Dear friends,
I'd like to thank Mary, Elizabeth and Molly for their commentary on "the
joke." The exchange has been enlightening all around.
Like Mary I see little ambiguity in the original joke, regardless of the
possibility that alternative readings are possible.
We know that alternative readings are *always* possible (as in Eric's
claim of where he felt the locus of the humor to be). One of the few
things to give us hope is that we can bend oppressive ideas, practices,
technologies, "jokes" etc. to liberatory or at least less harmful ends.
The beauty of meaning, at the end of the day, is that no one controls it
absolutely.
But there are also issues of dominant and hegemonic meanings - those are
the ones I would say were rather unambiguous, imho. And whether or not
the joke can be experienced differently by different people I think the
weight of the joke falls on an "implied reader" (or "implied listener")
reflecting many of the oppressive assumptions and experiences that Mary,
Elizabeth and Molly bring up in their comments.
For me it is humor that objectifies and naturalizes, in some way, a view
of a group that helps to rationalize in some way the social and/or
institutional oppression of that group in the wider society that needs
to be questioned. A group that is relatively powerful can afford to
laugh at denigrating jokes about itself; while a group that is
institutionally and/or otherwise subordinated rightly sees that kind of
denigration as complicit in its subordination and oppression. Isn't it
naturalizing cultural expression that Gramsci had in mind, in part, in
his discussion of hegemony? Doesn't this "joke" seem like a textbook
example?
That some xmca list members were more eager to react to a perceived ban
of humor than on the issues of sexism compellingly raised tends to
reinforce Mary's analysis of the "identify affirming"
traditionally-male-dominated xmca-space (though Mary may have insider
knowledge that I lack, or may be making assumptions, regarding the
relative mix of straight or gay - or I suppose, more likely, Mary is
reading the discursive space as straight and white regardless of the
sexual orientation of list participants). These issues certainly strike
me as CoP issues worthy of the full force of intellectual energy this
list can muster (but might strike too close to home?).
I use the term "traditionally-male-dominated" to clarify that I don't
think we can essentialize "male" any more than we can essentialize
"women," (or than we can essentialize straight or gay) but that we can
recognize patterns that reinforce a "traditional male stance" that has
all the earmarks of the kind of traditional (in this society) oppressive
expressions of "maleness" that I think have been alluded to in the
exchange.
Also, I don't want to put words in Mary's e-mail messages, but I didn't
read what she wrote as a ban on jokes and humor. I read her call to
curtail jokes in an academic forum as an indicator of how deeply felt
her reaction was. It was a passionate response; and personally I think
passionate responses to denigrating experiences are a good thing. It
can both fuel a reasoned response and galvanize action. I'm not one who
sees passion and reason in opposition. I most deeply admire people who
reason passionately.
My guess is that Elizabeth's and others' comments on things to consider
before posting potentially offensive jokes move the dialogue in a
direction where Mary might feel less adamant about not posting jokes
(but that's just my guess). And before the convenient label of
"political correctness" is leveled; it is not, imho, merely a question
of censoring such jokes, but of hoping that list participants are
willing to consider how others experience the jokes and the
socio-political implications of certain jokes and so not only don't post
the joke but re-consider whether they find it funny themselves. Thus, I
think it is critical self-reflection rather than group or even self
censorship that is really being called for.
There are certainly verbal expressions that someone at some time
considered a reasonable joke, e.g., jokes making use of the "n" word to
refer to African Americans, for instance, that I imagine (hope) people
on this list would not tolerate and would not somewhat peevishly call it
"political correctness" to oppose. So the line on "acceptable" jokes
certainly does get drawn and re-drawn through processes of social
negotiation and changes in social relations; I don't think it is
particularly helpful to try to truncate those negotiations with the
facile epithet of "political correctness" (which tends to close off
rather than open the dialogue).
Well, my guess is I'm weighing in on the tail end of the thread, but
didn't want it to go by without voicing my appreciation for Mary's,
Elizabeth's and Molly's contributions and others who perhaps wisely
voiced pithy concern and immediately moved on.
In Peace,
K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 09:22:33 PST