While I agree that humor is
useful at times, not all humor is useful. But, as Mike points out, he
can't censor list humor--that's a treacherous road. So what about a
little self reflection before posting a joke? A colleague and I recently
wrote a book chapter for a business communication textbook on how to
engage in successful collaborations at work. Here was one of our (very
simplistic) suggestions for avoiding affective conflict in groups:
"Avoid telling jokes
that depend for their humor on ridiculing another person or a group to
which you do not belong."
And another:
"Avoid assuming an accent or expressing stereotypical attitudes or
behaviors that mock members of groups to which you do not
belong."
While you may find something funny, if it depends for its humor on
ridiculing someone or some group you aren't a part of, should you tell
it? Men telling jokes about men is funny. Men I don't know telling jokes
about women is not funny. I have no idea what sort of goodwill those men
have or how they treat women in their daily lives. People who belong to a
particular ethnic group, sex, religion, etc get lots of laughs out of
jokes about their own ethnic group, sex, religion, etc (as the blond
website attests). But people who don't belong to that group take a huge
risk when they ridicule it. (I see implications for our discussion of
Wenger). Maybe that risk is worth taking if you are a stand up comedian.
But at work--or on an academic listserv--that risk doesn't seem worth it.
Whatever sense of community has been established can be immediately
destroyed, as some (especially marginal) community member thinks,
"Do I want to risk myself interacting with someone who thinks/acts
like this?" [But maybe offending peripheral participants is not a
concern to full participants; maybe, in fact, this kind of
humor somehow functions as a gatekeeping device--shooing away women from
the old boy's club or people of color from particular workplaces or
clubs....]
If we need a self-serving reason to be reflective before telling
potentially offensive jokes , how about the issue of personal ethos?
Whatever ethos or credibility the joke teller or sender once had is now
shot with whatever segment of the audience is offended. Aristotle pointed
out to us some 2500 years ago (in _Rhetoric_) that any speaker who wants
to be persuasive must seem credible to his/her audience: "his own
character should look right and...he should be thought to entertain the
right feelings towards his hearers....[T]he three things which inspire
confidence in the orator's own character--the three things that induce us
to believe a thing apart from any proof of it [are] good sense, good
moral character, and goodwill." Earlier Aristotle was even more
blunt: A person's "character may almost be called the most effective
means of persuasion [s]he possesses." In other words, for purely
selfish reasons, whether you think a joke is funny or not, if you are
talking to an audience you may someday want to convince of something,
telling a joke that may be offensive may not be worth the risk.
That's my response as a rhetorician and professional communicator.
And then, my much less intellectual response to all this is:
Does saying it is a joke make it funny?
Does saying that the joke is not offensive actually keep it from being
offensive?
And if you know enough to tack on a disclaimer.....
On another, related, note:
I'm really enjoying the Wenger discussion. And I think this discussion of
jokes, who's offended, who's not, and how jokes can serve to silence
peripheral participants or destroy a sense of community is, in fact,
still very much on the topic. But I'll leave it to the full participants
to explore that link more fully.
Back to (safer) lurking.
Elizabeth
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 09:22:33 PST