Since the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, many people have come under fire for making jokes related to this disaster. The most prominent example is probably comedian Gilbert Gottfried, who was fired from his job as the voice of the Aflak duck for such jokes. This brings up a question we often ask ourselves: is it too soon to laugh during or after a tragedy?
The answer is no, but how a joke is delivered may make it offensive to others and thus lose its potential healing powers.
Humor and laughter play a key role in reducing stress. There is an easy explanation to why laughing temporarily takes our minds away from reality and helps us to physically and mentally relax. When people laugh, their minds are completely occupied with the joke's contents as well as why it's funny. Thus when an individual laugh, his mind is completely focused on the joke and loses track of other things happening around him. Laughter, especially during the time of tragedy, serves as a defense mechanism for the victims by relieving stress from the trauma. It is an outlet for people to express their emotions - grief, anger - so they wouldn't overwhelm the individual mentally. When these emotions become bottled up, an individual may gradually lose his sanity over time.
However, there must be certain restrictions on the jokes made during a tragedy. Jokes aimed directly at the victims are not acceptable and generally offensive. Rather than helping to relieve the stress of the victims, these jokes seem to derive pleasure from the pain and misery. Furthermore, how a joke delivered to its audience also plays an important role in how it will be perceived. Gottfried's jokes regarding the earthquake were made on Twitter, meaning that everyone can see them. A problem with this is that not everyone shares the same taste and judgement toward the same joke. What is humorous and stress-reducing for one person can be tasteless and disturbing to others. The joker must always keep in mind how others will react to the joke.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Hey, you started it
After some research for this blog post, I decided that I need to expand my original definition of "defense mechanism." Laughter not only dampens the mood during a particularly serious situations, it may also points out to the innate ridiculousness of that situation (though people may might fail to notice initially). So why does this qualify as a defense mechanism? In this case, I think it exposes the drama and madness around people as nothing more than the results of their own stupidity and ineptness.
This is particularly true in movies. The following is an excerpt from Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, featuring the great comedian Peter Sellers.
Russian Ambassador: There were those of us who fought against us. But in the end, we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. And at the same time, our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our Doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we'd been spending on defense in a single year. But the deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a Doomsday gap. Muffley: This is preposterous! I've never approved of anything like that! Russian Ambassador: Our source was the New York Times.
There are several factors that make this conversation funny. First, the Soviet government decides that the best way to save money is the construction of a Doomsday machine. The Soviets could easily reform their economic system yet they chose a path that led to the world's destruction. Ultimately, the Doomsday machine was not made to fend off a powerful enemy but rather to help make more "nylons and washing machines." The audience has no choice but to laugh at a solution that fails to solve the problem.
The ineptness of the Soviet government is further exposed when the Ambassador reveals their source of information to be the New York Times. You'd expect the government to utilize more incredible sources (the KGB perhaps. Or why else waste all that time with James Bond?). But the mass media, which profits greatly through exaggeration and lies, is taken seriously by the Soviets without doubt. Not only do we laugh at the idiotic Russians, but we also get a laugh at the expense at the media, whose tactics of using fear to emphasize its importance backfires.
But we also need to keep in mind of the time period in which the movie was made. During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was peddled as a way to prevent nuclear warfare. Ironically, MAD requires that each country build massive piles of nuclear weapons. Kubrick shows how foolish this line of thinking is. His comedic approach makes people realize their faulty way of thinking. Furthermore, the failure of MAD exposes the incompetence of the government. The characters in the film are portrayed as bumbling buffoons incapable of making the right decision and their failures to do their job eventually cause the destruction of human civilization. Kubrick and Sellers awaken the audience to the reality, in which the people they entrust to lead them are not as capable as they think. Laughter not only forces people to realize this, but helps them to cope with reality. After all, if people perceive the ineptness of their government in a non-comedic situation, they will probably be paralyzed with fear and despair.
This is particularly true in movies. The following is an excerpt from Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, featuring the great comedian Peter Sellers.
There are several factors that make this conversation funny. First, the Soviet government decides that the best way to save money is the construction of a Doomsday machine. The Soviets could easily reform their economic system yet they chose a path that led to the world's destruction. Ultimately, the Doomsday machine was not made to fend off a powerful enemy but rather to help make more "nylons and washing machines." The audience has no choice but to laugh at a solution that fails to solve the problem.
The ineptness of the Soviet government is further exposed when the Ambassador reveals their source of information to be the New York Times. You'd expect the government to utilize more incredible sources (the KGB perhaps. Or why else waste all that time with James Bond?). But the mass media, which profits greatly through exaggeration and lies, is taken seriously by the Soviets without doubt. Not only do we laugh at the idiotic Russians, but we also get a laugh at the expense at the media, whose tactics of using fear to emphasize its importance backfires.
But we also need to keep in mind of the time period in which the movie was made. During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was peddled as a way to prevent nuclear warfare. Ironically, MAD requires that each country build massive piles of nuclear weapons. Kubrick shows how foolish this line of thinking is. His comedic approach makes people realize their faulty way of thinking. Furthermore, the failure of MAD exposes the incompetence of the government. The characters in the film are portrayed as bumbling buffoons incapable of making the right decision and their failures to do their job eventually cause the destruction of human civilization. Kubrick and Sellers awaken the audience to the reality, in which the people they entrust to lead them are not as capable as they think. Laughter not only forces people to realize this, but helps them to cope with reality. After all, if people perceive the ineptness of their government in a non-comedic situation, they will probably be paralyzed with fear and despair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)