Humankind has always had an affinity towards censorship. It is not surprising that since the “age of information”; censorship became a leitmotif or a recurring theme. Dark humor is a literary genre or an entertainment form that has been enduring unnecessary censorship. It also referred as black humor and morbid humor. This kind of comedy mentions sensitive subjects such as sexuality, races, religion, politics, death and drugs. There has to be a reevaluation of censorship on dark humor. Dark humor reflects on subjects that are tabooed most of time and neglected.
This type of humor awakens the masses into critically thinking on these subjects and their impact on society. Words and terms that are used in dark humor are relative to the context and it is an effective form of expression. If we overly censor dark humor it will cause a brake in the positive progression of critical thinking, and it will limit societies’ beneficial awareness.
Words and language are a way of thinking parallel to perception, emotion and reason. Censorship begins at home. Parents do not use certain words in front of their children. Is it a fear, where parents not wanting to have impolite and vulgar children? Politeness is not a virtue; it is a key that lets individuals access all other virtues. It is the preliminary state of various virtues. For example: What would be humility without politeness? What would compassion be without politeness? Virtues will be insignificant without the presence of politeness. The fear that one’s children will become uneducated and impolite is simply the proof that the parents are not doing their job as educators. This feeling of doubt and fear causes emotions to irrationally rule over this issue of censorship. The child will one day or the other hear or see obscenity. This is inevitable, and why would not there be an education about this use of vulgar words in their specific context? Lakoff’s article on “Hate Speech” reflects this very idea. This notion portray that words are relative to their context and have nothing to do with the general usage. Lakoff mentions a great example of how the change in the meaning of a word is like night and day.
This is typical in politics and religion, where individuals falsify the meaning of the word by incorporating it in various contexts. It is a sort of supermarket where people come and chose a word and modify its context. Sort of like if they buy a product and change its packaging. This is also valid for dark humor.
Dark humorists use words in an elegant manner in order to fit the specific context and express a feeling. Personally I think this is a sign of talent, honesty and courage. I have done some stand-up for the first time in Denver. It is not easy, the performer needs to adapt to a certain audience. Observe the audience in order to pass the message. At first I had a hard time since I was an adept of French comedians that are not very vulgar. What I noticed is that the message was not passing to the audience. I had a couple of laughs and smiles and encouragements, but it was not satisfying for an artist. When I reflected upon this issue, I remarked that the audience needs energy, needs to wake up, become responsive to certain funny observations and issues. Therefore my second standup performance was more appealing since I used dirty words, touched certain sensitive subjects such as my version of airport security and other subjects such as the cell phone. This Affinity towards dark humor might be heavily influenced by the individual’s generation, cultural background or beliefs.
Comedy is a form of art, a way to express ideas and create an emotion in viewer’s intellect. This emotion might be a feeling of reassurance or bliss. George Carlin is a perfect example of how dark humor could be considered triumphant and contemplative. At first I did not get his jokes, my mind sort of blocked a certain issues that I felt too sensitive to talk about. With time I discovered that the audience has to open their minds to these types of comedians. We could take the censorship of the parents with the children and amplify its scale into the censorship government towards society. The judicial case of ‘The Seven Dirty’ words has modified the law in not allowing performers such as George Carlin to use certain words in national T.V. I personally think this specific censorship will just amplify the problem of the real meaning of words. In Kakutani’s “The Word Police”, there is an interesting logic behind the evolution of the meaning of words and censoring the use of some of them will lead to falsification of their real meaning.
This passage reflects the essence of censorship of dark humor in terms of ‘dirty words.’ The use of certain words in the past has had a different meaning from today. Citizens with the help of technology and information are more aware than before. In the same way, children learn dirty words from classmates at a younger age. As the children grow older, their past conception and meaning of the words they learned entirely transformed by their modified perception of society. Maggio mentions in her book that this language usage and fate of society are intrinsic to each other.
This is exactly what dark humor does: It vulgarizes ideas that most people refuse to consider to reflect upon. The humorists in dark comedy transform the meaning of these negatively considered words into a positive meaning. Humor is definitely a virtue and nobody can deny that. It is the best remedy for all sicknesses. The real sickness is in the minds of those that censor it. Thus, there is an evident form of hypocrisy in the censorship of dark humor.
Censorship of dark humor leads to a phony attitude towards serious issues in society. Dark humor portrays sensitive and sad aspects of life and it turns them into joyful moments, where the audience feels grateful to be the way they are. Laughing at yourself or towards humankind as a whole is intellectually stimulating and it is a form of realism. Its provocative statements cause an awakening and criticizing sensitive subjects is not a crime it is a way to reevaluate the foundations of our society and accept each others differences. The audience identifies themselves with the comedian’s observations and hilarious oration. On the other hand, the censors and ‘conservative audience’ tend to show of what the French call: “constipation”. This term is similar to the notion of a “constipated mind”. It refers to the clogging or blocking one’s thoughts. These censors and “conservative audience” are clearly “constipated”. They do not want to admit that these dark humor jokes are a reflection of reality and most of the time very funny. In jokes are a reflection of reality and most of the time very funny. In other words, this is a type of hypocrisy. Where these individuals preach what they do not practice or believe. This is unfortunately human nature and a sign of diversity, but it shows that these censors and this type of audience are hiding the truth from people that need to be intellectually stimulated. They actually refuse to hear how ugly or how melancholic this world is. They adopt the ‘politics of the ostrich’ not wanting to admit how cruel this world is. Kakutani defends this idea that such censorship is a delusion in society.
This excerpt could be interpreted as follows, the censorship of this dark humor will not only falsify and deform realities but it will create dishonesty. This precise dishonesty will destroy the notion of freedom and transparency in society. It will mask all realities and dictate what is funny and what is not, and it will delete all concepts of freedom of thought and choice.
It is certain that dark humor could be emotionally intense for some people or and make the audience uncomfortable. A mother and her child listening to George Carlin or Richard Pryor’s performances could be harmful in terms of breaking the boundary of respect between them. Furthermore, a religious person, homosexual, minority, politician, physically or mentally different person would consider this as a pure provocation and an indignation. Let’s not forget that we all have different tastes, “tastes and colors can not be discussed”. This is simply aesthetics a personal view on what is funny and what is not, it is very irrational and a never ending vicious circle. If this diversity did not exist in opinions and tastes there will be no such thing as censorship.
Censorship of dark humor is a threat towards freedom of thought and choice. It is a sort of an irony since most people assume that dark humor is disrespectful and offensive. I think that its censorship is rude and hypocritical. I think that parents as well as government need to examine the real repercussions of such censorship towards falsification of truths, delusions, and transformation of the meaning of words. If one squeezes too much the winged offspring it will eventually choke and turn into a an incapacitated and rigid mind. Do we really want our children or citizens to become inflexible and limited?
Works Cited
Kakutani, Michiko. “The Word Police.” In Goshgarian. 480-484.
Lakoff, Robin T. “Hate Speech.” In Goshgarian. 463-469.
Maggio, Rosalie. “Bias-Free Language: Some Guidelines.” In Goshgarian. 470-479.
Goshgarian, Gary, ed. Exploring Language, 11th ed. New York: Pearson, 2007.
Words and language are a way of thinking parallel to perception, emotion and reason. Censorship begins at home. Parents do not use certain words in front of their children. Is it a fear, where parents not wanting to have impolite and vulgar children? Politeness is not a virtue; it is a key that lets individuals access all other virtues. It is the preliminary state of various virtues. For example: What would be humility without politeness? What would compassion be without politeness? Virtues will be insignificant without the presence of politeness. The fear that one’s children will become uneducated and impolite is simply the proof that the parents are not doing their job as educators. This feeling of doubt and fear causes emotions to irrationally rule over this issue of censorship. The child will one day or the other hear or see obscenity. This is inevitable, and why would not there be an education about this use of vulgar words in their specific context? Lakoff’s article on “Hate Speech” reflects this very idea. This notion portray that words are relative to their context and have nothing to do with the general usage. Lakoff mentions a great example of how the change in the meaning of a word is like night and day.
“But words mean different things to different people in different contexts: a word that would shock and intimidate a woman uttered by a strange man on a dark street at night might be a delightful expression of intimacy between her and someone she loves and trusts.” (Lakoff 467)
This is typical in politics and religion, where individuals falsify the meaning of the word by incorporating it in various contexts. It is a sort of supermarket where people come and chose a word and modify its context. Sort of like if they buy a product and change its packaging. This is also valid for dark humor.
Dark humorists use words in an elegant manner in order to fit the specific context and express a feeling. Personally I think this is a sign of talent, honesty and courage. I have done some stand-up for the first time in Denver. It is not easy, the performer needs to adapt to a certain audience. Observe the audience in order to pass the message. At first I had a hard time since I was an adept of French comedians that are not very vulgar. What I noticed is that the message was not passing to the audience. I had a couple of laughs and smiles and encouragements, but it was not satisfying for an artist. When I reflected upon this issue, I remarked that the audience needs energy, needs to wake up, become responsive to certain funny observations and issues. Therefore my second standup performance was more appealing since I used dirty words, touched certain sensitive subjects such as my version of airport security and other subjects such as the cell phone. This Affinity towards dark humor might be heavily influenced by the individual’s generation, cultural background or beliefs.
Comedy is a form of art, a way to express ideas and create an emotion in viewer’s intellect. This emotion might be a feeling of reassurance or bliss. George Carlin is a perfect example of how dark humor could be considered triumphant and contemplative. At first I did not get his jokes, my mind sort of blocked a certain issues that I felt too sensitive to talk about. With time I discovered that the audience has to open their minds to these types of comedians. We could take the censorship of the parents with the children and amplify its scale into the censorship government towards society. The judicial case of ‘The Seven Dirty’ words has modified the law in not allowing performers such as George Carlin to use certain words in national T.V. I personally think this specific censorship will just amplify the problem of the real meaning of words. In Kakutani’s “The Word Police”, there is an interesting logic behind the evolution of the meaning of words and censoring the use of some of them will lead to falsification of their real meaning.
