Freedom of Speech in Comedy: Political 26
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Seminar Paper Freedom of speech in comedy: political 26. correctness versus political censorship Mihika Samant Guided By: Ms. Ketaki Hate EDited by: SARA MARIA VARGHESE Political correctness today is understood to be a social mechanism that discourages the use of disparaging speech in order to protect subjugated sections of the society. It aims to empower these groups through sensitive discourse. The term however, has been misinterpreted by some to mean restriction of discussion on sensitive topics like race, gender, sexuality, and the like. This paper differentiates between banning certain words resulting from an expectation of respectful discourse and prevention of problems from being addressed. Further, it differentiates between political correctness and political censorship, with the former being necessary to maintain order in society and the latter being a form of institutional hindrance to freedom of expression. Introduction While valid, this fails to address the illusory nature of PC Comedians have always been afforded with more leeway and also its stress on group membership (Dyson et al., when it comes to their right to freedom of speech and 2018). expression as compared to the ordinary citizen, at least in the Global West. There are several sensitive topics that Illusion of correctness one is allowed to broach under the pretext of comedy Critics of the likes of Fry (Dyson et al., 2018) and Žižek which they would not be permitted to approach otherwise. (Big Think, 2015) disapprove of this argument on Although the objective meaning of political correctness the grounds that it promotes an illusion of equality in remains a matter of debate, the Oxford Dictionary society. Devocalising offensive opinions or censoring defines it as, ‘the avoidance of forms of expression or ‘problematic’ language does not lead to an automatic action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or change in the individual’s and consequently, that insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged particular society’s internal belief system. Rather, it or discriminated against.’ Therefore, for the purpose of creates an additional issue of detection of such views this paper we will infer political correctness (henceforth, making their correction more difficult than it would PC) as a social phenomenon that prescribes the use of a otherwise have been. Žižek (2015) even goes as far as bias-free terminology on the grounds that certain words to compare PC with totalitarianism claiming that it is reflect the underlying power structure present in society simply a form of ‘cold respect’. and their usage reinforces hegemony. To illustrate the basis of this argument we can examine The arguments posited by the proponents of the practice a hypothetical situation in which all forms of sexist centre around the historical oppression of people, placing humour are banned. Here, all comics, in order to avoid a heavy emphasis on group membership, claiming that any controversy or punishment either avoid the topic it is a linguistic instrument which will empower these of gender altogether or indulge in sensitized jokes. This oppressed groups (Dyson et al., 2018). By following these in turn gives the immunity of invisibility to problematic norms of PC, we recognise that the groups in question views. The removal of all sexist humour only silences the are under threat and require protection (Moller, 2016). voicing of the comics’ sexist views and isn’t an erasure 113 of it from their lived realities. An obvious consequence the former is necessary while the latter is an infringement of this is that it makes detection and correction of any of one’s freedom of speech and is a misinterpretation existing prejudices impossible. Additionally, and more of what PC stands for. PC seeks to prevent the feeling alarmingly so, in silencing these problematic views such of ‘othering’ by endorsing a sensitized vocabulary. It is a ban also normalises prejudices. against disparagement, not speech. This argument falls short in that these theorists view the Exclusion facilitated by PC phenomena through a Durkheimian lens. Their proposal In the context of comedy, prohibiting certain topics from that problematic speech is a sign of free speech and will being joked about often adds to the stigma attached to it. exist in any society that is flexible to social change is the Trevor Noah in his performance titled ‘Jokes about Deaf root of the problem. While promoting egalitarianism as People’ (2019) explores this idea wherein he narrates an one of its objectives, the central aim of PC is to promote incident where he was approached by a deaf person and considerate public discourse (Alibhai-Brown, 2018). It is was asked why he didn’t joke about the deaf. Examination radically different from totalitarianism in that it provides of this anecdote and the general subject matter of the alternatives. Furthermore, it operates on the principle of comedic content in the video highlights the distinction basic courtesy. Certain nomenclature that was previously between joking about topics and the manner in which acceptable can over time become offensive to members it is being joked about. In this instance Noah admits of a particular community. However, an unwillingness to that by being excessively cautious, he was inadvertently adopt the new terminology on the grounds of protection patronising the hearing-impaired community. I believe of one’s freedom of speech shows a disregard for their that this is true for every comedian and all communities. sentiments and refusal to change with the times. Such This idea follows from the notion that by tabooing arguments against political correctness are often the certain concepts from comedy you are reinforcing pre- result of either a deep entrenchment in pre-existing existing inequalities (Sloss, 2018). biases, or unwillingness to undergo the discomfort of the process of discarding the old and adopting the new The issue with restrictions within comedy today is that (Vanity Fair, 2015). line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable is determined by the proportion of its audience that it Group dynamics behind PC offends or amuses and not by whether it causes actual A different criticism posited by Jordon Peterson during grievance to the community in question. the Munk Debates1 (2018) outlines that PC culture excessively relies on group and power dynamics and The Curious Case of PC in India that it prevents human beings from being considered as The key point to note is the separation of comedic content individuals. Every person’s identity is reduced to their that uses humour as a means to sensitize its audience and group membership exacerbating groupism. The first comedians who contribute to the problem by shoddily section of his argument was countered by Michael Dyson veiling their prejudices with humour. (2018) by highlighting that the presence and dominance of group identity in popular discourse today is a result In India, however, this balance is skewed. PC in our of historical discrimination and oppression. Power country is dictated less by values of dignity and more by dynamics under such conditions were so skewed that the ideals of respect that pervade our society. Whether they continue to affect members of the group to this day. a joke is deemed to be offensive is controlled by the That is to say that if a person is treated in a discriminatory amount of egos and not by the emotions that it hurts. manner because they are a woman (group membership) A clear example of this phenomenon is the outrage that then one cannot fight for their rights without addressing Tanmay Bhat’s Lata Mangeshkar/Sachin Tendulkar the power imbalance that has historically pervaded snapchat video caused whereby he superimposed their society and continues to even today. The second point of faces on his to enact an argument between the two. individual identity can be countered by differentiating, (Express Web Desk, 2016). In a similar incident, the yet again, between politically correct language and comedian used Snapchat’s dog filter on Prime Minister prohibition of dialogue on a certain topic. I believe that Narendra Modi’s face. In both of these instances, there 1 The Munk Debates are a semi-annual series of debates on major policy issues held in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. They are run by the Aurea Foundation, a charitable foundation set up by Peter Munk and his wife Melanie Munk. 114 isn’t anything explicitly politically incorrect. His actions Indian political ‘correctness’ therefore seeks to punish have nothing to do with marginalisation of the oppressed. not hate speech but to silence the voices that speak On the contrary, his subjects in both the instances are out against increased aggression and violent language among the most powerful in their respective fields and through comedy. Varun Grover addressed this issue at highly privileged members of Indian society. While both, the India Today Conclave in 2016 whereby he explained his video and the photo were mostly parodic in nature, that he had been doing topical stand-up for eleven rather than hateful, reactions ranged from shock to years and had only started to be labelled as ‘brave’ for threats of violence (Kay, 2018). This was a repercussion doing it since 2014, notably a period when the current of the expectation of blind veneration towards certain government came into power, sweeping the country sections of the society in our culture. Fact remains that if with a Hindu nationalist fervour. In September, 2019, Bhat had done the same with persons with comparatively comedian Hasan Minhaj was denied entry into the less privilege than his subjects, the general response to ‘Howdy Modi’ event that took place in USA because he it, despite its politically incorrect nature - apart from had been ‘blacklisted’ by the Prime Minister’s Office backlash from a small predominantly urban faction of for passing untoward comments about the office and the population - would have been laughter.