Laugh Right:
Humor Weaponized
“Scientists have proposed competing explanations for why some things are funnier than others, but it seems clear that humor often involves the violation of expectations.” - Psychology Today
To accept Republicans and Conservatives do indeed have humor, we only need look at The Lincoln Project. After all, until quite recently they played for the other side
—————————————————————————
Summary:
Discussion:———————————
In a recent interview of comedian Emily Epstein by Mark Sumner, we see an inconsistency with the suggestion that Republicans lack humor though they have “punch down” humor. How can you have a particular humor if you lack humor? We also see inconsistency with the suggestion that Republicans lack empathy yet their leadership seems to preach to their feelings. We also seem to suggest Republicans lack intelligence or thought as humor requires such. These are dangerous things that fail to fully appreciate capability of the competition. Such hubris usually bodes ill. While they may use strawmen, gross oversimplification, or outright lies and while they count on linear or binary thinking, Republicans do in fact use humor to great effect. With it they marshall their troops while attempting to recruit others. Epstein is correct that they use moral outrage though this is in synergy with humor; humor initiates or sells while indignation maintains. She is probably correct that Republicans tend to view from individual or family perspective while Democrats try to view from the greater world. This would create an inside only view for Republicans and could possibly preclude concern for some second order effects. This in turn creates vulnerability to the oversimplified binary or linear messages. She and we are wrong, however, to think Democrats always “punch up.”
HalBrown* shows Democrats punching down with a story by Andy Borowitz in The New Yorker. “Presidential candidate Donald Trump revealed a little-known episode of personal heroism from his youth on Saturday, telling an Iowa audience that he narrowly avoided capture in Vietnam by remaining in the United States for the duration of the war.” Hal tells us “Mockery is a powerful tool. In the hands of someone like Trump it energizes and incites his supporters. It outrages and nauseates us, but there’s no doubt it is highly effective with his audience. On the other hand, responsible mockery, which I’d prefer to call satire, takes the truth and conveys it in an easily accessible way.” He’s giving credit where credit is due.
We should consider Frank Wilhoit as quoted by Fred Clark with, “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time… As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages.”
If we take this thought, we can view Republican humor as very much tied to preserving and reinforcing the in-group while isolating, insulating from, or protecting against the out-group. In this latter effort, Republicans do indeed punch down. Yet in the former effort they, like we, punch up. Further, Frank McAndrew suggests they, and we, may use humor not only to help our in-groups but to help us find who is in the group**. So, even punching down can be building up.
There is a caveat here that creates a vulnerability. There’s the in-group to which the humor is aimed, yet there is also an inner in-group. It is this inner in-group, the corporatist extractionists, that the system ultimately is set to protect yet not bind. Both humor and moral concern could be used to wedge the inner in-group from the in-group. Regarding morals, we should look at what may drive differences to morals. Both Prius or Pickup and The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives help. I’ve reviewed Prius or Pickup before here.
Ultimately, I believe Emily understands that we too punch down, that they do punch up, and that humor is a method for effective messaging to include recruiting and converting. I think she understands our humor can be repulsive and divisive too. I’m not sure if we as a collective understand such, especially when negative concerns are applied to ourselves or positive ones to Republicans. “... realizing how silly the other side can be … I think that works. Sometimes it cracks me up. But it’s important not to go for the low-hanging fruit or to be unnecessarily cruel.”
———————————
How does humor work? Here we need to consider Split Second Persuasion and Thinking Fast and Slow. I’ve previously commented on the interrelationship between these two books in regard to humor as influential here, here, and here.
Kevin Dutton in Split Second Persuasion notes that certain shifts or incongruity, similar to that often found in music, drive humor:
“Paul Rozin and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania have drawn attention to a common pattern that exists in humor—what they call the AAB pattern. We all know what it is:
(A1) Some men are about to be executed. The guard brings the first man forward, and the executioner asks if he has any last requests. He says no, and the executioner shouts, ‘Ready! Aim!’ Suddenly the man yells, ‘Earthquake!’ Everyone is startled and looks around. In all the confusion, the first man escapes.
(A2) The guard brings the second man forward, and the executioner asks if he has any last requests. He says no, and the executioner shouts, ‘Ready! Aim!’ Suddenly the man yells, ‘Tornado!’ Everyone is startled and looks around. In all the confusion, the second man escapes.
(B) The last man has it all figured out. The guard brings him forward, and the executioner asks if he has any last requests. He says no, and the executioner shouts, ‘Ready! Aim!’ And the last man yells, ‘Fire!’
In this particular joke (I’ve got others), the violation—B—involves a rival interpretation of the final word. The expectation is one of another disaster word. But in reality, when it comes, it has a different, calamitous, and radically pertinent undertone. Perhaps less well known, however, is the AAB pattern in music.
[Example] The AAB structure in the initial theme from Mozart, Piano Sonata in A Major, K. 331, I (Andante grazioso), mm. 1–4... [link added]
In other words when expectations are violated, our brains (more specifically, areas such as the anterior cingulate cortex and parts of the temporoparietal junction) are moved to restore homeostasis. To counteract the aversive emotion that accompanies such violation. In the arts—music and comedy, for instance—such aversive emotion is all part of the deal. From the comfort of our armchair, or the safety of the dress circle, we place ourselves quite willingly in the hands of the performer.”
It is this very incongruity that Dutton will take as critical to his recipe for Split Second Persuasion. The recipe he gives is for “SPICE,” which is Simple, Perceived self-interest, Incongruity, Confidence, and Empathy.
We should note SPICE is A way, not THE way to persuade. It isn’t a magic answer. Not everyone is persuadable. SPICE isn’t a simple checklist ensuring you have all the elements as achieving these elements takes skill. In a link to comments I’ve made above, you can find “Distilling a message to Simple is difficult; it also carries risk of oversimplification which can cause problems later. Showing Perceived self-interest can be difficult especially when the
gains are second or third order; see mask mandates. Incongruity is hard to achieve even with a witty messenger and the timing of a comedian or musician. Developing such without stepping on the content portion of the message is difficult. Confidence may be the only easy part. If you believe in your message, likely your delivery will be confident. Empathy, another challenge. In most cases you need your audience to believe you actually appreciate their circumstances. On the rare occasion you take the empathy road the other direction trying to get the audience to empathize with you, you still need to create that emotional connection. These things are hard. Trying to cook them all into the same message, even harder.”
Where can humor fit? Humor often derives from incongruity, therefore humor can be used to procure incongruity. Ultimately incongruity though especially humor let’s messages in the mental back door.
Consider Daniel Kahneman with Thinking Fast and Slow. In this book, Kahneman views mental processes in two distinct groups. The fast thinking processes are automatic and fast. He calls these part of “System 1.” Slow deliberate processes form “System 2.” System 2 is not automatic. System 2 likes to avoid work. System 2 is also the fact-checker. System 1 evolved to accept everything as fact so as to more quickly initiate survival related action. “System 1 does not keep track of alternatives that it rejects, or even of the fact that there were alternatives. Conscious doubt is not in the repertoire of System 1; it requires maintaining incompatible interpretations in mind at the same time, which demands mental effort. Uncertainty and doubt are the domain of System 2... when System 2 is otherwise engaged, we will believe almost anything. System 1 is gullible and biased to believe, System 2 is in charge of doubting and unbelieving, but System 2 is sometimes busy, and often lazy.” & “people, when engaged in a mental sprint, may become effectively blind... System 1 has more influence on behavior when System 2 is busy, and it has a sweet tooth.” Incongruity, especially humor, keeps System 2 busy.
As mentioned, SPICE is a way, not the way. Accumbens mentioned in one of those linked comment threads LBJ’s Daisy Girl commercial persuasive through its emotional fear*** connection. Comments on this, “There is a common denominator, however, in that both methods target System 2 by attacking System 1. In accumben’s method, an emotional connection that feels right is created such that System 1 readily grabs the story. System 2, being lazy, sees how well the feel fits (or fit feels?) and accepts this without putting energy toward verifying the message. In SPICE, incongruity trips System 1, System 1 cues System 2 to focus on the incongruity to figure it out, System 2 now being occupied can’t devout resources elsewhere in the message for fact checking and relies on System 1 to handle all other efforts including the rest of the message; System 1 won’t get System 2 involved elsewhere except should it perceive a higher priority danger. System 1 accepts everything as fact as it is supposed to view the world in the protective fight or flight way, consideration takes time, time is death.” Alternately, one could actually view this commercial through SPICE, “I do think someone could see the discontinuity between a girl in a field and a nuclear blast as an incongruity.”
—————
How do morals fit? Regarding humor, Psychology Today says “The theory of benign violations proposes that something is funny when it seems both wrong or threatening and essentially harmless.” The moment something violates our morals, it is no longer harmless. Some discontinuities are threatening, some incongruities are offensive. Humor involves incongruity that still conforms to our sensibilities. Hence morals matter.
Additionally, morals give us another method from which we can push our efforts. Sometimes these can be completely separate efforts though others can involve humor and morals in synergy. For example, consider a comic or cartoon that illuminates another’s moral failings. We can use these tactics ourselves yet we should recognize Republicans use these quite effectively against us. This means we need to look at where we derive morals. If you didn’t watch Jonathan Haidt’s TED Talk regarding The Moral Roots, linked above, you really should.
Before getting to Haidt’s points, I’d like to look at his performance in delivery. This in turn opens a side discussion regarding performance versus effectiveness. The fact I remembered his speech with a general notion of content with different pieces forming morals so as to go back and look it up reflects how effective he was in instilling his message. The fact he kept the audience live and myself watching video entertained showed his performance of delivering the message.
Jonathan’s performance demonstrated humor. He did well landing jokes at or just after 1:20, 2:00, 3:25, 6:38, & 10:50. What I thought most interesting, however, was his landed joke at 9:45. In this one, he paused for a fraction of a second, consider it an eighth note. Maybe a sixteenth. That momentary delay gave just enough that it took a mediocre or even non-joke statement and made it exceptional. And memorable. Hitting the offbeat takes us to “Hit the half beat to knock an adversary offbeat“ as an avenue to John Boyd and his Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (OODA) loops. Boyd plays in this discussion though back to the content of The Moral Roots. Boyd comes later. Here’s Haidt:
“Openness to Experience: open individuals have an affinity for liberal, progressive, left-wing political views, whereas closed minded individuals prefer conservative, traditional, right-wing views. (McCrae, 1996)”
“When we all share morals, we become a team and with psychology of teams, it shuts down open-minded thinking.”
In establishing an us versus them, we tend to discount intelligence and consideration or caring -compassion- from the other side. Yet they do have these. In Magnanimity Should Be The Word Of The Day, I showed such. In Don’t Make Monsters, I showed how we occasionally fail falling into superiority humor and moralizing without first considering other sides. Team dynamics make seeing our own faults harder. More from Jonathan:
“If you think half of America votes this way, then you’re trapped in a moral matrix.”
“Our righteous minds were ‘designed’ by evolution to unite us into teams, divide us against other teams, and blind us to the truth.” It is the second two of these which should give us concern.
“Everybody thinks they are right. Want to change people first understand who they are.”
Haidt teaches us that we have five foundations to morals. Of these, Liberals tend to be concerned with only two. Therefore, we are “2-channel.” Conservatives tend to weigh all five foundations and are “5-channel.” These channels are Harm/Care & Fairness/Reciprocity to which both pools subscribe, as well as In-Group/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity for which only Conservatives significantly value. This creates a rub that all our disagreements rest upon debating in-group authority.
Haidt shows Liberals have good reason for rejecting three channels to morals as these drive oppression. He also shows Conservatives have good reason to respect the three channels as they secure order while order is hard to achieve and easy to lose. Loss of order gives you The French Revolution and the Reign of Terror while ultimately those created Napoleon. We as a society need both Liberalism and Conservatism. Without Liberalism, we stagnate. We’re less adaptable to changing circumstances and the impact of unknowns. Liberalism gives us flexibility which gives us resiliency. “Without Conservatism, we decay.” We’re susceptible to known stresses. Conservatism helps us to not “repeat lessons.” Jonathan tells us we need to view while being neither for nor against so as to fully gain understanding. This resonates with Nelson Mandela who would listen to all first then decide. Such permits one to “step out of the moral matrix.” Stepping out of the matrix gets us to “moral humility” and “moral humility leads to moral authority.”
Targeting the inner in-group: With an appreciation for morals, we should consider what John Boyd said regarding the significance of morals in terms relevant to competition, messaging, and teams. This is important as this provides an attack vector to wedge the in-group from the inner in-group. Humor can definitely be applied in such efforts. Such may be punching down and that is perfectly acceptable. Here’s Boyd:
“Morally we interact with others by avoiding mismatches between what we say we are, what we are, and the world we have to deal with, as well as by abiding by those other cultural codes or standards that we are expected to uphold.”
“Morally adversaries isolate themselves when they visibly improve their well-being to the detriment of others (i.e. their allies, the uncommitted, etc.) by violating codes of conduct or behavior patterns that they profess to uphold or others expect them to uphold.”
“Defeat existing regime politically by showing they have neither the moral right nor demonstrated ability to govern...”
“Reveal those mismatches in terms of what adversaries profess to be, what they are, and the world they have to deal with in order to surface to the world, to their citizens, and to ourselves the ineptness and corruption as well as the sub-rosa designs that they have upon their citizens, ourselves, and the world at large.”
Perhaps the best to McConnell as Trump matters less now, “If your boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, then give him loyalty.”
Note Republicans can make jokes though don’t really take jokes very well. This means we need to consider Boyd’s “How do we morally isolate our adversaries yet maintain the trust/confidence of others and thereby interact with them?” Part of this is that we need to treat the non-inner in-group as distinctly separate from the inner in-group and we should strive not to be adversarial with this non-inner in-group. If we can show that the inner in-group isn’t being fair and do so in a manner to be bought by the non-inners, per Boyd, “On the other hand, if the group cannot or does not attempt to overcome obstacles deemed important to many (or possibly any) of its individual members, the group must risk losing these alienated members. Under these circumstances, the alienated members may dissolve their relationship and remain independent, form a group of their own, or join another collective body in order to improve their capacity for independent action.” We’ve already seen such at play with Republican Voters Against Trump, The Lincoln Project, and enough politicians that I don’t want to list them for fear of missing some good ones (a lawyer in Florida does come to mind as does a Representative from Michigan).
Targets I would suggest are that the inner in-group isn’t actually the in-group authority as rule of law and the Constitution are while also hitting inner in-group hypocrisy with emphasis on their parasitic extraction from the non-inner in-group. Inner in-group incompetence particularly with first order effect failures also makes a worthy target. Punishment, a Conservative value that helps all society, should be at the inner in-group - the leaders and enablers - as the non-inners have actually been punished enough by circumstance and as we want to recruit from the non-inners, not repel them. Humor offers a method of delivery as facts and direct attack won’t be received. Insidiousness can be a virtue.
A potential future concern: In Prius or Pickup, Marc Hetherington tells us that populations generally conform to a distribution of 16% are Fixed (Closed), 26% are Mixed leaning Closed, 26% are Mixed with no bias, 19% are Mixed leaning Fluid (Open), 13% are Open. He also shows mixed lean right. This suggests Conservatives should have the balance. They don’t because they employ exclusionary racist tactics. Should they manage to excise these, they’ll have the balance. This means we best learn how to reach them. Republicans sweat the loss of white as majority causing their loss of political power; in reality we should be sweating how to reach and convince the mixed portion of the population.
While we may want to discount such as not funny, even Psychology Today suggests “punch down” as humorous, “There are as many different functions and styles of humor as there are versions of the old joke, ‘How many ____ does it take to change a light bulb?‘ ... Culture, age, political orientation, and many other factors likely also play a role in what people find funny.“
Per the Psychology Today article, “Certain personality traits seem to correspond with the style of humor people tend to use. Research suggests those who are drawn to humor as a way to affiliate with people or to support their own well-being are likely to rate higher on the traits of extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience. More agreeable and conscientious people also seem less likely to use humor in a disparaging or offensive way.” This means we use and receive humor differently. It is on the speaker to shape message to audience preferences.
Two writers in Psychology Today suggest types of humor. The fact their suggestions vary tells us what is funny is not a clear concept.
Gil Greengross gives us:
Affiliative Humor: Tendency to share humor with others, tell jokes and funny stories, make others laugh, use humor to facilitate relationships, put others at ease. [punching up]
Self-Enhancing Humor: Tendency to maintain a humorous outlook on life even when not with others, use humor in coping with stress, cheer oneself up with humor. [punching up]
Aggressive Humor: Tendency to use humor to disparage, put down, or manipulate others; use of ridicule, offensive humor; potentially use sexist and racist jokes. [punching down]
Self-Defeating Humor: Tendency to amuse others at one’s own expense, self-disparaging humor; laughing along with others when being ridiculed or teased; using humor to hide one’s true feelings from self and others.
He also suggests a tie between personality traits and preferred modes of humor; again, personality traits give some predisposition to political affiliation per Prius or Pickup.
Arash Emamzadeh gives us:
Superiority: The superiority theory of humor suggests that humor is essentially an attack on others. We laugh at whatever makes us feel superior to others. [punching down]
Arousal/relief: The arousal or relief theory of humor suggests that a joke or humorous situation is one that has the ability to relieve emotional arousal and tension.
Incongruity: The incongruity theory of humor suggests that humor results from incongruous situations, such as ones that violate our expectations.
Art Markman adds humor needs incongruity or surprise and to do so in a safe manner. Arash Emamzadeh also points out “Of course, the same joke may be explained by more than one theory.”
We can bin these humors as if different flavors best marketed to either Republicans or Democrats. Some may appeal to both. So, let’s bin them as we think appropriate. We’ll append the moral foundation factors to each list as reference too:
Democrats (considered punch uppers)
Affiliative
Self-enhancing
Self-defeating
Arousal relief
Incongruity
Harm / Care
Fairness / Reciprocity
Republicans (considered punch downers)
Aggressive
Superiority
In-group / Loyalty
Authority / Respect
Purity / Sanctity
Here’s the catch. We’re wrong in this binning.
We ourselves partake in superior humor. We’re also aggressive humorists which is a funny way of saying we’re passive-aggressive. Just as we find such from them, it is these very things from us Republican voters find off-putting. It drives them to their camp and to support their inner in-group. When it comes to persuasion, any sense of moral indignation or righteousness on our part is self defeating. Smug fails. Yet, some things are worthy of mockery. Some need to be put down. Sometimes this is ok. Consider it a tradeoff, some people will associate with the idea slandered and feel insulted. Oh well. At some level they should perceive the notion undercutting an idea versus personal attack. If they can’t pull it up, others will. These non-aligned or merely on the periphery others matter. These others make the margin of victory. Personal attack, even if such seems justified, will repel these others. Attacks do well to bolster a base though at cost. As attacks can create fear, per Prius or Pickup fear drives rightward, Republicans pay less cost in this than do we.
I would suggest as a guide, attack ideas not people. Yes, sometimes we need to tear down dangerous leaders, enablers, terrorists. If you must, attack persons not people. Mocking broad swaths isn’t funny to them and shouldn’t be funny for us as it damages our cause more than it gains in our own solidarity.
Much has been written in the media regarding humor as weapon against authoritarianism. There’s a catch, however, in that most of the strengths against the authoritarian are really strengths against the establishment. Republicans have adopted an anti-establishment flavor these past few decades (Reagan “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” de-regulation, Tea Party, Trump). This means both sides can use the benefits of the humor tactic. There are very few traits of humor that specifically damage authoritarians alone and these tend to be muted in the American situation. After all, fear is the authoritarian’s trusted method while humor counters fear yet Republicans and Trumpists don’t have the full use of fear. They only have fear in their in-group and only at job retention (inners fear Trumpist elections; non-inners fear displacement by aliens and robots). Outside of the in-group the fear is of the damage of their incompetence, not of their might and control.
Anne Applebaum in The Atlantic:
“This is a question about how to get people to listen at all. Just shouting about ‘facts’ will get you nowhere with those who no longer trust the sources that produce them...
‘Tribalism isn’t all negative,’ she said. ‘It also involves elements of loyalty, trust, and community.’ [Impacts moral channels; the Perceived self-interest and Empathy of SPICE] ...
The Lincoln Project’s founders count the attacks from the Republican Party as a success, not least because they distract the GOP from its campaign against Joe Biden. But do the Lincoln Project’s ads get through to Republican voters, let alone change their minds? Steve Schmidt, another one of the founders, argues that the information bubble around the president really does now function like an autocratic personality cult: Before any positive messages can get through, the spell has to be broken. For that reason, attacking Republican Party leaders is a necessity. ‘Diminish them, mock them, and laugh at them,’ Schmidt told me. ‘Punch back hard before you lose the ability to do it.’ He also thinks that aggressive, even vulgar, laughter will help break through the wall of indifference and convince distracted voters that something important is happening. ‘The side arguing from democratic values should not be the soft side in the debate,’ Schmidt said. ‘It should be ferocious.’”
NYTimes Nick Kristof:
“Something similar happens in many countries. Citizens who aren’t political are often wary of pro-democracy leaders who are perceived as radical, as irreligious or as overeducated elitists. But those ordinary citizens appreciate a joke, so humor becomes a way to win them over.
Yet he previously noted the power of cartoons,
Don’t tell my editors, but cartoonists, now an endangered species, are often more incisive social and political critics than columnists.”
Republicans have excellent cartoonists that also have easier writing thanks to Republicans use of oversimplification, strawmen, and binary, linear, and 1st order only thinking. Republicans also have excellent online presence both bought and self inspired to work. AOC and Buttigieg are correct to assert we need to do better messaging with the message itself, delivery medium of choice, and with tailoring and targeting the message. Such should also consider which elements are essential for repetition and how and when to harmonize to these essential elements. Consider svjoshi’s DK piece and associated comment, “I would say they coordinate themes of messages, not specific messages. The simple piece repeats throughout respective messages. Like the chorus to a song. They tailor the message to audiences while keeping audience on theme. Micro-targeting is real. Netflix The Great Hack and The Social Dilemma.”
NYTimes Richard Friedman:
“If you attempt to counter every falsehood or distortion that Mr. Trump serves up, you will cede control of the debate. And, by trying to correct him, you will paradoxically strengthen the misinformation rather than undermine it...
The first weapon may be the most effective: humor and ridicule. A derisive joke can defuse tense and outrageous situations. [ridicule & derisive are punching down]
This kind of lie is emblematic of individuals with antisocial traits who have a deficit in moral conscience. But if they also have strong narcissistic traits, they are exquisitely sensitive to criticism and especially to ridicule. Derisive humor threatens to expose them for the loser they secretly believe they are.”
Foreign Policy - Srdja Popovic & Mladen Joksic:
“There is a reason why humor is infusing the arsenal of the 21st-century protestor: It works. For one, humor breaks fear and builds confidence. It also adds a necessary cool factor, which helps movements attract new members. Finally, humor can incite clumsy reactions from a movement’s opponents.”
The fear side doesn’t play as strongly here as while Trump has thin skin, his minions merely fear loss of job. The worst that had been done was doxing for subsequent goon harassment. Hillary never got locked up. Meanwhile, Trump came in on his own anti-establishment ride while mocking elites. He too needed to keep the fun going. His rallies were affairs aimed at entertaining masses. He too needed to keep the creative flow going.
“Today’s protestors understand that humor offers a low-cost point of entry for ordinary citizens who don’t consider themselves particularly political, but are sick and tired of dictatorship [or establishment]. Make a protest fun, and people don’t want to miss out on the action...
Of course, just because laughter in non-violent struggle is now common, it does not mean that it is easy. To the contrary, laughtivism requires a constant stream of creativity to stay in the news, headlines, and tweets, as well as to maintain a movement’s momentum. Without creativity and wit, laughtivism can wilt before a movement’s ambitions are met. And without discipline and sound judgment, mockery can quickly descend into chaos and violence.”
Look for a moment in The Atlantic at tribal societies. Their punch down based on an incongruity of contempt to accomplishment serves egalitarian purpose. “Even the present-oriented hunter-gatherers, it turns out, had to develop communal strategies to quash the drivers of overwork—status envy, inequality, deprivation. When a Ju/’hoan hunter returned with a big kill, the tribe perceived a danger that he might think his prowess elevated him above others. ‘We can’t accept this,’ one tribesman said. ‘So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we cool his heart and make him gentle.’ This practice became known among researchers as ‘insulting the hunter’s meat.’ (Link added)
It was not the only custom that aimed to discourage a destabilizing competition for status and avoid a concentration of power. The tribe also ‘insisted that the actual owner of the meat, the individual charged with its distribution, was not the hunter, but the person who owned the arrow that killed the animal,’ Suzman writes. By rewarding the semi-random contributor of the arrow, the Ju/’hoansi kept their most talented hunters in check, in order to defend the group’s egalitarianism. A welcome result was that ‘the elderly, the short-sighted, the clubfooted and the lazy got a chance to be the centre of attention once in a while.’
Reading about these strategies, I felt several things at once—astonished by their ingenuity, mind-blown by the notion of ridiculing exceptional achievements, and worried that my failure to imagine taking comparable pains to protect leisurely harmony meant that my own brain had been addled by too many years in productivity mode, too many twitchy Sunday evenings.”
Thus the humor modes normally used by Republicans to support the in-group while creating inequality are shown ensuring equality and unity with no in-grouping among the tribe. Their moral understanding resonates to preserve equality. Their “nation” is unitary. They’re living undivided and presumably not blind. The method is both Conservative in preserving their order and Liberal in being anti-authoritarian while seeing the rights and needs of all.
If we fail to appreciate the techniques and tactics of Republican humor with its Operational and Strategic aims, we will fail to counter it while ultimately we will fail as a nation and as a world while facing collective existential problems. We cannot afford to be divisive to the Trump voter. We need to know their methods so as to be able to counter them though we must avoid the direct confrontation mindset. We must avoid the punishment mindset. We need to appreciate that they do think, they do laugh, and laughing makes them think. We need to get out of our luffberry with them which means avoiding making them the butt of our jokes and actually consider their humanity. Perhaps we do need to be divisive against the inner in-group extractionists, however. These select few have earned our ire. Fairness & respect for authority would suggest we’d do well with the not so in in-group if we properly take on inner in-group.
Choose targets wisely. Avoid making villain of their masses even if sometimes they are. Instead shape them as another set of victim led astray. Don’t mock the Gadsden. I know they’ve usurped it. It’s still an American flag and doing so will only be repulsive to them. Don’t trash the Betsy Ross. “Reform the Police” would have been better than “Defund,” though “Help the Police” would have been best. Consider who you need to reach and regularly ask yourself “Is this effective? Or am I being Righteous?”
——————————————————————————————
* I’ve had a sidebar conversation running with HalBrown while working on this. This led to his recent piece here while also referring me to Gilbert Leung with his paper The Efflorescent Nihilism of Laughter: An Existential Supplement to Satirical Legal Studies. In reading that message, I replied with “My initial thought was the Destroyer as mentioned by Jonathan Haidt in his The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives lecture which mentions Liberals being like Shiva the Destroyer while Conservatives are like Vishnu the Preserver. John Boyd in Discourse on Winning and Losing may argue that you also need Brahma. A part of his Discourse on Winning and Losing is a lecture on Destruction and Creation. With the slate cleaned, or perceived as clean, you’re clear for Brahma to build whatever may be.
If we go back to Sumner & Epstein, they talked about punching up & punching down. They posited Ds do more punching up while Rs punch down. I disagree with that though see up versus down worth a look.
Perhaps a Newtonian view with both punching up and down preserves? Consider “insulting the meat.”
Indeed Gilbert Leung resonates with Boyd’s Destruction and Creation, “Instead, we should perhaps ask whether it is possible for laughter to be aligned to the movement from death to life, from decomposition to recomposition, from waste to green shoots, from nothing to creation or creation from nothing, from mechanical inelasticity to mobile and fluid elasticity.”
Brahma - Punches up.
Vishnu - Punches up & down; associated with Conservatives
Shiva - Punches down yet associated with Liberals
In a way, this echoes with Battlestar Galactica, “all of this has happened before and will happen again.” If you think this resonates with Terminator and The Matrix, it is because it does.
** As an example of using humor to show group affiliation, I’ve a story to relay:
Near two years ago, I took my French Bulldog Dumpling to the vet. This particular appointment was at a satellite clinic from Bishop Vet from Bishop, CA though was in Ridgecrest, CA. Ridgecrest is home to Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake. Hers was a mid-afternoon appointment and I was in my flight suit. I was obviously Navy. The Bishop Vet satellite was in a pre-fab building with a waiting area similar in size and shape to the living area of a trailer that was packed as then they were only open every other Wednesday. I’d normally take Dumpling to a different Vet but she was having an ear issue that wasn’t resolving and I wanted to try somewhere else. After getting to the exam room, an attractive blonde woman with the build of a rock climber came in to check Dumpling first. She was a veterinary student from UC Davis. The doctor came after, looked at Dumpling, had the student look too, then left. Ignoring the likely Bishop and rock climbing connection, I asked the vet student “why Bishop?” She answered with being able to see a variety of animals then listed off small animals, she started to leave, stopped, listed a few large animals including horses, donkeys, cows, then left out the door rounding right into the hallway. A half second later, she leaned back into the doorway and said “and goats” with momentary eyebrow raise and smile. My immediate thoughts were “yes!” and “well, how would you handle a squid?” I didn’t actually say these, I had and still have a live-in girlfriend. The point here is that she used the offbeat that created the humor in listing goats separately which served as her announcing she was in, or at least knowledgeable of, the group. I was obviously Navy while aside from the squid, the goat is the animal most associated with the Navy. It’s the mascot of the academy (I didn’t go there). It’s also a reference to the senior enlisted as their mess, the chiefs’ mess, is called the goats’ locker. Had she grouped goats with horses, donkeys, and cows, it wouldn’t have registered. The offbeat generated a moment of humor and the humor advertised group affiliation.
*** As Prius or Pickup shows fear driving politics right, yet LBJ used fear with Daisy Girl (and Kennedy did with missile gaps). Thinking Fast or Slow concurs with Prius or Pickup, “The evidence of priming studies suggests that reminding people of their mortality increases the appeal of authoritarian ideas, which may become reassuring in the context of the terror of death.” Comment discussion resolves this “We should note a caveat regarding Prius or Pickup, fear generally moves people rightward, except when the source of the fear is obviously on the right. You’ll gravitate toward the warmonger if the source of conflict appears to be elsewhere, otherwise you’ll avoid the warmonger (think Churchill). This applies now with pandemic, Trump, and Rs at large. Unfortunately not everyone understands they are the source of the problem. Those not seeing so have a pull rightward toward them while those seeing them as the source of pandemic are pushed away. In this, your ad works twice. If you see Goldwater & LeMay as the warmongers and problem source, you’re repulsed from them. If, however, you see the Soviets as the problem, you’re driven to a strong leader which Johnson has shown himself to be.“
Political cartoons, mostly theirs, can be found here. (Occasionally they have one that seems to me a case of “friendly fire.” Sometimes such appears intentional and indicative of internal fracturing, sometimes it is just off intended target. Always good to see red-on-red.)
Test your humor style.
Nearly a year ago on 92nd Street Y with Malcolm Gladwell, Ezra Klein states “identity grows stronger under threat,” this is an interesting thought. We need to push American identity and it being under threat though we should try to implicate Trumpists less so as to give the 74 million pro-Trump vote maneuvering space to move away from Trump. Push American identity while keeping recriminations to the actual actors being the administration, enablers, mob. Don’t highlight and attack identity that previously went Trump as it will only cement such to Trump. More from Klein, “For all the fervor pitch about [political] conflict if you experience it on Twitter or cable news, most people are quite checked out of it. Most people are’t paying that much attention at all and that might be because these other identities are more important to them. I just did a focus group... mostly what they said is they’ve tuned it out because it was all too angry.” In other words, the masses voted by identity team without due consideration. They’ve been programmed by team identity. Better to remind them of the overall team. Punishment minds, however, will isolate them to those small teams. The punishment mindset advertises more anger, false equivalence regardless, we’ll be tagged with that anger. Justice for actual perpetrators, not punishment for all one side’s voters. Klein on that focus group, “they have views but they didn’t want to be involved in it because they had work and they have kids and they have to worry about other things.” Their silence is not endorsement. Their inaction is not permit. As Republicans divorce from Trump, they shouldn’t be condemned as too little too late. They should be rewarded so as to encourage their continuation away and as to entice others. Rewards need not be big; no need for donations or to endorse in two years, just a simple compliment and “thank you” now. Then you can push them on carbon and masks.
10
