Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
During the Christian era laughter and the comic were especially
marked as kinds of behaviour; and as behaviour they were then submitted to
moral judgment which was mostly negative. Georges Minois tells us of the
times in Western history when laughter was condemned, regulated, etc.
Additionally, in philosophy several authors branded laughter as a vice and as
an unworthy impulse. We observe throughout this that the comic gesture
contains a problematic moral sense and this still remains today. But under
what terms does the comic become a moral problem? It appears that to be
classified negatively the comic must represent some opposition to the
establishment, to norms; in other words, laughter exercises, in an incisive
manner, some transgressive force. In different contexts, or even different
cultures, we can notice in those who wants to stop the laugh, a caution in
response to this transgressive force.
But, to be seen in these terms the comic must be understood as
behaviour, and the comedian is assessed as a joke maker; at this view, the
production of comicality as we see in theatre is understood as a moral
diminish gesture, or even as a representation of the lowly, and not as an
aesthetic rationale as seen in others Arts. I intend to demonstrate from a
Brazilian case study how the comic, which is in fact aesthetic, is being
measured by moral judgments as embedded a generalizing legal subjectivity.
In 2011, a TV comic show presented the sketch Casa dos Autistas
(The Autistics House) on Brazilian television. The program was a reality show
with autistics, in which characters stereotyped as mentally deficient behave
weirdly. There were no amorous intrigues, no fights, no co nversation, only
senseless shouts and gestures. Brazilian societys reaction was immediate.
Several lawsuits were filled against the program and the authors of the show
were accused of discrimination. Finally, the legal system condemned them to
pay a huge fine and the protagonists were obliged to make a public apology
for their tasteless joke despite the fact that no autistic person had
personally complained. The point is this that, today in Brazil and in other so called democratic countries, the comic can no longer be understood without
formal limits of the Law. It is in this sense that the condemnation of the
producers of The Austistics House suggests something more. This particular
idea of Law has consequences in the subjective formation of individuals; since
irresoluteness is the central feature of legal experience, the constitution of
individuals might be viewed as generic as it is grounded upon an embracing
uncertainty (like mans universal rights, equal rights, are derived from this
generic form). Thus, given that the comic is the subversive side of the Law,
that subversion of itself, one realizes that because of this internalization,
moral judgement will measure the comic, from inside, as an indifferent force;
and it is within this judgment that the comic will offend the so called integrity of
the individual and the overall form of the Law. If, according to Kant, the
generic form of moral principles is a formality by which the individual should
model his behaviour as rational, the comic will manifest itself as an internal
enemy force, since it places the specific case as unique, avoiding the
generalization that would give birth to a general form.
Lets now consider our first question in order to better understand why
generalizing moral judgments occur: what exactly does the comic do to the
person who laughs or causes laughter? First, laughter itself is an effect of
what we call the comical. Bergson explains that the comic is produced by a
play of the terms Mechanical and Something living, a rather aesthetic
terminology. Live movement is free and unimpeded while mechanical
movement is automatic and rigid: by this denomination the author recognizes
the comic in theatre, in caricatures, etc. Bergson concludes that the social
function of laughter is meant as an act to punish mechanical gestures, and by
this he ends up by giving more weight to the comic as moral behaviour
(punishment) than as an aesthetic work (creation). However, the author
himself indicates that perhaps the comic is precisely the point in which art and
life meet, and perhaps for this reason it is the starting point for other
understandings.
Lets take this formula something Mechanical vs. Something living
and think on the condition of sensibility, the aesthetical perception of
Bergsons
theoretical movement,
without considering
the
matter of
punishment. Although some may treat the comic as merely moral by, applying
the judgment in a thoughtless manner and generalizing its effects, would be
the formal discursive chains of its safe course: we can say connect-i-cut. As
Dufrenne says, happy is the one who thinks with his hands. This is why we
never fail to laugh when we see the participants of reality shows represented
as stupid and boring people.
Now we can perceive the real danger that the comic offers poses to
moral judgment. By recognizing objects as free, without being satisfied with
parts and unity, the comic can dismiss everything. Essentially a transgressor,
the comic appears to the generalizing morality as the essential escaping
force. A pure force that only wills itself, laughter only wants to laugh. However,
we admit that at some point we can feel some unpleasantness in relation to
the comic and to release ourselves of this it is necessary to make it
aesthetic. Not to contemplate upon it, because a joke is not properly beautiful,
but to produce short circuits in the formal order of the Law. Thus, we must
open up a space to an alternative way of receiving the comic, by finding the
possibilities that different laughter might imply beyond morality. It is only by
recognizing the force of the comic, and not the pleasure or its entertainment,
that we can better understand it as an aesthetic social phenomenon and give
it a new use. Only then can we think about cases with no general principle or
means of evaluation. This sensibility finally leads us to seek our own
comicality, to violate our own individual laws equally established by its form.
The comic offers us a synthesis of this amoral and unmeasured reasoning; by
comicality we release form, disconnect the apparent determination by
transpassing good and evil, thus affirming the power of thought itself.
Finally, we can say that moral judgment would never accept being
ridiculous. This would be to admit the fragility of its universalist pretention. But
we know that there is no base for these generalities and that the legal field
tends to be transformed once again. We can be ridiculous, since we are
infinitely different to each other and it is necessary to see in this a true ethical
principle instead of believing that we are all equal before an abstract Law.
This is what the comic wants to teach us, to live within our differences,
enhancing our thought; teaching us to live with our parts without unitary
sense, in a world with no single direction.