In the Mary Douglas reading, she outlines the traits of ‘The Joker’. She explains that the jokes told by this figure “expose the inadequacy” of various aspects of our lives. She explains that this is done by the the joke “challenging a dominant structure and belittling it”. Through this, she gives power to the joker, as it seems to me like she is arguing that this figure is superior to the masses, as they have the ability to see the problems with otherwise accepted social structures.
As such, there are some definite flaws in Douglas’ argument as this puts the joker on a pedestal (something which is emphasised by her calling this figure “a kind of minor mystic”) and doesn’t seem to acknowledge that anyone can be the joker, not just certain people who have an ability to see what others can’t.
I believe this argument can be seen in practice through many stand up comedian’s performances. As much as I personally am not a big fan of Ricky Gervais, in the clip I have included his description of an ironic joke is very close to Douglas’ description of the jokes ‘the joker’ tells. Gervais breaks it down by stating that he says something “he doesn’t really mean for comic effect”, then the audience laughs at the “wrong thing” because they know what the “right this is”. This aligns with Douglas’ point of view as it reinforces the idea of the comic being able to see the problems with certain aspects of life.
Great read! Very insightful on what makes stand-up comedy work, with a funny Gervais clip that I enjoyed.
Amusingly, my initial assumption upon seeing your title was that you’d be writing about the iconic comic-book villain, which of course would have been quite a different tone. Yet I think your illustration of Douglas’s argument can be transposed to thinking about the capital-J ‘Joker’, what with his role of “challenging a dominant structure and belittling it” with sadistic glee. It is of course an extremity, using ‘jokes’ to not only challenge but entirely uproot such structures, leaving chaos in his wake. But there might be something interesting here about the inherent malice of comedians, and how it can be played about with to suit twisted ends.