Humorists

Prompt:

In his 2004 book, Status Anxiety, Alain de Botton argues that the chief aim of humorists is not merely to entertain but “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” Because society allows humorists to say things that other people cannot or will not say, de-Botton sees humorists as serving a vital function in society.

Think about the implications of de Botton’s view of the role of humorists (cartoonists, stand-up comics, satirical writers, hosts of television programs, etc.).



Alain de Botton, the author of Status Anxiety, argues that the chief aim of humorists is to “convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” He proposes that humorists are allowed by society to say things that people do not want to hear or believe, ergo serving a vital role in society. However there is a major difference between humorist and their purposes that they are conveying these messages is the biggest factor that distinguishes them.

There are two kinds of satirist; one the entertainer and the other the enlightener. These two may give a speech the same topic, but each one is fundamentally different and their effects on society or the audience is polar opposites. The only aim of the entertainer is to make the audience laugh or be amused and in a large scale-- to earn money. However the aim for the enlightener is to force people to come to terms with society’s failings; and in the large scale try to bring about a change in society. They also present their arguments in very different ways since the entertainer will want the end result to be humor, while in the enlightener’s case, humor is usually a bi-product that is produced since the claims they propose are utterly ludicrous. Why is it then that humorists who aim to make people laugh are unable to get the message across to the people. The main reason for this is the stereotypes that exist among these comedians. In general society these people are viewed a light hearted individuals who make people laugh. Therefore anything that they may say will be viewed in such a manner and lose its importance. Take for example Russell Peter a famous comedian. In one skit he talks about how beating ones child, usually a tabooed topic in our modern society. However since it is Russell Peter everyone takes it a light hearted manner losing the seriousness of it and instead focusing more only on the actual jokes themselves. It is highly unlikely that any of the audience members that night went home thinking about child beating and its consequences, nor did they take any learning experiences away from that event. Why? It is simply because once the aim of the person conveying the message is to entertain the people, the humorist immediately loses the ability to send the messages to the people as they are only interested in the jokes.

However with satirist who have the main objective of conveying messages to people and trying to bring about change in society, they present the problems of society and then argue from a very immoral stand point that is laughable and therefore the humor is a bi-product of their argument. One very prominent example would be Jonathan Swifts A Modest Proposal where he argues that the best way to stem the rise of poverty in Ireland is to eat poor peoples babies as a food product domestically. He presents facts and many arguments to support his claim and as a result of this outright ridiculous idea people are usually humored by it. But since his aim is not merely to entertain the audience, his arguments also shed light on the Irish’s plight at that time and how the wealthy landowners were metaphorically “devouring” the Irish people. Although while keeping up his facade he clearly states the many problems with society and in his rebuttal he states his true ideas of how these can be changed. He forces society to come to terms with its problems not by exposing it directly, but rather by forcing his audience to come to the conclusion themselves.

Undoubtedly the latter kind of humorists serve a vital role in society, just as Alain de Botton states as they have the ability to use their facade to bring light tabooed problems with society that might otherwise be impossible to state directly. They are far more effective the humorists with the aim of entertaining people since humor is a bi-product of their arguments rather then the final result.