PANEL 4: The But ... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (i)
Day 2 of Laughing Matters, began with a panel discussion on ‘The But... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (i)’. The speakers for this session were Dr. Shubhangi Vaidya, an academic at the School of Disciplinary and Inter-Disciplinary Studies, IGNOU, along with Dr. Akshay Khanna, a lawyer, social anthropologist and prominent queer activist. This panel was moderated by Ms. Wafa Hamid from the Department of English, LSR.
Dr. Khanna spoke on the topic, 'Unruly Politics: The place of Humour in disabling the Script set by the Powerful'. Starting with the example of the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Crown Army, Dr. Khanna explained how humour’s ability to highlight the excess of political language creates a rupture in the state’s script i.e. authoritative structures. He linked this argument to the initial fear around surrounding Modi’s infallible image and the absence of critique in media coverage, till the tipping point of the suit fiasco and the Delhi elections. Finally, he ended his talk with how the queer movement in India is engaging with aggressive masculinity of the right by lampooning the same, allowing scope for subversion.
Dr. Vaidya’s academic work has specialized in disability studies. Her talk, titled 'Disability as the Subject of Comedy', focussed on the relationship between humour and disability. By dwelling on films like Humshakals, Sairat and Taare Zameen Par, and comedans like Nidhi Goyal, she examined disability as a source of humour under three broad categories- incongruous, coping and Freudian. Often, the disabled are mocked because of the physical subversion from the ideal, desirable body they represent. Under the Freudian conception of humour, the disabled are a source of reinforcement of the power relations within society. The experience of disability is sometimes shown to be humorous to counter the assumption of it being uniformly tragic. She ended her talk by explaining how a repressive state mechanism which expects citizens to stand up for the national anthem before watching a film, does not take into consideration the concerns of an autistic or developmentally disabled person, making them unwittingly become an offender in the eyes of the State.
The panel discussion ended with comments and questions from the audience.
Zehra Kazmi
Image: Swastika Jajoo
Dr. Khanna spoke on the topic, 'Unruly Politics: The place of Humour in disabling the Script set by the Powerful'. Starting with the example of the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Crown Army, Dr. Khanna explained how humour’s ability to highlight the excess of political language creates a rupture in the state’s script i.e. authoritative structures. He linked this argument to the initial fear around surrounding Modi’s infallible image and the absence of critique in media coverage, till the tipping point of the suit fiasco and the Delhi elections. Finally, he ended his talk with how the queer movement in India is engaging with aggressive masculinity of the right by lampooning the same, allowing scope for subversion.
Dr. Vaidya’s academic work has specialized in disability studies. Her talk, titled 'Disability as the Subject of Comedy', focussed on the relationship between humour and disability. By dwelling on films like Humshakals, Sairat and Taare Zameen Par, and comedans like Nidhi Goyal, she examined disability as a source of humour under three broad categories- incongruous, coping and Freudian. Often, the disabled are mocked because of the physical subversion from the ideal, desirable body they represent. Under the Freudian conception of humour, the disabled are a source of reinforcement of the power relations within society. The experience of disability is sometimes shown to be humorous to counter the assumption of it being uniformly tragic. She ended her talk by explaining how a repressive state mechanism which expects citizens to stand up for the national anthem before watching a film, does not take into consideration the concerns of an autistic or developmentally disabled person, making them unwittingly become an offender in the eyes of the State.
The panel discussion ended with comments and questions from the audience.
Zehra Kazmi
Image: Swastika Jajoo
Why Isn't it Funny Anymore?
An exploration of what, how and why humour is humour today in 'The But ... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (i)' by Aditi Chanda.
'The But... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (i)', the first part of the fourth panel of Laughing Matters, explored the subject along what felt like three distinct streams and the consequent portrayal of these streams in different media: politics, gender and sexuality, and finally, disability. The panel considered the function of humour as a subversive tool, but one that has the potential to do harm if taken too far. The thoughts presented by both Dr. Akshay Khanna and Dr. Shubhangi Vaidya were enlightening to say the least. Both their perspectives were intriguing, and had personal elements that made them altogether more impactful.
Dr. Akshay Khanna brought up the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army (CIRCA), and the story of how at a protest the chief of the police asked to have a serious word with the general of the clown army, and by way of response was given the word “encyclopedia”. This highlighted the idea that politics involves a certain type of language, language that perpetuates order and severity, language that the clown refused to conform to. Could humour, particularly humour expressed through language, have its own stereotypical inclinations, a form and nature that can be easily identified?
It brings to mind a line from comedian Bo Burnham's song Sad - “I saw a woman at her daughter's funeral, Ha ha ha, Classic comedy”. This conveys the idea that there is such a thing as classic comedy, and that it involves topics that would in today's times would be politically incorrect to joke about.
Dr. Shubhangi Vaidya spoke about the issue with humour related to disability, and how, presently, it is unacceptable to mock those with physical or cognitive inabilities, while reminding the audience that in the past it was common practice to derive entertainment from such people, for instance in the case of freakshows and tours of asylums. Does this suggest that dynamics and subjects that were considered stock fodder for humour are changing?
It brings to mind a line from comedian Bo Burnham's song 'Sad' - “I saw a woman at her daughter's funeral, Ha ha ha, Classic comedy”. This conveys the idea that there is such a thing as classic comedy, and that it involves topics that would in today's times would be politically incorrect to joke about. Therefore, yes, humour, or comedy, does have stereotypical inclinations, and yes, that form or nature does appear to be changing as society progresses. But why?
Why, in the recent past, has it become incorrect to use humour that deals with issues like death, disability, gender, politics and religion? From a positive standpoint, it appears that we, as a collective, may be growing in empathy and morally, and so are no longer entertained by the thought of humour used to segregate, to degrade, or to create a collective of Others. From a different standpoint, is it possible that in our disapproval of topics that were so intrinsic to comedy, and our obsession with censorship and sensitivity, that we are losing the reflective function of humour that helps better society? In our quest for inclusivity, we could be excluding those who excercise their freedom of speech through humour.
It is clear that the line drawn for humour is fluid and ambiguous, and has changed and will certainly continue to change over the course of time. Where exactly the 'but' is used in the case of a joke is a matter of context, and may never be pinned down and set in stone. The session was thought-provoking and expansive, easily putting across this concept.
Images: Swastika Jajoo and Aneesha Sopori
It brings to mind a line from comedian Bo Burnham's song 'Sad' - “I saw a woman at her daughter's funeral, Ha ha ha, Classic comedy”. This conveys the idea that there is such a thing as classic comedy, and that it involves topics that would in today's times would be politically incorrect to joke about. Therefore, yes, humour, or comedy, does have stereotypical inclinations, and yes, that form or nature does appear to be changing as society progresses. But why?
Why, in the recent past, has it become incorrect to use humour that deals with issues like death, disability, gender, politics and religion? From a positive standpoint, it appears that we, as a collective, may be growing in empathy and morally, and so are no longer entertained by the thought of humour used to segregate, to degrade, or to create a collective of Others. From a different standpoint, is it possible that in our disapproval of topics that were so intrinsic to comedy, and our obsession with censorship and sensitivity, that we are losing the reflective function of humour that helps better society? In our quest for inclusivity, we could be excluding those who excercise their freedom of speech through humour.
It is clear that the line drawn for humour is fluid and ambiguous, and has changed and will certainly continue to change over the course of time. Where exactly the 'but' is used in the case of a joke is a matter of context, and may never be pinned down and set in stone. The session was thought-provoking and expansive, easily putting across this concept.
Images: Swastika Jajoo and Aneesha Sopori
What is 'Normal'?
A reflection born of the discussions in 'The But... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (i)' by Tript Kaur.
As ‘Modi’cums of fabricated truth flow like honey from the tongues of esteemed stand-up politicians and dominant narratives titter at the margins, humour acquires a commonly known dimension-the status quo. Calendars illustrate adoration and devotion for goddesses, while currency notes worship Lakshmi, asking her to take back her boon of ‘cashlessness’. Lakshmi will probably agree- she still can’t engage in net-banking without Kuber’s assistance. Tathastu!
Anyway, questions of identity force us to search for that dusty corner in our mental shelves that is hopefully untouched by desperate ignorance and supplication to aggressive ideologies. Oh wait, Mother (India, of course, which other mother can you dare to have?) violently wiped off that yesterday when she re-tweeted Sehwag’s words. Those in power didn’t threaten thought, their minions did. And the norm breathes its 56th sigh of relief, inching towards an ‘aggressive masculinity’ dressed in controversial suits and megalomania.
Here’s a recipe for cooking the norm perfectly:
Ingredients:
5 tablespoons of Middle-Eastern oil, preferably borrowed from the US
3 teaspoons of explosive, empty chilly rhetoric (Brand- The Nation Wants To Know)
4 pods of fresh turmeric, preferably completely cubical in shape to fit into pigeonholes, no disabling shape allowed
1 cup of chopped onion, sprayed with pesticides, of suicidal quality
3 stale tomatoes grown on low water-tables
1 sprig of tulsi (no comments)
2 cups of super-extra sour curd kept overnight in the Lok Sabha
1 chicken breast, with saffron stickers proclaiming its genetic distance from cows
Process:
Fry the onions in Middle-Eastern oil for about a second-otherwise it tends to become nuclear. Throw in sliced turmeric, chilli and tulsi like pepper spray and water cannons. Puree the tomatoes into thick paste, to add strength to the curry-tive. Simmer for 5 years. Try to preserve the curd somehow, in the refrigerator of regressive ideas. Mix with simmered mush while scolding the gas stove for smoking during the movie. Lightly slash chicken breast, after removing its fungus and affirming that it is not you-know-what in the Central Laboratory for Culinary Control, for the millionth time. Pour the marinade over the chicken and keep near the edge of the kitchen, where the woman crouches over a soot-blackened stove and coughs to death. Extract the chicken after celebrating the last rites of the woman. Roast it on her pyre. Serve fresh.
Recipe serves billions. Adjust salt to taste.
Happy norming!
Image: Swastika Jajoo
Anyway, questions of identity force us to search for that dusty corner in our mental shelves that is hopefully untouched by desperate ignorance and supplication to aggressive ideologies. Oh wait, Mother (India, of course, which other mother can you dare to have?) violently wiped off that yesterday when she re-tweeted Sehwag’s words. Those in power didn’t threaten thought, their minions did. And the norm breathes its 56th sigh of relief, inching towards an ‘aggressive masculinity’ dressed in controversial suits and megalomania.
Here’s a recipe for cooking the norm perfectly:
Ingredients:
5 tablespoons of Middle-Eastern oil, preferably borrowed from the US
3 teaspoons of explosive, empty chilly rhetoric (Brand- The Nation Wants To Know)
4 pods of fresh turmeric, preferably completely cubical in shape to fit into pigeonholes, no disabling shape allowed
1 cup of chopped onion, sprayed with pesticides, of suicidal quality
3 stale tomatoes grown on low water-tables
1 sprig of tulsi (no comments)
2 cups of super-extra sour curd kept overnight in the Lok Sabha
1 chicken breast, with saffron stickers proclaiming its genetic distance from cows
Process:
Fry the onions in Middle-Eastern oil for about a second-otherwise it tends to become nuclear. Throw in sliced turmeric, chilli and tulsi like pepper spray and water cannons. Puree the tomatoes into thick paste, to add strength to the curry-tive. Simmer for 5 years. Try to preserve the curd somehow, in the refrigerator of regressive ideas. Mix with simmered mush while scolding the gas stove for smoking during the movie. Lightly slash chicken breast, after removing its fungus and affirming that it is not you-know-what in the Central Laboratory for Culinary Control, for the millionth time. Pour the marinade over the chicken and keep near the edge of the kitchen, where the woman crouches over a soot-blackened stove and coughs to death. Extract the chicken after celebrating the last rites of the woman. Roast it on her pyre. Serve fresh.
Recipe serves billions. Adjust salt to taste.
Happy norming!
Image: Swastika Jajoo
"After All, What is So Funny About Disability?"
An analysis of disability as a subject for comedy in “The But…of the Joke: Humour and Identity (i)” by Ankita Adak.
I have always been perplexed so as to how, and most importantly why, should humour arise from personal inadequacies and not situational factors. Dr. Shubhangi Vaidya asked on the panel, 'The But... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (i)', “After all, what is so funny about disability?”. This ostensibly simple question isn’t actually simple at all. Historically and cross-culturally, disability has always been regarded as a “lesser form of being” and differently-abled people have been always been targeted in a jocular fashion. Theorists opine on how humour is generated from incongruities; laughing at anything which is anomalous becomes a tool for normalising disability. So, disability becomes the foreground for humour.
This also indicates how disability isn’t an empirical reality, but it’s something which is socially and historically constructed. In this context, she mentioned how someone like a Raymond Babbitt from Rain Man would be a high-earning computer engineer in a reputed tech firm in today’s day and age. Hence, disability is a “floating concept”. The dwarf, the fool or the ‘feeble-minded’ person have been common humorous tropes in our literature, art and cinema since time immemorial. The “madhouses” in Europe or the “freak shows” bear testimony to this.
There are various ways to look at humour: psychoanalytically a joke can be seen as a manifestation of an unconscious desire, and sociologically a joke is seen as something which is socially constructed and is cultural. In this context, she talked about “ableism” and how it becomes a way of looking at differently-abled people with contempt or disdain in terms of their social roles or their place in society. A lot of humour around disability rises from an explicit ableism. As for instance, movies like Humshakals and Golmaal 3 thrive on tasteless humour and lampooning people with disabilities; the former was a flop and the latter was a blockbuster. While this holds true, other theorists on humour and disability have also opined on how humour is often deployed by differently-abled people as a “transgressive tool” for holding a mirror up to the society in order to critique their inherent social patterns and values. In this regard, she cited the example of the stand-up comic Nidhi Goyal who has visual impairment.
Dr. Vaidya insisted on how disability has to be seen as a fundamental social process rather than something which calls for medical interventions. Now, we live in a time which allows us to look at these things in a much more nuanced way in our literature and culture. While discussing about the portrayal of Ishaan in the movie Taare Zameen Par, several interesting questions were raised by the audience: Isn’t it high time that we move away from the portrayal of differently-abled people in terms of extremities (like, the fool or eccentric genius) and accept them for who they are? In an increasingly utilitarian world, aren’t movies like Taare Zameen Par which show differently-abled people with prophetic talent basically sending out the message that it’s fine for one to be disabled as long as they have a redeeming talent? Why can’t humour be created from the situational factors of which the differently-abled person is a part of and not his predispositions? When in a movie like Margarita, with a Straw a disabled person is shown as ending up with another disabled person, aren’t we perpetuating further exclusivity? Are we “laughing with” or “laughing at”?
While the intersections between disability and humour are plenty, the fact remains that any attempt to homogenise or normalise these differences will only hinder progress. The need of the hour is to accept new collectivities and look at it as a contextual thing through a cultural lens and promote inclusivity. Such forms of archaic humor shouldn’t hold any place in a progressive society.
Image: Swastika Jajoo
This also indicates how disability isn’t an empirical reality, but it’s something which is socially and historically constructed. In this context, she mentioned how someone like a Raymond Babbitt from Rain Man would be a high-earning computer engineer in a reputed tech firm in today’s day and age. Hence, disability is a “floating concept”. The dwarf, the fool or the ‘feeble-minded’ person have been common humorous tropes in our literature, art and cinema since time immemorial. The “madhouses” in Europe or the “freak shows” bear testimony to this.
There are various ways to look at humour: psychoanalytically a joke can be seen as a manifestation of an unconscious desire, and sociologically a joke is seen as something which is socially constructed and is cultural. In this context, she talked about “ableism” and how it becomes a way of looking at differently-abled people with contempt or disdain in terms of their social roles or their place in society. A lot of humour around disability rises from an explicit ableism. As for instance, movies like Humshakals and Golmaal 3 thrive on tasteless humour and lampooning people with disabilities; the former was a flop and the latter was a blockbuster. While this holds true, other theorists on humour and disability have also opined on how humour is often deployed by differently-abled people as a “transgressive tool” for holding a mirror up to the society in order to critique their inherent social patterns and values. In this regard, she cited the example of the stand-up comic Nidhi Goyal who has visual impairment.
Dr. Vaidya insisted on how disability has to be seen as a fundamental social process rather than something which calls for medical interventions. Now, we live in a time which allows us to look at these things in a much more nuanced way in our literature and culture. While discussing about the portrayal of Ishaan in the movie Taare Zameen Par, several interesting questions were raised by the audience: Isn’t it high time that we move away from the portrayal of differently-abled people in terms of extremities (like, the fool or eccentric genius) and accept them for who they are? In an increasingly utilitarian world, aren’t movies like Taare Zameen Par which show differently-abled people with prophetic talent basically sending out the message that it’s fine for one to be disabled as long as they have a redeeming talent? Why can’t humour be created from the situational factors of which the differently-abled person is a part of and not his predispositions? When in a movie like Margarita, with a Straw a disabled person is shown as ending up with another disabled person, aren’t we perpetuating further exclusivity? Are we “laughing with” or “laughing at”?
While the intersections between disability and humour are plenty, the fact remains that any attempt to homogenise or normalise these differences will only hinder progress. The need of the hour is to accept new collectivities and look at it as a contextual thing through a cultural lens and promote inclusivity. Such forms of archaic humor shouldn’t hold any place in a progressive society.
Image: Swastika Jajoo
Our Vaginas Wear Motley
In response to the question, “If your vagina got dressed, what would it wear?”
Motley refers to the garb of the fool during the renaissance, and the title of the piece refers to the character of Feste the fool in Twelfth Night, who through humour managed to get multiple unsayable things across, as he himself said: “I wear not motley in my brain.” The cast of 'The Vagina Monologues' managed the same task with the same weapon Feste wielded —humour.
Directed by Shraboni Dutta and Nazia Hussain, this fifteen-minute adaptation of The Vagina Monologues by Eve Ensler, was performed by Adrija Ghosh, Deep Kaur Samlok, Arundhati Subedar, Tanishka Goel and Vallavi Shukla and resulted in thunderous applause. Panelist Mr. K.V. Sridhar even gave the team a standing ovation. The play raised pertinent issues under the garb of subtle humour through a carefully directed and well-executed play.
Beginning with an element of surprise, where the actors rose from the audience itself, it sent home the fact that these are everyday stories of everyday women. Their use of bodies, bending, contorting and twisting, established the feminine body in everyday spaces - a metro, in front of a mirror or a gym – in the play. The adaptation inspired fluidity not only in the performance but also in an otherwise fragmented script.
The problematic yet persistent salience of the issues addressed in the play answered panelist Prof. Maya Rao’s subsequent question “Is The Vagina Monologues dated?” As a corollary, the thunderous applause and the hoots of agreement by the audience proved the sad fact that the misogyny and patriarchal control of feminine bodies that the play challenges, might seem dated but isn’t; it’s all too relevant within current conversations around rights, to the body as much as to one’s self-expression.
Which brings some disturbing questions to the forefront: what is the nature of the audience’s response of laughter, and what does it indicate about us? The laughter, is it nervous, as a result of being confronted by female individuals expressing anger and desire- dissent- in a patriarchal world, or does it arise from a shared context — how many twelve year-olds have been slapped at the mention of menstruation or told that a period is but “a punctuation”?
Prof. Maya Rao elaborated after her question that she was just provoking, which is what—as she herself mentioned— the play itself does. The question is whether we address these provocations or like the secretive look we throw at our vaginas, we dismiss it only to address it when it becomes a painful infection.
Devika
Image: Deepika Agrawal
Directed by Shraboni Dutta and Nazia Hussain, this fifteen-minute adaptation of The Vagina Monologues by Eve Ensler, was performed by Adrija Ghosh, Deep Kaur Samlok, Arundhati Subedar, Tanishka Goel and Vallavi Shukla and resulted in thunderous applause. Panelist Mr. K.V. Sridhar even gave the team a standing ovation. The play raised pertinent issues under the garb of subtle humour through a carefully directed and well-executed play.
Beginning with an element of surprise, where the actors rose from the audience itself, it sent home the fact that these are everyday stories of everyday women. Their use of bodies, bending, contorting and twisting, established the feminine body in everyday spaces - a metro, in front of a mirror or a gym – in the play. The adaptation inspired fluidity not only in the performance but also in an otherwise fragmented script.
The problematic yet persistent salience of the issues addressed in the play answered panelist Prof. Maya Rao’s subsequent question “Is The Vagina Monologues dated?” As a corollary, the thunderous applause and the hoots of agreement by the audience proved the sad fact that the misogyny and patriarchal control of feminine bodies that the play challenges, might seem dated but isn’t; it’s all too relevant within current conversations around rights, to the body as much as to one’s self-expression.
Which brings some disturbing questions to the forefront: what is the nature of the audience’s response of laughter, and what does it indicate about us? The laughter, is it nervous, as a result of being confronted by female individuals expressing anger and desire- dissent- in a patriarchal world, or does it arise from a shared context — how many twelve year-olds have been slapped at the mention of menstruation or told that a period is but “a punctuation”?
Prof. Maya Rao elaborated after her question that she was just provoking, which is what—as she herself mentioned— the play itself does. The question is whether we address these provocations or like the secretive look we throw at our vaginas, we dismiss it only to address it when it becomes a painful infection.
Devika
Image: Deepika Agrawal
PANEL 4: The But ... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (ii)
‘The But... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (ii)’ panel facilitated by Jonathan Koshy Varghese drew from the debates around humour and politics, translations, and identity to delve into immediate experiences of humour in practice. While Ms. Vasu Primlani, a stand-up comedian, punned and teased with a deadpan face, and Prof. Maya Rao explored the dimension of humour in theatre, the third speaker, advertisement guru Mr. K.V. Shridhar, entertained the audience with clips of amusing advertisements that have withstood the test of time.
A celebrated comedian, environmentalist and teacher, Ms. Primlani maintained a stoic, and rather ‘prim’ countenance while delivering a comic routine about menstruation’s regular attack during every period in life, thus justifying the occurrence of PMS while studying the periodic table. She stressed on ‘wellness’ as more significant than gender alone, claiming that the ignorant (and in some cases cunning) muddling up of the public and the private gives sufficient agency to those who are ‘normal’, to be dangerous. A regrettably brief but hilarious litany of cleverly crafted jokes prevented yours truly from taking enough notes- she was too busy trying to not fall off her chair.
Prof. Maya Rao, a world renowned theatre personality and educator, introduced us to her own brand of humour- one that is more performative and relies on over the top caricatures based on a certain theme. She shared a series of videos of her comic routine such as, ‘The NRI Jogger’, ‘Samata Mukherjee’ etc. which despite technical glitches left us in splits, only to be followed by interesting anecdotes about what goes on in the mind of the actor.
K.V. Shridhar focussed on the essence of human connections-stories, which remain consistently relevant across time and contexts as they play with basic human emotions. He displayed several ‘dated’ advertisements that continue to make us laugh.
While all the speakers portrayed their arguments via action and implementation, certain aspects of their opinions were questionable. For instance, if ads that promote laughing at someone’s misery become greatly popular, what does that say about our instinctive, ‘innate’ emotions, as human beings?
Tript Kaur
Image: Deyasini Chatterjee
A celebrated comedian, environmentalist and teacher, Ms. Primlani maintained a stoic, and rather ‘prim’ countenance while delivering a comic routine about menstruation’s regular attack during every period in life, thus justifying the occurrence of PMS while studying the periodic table. She stressed on ‘wellness’ as more significant than gender alone, claiming that the ignorant (and in some cases cunning) muddling up of the public and the private gives sufficient agency to those who are ‘normal’, to be dangerous. A regrettably brief but hilarious litany of cleverly crafted jokes prevented yours truly from taking enough notes- she was too busy trying to not fall off her chair.
Prof. Maya Rao, a world renowned theatre personality and educator, introduced us to her own brand of humour- one that is more performative and relies on over the top caricatures based on a certain theme. She shared a series of videos of her comic routine such as, ‘The NRI Jogger’, ‘Samata Mukherjee’ etc. which despite technical glitches left us in splits, only to be followed by interesting anecdotes about what goes on in the mind of the actor.
K.V. Shridhar focussed on the essence of human connections-stories, which remain consistently relevant across time and contexts as they play with basic human emotions. He displayed several ‘dated’ advertisements that continue to make us laugh.
While all the speakers portrayed their arguments via action and implementation, certain aspects of their opinions were questionable. For instance, if ads that promote laughing at someone’s misery become greatly popular, what does that say about our instinctive, ‘innate’ emotions, as human beings?
Tript Kaur
Image: Deyasini Chatterjee
An Actor, a Comedian, and a Brand Expert Walked into a Conference Hall
An analysis of the fragments of humour addressed in "The But... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (ii)" by Devika.
The second half of the last panel brought together people from different professional backgrounds under the ambit of humour. The panellists of “The But… of the Joke: Humour and Identity (ii)” brought with them their own idea of what laughter connotes.
While panellists Ms. Vasu Primlani and Prof. Maya Rao’s intermingled humour with their personal and professional identities, Mr. K.V Sridhar propounded experiences and ideas he drew from his own profession.
The statement Ms. Rao made when asked about the influence of Kathakali training on her acting- that the structured training of the dance left her body and ultimately her humour itself fragmented- reflected the very nature of this panel itself, seemingly incongruent ideas were posited, but at the end they came together to create the desired effect. That, of not only laughter but also thought provoking questions.
