Decline of Laughter
Sure, it’s old (June 2007), and there are some points made which turn on the situation surrounding the Don Imus Affair (which has since been resolved somewhat in Imus’ favor), but this essay by Roger Scruton raises some interesting issues regarding general humor, offense, ethnic humor, the role of humor in assimilation and religion.
It seems to me that we stand in need of a repertoire of religious jokes and a bold habit of expressing them. However, many Muslims have an exaggerated capacity to feel slighted, and there is scarcely a humorous remark to be made about Islam that will not instantly be read as an expression of hostility. Here too the censors are hard at work, depriving humanity of its natural way of defusing conflict, and forcing upon us all a kind of tiptoeing and apprehensive deference that is in fact far closer to hostility than any robust guffaw. Of course, religion is a sensitive topic, and the traditional British response, that it should therefore never be mentioned in polite society, is understandable. But in a world of increasingly belligerent affirmations of faith, the British solution is no longer available. Satire of the kind directed at Tartuffe by Moliere is surely what our mullahs deserve. By satirizing them, we come to terms with them; we also distinguish their ludicrous self-righteousness from the gentle path of accommodation that ordinary Muslims want and need.
Back in May 2006, we posted about some of the issues raised by Scruton a year before they were raised in this piece. Paul Saucido, a Mexican-American comic, caught hell for creating “horribly offensive” ringtones. The United Latin American Citizens forced apologies and leaned on the parties involved. We condemned them and their tactics.
We asked the question then and we think it needs revisiting: “Is this drive to protect certain groups from even the slightest discomfort from mockery counterintuitive, and ultimately counter to the process of assimilation and acceptance?”
Reply to: Decline of Laughter