Lauren Berlant and Sianne Ngai’s description of the ‘comic alibi’ evoked by certain comedians is reminiscent of the discourse that emerged after Jimmy Carr’s His Dark Material Netflix special (2021), in which he made racist comments about Roma people in relation to the Holocaust.[1] Carr’s attempts to legitimate his pro-genocide joke seemed to involve both a ‘plea of cluelessness’ and a ‘claim to knowingness’.[2] Some came to his defence citing the “well-written” structure of the joke, and Carr himself purported that he was merely playing with language rather than trying to be offensive, yet he also signposted the joke as deliberately edgy whilst somehow educational. In this way, Carr’s defence seems rather contradictory, since he places importance on the wider implications but also disavows them in the same breath. This perhaps highlights how intention is a rather useless defence for a joke that is formally racist.
The incongruous element in Carr’s joke is the juxtaposition between the expectation, generated by the set-up, that he will condemn the Romani genocide and any wilful ignorance thereof and the assertion, revealed by the punchline, that these are actually positives. Offering a very charitable interpretation, Carr could perhaps be satirising racially-motivated historical erasure or taking on a persona to mock how racism can belie seemingly innocent racial discussions, but there is no contextual framing established to suggest this. His following claim that the joke is ‘edgy as hell’ suggests that his subversion of expectations is merely pushing the boundaries of what we’re allowed to say rather than critiquing the sentiment. By contrast, the contextual work of Stewart Lee’s joke (analysed by Berlant and Ngai) clearly positions the white character as the butt; Lee ridicules the incongruity between the character’s initial denial of racism and their subsequent racist exclamation, revealing the sentiment that was bubbling under the surface all along. If Carr is attempting to be satirical, it is by no means evident; he instead comes across like the white comedian character that Lee satirises.
[1] Lauren Berlant and Sianne Ngai, ‘Comedy Has Issues’, Critical Inquiry, 43:1 (2017): 246.
[2] Ibid., 247.
Bibliography
Berlant, Lauren and Ngai, Sianne, ‘Comedy Has Issues’, Critical Inquiry, 43:1 (2017): 233-248.
Filmography
Comedy Centre, ‘Jimmy Carr on Holocaust & Jehovah’s Witnesses Joke | HIS DARK MATERIAL’, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJurYs12ay4&ab_channel=ComedyCentre [27/03/23].
This is a great comparison! Yet as you claim, the joke either works or doesn’t based on how evident the satirical intention is. As such, I wonder if to many even Lee’s joke teetered more on the offensive rather than subversive side, since the comedy seems to rely more on the goodwill of its audience rather than any clearly defined structure.
I agree that the context of his wider oeuvre does contribute to our trust in Lee’s satirical intention. However, I think the form and performance of Lee’s joke, e.g., the presentation of the character as bumbling/ignorant and the pattern of racist denial vs. exclamation established through repetition, do make it obvious that it is satire. For example, ‘I don’t even know where Taiwan is I’ve got no interest in it’ humorously reveals the character’s (sub)conscious racism through their denial of it- that is where the incongruity of the joke lies. Whereas, in Carr’s joke the form/performance doesn’t really imply that he is actually satirising the fact that the Romani genocide is not talked about because of the very racism that he displays- the ironic implications aren’t engaged with at all. Therefore, it comes across like he’s just trying to be shocking and say things that “we’re all thinking”, but aren’t allowed to say anymore because of political correctness, especially since he initially jokes that it’s going to be a ‘career-ender’ (heightened by his facial expressions after the joke). It isn’t obvious from the structure/performance that he actually disagrees with what he is saying; he never properly deals with the implications. He says ‘it’s the worst thing that’s ever happened in human history’, but never truly unpacks why ‘it’s not taught in schools’ (he just goes on to make another racist joke). It doesn’t seem like he has critically engaged with what he’s saying- this is what makes it feel purely racist. The joke invites racist laughter (someone even whistles), but doesn’t commit to satirising it.
Your thoughtful discussion reminds me of a Bill Burr clip I wish I could find in which he jokes about being kind of dismayed by people in the audience clapping and cheering along without realizing he doesn’t totally agree with them. As you point out, ambiguity and intention can be lazy excuses in so-called ‘edgy’ humor when irony can just as easily be taken literally because “reenactment, whatever else it is, is reenactment” (Berlant and Ngai 246). Humor relies on the unsaid to be funny, but clearly this room for interpretation can be harmful.
I think Jimmy Carr’s humour is a great choice of comparison compared to Stewart Lee.
It is perhaps due to Carr’s adherence to the classic joke structure that there is issues in establishing a context of satire- if it was there to begin with.