“As euphemism proliferates with the rise of political correctness, there is a spread of the sort of sloppy, abstract language that Orwell said is ‘designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.’ ‘Fat’ becomes ‘big boned’ or ‘differently sized’; ‘stupid’ becomes ‘exceptional’; ‘stoned’ becomes ‘chemically inconvenienced.’ Wait a minute here! Aren’t such phrases eerily reminiscent of the euphemisms coined by the Government during Vietnam and Watergate? Remember how the military used to speak of ‘pacification,’ or how President Nixon’s press secretary, Ronald L. Ziedler, tried to get away with calling a lie an ‘inoperative statement’?” (Kakutani 483)
This passage reflects the essence of censorship of dark humor in terms of ‘dirty words.’ The use of certain words in the past has had a different meaning from today. Citizens with the help of technology and information are more aware than before. In the same way, children learn dirty words from classmates at a younger age. As the children grow older, their past conception and meaning of the words they learned entirely transformed by their modified perception of society. Maggio mentions in her book that this language usage and fate of society are intrinsic to each other.
“Culture shapes language and then language shapes culture. ‘Contrary to the assumption that language merely reflects social patterns such as sex-role stereotypes, research in linguistics and social psychological has shown that these are in fact facilitated and reinforced by language.” (Maggio 471)
This is exactly what dark humor does: It vulgarizes ideas that most people refuse to consider to reflect upon. The humorists in dark comedy transform the meaning of these negatively considered words into a positive meaning. Humor is definitely a virtue and nobody can deny that. It is the best remedy for all sicknesses. The real sickness is in the minds of those that censor it. Thus, there is an evident form of hypocrisy in the censorship of dark humor.
Censorship of dark humor leads to a phony attitude towards serious issues in society. Dark humor portrays sensitive and sad aspects of life and it turns them into joyful moments, where the audience feels grateful to be the way they are. Laughing at yourself or towards humankind as a whole is intellectually stimulating and it is a form of realism. Its provocative statements cause an awakening and criticizing sensitive subjects is not a crime it is a way to reevaluate the foundations of our society and accept each others differences. The audience identifies themselves with the comedian’s observations and hilarious oration. On the other hand, the censors and ‘conservative audience’ tend to show of what the French call: “constipation”. This term is similar to the notion of a “constipated mind”. It refers to the clogging or blocking one’s thoughts. These censors and “conservative audience” are clearly “constipated”. They do not want to admit that these dark humor jokes are a reflection of reality and most of the time very funny. In jokes are a reflection of reality and most of the time very funny. In other words, this is a type of hypocrisy. Where these individuals preach what they do not practice or believe. This is unfortunately human nature and a sign of diversity, but it shows that these censors and this type of audience are hiding the truth from people that need to be intellectually stimulated. They actually refuse to hear how ugly or how melancholic this world is. They adopt the ‘politics of the ostrich’ not wanting to admit how cruel this world is. Kakutani defends this idea that such censorship is a delusion in society.
"In the case of the politically correct, the prohibition of certain words, phrases and ideas is advanced in the cause of building a brave new world free of racism and hate, but this vision of harmony clashes with the very ideals of diversity and inclusion that the multi-cultural movement holds dear, and it's purchased at the cost of freedom of expression and freedom of speech.” (Kakutani 484)
This excerpt could be interpreted as follows, the censorship of this dark humor will not only falsify and deform realities but it will create dishonesty. This precise dishonesty will destroy the notion of freedom and transparency in society. It will mask all realities and dictate what is funny and what is not, and it will delete all concepts of freedom of thought and choice.
It is certain that dark humor could be emotionally intense for some people or and make the audience uncomfortable. A mother and her child listening to George Carlin or Richard Pryor’s performances could be harmful in terms of breaking the boundary of respect between them. Furthermore, a religious person, homosexual, minority, politician, physically or mentally different person would consider this as a pure provocation and an indignation. Let’s not forget that we all have different tastes, “tastes and colors can not be discussed”. This is simply aesthetics a personal view on what is funny and what is not, it is very irrational and a never ending vicious circle. If this diversity did not exist in opinions and tastes there will be no such thing as censorship.
Censorship of dark humor is a threat towards freedom of thought and choice. It is a sort of an irony since most people assume that dark humor is disrespectful and offensive. I think that its censorship is rude and hypocritical. I think that parents as well as government need to examine the real repercussions of such censorship towards falsification of truths, delusions, and transformation of the meaning of words. If one squeezes too much the winged offspring it will eventually choke and turn into a an incapacitated and rigid mind. Do we really want our children or citizens to become inflexible and limited?
Works Cited
Kakutani, Michiko. “The Word Police.” In Goshgarian. 480-484.
Lakoff, Robin T. “Hate Speech.” In Goshgarian. 463-469.
Maggio, Rosalie. “Bias-Free Language: Some Guidelines.” In Goshgarian. 470-479.
Goshgarian, Gary, ed. Exploring Language, 11th ed. New York: Pearson, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment