Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Laugh with me: Humor and Public Diplomacy
Evan Sanderson
Victoria Marino
Lauren Dickel
SIS 642 - Christine Chin - Final Paper
1
Laugh With Me: Humor and Public Diplomacy Evan SandersonVictoria MarinoLauren DickelSIS 642 - Christine Chin - Final Paper
‘A Catholic, a Jew, and a Muslim walk into a bar.’ Pause there. Contained in that short,
seemingly innocuous joke is an entire world of contented meaning in an intercultural context.
From a certain American perspective, this might be the set up to a punch line, or a stand up
routine. However, in a traditional Muslim country like Syria or the United Arab Emirates, this
wouldn’t be counted as acceptable in the general canon of humor. In countries not familiar with
the structure of this type of verbal humor, the idea might be lost and the premise might be taken
at face value: ‘Why are they in a bar? Shouldn’t they be at their parish/synagogue/mosque?’
Even in certain areas of the United States, a joke involving religion might be seen as a politically
incorrect or inappropriate. All cultures find things funny, but humor itself is culturally
contentious. What one nation or group of people might find humorous is not inherently
humorous across cultural boundaries. However, that does not mean it can’t be.
The question is not whether humor affects the formation of cultural identity, but what the
implications are for humor as a means of public diplomacy both within a group and between
groups. In order to look at this question, one must look at the power dynamics inherent in the
creation and delivery of humor in everyday life and popular culture. We posit that humor firstly
acts a means of asserting cultural identity, and secondly as a tool for either undermining or
reinforcing power structures in society. However, just as humor can be a tool for exclusion, it
can also be used to promote intercultural dialogue and understanding between disparate peoples.
There is a third way: a humor that is inclusive without ignoring cultural distinctions, and which
allows for the possibility of open dialogue and appreciation. The important distinction between
laughing at someone different from yourself and laughing with them is the difference between
judging the Other and seeing him or her from their own perspective.
The framework for our analysis humor centers its role in public diplomacy. However, in order to
understand it’s potential in the public sphere, we must first look at humor itself as a cultural
construct, as well as demarcating the particular types of humor that are used in group settings.
Then, once we have established the typology of humor and it’s uses in society, we will move on
to how humor can be parlayed into public diplomacy efforts.
2
All cultures are considered to have a particular kind of humor, and it is in fact one of the key
aspects of defining cultural identity. Cultural humor, however, is not simply what a nation state
finds funny or amusing, but a confusing and complicated mix of historical factors that have
interwoven into a larger picture.
“Despite the recognition that jokes and anecdotes migrate, the content and style of a people’s
humor is usually assumed to be peculiar to the people to whom it belongs. This sense of
peculiarity extends beyond the recognition that the humor of a nation will be expressed in its
own particular language, will employ wordplay meaningful only in that language, and depend
upon the idiosyncrasies of the nation’s history, belief, and custom. For it is further believed that
humor is an index of a people’s opinions and character. It is held to express its temper and
embody its spirit. Consequently, the humor of different nations will of necessity be different
because their people and their temperaments differ. Such views have given rise to the numerous
anthologies studies of American Humor, Jewish Humor, Irish Humor, Chinese Humor, and so
forth. Such works are invariably efforts to characterize and celebrate difference, but differences
in history, language and custom may mask more fundamental similarities. Furthermore, the
presumption of difference in character and temperament may engender a perspective that is
sensitive only to distinctions between nations”.1
Take, for example, the idea of Jewish humor. A large percentage of Jewish comedians, including
performers like Jerry Seinfeld and Carl Reiner, are notable as a “Jewish” comedians. What does
that even mean in the context of modern society? Certainly, one does not have to be Jewish to
appreciate Jerry Seinfeld’s routine or to identify with the premise of his jokes and stories.
However, there is a particular connection made to Jewish audience members, an “in-group”
dynamic that makes certain individuals feel included in the premise. To be more specific, Jerry
Seinfeld has a stand up bit, I’m Telling You for the Last Time, that is centered on his retired
parents life in Florida.2 The humor comes from a mixture of exasperation and love, and relies on
the audiences familiarity with the quirks of many older Jewish adults. Anyone might find the odd
behavior and juxtaposition of ideas funny, but there is a particular in-group dynamic that’s
invoked throughout. The outermost layer is anyone with quirky, older parents. But to truly
1 Stoldt, Hans-Ulrich et. al. 2Romero, Eric J., and Kevin W. Cruthirds. "The Use of Humor in the Workplace." Academy of Management Perspectives 20, no. 2 (2006): 58-69. Accessed November 9, 2014.
3
understand this particular bit of humor, you need to be a Jewish adult with older Jewish parents
living in Florida.
The in-group dynamics of humor move in concentric circles, deepening as the premise becomes
more specific. However, the most successful pieces of comedy are those that appeal to the largest
scope of people. Take for example the phenomena of Friends. Friends is a situational comedy
popular in the 1990’s about a group of young thirty somethings living in New York City. From
the premise, one might imagine that this show would appeal to a similar audience: 30-something
urbanites living in America. Recent history has shown that this is not the case. While Friends
was enormously popular in the United States up until it’s last episode in 2004, it is even more
popular abroad, particularly in South East Asia, Africa, and Europe. Go to any hostel or small
restaurant in Indonesia or Thailand, and you will most likely see an old episode of Friends,
redubbed in the local language, with a handful of local people sitting and watching. How do we
explain this? The comic adventures of Rachel, Chandler, and Ross appeal just as much if not
more to those outside the dominant cultural group that has constructed the piece of humor than to
those inside the frame of reference.
Another example of this phenomena in the realm of popular culture is the show Ugly Betty,
produced by ABC in 2006. The show features a Hispanic American girl trying to make it in the
fashion industry. While garnering moderate success in the United States, Ugly Betty was
uprooted and reinterpreted to fit a variety of national and cultural contexts across the globe.
Versions of the show gained immense popularity in Spain, Germany, and Russia. All told, Ugly
Betty was rebroadcast in eighteen in other countries, including spin-offs into comics, cartoons,
and even video games. This show’s lifespan is notably different from Friends in that while
Friends was redubbed in local languages, Ugly Betty was entirely reconstructed to fit the context
of the host society. According to the Ugly Betty fan page “Ugly is the New Beautiful”:
“Unlike "Ugly Betty," most of the other international sitcom adaptations were quite faithful to
the original's pacing and basic plot points, but all of them brought their own new details,
characters, and themes to the story. Despite the fact that the cultures of these individual nations
vary greatly, Betty's story transcended all differences and was extremely popular almost
4
everywhere it was told.”3 The production in America wasn’t even an original itself, but a knock-
off of a Colombian telenovela called Yo Soy Betty, La Fea.
Based on the examples above, we see that there is an inherent tension with humor. On the one
hand, we have humor designed for and appreciated by specific in groups. On the other, we have
humor that appeals to a wide range of audiences, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The
cybernetic model of communication tells us that the process of communicating information
involves an encoder, the message, and a decoder4. In this transaction, there is an inherent power
dynamic that takes place between the transmitter and the receiver. As the message is decoded,
the original intention of the communication can be garbled or reinterpreted. This is especially
prevalent in international communication because cultural context has a tendency to affect the
decoding of messages, which is often the cause for miscommunication and misunderstanding.
How does humor fit into this equation? In the case of Jerry Seinfeld’s stand up routine, his
message is being sent and decoded most of the time in the same cultural context. In the case of
Friends (and somewhat for Ugly Betty), the message is sent from a particular cultural context,
and the decoded in a completely different cultural context. However, inexplicably and against all
reason, it’s still funny! The power of humor to both reinforce and transcend culture is its greatest
asset. It is also one of the reasons why it so seldom used in public diplomacy efforts. Humor by
its very nature is not seen as being serious in the realm of academic and political economy. This
is understandable, as humor is intrinsically hard to pin down. It is one of those aspects of society
that exists a priori from ourselves as individuals, and yet is so often taken as a personal
construct.
Most importantly, however, humor is inherently subversive. Political satire is a perfect example
of humor’s capacity to undermine and question dominant power frame works. Take for example
the phenomena of anti Deutsche Demokratische Republic (DDR) jokes told and retold by east
Germans living behind the Berlin Wall. Question: Why is toilet paper in the DDR so rough?
Answer: So that every last asshole in the DDR is "red." OR “Chernobyl, incidentally, wasn't an
accident, another joke went. It was just a Soviet program to X-ray its population. These jokes,
3 "That Wacky Foreigner Said WHAT? The Comedy of Culture Clash | Splitsider." Splitsider. January 10, 2012. Accessed November 17, 2014. http://splitsider.com/2012/01/that-wacky-foreigner-said-what-the-comedy-of-culture-clash/.4 TenDyke, Elizabeth. "Humor as Resistance | Making the History of 1989." Humor as Resistance | Making the History of 1989. Accessed November 17, 2014. http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/exhibits/humor-as-resistance/essay.
5
created as soft resistance in East Germany, provided insight into how the population was dealing
with and interpreting current events. In fact, West German Intelligence spies actually “sought out
jokes told by East German citizens to determine the overall “public mood” on the other side of
the Berlin Wall. Though reports usually began with political analysis and strategy, the “joke
section” became a favorite among intelligence officers all the way up to the chancellery.”5 For
the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall a well known German news paper, Der Spiegel,
published the article Humor Under Communism: East German Jokes Collected by West German
Spies6. Christoph Kleeman, a former official from the Birthler Authority, which was set up after
German unification to manage the archives of the East German secret police, or Stasi, rightfully
says, "Political jokes thrive in dictatorships, anyone who tells one or laughs about one creates
democracy for a brief moment, and brings the regime leaders down to his level."7 That said, these
jokes were dangerous. Many people were prosecuted and imprisoned as a result of joke telling.
"There are people who tell jokes. There are people who collect jokes and tell jokes. And there are
people who collect people who tell jokes.”8 The Stasi (secret police) had 91,000 employees, civil
informants and official officers, who always had their ears open for any form of resistance.
Despite the risk, the DDR Witz lived on, and not only provided citizens with mental release the
difficulty of their lives, it was also popularly used to help outside governments more fully
understand what was going on behind the iron curtain. It can even be argued that this was a
round about way that humor was used in public diplomacy, as a barometer to help the west better
position political discussions with the east .
Jon Stewart’s faux-news report, The Daily Show, is a popular version of political and
cultural satire that calls into question issues like media representation, governmental oversight,
and the American obsession with image and fame.The number one objective for the Daily Show
is to make people laugh, but because there is a humorous framework in place, the content can be
dangerous and biting. The number and popularity of fake news shows popping up over the last
5 Oring, Elliott. "The Humor of Hate." In Engaging Humor, 95. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003. 6 Chin, Christine. Lecture: The Making of a Field. American University School of International Service.SIS course 642. September 8 2014.
7 Weaver, Gary. Iceberg and Contrast Culture Continuum in InterculturalRelations: Communication, Identity and Conflict, Boston: Pearson 2013, pp.9-26.
8 http://www.jerriblank.com/betty/ugly-betty.html
6
five years, including The Colbert Report and This Week Tonight, gives credence to political
humor’s ability to capture the public imagination and attract widespread attention.
Public diplomacy is an act of theater. The group wishing to enact influence on a foreign public is
the “producer of the show”, and everyone involved has their script and knows their part. The
point of successful diplomacy is to achieve a certain objective or goal and within that construct
there is no room for rogue elements. The director (or the nation-state) knows what the desired
outcome is, and the set, actors and props are all meant to cultivate a carefully curated image. This
is justifiable, particularly in light of popular culture, where the consumption of image can be
done with the swipe of a phone and opinions can be transmitted through the air in seconds via
Facebook and Twitter. Public diplomacy is meant to secure national imperatives, and current
efforts like the @America project or the Global Sports Mentoring Program9 are thoughtful and
engaging efforts to expand American outreach in new ways. The stage is set, and the outcome
pre-determined - all that’s left is for the audience to show up.
Humor, on the other hand, is improvisation. It is chaotic, uncontrollable, and borderless. The
number one rule in improvisation is to always say “yes, and”, meaning that improvisation creates
spiraling structures that are impossible to predict or invoke. The death of comedy in the case of
the improviser is to say no to a suggestion or a scenario. In practice, this means the master
improviser must be comfortable being uncomfortable. There cannot be a predetermined goal or a
joke at the end of a scene, but instead an ever-expanding series of premises and opportunities
that build one upon the other. With improvisation, you simply have to listen and react each
moment without thinking about the bigger picture involved. It is, in other words, the polar
opposite of what is commonly considered to be public diplomacy best practices. The risk
involved in trying to make something funny involves being vulnerable and open to failure, which
is simply not a part of the current public diplomacy vocabulary. The monolith that is public
diplomacy seems to have no room for humor as a tool for establishing dialogue, because that
dialogue would not necessarily be on the terms of the dominant power group.
This is an important distinction to make. While we can understand humor, and seek to categorize
it, humor in practice has the potential to undermine power for several reasons. The first is that, in
terms of the cybernetic communicative model, it takes control out of the hands of the encoder
9 Gerrison, Laura. "Looking for Comedy Under Communist Rule in East Germany | Splitsider." Splitsider. March 16, 2011. Accessed November 17, 2014. http://splitsider.com/2011/03/looking-for-comedy-under-communist-rule-in-east-germany/.
7
and puts it squarely into the hands of the receiver. An individual may find something funny, but
in order to properly relay the sentiment, that individual must take into account the person who is
supposed to be amused. That process, even on the microcosmic level, involves trying to
understand what your audience might find funny and why. On a cultural level, it means coming
to the Other from the Other’s point of view. The second reason humor is subversive is that it
allows for a space where the unspeakable can be uttered and the unshowable can be performed.
The political satire examples provided above are one example of humor as a subversive tool, but
political satire is only example of this transaction. Cultural satire itself has become a common
form of humor, and a successful means of mitigating tension and poking fun at differences. On
Sidesplitter’s Cultural Tourism blog, there is a post about the efficacy of this kind of comedy.
Laura Garrison writes:
“Sacha Baron Cohen might have invented this category. The film Borat is just one big cultural
clash, a giant stunt exposing the hypocrisies of Americans by manufacturing these collisions with
one ballsy interview after another...These are just a few examples of themes in the comedy of
culture clash, specifically in the arena of international cultures. There can also be culture clashes
played out for comedy within one’s national borders. You could easily put Mel Brooks’ Blazing
Saddles into that broader pool. There’s also the whole alien/human divide played for comedic
effect in a show like Mork and Mindy or the film Paul or the Coneheads sketch. Or how about
cultural collisions courtesy of historical transplants and time travel? Twain’s A Connecticut
Yankee in King Arthur’s Court or the equally literary film Encino Man certainly would qualify as
gainful employers of the culture clash trope.”10
Exploiting the differences between cultures, both within groups and between groups, is not only
funny but revealing. In the sense of the Weaver’s Iceberg model11, It allows the creator of the
comedy to poke fun at some of the surface levels of the iceberg in order to reveal the values and
beliefs that lead to the behaviors being joked about. Conversely, it reveals stereotypes held by
the dominant group about the Other. Garrison comments: “What I find particularly interesting
about looking at it through the international lens — aside from that being how I tend to look at
10 Stoldt, Hans-Ulrich, and Klaus Wiegrefe. "Humor Under Communism: East German Jokes Collected by West German Spies - SPIEGEL ONLINE." SPIEGEL ONLINE. October 4, 2009. Accessed November 17, 2014. http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/humor-under-communism-east-german-jokes-collected-by-west-german-spies-a-655123.html.11 Apte, Mahadev My research on humor, American Humor Studies Association, Series 3, No 13, 2005.
8
things anyway — is it tells us not only how we as Americans and Westerners perceive cultures
different to ours, but it also tells us about ourselves. What we find frustrating in other cultures, is
telling about our own.”
It’s clear that a closer analysis of humor is needed to in order to classify the types of humor that
either be useful in promoting a public diplomacy that treats the Other as equal to the Self. There
isn’t a great deal of previous research on humor as a tool for dialogue between cultures, as it is
mostly focused on how humor differentiates culture. In the following section, we seek to define
the two poles of humor found in our research and illuminate their effects on communication and
diplomacy between and amongst groups.
Affiliative Versus Porous Humor
To expand our theory on humor’s use in public diplomacy, it is important to outline the two
classifications of humor we’ve found in our research. These two binaries exist on a sliding scale,
with most comedy and humor being found somewhere between the two poles: they are affiliative
or ingroup humor and porous or outgroup humor. By ingroup and outgroup, we do not mean that
these humor styles are not translatable, rather that there dominant expressive modes are either
packaged and received within a particular context or outside of it. The visual representation of
the scale is as follows:
affiliative/ingroup porous/outgroup
←-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------->
Within that scale are a great number of styles , including ethnic humor, aggressive humor, self-
deprecating humor, and political humor. However, by demarcating these two poles, we are to
place these styles along a continuum that will better allow us to determine how humor operates
as a means of either solidifying or transcending cultural identity. In it’s expressive form, humor
can slide across this spectrum to encompass the full typological range. For example, take the
Jerry Seinfeld example from above. His stand up routine might vacillate between humor that is
both porous and affiliative, depending on the audience and the material he is working with.
We will start on one side of the pole with affiliative humor. Affiliative humor is a term taken
from management studies as a way of understanding how social cohesion is formed inside of
9
companies. According to Eric Romero affiliated humor revolves around social lubrication and
the empowerment of an in-group dynamic.12 Management theorists are interested in affiliative
humor in it’s capacity to enhance the culture of a workplace by creating common touchstones
between all workers. For the sake of this article, we will expand the concept of affiliative humor
into the cultural realm by defining it as any humor that plays on dominant cultural tropes to
create a sense of inclusion and cohesion inside of a cultural group. An affiliative humor does not
have to correspond with a nation-state but often it does, and the tropes and style of affiliative
humor are often based on historical precedent. The most pure type of affiliative humor would be
aggressive humor, which is meant to belittle the Other in the face on an empowered, united front.
A malevolent example of this is the comics of the White Aryan Nation. These comics are
essentially pieces of hate propaganda disseminated amongst White Aryan group members to
reinforce their identity as “the dominant race.” No none outside of that group would find the
comics even remotely funny. However, they are used by the in-group to laugh at anyone they
different. This is an extreme example of aggressive humor, but underlies an essential point:
affiliative humor requires in-group identity in order to be funny.
Affiliative humor establishes connections between people by playing on commonalities. It takes
into account cultural quirks or idiosyncrasies and spins them into stories, jokes, and repeatable
bits of comedy. In the office setting, affiliative humor usually revolves around a few key
storytellers who are responsible for setting the common tenor of the office humor style. A few
individuals become identified as “the funny ones” and they help shapes what is considered funny
and what is considered off limits. The bits and pieces of material used to perform humor are
usually taken from shared office experience and common stressors in the workplace. Thus, office
humor is often not-relatable to those outside of the office, and many workers in corporate
America find it difficult to relay exactly what was funny to their loved ones and friends.
Affiliative humor is extremely context sensitive.
This can be related to have a wider cultural impact. The “office storytellers” are influencers and
entertainers in a cultural group that have a wide following. These individuals subsequently help
shape and are shaped by their dominant cultural humor-heritage, and so act as enforcers of the
12Oring, Elliott. "The Humor of Hate." In Colonizing Humor, 98. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 2003..
10
in-group mentality. The positive aspect of affiliative humor is that it celebrates a shared
experience. By basing a humor style on what we all have in common, it helps mitigate feelings
of isolation. Receivers of in-group humor feel like they are “in on the joke”, and are empowered
to identify and sympathize with their fellows.
Affiliative humor is contradictory in that also acts as a defense mechanism for withstanding
“hate humor” espoused by outsiders. “Hate humor”, as in the case of the White Aryan Nation
comics, is aimed at manipulating others by use of an implied threat, and it is both aggressive and
malignant. Whereas hate humor seeks to de-value the Other, other types of affiliative humor are
useful in reaffirming Otherness as valid and powerful. Examples of affiliative humor abound
anywhere there are distinct classifications. The most obvious popular examples, however, are in
the realm of stand up comedy. Of particular interest are those American comics who self-identify
as hyphenated Americans: Latino-Americans, African-Americans, and Indian-Americans. Their
audiences are often primarily comprised of in-group individuals, and when they aren’t, there is a
sense of seeming “non-authentic”. Authenticity is a mantle granted to performers which
empowers them to speak for and represent a group - the influencers and entertainers mentioned
above.
The downside of affiliative humor is that while it combats harsh stereotypes of the Other, it also
enables them. Particularly within marginalized communities inside of a larger power structure,
an in-group humor style often casts it’s affiliated members as different and strange. An example
of this in popular culture is the Hispanic comedian George Lopez. George Lopez is a facile code-
shifter, able to swing between Spanish and English in his acts. However, most of his popular
work is designed specifically for Mexican-Americans and he has had difficulties appealing to
other segments of the population. His sitcom George Lopez is a take on the traditional family
situational comedy, but hasn’t gained popularity outside of the Hispanic audience base.
Affiliative humor is a double edged sword in that it empowers and acknowledges difference, but
doesn’t allow the outsider full access to the cultural tropes inherent in the humor.
Another downside of affiliative humor is the use of aggressive humor mentioned above. In-group
humor establishes the group as separate from Others, and therefore Others become a primary
source of ridicule. Many cultures have a particular natural “opponent”, an outside group that is
agreed upon as a source of derision. Israelis make fun of Palestinians, and visa versa. Australians
make fun of New Zealanders, the Chinese make fun of the Japanese, the Americans make fun of
11
everyone else, and it all goes around in a circle.. Mocking others by their origins is also called in
the anthropological studies of humor “Ethnic humor”. Ethnic humor is used in a variety of
contexts, and “...the concept of ethnic humor is operationally defined as a type of humor in
which fun is made of the perceived behavior, customs, personality or any other traits of a group
or its members by virtue of their specific socio-cultural identity”.13 It is usually derogatory but
also entangles, political, historical and socio-cultural relationships established over time.
Consider for instance this joke: “An American, an Englishman, a Frenchman and a German
managed to survive a shipwreck on an island. After a few months, the German had organized the
natives into an army, the American had build a plant using native labor, the Frenchman had
opened a brothel and the Englishman was sitting on the beach waiting to be introduced”.14 Forces
of history, power, cultural stereotypes and even competition are portrait in certain jokes.
“Ethnic humor, like all other types of humor, is an integral part of expressive culture. It reflects a
group’s perception and evaluation of other group’s personality traits, customs, behavior patterns,
and social institutions by the standards of ingroup culture, with its positive or negative attitudes
toward others. Judgments proceed from intergroup interactions, but once established, they tend
to become a part of cultural heritage and do not change substantively unless they are affected by
significant historical events”.[3. Ethnic humor is expressed through stereotypes, which are
usually incorrect and tend to persist even though people might be educated. Interestingly, there is
strong current of intra-national aggressive humor that has a positive connotation. This occurs
when a marginalized group seeks to assert itself in a wider framework by gently mocking the
dominant group using a carnivalistic subversion technique.
On the other side of the spectrum is porous or outgroup humor. Outgroup humor is designed to
appeal to the widest base of people, and is easily exportable between nations and groupings. By
“outgroup” we don’t mean humor that is necessarily designed for mass consumption, rather
humor that by it’s very nature appeals to a wide swath of cultures and individuals. Porous humor
is often non-verbal. Take for example the Italian tradition of commedia dell’arte, which dates
back to the 14th and 15th century in Italy’s urban centers. The humor-style is based on a series of
larger than life characters who are portrayed using exaggerated physical expression and comedy
13 Oring, Elliott. "The Humor of Hate." In Colonizing Humor, 115. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 2003.
14 Stephen Tanner pg 54
12
shtick. The character of Pantalone is constantly gripping his “money bag” between his legs,
while the trickster Harlequino prances about onstage performing seemingly endless feats of
acrobatics. The important distinction in Commedia is two fold: the first is that most characters
never speak. The intention of a scene and the humor of a situation is conveyed entirely with
gesture and physicality. The performers are masked, permitting undue facial expressions from
hampering the performances. That takes us to the second aspect of Commedia that makes it
fundamental in the schema of porous humor: the characters exist sui generis from the performers,
and transcend both time and space15 . The humor of Pantalone exists outside of any particular
actor who has played Pantalone, and the same can be said for any of the Commedia characters.
Therefore, actors of varying backgrounds and artistic disciplines can become masters of this
performance style without reimagining what makes Commedia funny.
The implications for this example are vast. Here we have a style of humor that, because of it’s
unique qualities and characteristics, can make audiences laugh across cultural boundaries.
Indeed, the inspiration behind the creation of Commedia as an art form is to subvert the
dominant classes inside of Italian society, and that subversion carries over when the form is
presented inside of different cultures. National identity does not get in the way of the spirit of the
artform, and the character tropes and situations remain funny no matter where they are presented.
This does not mean that Commedia is without cultural context, just that it transcends it. It is an
ideal example of the porous humor type that is created within a specific cultural context but can
be successfully communicated across cultural boundaries.
In certain respects, outgroup humor has a tendency to be considered “low” or “crass” humor.
When it relies on non verbal cues and physicality, the emphasis is on exaggeration or mimicry.
Porous humor, however, can make use of language. This is a far more difficult prospect because
the potential for miscommunication or faulty interpretation is great. Affiliative humor starts from
the assumption that there is a shared cultural knowledge base - whether that culture consists of an
office, a city, or a nation. Porous verbal humor suffers because it cannot rely on any such
assumption - even that of a shared national language! Context sensitive jokes and in-group
comedy are not easily permeable across cultural boundaries, and unsuccessfully dubbed-over
T.V. and movies are just one example of that truism. The difficulties go beyond the level of
15 Wang, Jian, and Michael Hallquist. "The Comic Imagination of China: The Beijing Olympics in American TV Comedy and Implications for Public Diplomacy." Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 7 (2013): 232-43.
13
language, and touch on deeply held cultural values. Nhirpal Daliwal writes about this phenomena
in her article titled “The Bollywood Conundrum”:
The social differences between India and Britain create an almost unbridgeable gap for
Bollywood. Indian films deal with issues that are alien to the west or long since dealt with...The
attitude Indians have to watching films is the same as they have for life in general: one of
community, great patience and good -natured tolerance. But for a Britisher like me, Bollywood
remains a complete mystery.16
Porous humor often relies on the lowest common denominator to convey the thrust of the joke,
and because of this there is less potential for conveying multiple levels of meaning. The initiator
relies on the absurd, the grotesque, the taboo, or the uncanny, and the receiver reinterprets the
joke or piece of humor into a framework that makes sense for them. Thus, in truth, porous humor
does not transcend cultural differences but rather skips over them.
Why can’t we trust humor?
What is it with humor that no one takes it seriously even if stupidity, absurdity, inconsistency
and so many others find an antidote on it? Humor is a key part in our everyday social relations,
nevertheless it seems that this particular communication technique is not trustable when it comes
to everyday life, because it usually hides things we do not want to say seriously. Can’t we trust
humor because as Freud says, it’s a subconscious force, one that might allow us to say the most
blatant things without having real consequences or because we believe that for it to be
understood specific shared knowledge is needed among those involved in the communication
process? Probably the non consequential part of humorous speeches is why it is not used in
certain “serious” areas, such as politics and diplomacy.
Humor is born of inhibition; the repression of the suppression of unwelcome impulses or
thoughts. Sigmund Freud first posited the association of humor and repression.17 Jokes, in
Freud’s view, consist of both techniques and thoughts. The joking techniques divert the attention
of the listener so that an aggressive thought –which risks censure if stated directly- might be
safely expressed. The techniques of the joke are fundamentally duplicitous: they distract
16 Oring, Elliott. "The Humor of Hate." In Colonizing Humor, 115. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 2003.
17 Romero, Eric J., and Kevin W. Cruthirds. "The Use of Humor in the Workplace." Academy of Management Perspectives 20, no. 2 (2006): 58-69. Accessed November 9, 2014.
14
attention from the underlying message that the joke contains. Beguiled by the joke’s technique,
the auditor, through his laughter, affirms the forbidden thought and becomes complicit in the
aggression. Thus jokes make possible the expression of abuse in the face of obstacles raised by
social proprieties and conventions.A corollary of this view is that the more sophisticated a joke
is, the more it will be tolerated. The greater the effort a hearer must expend in order to
reconstruct an underlying thought, the more sophisticated a joke is thought to be”18. At the same
time humor can be considered a tool for aggression avoidance:
“If there is a hostile thought that in particular situations is directly expressible, joking
formulations of the thought should not appear. For if the function of joke technique is to
overcome the resistances –both internal and external- to aggression, jokes should be absent in
situations where that aggression is open and direct”.19 Oring Elliot
tests this hypothesis by analyzing Institutions that don’t have a
secret agenda, that are willing to cry out and express their beliefs,
but that use humor to address violence. In his book “The humor of
hate”, he deeply studies the pro-white America movement called
“White Aryan Resistance”, group that uses humor through cartoons
to justify racial violence. Even though they may claim they want to
get rid of all the illegal immigrants in the nation, they won’t
publicly say “Let’s kill them”, nevertheless they might express the
same feeling with a joke, in this case we’ll see that cartoons lets them say things directly, without
consequences, because, “it’s only a joke”.
Consequently the messages conveyed by humorous cartoons are to some extent de-legitimized
by their humorous techniques. The seriousness of the message in diminished rather than
enhanced by the humorous frame in which it is embedded.
“I would suggest that humorous communications do more than communicate the messages they
contain. Humor implies a community; a fellowship of laughters with whom the humor is shared.
Although humor may educate, it is not a formal means of instruction. It is not the means by
which people are persuaded to adopt particular views. Humor, rather, calls upon individuals to
invoke an extant body of tacit, everyday knowledge in order to recognize and make sense of an
18Romero, Eric J., and Kevin W. Cruthirds. "The Use of Humor in the Workplace." Academy of Management Perspectives 20, no. 2 (2006): 58-69. Accessed November 9, 2014. 19 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/24/eddie-izzard-language-of-standup
15
incongruity. Humor succeeds only if individuals are made to access concepts, associations and
values with which they are already familiar”.20 It is important to acknowledge that when humor
is hostile, the motive is more likely to be conscious and the effects deliberate. Humor is like a
sharp knife, it can be turned to dozens of practical uses, but only some of them aim at injury and
destruction. The problem with humor is that we lose track of some real power dynamics it
expresses, even though we might live in a time where certain social constructions are démodé.
Humor in public policy
According to Madahev Apte, the research of humor began in the 1940’s in the United States,
with the study of two minorities, the black and the Jewish community, because scholars argued
that through humor one could determine the power position of certain groups in society.21 This
theory was extrapolated to the international study of humor, which began after the second world
war with decolonization studies.22 It was then concluded that humor might be linked to national
identity, usually portrayed as a useful mechanism to enhance national culture and shape the
imaginary tale of the nation, one that settles boundaries through laughter, and establishes who
belongs to the nation and who doesn’t. It is this national approach to humor that distinguished for
years its sociological, psychological and anthropological interpretation, disregarding all kind of
universal analysis and its potential use for cross-cultural communication. Thus the national
interpretation of humor, led to an approach which made successful cross-cultural humor
interactions an exception. Considering this, it is easy to understand why humor is mostly absent
in the public diplomacy field, usually not considered a proper technique to initiate exchanges in
foreign affairs, due to several reasons: First its ambiguity is seen as a sign of mistrust; second it
requires sharp cross-cultural context awareness to be understood, and third it is not scientific.
Nevertheless the same ambiguity that makes humor unfit for international relations, could benefit
the communication process. “One of humor’s unique features is that due to its ambiguous nature,
it can allow one to critique without producing negative interpersonal effects (Grugulis 2002).
Humor’s inherent ambiguity aids in subverting the resistance that people usually feel when they
are critiqued because the person being critique can laugh with the individual making a joke or a
20 Alford, Finnegan, and Richard Alford. "A Holo-Cultural Study of Humor." Ethos 9, no. 2 (1981): 153. Accessed November 12, 2014. 21 Apte, Mahadev L. Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985. 188.22 Alford, Finnegan, and Richard Alford. "A Holo-Cultural Study of Humor." Ethos 9, no. 2 (1981): 211. Accessed November 12, 2014.
16
funny comment. Additionally, sharing humor is inconsistent with being offended and ,
consequentially, it facilitates honest and freer communication”.23
Various scholars believe humor is a universal capacity. Like Apte defines it: Humor is the ability
of the human mind to recognize incongruities in the external world and in one’s own thinking
and behavior that leads to a mirthful state of mind resulting in smiling and laughter”24
Even though it is embedded in cultural values, humor possesses cross-cultural shared structures
that deserve our attention. “The enormous diversity of humorous expressions appears to arise
from differences in cultural values and the differential institutionalization of potential humor
functions, rather than from fundamental differences in the humor response itself”.25
Oring Elliot analyzes humor in three different countries The US, Australia and Israel, because
he believes the origins and problems of these nations were alike, thus the sense of humor that
derives from their identity construction process (XIX) is similar, at least on its structural
dimension. “In Sum all these nations were founded largely under preindustrial conditions, all
were initially rooted in agricultural or pastoral production demanding extensive manual labor,
and all possessed indigenous populations with cultures radically different from those of the
colonizers. To the extent that these societies were born and developed under similar conditions, it
would also seem that they produce humor of a similar type. The similarities tended to play out in
the humor of language, tall talk, anecdotes about the civilization and comedy of character”.26
Why? Because they are all frontier societies, that discuss what civilization is on a specific period
of time and that are compelled to construct an identity of their own in order to create the
“nation”; one that is “invented”, and therefore uses the characters, environments, and situations
of the frontier life to construct a “comic mythology” that might enhance that national
identification. What he is trying to say is that we tend to see humor as “American”, “Mexican”,
etc just because humor was also a tool of identity construction in the XIX century for colonized
countries.
23 Oring, Elliott. "The Humor of Hate." In Colonizing Humor, 97. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 2003.
24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsAl0OxDxOA25 Alford, Finnegan, and Richard Alford. "A Holo-Cultural Study of Humor." Ethos 9, no. 2 (1981): 153. Accessed November 12, 2014. 26 Alford, Finnegan, and Richard Alford. "A Holo-Cultural Study of Humor." Ethos 9, no. 2 (1981): 163. Accessed November 12, 2014.
17
“It has been suggested that there is a difference between old and new societies. In old societies,
the culture of the society is shaped by manners od the upper classes. Style and taste flow from
the top to the bottom. In new societies, however, modes and manners flow upward, and the
culture of the society as a whole is shaped by its lower classes. New societies are topsy-turvy. In
some sense, they are inversions of the societies from which they come. They are fundamentally
incongruous. There are grounds, it may seem, for seeing themselves as comic entities. It may not
only be a matter of how societies were born, but when they were born. The United States,
Australia and Israel became nations in the XIX and XX centuries. Only in the XIX century did a
transformation occur in the notion of what humor is and how it relates to the notion of the self.
Only after such a transformation could laughter be viewed primarily as a sympathetic rather than
an unsympathetic expression. In addition to a sense of honor, a sense of justice, and a sense of
decency, a sense of humor emerged as a core cultural value. The ability to laugh, especially at
oneself, became not merely an admirable, but essential trait. This was not only true of
individuals, but of nations as well. In the early XIX century, humor began to be viewed as an
utterly “national and original” form of expression. Consequently new societies could imagine
themselves in ways that older societies could not. If new societies could not take pride in noble
lineages and ancient traditions, they could take pride in their sense of humor and in a humorous
sense of themselves. They could do this because they were born at a time when ideas of humor
and self were changing; at a time that humor could be thought of as the expression of self”.27
Therefore, humor in different societies, despite of its own peculiarities might be strikingly
similar. The very notion that humor is intimately linked with the character of an individual or
group is one that arose with the development of these very same societies. And probably the
birth and development of such new societies “contributed to a transformation in the
conceptualization of self and to a transformation in how the self might be represented”.28
Learning the similarities of these humor patterns could make the universal capacity of laughter
useful in certain “constraint” disciplines such as diplomacy, the trick to success is knowing what
to laugh at and what not to laugh at. Put it in other words interacting with humor requires a deep
contextual knowledge that cannot afford mistakes, and holds the potential benefit of enhancing
27 Apte, Mahadev L. Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985. 108.28 Alford, Finnegan, and Richard Alford. "A Holo-Cultural Study of Humor." Ethos 9, no. 2 (1981): 149-64. Accessed November 12, 2014
18
bonds and commitment between parts –one that cannot be achieved through protocoled
activities.
Until today the use of humor for “serious purposes” has been applied to the fields of education
and human resources. The benefits humor creates in the classroom and the working place may be
a place to start to analyze how humor could impact diplomacy.
How the social discoveries of humor in pedagogy and management can help us study its positive
consequences on public diplomacy.
When it comes to analyzing the use of humor in the classroom, apparently humor has proven to
have the ability of emphasizing retention and recall. “The pedagogical use of humor has been
shown to have both psychological and physiological effects on learners. Psychologically, the
effects of humor and laughter have been shown to reduce anxiety, decrease stress, enhance self-
esteem and increase self-motivation (Berk 1998). Glenn (2002) suggests that humor can help an
individual engage the learning process by creating a positive emotional and social environment
in which defenses are lowered and students are better able to focus and attend to the information
being presented. Additionally humor can serve as a bridge between educators and students by
demonstrating a shared understanding and common psychological bond” , basically helping us
sustain the interest on a certain task. “When properly used humor can be an effective tool to
make a class more enjoyable, reduce anxiety, and improve learning setting. The “ha, ha” of
humor in the classroom may indeed contribute to the “aha” of learning from the student” . Even
if humor has positive influence in the learning process, it can also be “complicated because it
may be highly personal, subjective, and contextual and we cannot always predict how it will be
received (…) So prudence should be the guiding principle” , and also the use of content-focused
humor. Humor has to be related to the learning task, apparently not only it helps students to get
involved more easily on the subject, but also it creates the impression the teacher is more taking
extra effort to get the message across.
Unfortunately scholars claim that some educators find their topic to serious to include humor,
another thing that happens with diplomacy: “Some educators believe their role or their topic is
too serious to engage humor or view humor as merely a disruption”. 29 Isn’t this what happens
with international relations, we are so eager to show respect and compromise and please others,
29 Romero, Eric J., and Kevin W. Cruthirds. "The Use of Humor in the Workplace." Academy of Management Perspectives 20, no. 2 (2006): 58-69. Accessed November 9, 2014.
19
that we refuse to use a non uptight way to relax because we feel it may be worst, when probably
taking things to seriously is the real mistake in the first place?
At the same time the use of humor can be a management resource and has the potential to
remedy some of the regular working problems by promoting social cohesion and healthy social
relationships in the workplace. In these environments using different types of humor can help as
a social lubricant, to enhance social interactions and bring people together; to cope with stress, to
manipulate others, to talk to the inferiors and show superiors are approachable, and even to
communicate disagreement or reprimands with a positive and constructive tone. “Humor in
communication creates an open atmosphere by awakening positive emotions that enhance
listening, understanding, and acceptance of messages (Greatbatch and Clark 2002). This
observation is supported by evidence from the advertising literature, which suggests that humor
has an “attention-getting” quality (Sternthal and Craig 1973) and leads to improved
comprehension, persuasion and emotional connection “Weinberger and Gulas 1992). Actors in
commercials often utilize self-enhancing humor to make a connection with the audience and to
help the audience identify with them. In some situations moderate self-defeating humor can
facilitate the speaker identifying with the audience (Chang and Grunner 1981) by releasing
tension and temporarily reducing the speaker’s status. For example, politicians such as Ronald
Reagan and Bill Clinton were known for their selective application of moderate self-defeating
humor to make themselves seem like common citizens. Affiliative humor can accomplish the
same goal as moderate self-defeating humor when used by group members to focus on
similarities within the group and share humor.
Humor in the working place has the ability to make interactions less tense by having a positive
effect on the socialization process. “Shared laughter and the spirit of fun generates a bonding
process in which people feel closer together –especially when laughing in the midst of adversity.
This emotional glue enables team members to stick together on the tough days, when members
of the team need each other to complete a project and assure quality customer service (McGhee,
1999)”
Humor also reduces stress, making us develop a sense of control over stressful situations:
“Joking about a stressful event makes it less threatening. For example, humor reduces stress in
the military by mocking the risk of death in marching songs and jokes. Humor makes people feel
that they are not afraid; without fear they feel a greater sense of control incompatible with feeling
20
stress” . At the same time according to most scholars humor enhances creativity, something that
can also be found in pedagogy research: “Humor promotes openness to new ideas by relaxing
people and making them less likely to criticize mistakes or new ideas” , thus helping create a
positive environment in which knowledge can flourish freely as well as interpersonal relations.
The only problem with this approach is that it focuses on organizational culture, not transnational
culture, but in a world ruled by corporations are this two always going to clash, or can we have
an organizational humor that transcends cultural borders? According to Romero and Cruthirds it
depends on the manager’s ability to use humor while acknowledging differences.
“A manager who is addressing a group of workers from a high power distance society should
avoid self-defeating humor or affiliative humor, because it would be considered a weakness,
nevertheless they can use self-enhancing humor, congruent with high status. Prerequisite here is
the manager`s understanding of the key cultural characteristics of the audience”. 30 At the same
time shared humor creates a sense of belonging to an identifiable entity, conveying trust to other
members due to its positive emotional effect. Therefore, as humor is a double edge sword, some
types of humor, especially gender-humor and ethnic humor must be avoided.
If we consider the use of humor in foreign affairs as a tool that enhances the socialization
process, such as it does in the fields of education and working environments, then humor
becomes a real art, one that needs to be performed consciously taking especial attention to its
reception and the role of audience in performance. Audiences in diplomacy tend to be
heterogeneous and definitely cross-cultural, therefore creating the possibility of “disaster jokes”
and “unlaughter”, which could deepen tensions and discomfort among different societies. But
can we really control humor, taking into consideration that, as Freud once pointed out, humor is
an expression of our subconscious? Or is it better to cast it out from certain “serious” fields in
order to avoid misunderstandings?
“Knowledge of the interactional dynamics of humor performance contradicts easy assumptions
about humor bringing people together, As Paul Lewis put it “Humor brings people together
except when it tears them apart”(2006b). In reality, only shared humor –humor that meets with
support from all audience members- contributes to social solidarity. When jokes are aimed at
outsiders or marginal group members, shared laughter is not always expected; instead, the
unlaughter of these salient individuals, contrasted with shared laughter of the rest of the group,
30 http://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/jan/07/bollywood-global-influence
21
heightens group boundaries by mocking and ostracizing the outsiders”. 31 This assumption that
there is a thin line between bonding and cultural clash has vanquished humor to the realms of
subversion, arts, friendship intimacy, homogeneous socio-cultural status and comedy, leaving it
out from official non ideological biased communications.
Wickberg believes humor makes us ideal citizens of the world, especially the ability to laugh
about ourselves, something that shows objectivity and self-reflective capacities: “Humor is able
to mediate between our subjective and objective selves, between our interior estimation of
ourselves and the way we appear to others. Thus defined, humor is able to mediate between the
paradoxes inherent in the contemporary idea of selfhood and the conflicting demands of
psychological versus social modes of being. People with this prized ability to laugh at
themselves possess an appropriate sense of proportion and moderation and the ability to make
ideal citizens of modern society (Wickberg 1998:98)”.32 But can diplomacy, a field that is
supposed to offer a fix national identity and represent it across borders, be able to criticize itself
in front of others? And following this question, can we believe that in a world surrounded by
power dynamics and competition among states, there is a type of humor that can avoid the
power-relations between the initiator and its audience? “Responses to humor are colored by the
power relations between the joker and the audience – for example, subordinates laugh at the
jokes of superiors more often than the reverse (Coser 1960). Since the humor frame cloaks
jokers’ motives with ambiguity, joke targets interpret jokers’ motives and modulate their humor
response based on their reading of the social context, including their relationship with the jokers
and the way power is distributed between them”.33
Coming back to the analogy of diplomacy as theater, it tends to requires an enormous amount of
politeness, ethical sense and self-restraint. Humor, on the other hand, as an extension of
improvisation is inherently impulsive. While the foreign affairs are settled by strict agendas,
31 Smith, Moira. "Humor, Unlaughter, and Boundary Maintenance." Journal of American Folklore 122, no. 484 (2009): 166. Accessed November 13, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20487675.
32 Smith, Moira. "Humor, Unlaughter, and Boundary Maintenance." Journal of American Folklore 122, no. 484 (2009): 166. Accessed November 13, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20487675.
33 Apte, Mahadev L. Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985.
22
carefully planned, and even follow a script that allows no incidentals; humor offers a relaxed
way to interact from spontaneity, with unpredictable results. Diplomacy consists on methods
used to aid effective communication, especially during negotiation processes in which those
involved attempt to be persuasive or assertive. It requires tact and the understanding of the other,
being sensitive to its opinion, beliefs and feelings. Developing mutual respect in diplomacy
consists of being able to sense accurately what another person is feeling or thinking at any given
time and then responding in such a way as to avoid bad feelings or awkwardness, whilst at the
same time asserting or reflecting your own ideas and feelings back in a delicate and well-
meaning fashion. If diplomacy is a theatre where passion, spontaneity and impropriety are not
allowed, and humor is mere improvisation, a millenary human socialization technique embedded
in power relations, incongruity, ethnicity and social constructions, then how can they both relate?
For centuries, cultures have somehow interacted in improvised ways with the traveling of ideas,
people, business exchanges, marriages, and arts, thus creating non official cross-cultural
dialogues that sometimes tend to be more effective than “state diplomacy”, Human beings
usually change their own social constructions by simply engaging with the Otherness in
spontaneous ways, Therefore we believe that diplomacy, instead of depriving itself from a rich
source of authentic humanness (for lake of a better term), could profit from losing some control
by utilizing humor as a technique of soft power that could have a positive impact in relation-
building. For it to become a respectable and successful tool, its use should vary according to the
audience, which means that in an almost Machiavellian sense, we have to be cunning enough to
acknowledge that not all kids of humor are allowed in all situations, but some must be helpful
when it comes to creating the kind of dynamics that make diplomacy successful.
Then how could we know what to laugh at in cross-cultural communication? Alford Finnegan
and Richard Alford were the first scholars to propose an intensive analysis of cross-cultural
humor. According to these authors, humor can be divided into 4 aspects: it’s content –what is the
subject of humor-; the objects that it presents –who or what is the butt of humor; the forms it
uses –the type of humor being used; and the existence of humor specialists – which refers to the
institutionalized roles for those who make humor. In their study, the scholars concluded that
there are certain subjects and ways to approaching some subjects that are usually out of the
bounds of humor treatment: Sacred objects, events, or persons which are often considered too
important or serious are a sensitive subject to humor about. “Second, certain subjects are
23
disallowed as appropriate forms of humor in the presence of certain other people. The Trukese,
for example feel that sexual humor between husband and wife is in bad taste. Third certain
subjects are disallowed for humor use for reasons of propriety. For example many societies
discourage humor which is directed at another`s misfortunes or deformity. Thus potential humor
subjects may be disallowed because of their sacred qualities, because of the presence of an
inappropriate audience or because of the socially dictated inhibition of humor response”.34
The authors also believe that humor about parts of the body and sex varies not only with society
but with age and context. For instance the idea of mocking others by their looks it is commonly
used between kids, but it is not tolerated among adults. When it comes to sex, they argue
everything depends on how restrictive that society is regarding sexual behaviors, usually the
more restrictive a culture is, the less sexual humor is allowed. Another thing they prove is that
humor directed to superiors is different from that directed to inferiors, the first one is more
cunning and intricate, and uses techniques such as linguistic humor (word plays and puns), comic
specialists, and even stupidity humor, to be successful. The latter is less restrictive and seems to
be found in certain cultures that depict a humor that introduces objects such as animals, sex, the
opposite sex, the elderly; but even though it might seem aggressive it is based on trust and
considered like childhood socialization.
At the same time they acknowledge that humor directed to oneself is usually to be found in
cultures that de-emphasize competition and aggression, so societies in which seriousness and
stoicism are highly value won’t use it as much. Therefore, the main distinction they propose is
between loose and restrained cultures. From there, they try to understand the power relations that
will interact in the use of humor, in order to see what is accepted and not, and where those
linguistic puzzles come from. “Some forms appear to be appropriate in conditions of high social
license, that is the situations in which emotional expression is relatively licensed (for example,
between friends or intimates), while other humor forms are appropriate even in conditions of low
social license. Forms demanding high levels of license tend to predominate in relatively simple
and unrestrictive cultures, while low license-demanding forms predominate in more complex and
34 Smith, Moira. "Humor, Unlaughter, and Boundary Maintenance." Journal of American Folklore 122, no. 484 (2009): 148-71. Accessed November 13, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20487675.
24
restrictive cultures”.35 Mock aggression, practical jokes, insults and imitation are humor forms
which, in order to be non-disruptive, require a licensed situation or audience. These forms of
humor are most appropriate in social contexts of intimacy and equality and where social
interaction tends to be unproblematic. Cross-culturally, these forms appear more often in simpler
societies. However, there are techniques for employing humor in less licensed cultures such as
riddles, linguistic humor, satire and caricatures that accommodate for dissidence and power.
When it comes to the authorities on humor, Alford Finnegan and Richard Alford identify 3 ways
of being a humor specialist: being a clown, which means laughing of one-self by making foolish
things; being a fool, which means being the humor target of others, and being a jester who
intentionally creates humor but not with himself as the target. Jesters have functioned in history
as public vituperators, They don’t have taboo topics and they tend to have immunity from
responsibility in their humor. Clowns and jesters are to be found in more stratified societies,
where sexual taboos are internalized, and obedience is strongly emphasized. The main function
of these specialists in more restrain societies is to express repressed feelings, say, like in a
carnival, what it is not supposed to be said.36
We always need to remember that humor in society is also a way of exploring central tensions,
and has no consequences generally because its essence is what Bakhtin explained: a carnival, a
way in which all social structures and discipline can be overturned. If we apply this to foreign
affairs, you will see that it becomes fundamentally subversive to entrenched power dynamics,
From the perspective of those in power, humor is dangerous. For those on the outskirts of power,
humor can provide a means of subversion and an acceptable expression of discontent. It can also
act as a way to appear more open minded and caring for those who exercise a greater amount of
power.
Another thing we have to acknowledge is that “In a broad sense it is necessary to evaluate the
multitudinous ways in which language shapes humor and the ways in which this shaping process
is affected by the relationship between language and the sociocultural system. This relationship
is in turn influenced by the beliefs and attitudes of people toward the structure, function and
35 Garner, R. "Humor In Pedagogy: How Ha-Ha Can Lead To Aha!" College Teaching 54, no. 1 (2006): 177-80. Accessed November 9, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559255.36 Romero, Eric J., and Kevin W. Cruthirds. "The Use of Humor in the Workplace." Academy of Management Perspectives 20, no. 2 (2006): 58-69. Accessed November 9, 2014. : http://www.jstor.org.proxyau.wrlc.org/stable/4166232.
25
status of their own language vis-à-vis the rest of the culture. Such beliefs and attitudes vary not
only cross-culturally but also intraculturally over a period of time.” 37
ConclusionTo conclude, humor can be a diplomacy tool that reduces stress in negotiations, compels actors
to pay more attention and bond with their foreign pairs, foments creativity when it comes to
finding cross-cultural solutions, and inspires individuals to interact in a more human way. It is
difficult to reconcile the differences between the two poles of in-group and out-group in the face
of diplomatic efforts. On the one hand, out-group humor ignores cultural difference and often
loses complex meanings in order to achieve mass appeal. On the other hand, in-group humor
inherently relies on cultural difference and shared knowledge base that precludes the outsider.
What is the answer, then, when some humor is too inclusive and some too exclusive? It is like
the fable of the Three Bears: one bowl of porridge is too hot, one is too cold, and one is just
right.
We posit that there is a middle ground, or a third humor trope, that exists between the two poles
of affiliative and porous humor. There is a hazy and often difficult to identify third way that
employs all humor styles within the continuum in order to create an authentic humor that neither
ignores cultural difference nor embraces it. The importance of this “third way” humor is that
brings the Self to the Other, not the other way around, and the implications for that transaction
are vast. It values the outsider as a legitimate partner in deciding what is funny, and both mocks
and embraces the differences between groups without demarcating those differences as insoluble.
Finally, it is a humor that is negotiated over time, between groups, in an ever-expanding spiral
that seeks to encompass wider and more varied audiences and performers.
Does this sound like a fairy tale itself? The fine line to be found within the binaries of humor
poses a massive challenge in creating humor that is authentically situated between in-group and
out-group modalities. And the issue of “authenticity” is an important one - much like in other
areas of intercultural relation (cultural tourism, immigration, international dialogue), determining
who is a legitimate “knower” is an area of great contention. Humor is not immune to navigating
the waters of authenticity. It comes down to the issue who is allowed to make jokes about what.
37Apte, Mahadev. 140
26
It be permissible for a member of a group to mock the stereotypes and behaviors of their fellows,
but completely unacceptable for outsiders to do so.
Thus, third way humor requires a cosmopolitan mindset and background in order to successfully
traverse between cultures without relying on a single cultural identity. By cosmopolitan, we refer
to an individual who has attained a high level of cultural competence through experience and
interaction with the Other. It is not enough to believe oneself to be authentic, as authenticity is a
negotiated label conferred by multiple parties. What is most important in developing third-way
humor is a willingness to fail, an awareness of the power dynamics inherent in intercultural
communication, and an appreciation without a veneration for difference. Wang Jian and Michael
Hallquist write in their article “The Comic Imagination of China”:
“...the self-reflexive power of comedy can be harnessed as an engagement tool with foreign publics. Although humor has its cultural specificity, when done well, it builds bridges between peoples and societies. For instance, for a country wanting to reach a wider, younger audience in the United States, it is probably a good idea to have its representatives, be they politicians, business leaders or cultural figures, to go on programs such as The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. The daunting challenge, of course, is to understand how to be engaging and funny on these shows, especially when one comes from a very different cultural background. In this context, showing one's own cultural quirks before a foreign audience is probably an effective means to not only make a connection, but also subvert existing stereotypes.”38
There are certain styles of humor that lend themselves most readily to the third-way. One that
comes up time and again in our research is self-deprecating humor. Performatively, this is
defined by Martin as “people who ridicule themselves in attempt to amuse and seek acceptance
from others”39. In our context, we tweak the definition slightly from seeking acceptance to
negotiating acceptance between parties. Self-deprecating humor inverts the dominant power
dynamic by putting all the actors in play one the same level. For that reason, it’s particularly
important when one party identifies that they hold more power in a particular interaction and so
use self-deprecating humor to “deflate” the situation. In this respect, it acknowledges difference
and gently mocks it while inviting the Other to take part in a mutual process of “joking around.”
38 Martin, Rod A. The Psychology of Humor an Integrative Approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2007.39 Alford, Finnegan, and Richard Alford. "A Holo-Cultural Study of Humor." Ethos 9, no. 2 (1981): 163. Accessed November 14, 2014.
27
How surprising when, in a business interview with a high powered executive, he decides to start
off by making fun of the inherent awkwardness involved in the interview setting. It is the start of
a process that equalizes the two actors without ignoring the difference between them. As stated
in Stephen L. Tanner’s article “The Art of Self-Deprecation in American Literary Humor”, self
deprecating humor:
“ ...preoccupied with revealing the discrepancy between seeming and reality. It often takes the
form of high expectations comically transformed into disappointments.” 40
There are other styles that are useful in developing a third way. Mild aggressive humor employs
a similar chiding dynamic, but this time focused on the Other. It is devoid of malice, but instead
serves to invite banter and open up dialogue which would otherwise be stalled by trying to be
overly sensitive or politically correct. Romero and Cruthirds write “...it allows one to express
disagreement and conflict without negative effect since the message is delivered in a playful
manner.”41 Ethnic humor can be even useful in developing a third-way, as long as it is
approached carefully and with the knowledge that certain in-group dynamics might need to be
reinterpreted.
One of the most successful and remarkable examples of third-way humor in practice is a
campaign by the stand-up comedian Eddie Izzard. Izzard, a native of England, has developed a
new approach with his upcoming tour Force Majeure: he is going to perform the show in three
separate languages on each night of the tour. An interview in the Guardian cites:
“And if the experience has done one thing so far, it is to reinforce his [Izzard’s] belief that there
is no such thing as a national sense of humour. ‘Certainly not a European one,’ he says. ‘There
are different types of humour. There's a surreal sense, a more political observational one, and
certainly countries have a mainstream sense of humour which refers to Angela Merkel, or
national football stars. But alternative and more progressive comedy, like Monty Python (which
he has called his main inspiration, with John Cleese in return reportedly describing him as the
40 Oring, Elliott. "The Humor of Hate." In Engaging Humor, 56. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 2003.
41"The Ten Best of Public Diplomacy in 2013 | The Public Diplomacy Council." The Ten Best of Public Diplomacy in 2013 | The Public Diplomacy Council. Accessed November 17, 2014. http://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org/commentaries/12-31-13/ten-best-public-diplomacy-201
28
'Lost Python') can be worldwide. It gets a huge reaction, whether I'm in the Balkans or
Germany.”42 Izzard is currently performing in English, French, and German, with plans to expand his
repertoire to include performances in Arabic and Russian. His tour challenges the assumption
that humor cannot be used a serious tool to develop dialogue between people. In fact, his sold out
shows are current testament to how much eagerness there is in the world for humor that
transcends cultural boundaries. To bring the point home, Izzard is not ignoring the differences
between French, English, and German audiences. In fact, his decision to perform in three
separate languages illuminates the difficulty in translating humor. However, the decision also
speaks to Izzard’s willing to understand the Other from the Others perspective, to act as an
authentic purveyor of humor, and to bet against the odds that what’s funny in one context cannot
be funny anywhere.
This is a unique undertaking, but one that is being rewarded across the world by an enormous
outpouring of fan support. The next step for Izzard is to turn his attention to the world of politics,
as he plans to run for Mayor of London in 2016. This is a stark reminder that comedy and
politics can and do mix. If a comedian can embrace the power of humor for diplomacies sake,
why can’t diplomats?
Humor helps define who we are as culturally aligned individuals within the context of multiple
and often contradictory identities. Determining what we find funny and why we find it so in the
first place reveals a fundamental truth about how we align ourselves with the world and the
people inside of it. By using humor as a tool to build out cultural and public diplomacy
objectives, nations and institutions unlock an enormous well of potential for developing
substantive and equitable intercultural relations. To see the Other as a true partner in dialogue,
we must learn to have laugh with them, not at them.
42 In the sense that commedia has been performed continuously since it’s creation four hundred years ago, and it has been been successful in a variety of different environments across the world.
29
[1] Alford, Finnegan, and Richard Alford. "A Holo-Cultural Study of Humor." Ethos 9, no. 2
(1981): 149-64. Accessed November 12, 2014.
http://www.jstor.org.proxyau.wrlc.org/stable/640079.
[2] Alford, Finnegan, and Richard Alford. "A Holo-Cultural Study of Humor." Ethos 9, no. 2
(1981): 163. Accessed November 12, 2014.
http://www.jstor.org.proxyau.wrlc.org/stable/640079.
[3] Smith, Moira. "Humor, Unlaughter, and Boundary Maintenance." Journal of American
Folklore 122, no. 484 (2009): 166. Accessed November 13, 2014.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20487675.
[4] Smith, Moira. "Humor, Unlaughter, and Boundary Maintenance." Journal of American
Folklore 122, no. 484 (2009): 163. Accessed November 13, 2014.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20487675.
[5] Smith, Moira. "Humor, Unlaughter, and Boundary Maintenance." Journal of American
Folklore 122, no. 484 (2009): 148-71. Accessed November 13, 2014.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20487675.
[6] Alford, Finnegan, and Richard Alford. "A Holo-Cultural Study of Humor." Ethos 9, no. 2
(1981): 153. Accessed November 12, 2014.
http://www.jstor.org.proxyau.wrlc.org/stable/640079.
[7] Alford, Finnegan, and Richard Alford. "A Holo-Cultural Study of Humor." Ethos 9, no. 2
(1981): 153. Accessed November 12, 2014.
http://www.jstor.org.proxyau.wrlc.org/stable/640079.
[8] Apte, Mahadev L. Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press, 1985. 188.
30
