoke us to see, and to take the piss out of the outrageous inequalities in our history. Your seemingly harmless poke promotes the idea that things are equal… But a quick trip to Gugs will remind you, they’re not. What is it with us Rondebosch Boys and our righteous ignorance about how ‘the Other’ feels?
For the full discussion see: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150380890550206&set=at.337845265205.342123.713205205.713205205&ref=nf
