If you engage in satire you should always ask yourself: am I mocking the powerful or am I mocking the weak? Am I punching up or punching down? If you are laughing at those who are weaker than you then that means you are a contemptible coward; if you are laughing at those more powerful than you then that is more admirable. Mocking your own group is also generally fine. So context is everything. Where you are standing is everything.
With this in mind let's consider some examples:
(1) a physically non-handicapped person mocking a physically handicapped person is punching down and that is contemptible cowardice. Similarly, a mentally normal person mocking a mentally handicapped person is punching down and is also a coward.
(2) rich people mocking poor people is contemptible, but poor people mocking the wealthy and the privileged is not. Mocking unemployed people is wrong, mocking bankers is fine.
(3) mocking powerful politicians, tyrants, dictators and other such authorities is generally fine. Mocking their victims is not. Mocking bigoted journalists who serve the powerful is fine.
(4) Historically the English had power over the Irish, so an English person mocking the Irish was punching down, but Irish people mocking the English was punching up - this no longer really applies any more, but it did in the past.
(5) homosexuals have traditionally been a bullied and marginalised minority, so a heterosexual mocking homosexuals is as a rule punching down, but a homosexual mocking heterosexuals is punching up.
(6) White people have oppressed black people and black people mostly have less power and wealth than white people, so as a rule a white person mocking black people is most definitely punching down. But a black person mocking white people is punching up.
(7) men have mostly had more power than women so men making cruel jokes about women is as a rule punching down, whereas women mocking men is punching up.
(8) Within Ireland travellers are a marginalised minority, so a non-traveller Irish person mocking Irish travellers is most certainly punching down. Travellers poking fun at non-travellers is punching up.
(9) within Ireland the Catholic Church traditionally had excessive power and they abused that power, so mocking the priests and the Catholic Church was punching up - if you were a Catholic Irish person. But what about British people mocking the backward, superstitious, impoverished Catholic Irish? Well, that's where it got a little more complicated didn't it? As a rule, that was punching down even when the substance of the criticism was correct. But this is where things start to get a bit difficult - a British person might just have wanted to help Irish people who were resisting the dominance of the Catholic Church, so they mocked Irish priests and the mockery was well-intentioned. But because they were British it was different than when an Irish person mocked Irish priests. The British person more than likely just ended up strengthening anti-Irish stereotypes in Britain, helping people who wanted to do down the Irish. In that situation, the British person needed to thread carefully.
THE BIG HARD DIFFICULT ONE!
(10) and now we come to the issue of the day. In Europe Muslims are a marginalised minority, relatively poor and mostly excluded from positions of power. Anti-Muslim bigotry is widespread. Anti-Arab racism is common, So a non-Muslim European mocking Muslims and Islam is generally punching down. A Muslim mocking Islam is fine - it's brave. But a non-Muslim European doing it in the context of the current position of Muslims within Europe - that is a lot more problematic. It's legal, and no one should be forced not to do it, but it's still punching down. Yes, people need to accept such mockery as part of a free society - but it is still punching down.
The complexity of the Muslim problem is this: within many Muslim communities religious leaders are oppressing women, homosexuals and others. So for Muslims to mock their own religious leaders is punching up. But for a Westerner to mock Muslims and Islam is mostly punching down. If a Westerner really feels the need to mock here then the mockery should be focused specifically on powerful and corrupt Muslim authorities - Saudi sheiks, Imams and so on. But in general, for a Westerner there are probably more effective and worthy targets for his mockery, such as the Western leaders who keep on invading and occupying Muslim countries.
Some might say that Islam is a religion, so mocking Muslims is not like mocking someone's sex, race, sexual orientation or nationality. But for nearly all Muslims, Islam as an inherited identity. You may not like that fact that it is an inherited identity, but the reality is that at the moment that is what it is. So mocking someone for being a Muslim is actually not that different from mocking their race or their nationality.
(12) Satire is complex and problematic. For example, not all white male heterosexuals have power - a lot of them are poor with no employment or no decent employment. They have no stable role in society. So mocking them is not really that brave either. In general, satirise powerful living individuals and satirise groups with authority - but beyond that, be careful about mocking broad groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment