4.4: Punching Up and Down in the Comic Thunderdome

During the 2016 Golden Globes, British comic Ricky Gervais told a joke so appalling that the world collectively gasped:

I’ve changed. Not as much as Bruce Jenner. Now Caitlin Jenner, of course, and what a year she’s had. Became a role model for trans people everywhere, bravely breaking down barriers and destroying stereotypes. She didn’t do a lot for women drivers. But you can’t have everything, can ya? Not at the same time.³⁴

Referencing a fatal automobile accident involving Olympian Caitlin Jenner prior to her gender transition surgery, Gervais’s joke pokes fun at the tragic death of another, “deadnames” a transgendered person, while perpetuating trite and misogynistic stereotypes. Ricky Gervais is known for his abrasive comedy, but the widespread backlash from all sides of the cultural and political divide indicated that this joke had crossed a line. For most, Gervais’ joke was a classic example of “punching down”—i.e., when humor functions by “making fun of” a socially marginalized or vulnerable party. In recent years, the punch up/punch down framework has dominated popular discourse regarding what constitutes ethical comedy, and perhaps in no small part for its ability to make simple comedy’s complex terrain. According to this framework, humor that punches up is not only ethical, but an act of social justice; humor that punches down, based on cheap and easy laughs of an already marginalized group, is considered bullying. Yet, is this framework too simple? This chapter examines the ethics of punching up (and down) and its suitability for assessing the ethics of humor in popular discourse.

Fighting with Humor

Comedy’s pugilistic character is embedded in the violent language we use to talk about humor. A comedian “kills,” “murders,” “slaughters” and “slays” on stage … if not, they “die”! Humor is biting, searing, and burning. Comics rip, roast, and tear into their targets in the punchline—a word with its origins in Mr. Punch’s “playful” pummeling of wife Judy in the Punch and Judy puppet plays of the 19th century. The ferocious and aggressive nature of comedy’s violent comic spirit manifests most explicitly in 20th century slapstick, a very physical comedic performance entailing a litany of violent comedic pratfalls—face slapping, eye-poking, nose turning, nose pulling, board thwacking, bowling-ball-head-hitting—to the uproarious amusement of its audience. Hence, on the surface it does not seem altogether misguided that we should discuss comedy with regard to throwing and receiving punches. Further, everyone has experience in comedic violence. Everyone has thrown a comic punch; everyone has been the butt of a joke. Yet, most fail to cultivate their comic sensibility so that they may harness its unruly spirit and reap the full potential for personal and social flourishing. Like the philosopher Spiderman once said, “with great power comes great responsibility,” and like all powers, it must be used with great concern and care.

Punching up at Goliath: Comedy as a Defensive Strategy

In the realm of comic sparring, punching up is typically presumptive of a defensive (rather than offensive) attack. Presumably derivative of the expression “punching above one’s weight” in boxing where one scraps against a far more powerful adversary, punching up indicates a David and Goliath battle where one of its combatants is an underdog. In most instances of punching up the target is perceived as physically stronger, but morally inferior. Such a comic jab is reactive and retaliatory—a form of self-defense against a bully or aggressor. When Michelle Brown, an African-American comic, joked at the 2018 White House Correspondence dinner that president Donald Trump is “the one pussy you’re not allowed to grab,” her joke threw a counter-punch against the president’s own words that one should just “Grab ’em by the pussy … You can do anything.”³⁵ As both a woman and person of color, Brown’s target punches up, from a marginalized position, at an individual who is perceived as a bully by multiple parties—not just to minorities and women, but to all victims of sexual harassment and assault.

The Power of the Comic Punch as Self-Defense

In the hands of a skilled wit, humor packs a powerful punch. Ancient Roman orator and rhetorician Cicero argued that humor is more effective than rational dispute in “break[ing] the force of offensive remarks (II.LVIII),” stating that “all admire wit . . . because it overthrows the adversary, or hampers him, or makes light of him, or discourages, or refutes him (II.LVIII).” As a means of self-defense, the searing retort of a skilled wit not only shields her from the cruel words a verbal assault, but temporarily strips one’s aggressor of their privileged status through laughter’s debasing ridicule. No one is fully protected from humor’s eviscerating force—not even the Gods! When ancient Greek drama introduced comic elements into depiction of Gods and religious themes in their performances, German philosopher G.W. F. Hegel argued that the Gods become indistinguishable from humans because “the religious consciousness no longer distinguishes between the divine and itself.” (Hegel, 450, 452-3) While many comic “Davids” have long praised humor as a great political equalizer, many political Goliaths, seeking to preserve their power and control, have loathed its debasing and destabilizing force. As John Lennon succinctly stated from his week-long “Bed In for Peace” in 1969, “The only thing they [the establishment] don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”³⁶

Comedy as A Preemptive Power

An essential presumption of the punch up/punch down framework is the idea that a joke or comedic piece’s normative (ethical) value is located in the power structure between the humorist and its target, and not its content. On the surface, this framework seems far superior than attempts to view humor from the vague “offensiveness standard,” which suggests a joke is wrong if one has taken offense. Because offensiveness is an elusive quality varying from person to person and culture to culture, the mere feeling of being offended offers little ethical guidance in thinking about the ethics of humor. Such a consequentialist ethical framework, which reduces the normative value of comedy to matters of personal and cultural attitudinal tolerance, not only muddies the waters of ethical comedy but offers no consistent framework to think about one’s target prior to potentially degrading them. In addition, in instances where offense is taken, the joker can always shirk responsibility for the insult on the basis that one was “only joking” or unaware of one’s threshold for offense, which is of little comfort to the scorned victim of a painful insult. However, the punching up/punching down distinction does offer a consistent framework for thinking about humor before one tells the joke. Prior to hurling a potentially incendiary remark, one can ask, “does this joke harm someone or a class of people who are vulnerable? If so, I should probably hold this one back.” With these preliminary remarks in mind, let us examine the primary arguments in favor of punching up in comedy.

Arguments for Punching Up

(1) Punching up Levels Social Inequities

The primary justification for punch-up humor is the argument that punching up levels inequities, while punching down exacerbates them. In the 1883 satirical print cartoon “The Protectors of our Industries,” robber barons Vanderbilt, Gould, Field, and Sage lethargically rest on bags of gold while patting their bloated bellies with dollar signs bursting through their opulent suits.³⁷ As the reader’s gaze drifts from the gluttony depicted at the top of the picture to the bottom of the cartoon’s panel, the true source of their wealth is revealed to be the exploited 19^th century industrial workers whose backs strenuously toil to support the greedy oligarchs for slave wages. Contrary to the self made “titans of industry” (or in more current language “job creators”) to be most esteemed for their bootstrap-pulling grit and determination, the cartoon depicts the robber barons as greedy, lazy, lecherous scoundrels who keep their bellies and coffers fat off the backs of exploitative wage labor. The cartoon not only directly attacks specific people, but the idea of capitalism as a whole. The cartoon “levels” the power structures by stripping the “titans” of their perceived greatness while empowering those who are the true wealth generators of the world—the nation of factory workers and laborers who toil daily for meager pay. On the other hand, political humor debasing a marginalized group with a history of oppression—as was the case in Charlie Hebdo’s racist depiction of Muslims as violent terrorists—further divide existing power structures in ways that only perpetuate present inequities with no vision for resolution.

(2) Punching up has an Ethical Foundation

Further, because the idea of punching-up is an idea with its foundation in an ethical purpose—namely righting some larger social injustice—it encourages people to approach humor in relation to right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust, while simultaneously placing serious demands on wielders of weaponized comedy to take deep responsibility for the consequences of their words in the free play of comedic jousting. Long before the phrase “punch up comedy” came into vogue, satire from its earliest days has always punched up. From Aristophanes to Swift, the greatest satirists aim to instigate social change for the common good. In the previous example, the political cartoon’s attack is not, as some would argue, a spiteful reaction to the success of the affluent, but an earnest hope for a more equitable world. While not all punching up functions to bring about social reform, the fact that punching up has baked into it a social aim offers a far more fruitful framework for navigating comedy’s complex ethical terrain than critics allow.

(3) Punching Up is Non-Violent Political Participation

Finally, the force of laughter’s power is as close you can get to violence, without actually committing real physical violence. To quote a T-Shirt I once saw at an amusement park: “I love sarcasm … It's like punching people in the face, but with words.” Comic burns sting and fester in one’s psyche, sometimes for years after the 148 punch was thrown. However, while it is not impossible die from laughter,³⁸ no one has been physically murdered by a joke. In addition, like other forms of non-violent protest and political engagement, late night satirical news programs have become an integral component of contemporary political discourse in recent decades and continues to drive public discussion on important social issues of the day. Of course, there will always be those who abuse the free space of humor without concern for ethics, and sometimes such reckless use of the comic results in real physical violence, as was the case on January 7, 2015 when two hooded gunmen forced their way into the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo and committed France’s deadliest terrorist attack—killing 12 of the Hebdo staff. However, such examples only demonstrate the need for a preemptive ethical framework. If one were to consider the power dynamics of any social conflict prior to attacking it and any potential consequences that might arise when anger, offense, and resentment foment into real violence—rather than recklessly abusing the free frivolity of humor by lobbing comic haymakers from protected walls of power and privilege—such tragedies would likely never happen.

Consequently, there is good reason to consider the punching up framework as a general tool for thinking about comedy. Where punching up is based in an earnest concern for justice and comes to the issue through lenses of social reform, punching down recklessly abuses the free space of the comic in order to further assert power over already vulnerable and oppressed groups in ways that only further exacerbate inequities their oppressors enable. Yet, the idea of punching up is not without its critics. Let us now examine some of its major challenges.

Arguments Against Punching Up

Criticism 1: Comedy Trivializes Important Social Matters and Problems

From satire’s early origins, adherents of punching up have faced a recurrent attack from critics on both sides of the political divide. If the purpose of punch-up comedy is to right a wrong or achieve major social, political or economic reform, humor seems a poor rhetorical device to reach such a goal. Not only does the ambiguity of comedy afford a real danger for misinterpretation,³⁹ but, even when understood, a piece of satire always risks diluting and (even worse) devaluing its message in the playful levity of humor’s frivolity. Satirical attempts at addressing institutional misogyny or racism, even in good faith, have been attacked for trivializing important social issues that, critics argue, should be treated with sober and earnest concern. More recent attacks correlate political apathy to the “memeification” of culture that transforms every important social, cultural, and political event into a viral meme. For these critics, because everything becomes a joke, so does civic and political engagement. While some argue that these memes give light to important social issues, many question the ability of memes to have any lasting impact on the short-term memory of a social consciousness so easily distracted by the shared social seduction of meme culture’s latest obsession.⁴⁰

Some critics see a far sinister consequence of using comedy to address social issues—nihilism. Thinkers from Plato to Baudrillard have bemoaned the apathy that results from devaluing and debasing important ideals, values and social problems. Lamenting the post-irony of contemporary culture long before it would become memeified, American author David Foster Wallace (1962 - 2008) attacked his generation’s apathetic insincerity.⁴¹ For such critics, when all is suitable in comic jesting nothing is taken seriously and everything becomes a joke. It is for this reason that thinkers like Plato place strict regulations on the use of humor against the state and its institutions. For Plato, joking about important ideas runs the risk of devaluing essential religious, ethical, and political structures that society is based upon. Since Plato, many critics have expressed similar concern regarding the use of humor as a means for achieving social reform. Instead of social change, these critics argue that jesting about important social issues is more likely to result in skepticism and nihilism—a far sinister threat to society.

Criticism 2: Only the Marginalized Can Joke

Other critics argue that punching up places burdensome and unnecessary limits on the free play of comedy, absurdly restricting humor to the marginalized and oppressed. From this interpretation, a person in power who unjustly falls victim to mob rule (as happens when one is called out or “cancelled” online) seems to prohibit retaliation given their placement in the social hierarchy. Nearly all agree that jesting is an acceptable means of self-defense, and it seems contradictory to allow for humor in the name of equality while placing restrictions on who can joke about what and why. These attacks typically result in arguments over the importance of free speech and the need for ideas and jokes to play out in the cultural (rather than political) marketplace. In short, even in the name of social justice, most democratic societies would find implausible the idea that humor should be regulated by one’s social hierarchical position.

Criticism 3: Which Way is Up?

Finally, and most importantly, who or what party determines the direction of a joke’s punch? In examining Gervais’ Golden Globes’ joke about Caitlyn Jenner, the majority of his critics perceived it as a clear instance of “punching down.” Yet, from Gervais’ perspective, he was punching up. In his comedy special “Humanity” (2018) 151 released two years after the Golden Globes’ backlash, the British comic had this to say of his joke:

I'm playing with the notion of stereotypes. I start off saying she's a real woman... and I go, 'Oh, well, she's a real woman, I hit them with the old fashioned reactionary stereotype: She must be a bad driver then. The target of the joke is a celebrity killing someone in their car … Let's not forget that, shall we? A celebrity killing someone in their car, running home and popping on a dress — that's the target of the joke, just so we're clear.⁴²

In Gervais’ mind, the joke intended to draw attention to the fact that a powerful celebrity got away with murder.⁴³ For him, the joke’s target is not the transgender community, but rich and powerful celebrities who use their position of power to cheat the system. Even though Caitlyn Jenner is a member of the most marginalized group in the LGBTQ community,⁴⁴ Gervais insists his target was not the transgender community. Regardless, it cannot be denied that Caitlyn Jenner, as a member of one of the most visible and powerful families (the Kardashians), is seated in a far higher position of social power with far greater global presence and power than Gervais.

Gervais’ joke reveals a major problem in the punch-up model that defenders must address. As the previous example illustrates, the simplicity of punching up or down posits a Manichean moral perspective where one party is evil, the other good—when in reality all relationships are based in a very complicated web of power structures with its own unique set of ethical challenges. In most conflicts, rarely is a singular oppressor outed as a Machiavellian Goliath universally recognizable to all. In short, identifying and objectifying power structures in the complicated power dynamics of society, culture, government, politics and religion is an incredibly difficult task, especially when each party perceives its adversary as the oppressor (as is certainly the case in many longstanding political, religious, and cultural conflicts). Regardless of who is in power, all parties see themselves as the oppressed, and some argue that examining comedy through the lenses of social hierarchy only further obfuscates already complex social conflicts.

Responses to Criticisms

If true, the above challenges reveal some major flaws in the punch up framework. Yet, I think these attacks assume a weak version of the position uncharitable to the spirit of the model, whose flexible framework seems to facilitate (not obstruct) the free flow of public discourse between power structures in conflict with one another. Let us address these attacks so that we can come to see why such a framework is more productive than critics suggest.

Response to Criticism 1: “Comedy Trivializes Important Social Matters and Problems”

The claim that punch-up comedy trivializes and ultimately devalues the issues it aims to remedy is a concern for all who wield comic power on the battlefield of social reform. Yet, while it is true that the playful levity of comic sphere affords a freer means of discourse for addressing important social issues, to suggest that satire universally and consistently devalues the social problems it aims to remedy overlooks the presence and importance of art (and comedy in particular) throughout the major cultural and political shifts since antiquity. Political and social change is inseparable from the art and comedy that emerges within its unrest. Satire has long been utilized as a weapon against political oppressors to not only degrade their adversary, but to also inform and illuminate social conscious as a whole on important political, ethical, religious and social problems apart from the establishment’s account. In short, comedic aesthetics will always be a voice of the oppressed in their fight for social reform. While it is true that research suggests that satire has little impact on changing people’s mind (only emboldening pre-existing attitudes),⁴⁵ any piece of political art provides an opportunity for discussion, reflection and sometimes action. While memes, as with any comic rhetorical device, always run the risk of relegating important matters to a punchline or ironic hashtag, the playful realm of humor offers a less belligerent space to illuminate and discuss complicated social issues in ways that can foster meaningful discussion in hopes of working towards a peaceful resolution.

In short, to blame the crass nihilism of modernity on grumpy cat memes—and not the structural problems that enable oppression—seems to misunderstand the realities of class conflict and how democratic political systems operate. While comedy can debase and devalue targets, such debasing can be good if it draws attention to important social issues that some may be otherwise oblivious to. While there will always be causalities that lay in the battlefield of comedy’s vicious assaults, the potential that comedy holds for furthering public and social discourse on important political issues seems to far outweigh any potential harms it might cause on the way to social reform.

Response to Criticism 2: “Only the Marginalized Can Joke”

The challenge from critics that punch-up comedy denies non-marginalized parties from using humor in public discourse seems to straw man the position into a framework few would defend. A more charitable interpretation would never deny or limit specific voices from engaging in public discourse within the comic thunderdome— especially if speech is the only legal means of retaliation in a democratic society. In all, those in favor of punching up for social reform would surely want to advocate for the free use of humor. However, this charitable framework would oblige people to consider the direction of their verbal attacks and thereby assume responsibility for harms beyond its initial sting, including the values and voices that are raised up and devalued in the process. Consequently, the retweeting of a degrading meme targeting an AfricanAmerican football player for his refusal to stand for the national anthem by the President of the United States to his hundreds of millions of followers worldwide is not only outright bullying, but immoral.

Response to Criticism 3: “Which Way is Up?”

The most compelling critique of punch up comedy is that it lacks a clear indicator for identifying unjust power structures. If true, weaponized comedy on the battlefield would offer little guidance when each combatant views its adversary as the morally inferior party. Without a God’s-eye battlefield perspective to designate who is the oppressed and oppressor in each conflict, it is unclear how such a framework could be used for facilitating social progress. In response to this criticism, this problem would be less of an issue if all parties adopted the punch up framework, including the comic Goliaths of the world who abuse their power to silence others. The punch up framework is a preemptive battle strategy that forces people to consider the context of the situation, the historical relationship leading up to the conflict, and the weight and meaning of words as they relate to these historical and material forces. Although this framework would not expect to eliminate bias from the conflict, it does seem to offer a space for each party to think through the various power dynamics that may otherwise be concealed by power and privilege.

This interpretation seems to also address attacks that the punching up/punching down dichotomy oversimplifies the complex nuances of contemporary humor. To the contrary, viewing comedy from the perspective of power seems to allow for far greater nuance than its critics allow. Those who come to the comic battlefield with an eye to complex web of power structures and cultural forces in play with have a better strategy for navigating and battling through the complicated debate that confronts them and the issues and values at stake for all involved.

For those who remain unconvinced of the viability of an ethics of humor that is based on righting unjust power structures, it must be reiterated that the entire system is based in an ethical foundation of justice that obliges all to take responsibility for their comic assaults—especially for the marginalized who are calling out and publically berating their presumed oppressors. Those who challenge authority with weaponized humor must see it as their obligation—as it is with all who challenge authority and status quo—to establish the burden of proof that the standards, values, and ideals in question 155 are indeed in need of reform. Such comic warriors will have to carry out their fight with unrelenting political vigilance both in and out of the comic thunderdome.

Conclusion

To summarize, the punching up framework deserves continued consideration as a means for navigating the complex and chaotic battlefield of weaponized humor. While some critics challenge that the ambiguity and frivolity of humor muddles and ultimately counteracts the problems satirists address, such a position overlooks the value of using the free space of the comic to play with and think through complex ideas in a way that facilitates, and often furthers, public discourse on important social matters. Until a better model is offered by its critics, and given the increasing role of humor in political discourse, it seems we must learn to punch up.

Footnotes

³⁴ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...-golden-854126

³⁵ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/u...ranscript.html

³⁶ “When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.” During the Bed-In for Peace in Montreal, Canada (1 June 1969)

³⁷ https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/94507245/

³⁸ Though incredibly rare, with nearly all instances of death laughter sourced from classical and medieval commentators, there have been but two recorded instances of death laughter in the 20th century, with none since March 24, 1975 when Alex Mitchell was said to have laughed himself into cardiac arrest while watching an episode of The Goodies entitled "Kung Fu Kapers" starring a Scottish "Eckythump" ninja who is “armed with a black pudding.” His widow is said to written the show to thank them for making her husband’s final breaths so happy. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...Tsyndrome.html

³⁹ In a 1974 research case study on public perceptions of Norman Lear’s satirical program “All in the Family,” it was revealed that many had simply misunderstood Lear’s satirical aim, instead viewing the bigoted patriarch in a likeable and comical way. (see Vidmar and Rokeach 1974)

⁴⁰ While the viral Kony meme remains a mainstay in meme culture, the “invisible children” were forgotten when the internet became obsessed with the death of a 17-year-old Gorilla at the Cincinnati zoo, which was shot by a zoo worker to protect a 3-year-old who climbed into the gorilla’s habitat. Today few would recall what either viral meme was about, but both Kony and Harambi remain comedic pillars of meme culture.

⁴¹ In Wallace’s "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction" (1993), he calls for a new genre of literature that is based in a sincerity, not apathetic post ironic posturing. This theory would be developed in his 1996 novel, “Infinite Jest.”

⁴² https://www.standard.co.uk/stayingin...-a3789111.html

⁴³ While prosecutors did not charge her criminally, three civil suits were filed against Jenner which reached out of court settlements of an undisclosed amount.

⁴⁴ The transgender community has the highest rates of mental illness, homelessness and drug abuse. See Kattari and Begun (2017).

⁴⁵ See Knobloch-Westerwick & Lavis (2017) and Boukes, Marjolein Moorman, & de Vreese (2015).

Bibliography

Boukes, Marjolein Moorman, & de Vreese. "At Odds: Laughing and Thinking? The Appreciation, Processing, and Persuasiveness of Political Satire." Journal of Communication (65) 2015: 721-744.

Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick & Simon M. Lavis. “Selecting Serious or Satirical, Supporting or Stirring News? Selective Exposure to Partisan versus Mockery News Online Videos.” Journal of Communication (67) 2017: 54–81

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Cicero on Oratory and Orators: With His Letters to Quintus and Brutus. (ed) J. S. Watson. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855.

Hegel, G. W. F. Phenomenology of Spirit, Translated by A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Kattari, S. K., & Begun, S. “On the Margins of Marginalized: Transgender Homelessness and Survival Sex.” Affilia, 32 (1) 2017: 92–103.

Vidmar and Rokeach. “Archie Bunker's Bigotry: A Study in Selective Perception and Exposure.” Journal of Communication. (24:1) 1976: 36-47.