The outcome of The Constitutional Convention today has given
hope for those in Ireland who want to see it become a truly equal society for
all. Today’s outcome from the event is still a long way off from actual
marriage equality; it is a step in the right direction.
What should marriage equality
activists do while this political iron is still hot? My suggestion is to use
humour to laugh their way to equality.
In Ireland there is a healthy
attitude to using humour to get a message across. In the last year, one of the
most memorable slogans to come out of the various pro-choice protests was, “Keep
Your Rosaries Off Our Ovaries”. A humorous
but effective slogan, it gets the protestors message across but with an
injection amusement and fun while tackling a serious issue. The opposition were
void of humour in their position on the issue. The only comedy the Youth
Defence could conjure up was the farce in which the organisation is. They graffiti
the city with horrific posters and accompanied with skewered facts and
misleading rhetoric. The image of a sonogram photograph ripped in half with the
slogan, “Abortion Tears Her Life Apart”, can attest to this. The Youth Defence
lead their campaign with fear as a motivator while the pro-choice did it with a
healthy dose of indignation spurred on by the claims of the Youth Defence.
This sets a dichotomy of two
opposing tactics in an effort to sway the public on to your groups’ political
belief. The fear employed by the Youth Defence is not a sustainable tactic as
once the fear is subverted your argument loses meaning. The subversion comes in
the form of humour. The humour became a public spectacle as a campaign to
defile the Youth Defence posters took place.
This form of response
is known as ‘laughtivism’, it is a blend of humour and activism. The good news
for the pro-choice movement is that it is a very effective form of activism as
well. Co-founder of Otpor!, Srdja Popovic is a revolution consultant and argues
that humour in the form of protest is more effective than a campaign that is
void humour and ran on fear. He cites a study where 323 campaigns were examined
from the beginning of the 20th century up to the year 2006. The
study concluded that serious campaigns had a success rate of only 26% while
campaigns that allowed the use of humour in making arguments had a success rate
of 52%.
Why is humour so
effective, Popovic argues three reasons for it:
1.) Humour melts fear – Dictators run on
fear, nothing defuses fear faster than a joke
2.) Humour is cool – A humorous movement has
the appearance of being cool and thus people are more likely to get involved or
join.
3 3.) Humour/Mocking – It creates a dilemma
for those on the receiving end in how to respond to humour or mocking. If they
react they will look stupid but if they don’t react others will join in on
mocking them.
The pro-choice movement
embodied these three aspects when reacting to the Youth Defence. The result,
the Youth Defence’s position was deligtimised and had lost credibility when
arguing their case.
Laughtivism has been prevalent
in the news lately. The Egyptian political satirist Bassem Youssef was taken to
court for mocking President Morsi. The importance of political satire is shown
with Youssef when he tested the new president’s claim of an Egypt where the
citizens are allowed to criticise their government. In President Morsi’s
campaign he said in an interview that people like, “Bassem Youssef would be
free to criticise his actions if he were elected into office”. The arrest
warrant for Youssef showed that this was not to be the case. The treatment of
Youssef has shown that laughtivism can uncover the cracks in the political foundation
of a country.
Laughtivism might be an
effective form of protest but can it work for all issues? Historically one of
the first political satires of Hollywood to reach mass audiences was Charlie
Chaplin’s ‘The Great Dictator’ (1940). Chaplin believed in the subversive power
of comedy and when he saw the rise of Hitler in mainland Europe and America’s
indifference to the horrors he was commanding, Chaplain said he needed to make
the film, “I was determined to go
ahead, for Hitler must be laughed at”. This was before the horrors of
the concentration camps became public knowledge, in his autobiography he stated
had he known about these horrors he would not have made the film. However, the
film boosted morale for the people in mainland Europe and helped ease the fear
of the Nazis while the war was being fought. Are Chaplin’s retrospective views
right? Are some things too horrific that humour just cannot be employed as a
tactic to fight it?
Today a debate is brewing about the legalisation of euthanasia for
terminally ill patients. Would it be distasteful for those in favour of
legalising euthanasia to employ humour to make their arguments? It is an
effective form of activism but in certain cases does morality have to be taken
into account?
These are questions I can’t answer and will probably be addressed when
the time is right. For now though, the equality movements should use their most
powerful form of activism when combating the fear fueled opposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment