National Culture
A Coffee Loving Continent
Not only the biggest consumers per capita, European coffee lovers have also developed unique coffee consumption habits
Running Riot with British Identity
Britain was last week gripped by riots which spread across its major cities. The aftermath has left the country both shocked and uncertain
Which cultural values define Europe?
Main Content
Political Incorrectness
In a world all but ridded of taboos, how do we now determine what is acceptable in comedy?
Although relatively unknown beyond the borders of his home country, the comedian and political activist Dieudonné has been one of the most controversial figures on the French comedy circuit for over a decade. Currently in Libya lending his support to the besieged Colonel Gaddafi, Dieudonné’s stand-up routines are often littered with caustic jokes and embittered criticisms of the Jewish people and their supposed racial superiority; to such an extent that he has been widely decried as racist, anti-Semitic, and ultimately not funny at all. However, when Sacha Baron Cohen sprung the character of Borat on an unsuspecting public in 2006, even those scenes depicting Jews as money-hungry cockroaches attracted no more than scant criticism from anti-racism organisations in the Western World. Indeed, the film received critical acclaim and Baron Cohen went on to win a Golden Globe for his role as the culturally clueless Kazakh.
Ultimately, one man’s obnoxious racism is often another man’s comic genius. Is this because Baron Cohen is himself Jewish, and thus it is acceptable and even laudable for him to depict an offensive and anti-Semitic character? Or is it more to do with the presentation of such jokes, which often betray either a seriousness of intent or ironic ridicule behind what is actually said? Indeed, where exactly is the line which separates the acceptable from the inadmissible?
The Times They Are a-Changin’
Before searching for the location of this limit line as it is in 2011, it is interesting to note how far it has actually snaked its way since the advent of subversive comedy 50 years ago. Whether in stand-up, film or television comedy, it is safe to say that many arrestable offenses 5 decades ago have become bread-and-butter material in today’s taboo-free age. Foul language of any kind, references to sex or other ‘immoral’ topics, challenging of the established institutions of western society such as religion or politics; all were strictly off limits to early pioneers of humour. Loudmouth comedians such as Richard Pryor and other post-Vietnam artists started the revolution towards free speech (or vulgarity, depending on your point of view) in the 1970s, but as late as 1979 Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, a religious satire relatively tame by today’s standards, was banned in several European nations following its release.
Thus the constantly changing Zeitgeist, or “spirit of the time”, is one of the most important factors determining whether or not a piece of comedy is acceptable. For example the Republic of Ireland did not lift its ban on The Life of Brian until 1987, yet less than a decade later the most popular sitcom in the country was Father Ted, a hilariously subversive parody detailing the backward and often misogynistic lives of 3 Catholic priests living on a remote island. The changing mentality of the time which had brought about a rise in secularism and a questioning of the legitimacy of religion (and Catholicism in particular) had brought about a situation in which this once sacred cow could now be milked for comic material.
Walking the Line
This movement of western society towards unconditional free speech and the destruction of most remaining taboos have meant that not only religion, but everything is now fair game. Modern day stand-up comics such as Jimmy Carr, Ricky Gervais and Frankie Boyle (to name but a few of the British ones) include in their repertoires stinging gags about everything from disability to homosexuality to racism. So why doesn’t society denounce them as discriminatory and homophobic racists? The Zeitgeist of the 21st century certainly doesn’t allow for public displays of anti-Semitism, so why is making a witty joke about Auschwitz laughed at? The key lies in the seriousness and even the tone of voice of the delivery; a ridiculously ironic joke at the expense of a minority group is simply a bit of harmless fun on the surface, and often on a deeper level even serves to combat the very stereotypes which it parodies by ridiculing them. However, a sketch which is simply discriminatory without any apparent ulterior motive is neither useful nor funny, and can indeed promote rather than ridicule racism. The irony of postmodernism is that jokes are acceptable if you know what you are saying is unacceptable, and this is where Monsieur Dieudonné has fallen into hot water; his anti-Semitic jibes are not based on any ironic sentiment of anti-racism, but sound and appear to be based on genuine beliefs.
Of course apart from some obvious cases such as this (and also ex-Seinfeld star Michael Richards, who famously lost the plot a few years ago by repeatedly branding an audience member at one of his shows a “nigger”) the line between racist and funny is often quite fine. Comedians don’t go around telling their audiences when they are joking and when they are serious, so it is often up to the latter to make up their own minds. Whether they make their judgement based on the content of the joke, the tone of voice of the comedian or simply what is accepted by the Zeitgeist of the day, the most important thing is that comedy should never be taken at face value. Racist humour is ultimately humour, whereas humorous racism is just racism; this is the distinction with which modern-day subversive comics have to contend every time they take to the stage.