Ms. Primlani’s ideas were presented as a stand-up act, Prof. Rao’s as clippings from prior dramatic performances, and Mr. Sridhar’s as a viewing of multiple advertisements that he used to reiterate his argument- that a brand has a journey and voice of its own. The panel ended on a note that left the audience hungry for more from each panelist. While making arguments that were valid in their own right, the execution of the ideas of each panelist could have been more nuanced with Identity and more importantly humour politics that inhabit their spaces. Their ideas on humour and identity separated but not alienated from their professional backgrounds, needed to come forth, more than their professions.
But at the same time, this very incongruity allowed the audience members themselves to choose a strand of humour they preferred, or a type of identity politics that they could associate with, allowing the manifestation of a more democratic space for the audience to think in. Just like different fragments of humour came together under the umbrella of Laughing Matters at the beginning of the conference, the end of the last panel led to a symbolic fragmentation of ideas again, reminding the audience that they are free to choose the laughter they wish to.
Devika
Images: Deyasini Chatterjee
While panellists Ms. Vasu Primlani and Prof. Maya Rao’s intermingled humour with their personal and professional identities, Mr. K.V Sridhar propounded experiences and ideas he drew from his own profession.
The statement Ms. Rao made when asked about the influence of Kathakali training on her acting- that the structured training of the dance left her body and ultimately her humour itself fragmented- reflected the very nature of this panel itself, seemingly incongruent ideas were posited, but at the end they came together to create the desired effect. That, of not only laughter but also thought provoking questions.
Ms. Primlani’s ideas were presented as a stand-up act, Prof. Rao’s as clippings from prior dramatic performances, and Mr. Sridhar’s as a viewing of multiple advertisements that he used to reiterate his argument- that a brand has a journey and voice of its own. The panel ended on a note that left the audience hungry for more from each panelist. While making arguments that were valid in their own right, the execution of the ideas of each panelist could have been more nuanced with Identity and more importantly humour politics that inhabit their spaces. Their ideas on humour and identity separated but not alienated from their professional backgrounds, needed to come forth, more than their professions.
But at the same time, this very incongruity allowed the audience members themselves to choose a strand of humour they preferred, or a type of identity politics that they could associate with, allowing the manifestation of a more democratic space for the audience to think in. Just like different fragments of humour came together under the umbrella of Laughing Matters at the beginning of the conference, the end of the last panel led to a symbolic fragmentation of ideas again, reminding the audience that they are free to choose the laughter they wish to.
Devika
Images: Deyasini Chatterjee
The Evolution of Walk
A look at creative processes in ‘The But... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (ii)’ by Meenakshi Nair.
On 31st December 2012, by which time Jyoti Singh’s injuries had proven fatal, Prof. Rao was asked to speak and perform at a vigil at Jawaharlal Nehru University. Prof. Rao explained that she decided to explore some pieces of music in order to make sense of the violence and express solidarity with Jyoti Singh. It was then that 'Walk' was conceptualised.
Prof. Maya Rao, from Shiv Nadar University, was a part of the panel ‘The But... of the Joke: Humour and Identity (ii)’. This panel explored the links between humour and identity. Prof. Rao focused on the performance of humour and how it can be used as a tool for subversion. She spoke of how humour – especially topical humour – can be sharply political. However, what struck me as particularly significant was her account of the evolution of her powerful piece 'Walk'.
Prof. Rao explained one of the processes she used in order to create comedy. She said that she relied on chance – the first story in a news bulletin or an article on the front page of the newspaper would serve as the day’s inspiration and would be the source of a sketch by that afternoon. It was to perform such a series of sketches that she had been invited by the National School of Drama in late 2012. On 16th December (around the time Prof. Rao was preparing for the show) Jyoti Singh was brutally raped on a bus somewhere near Delhi’s Munirka locality. The violent nature of this crime was unprecedented and Prof. Rao found it impossible to work on comic pieces at a time when fear and despair threatened to overwhelm.
On 31st December 2012, by which time Jyoti Singh’s injuries had proven fatal, Prof. Rao was asked to speak and perform at a vigil at Jawaharlal Nehru University. Prof. Rao explained that she decided to explore some pieces of music in order to make sense of the violence and express solidarity with Jyoti Singh. It was then that 'Walk' was conceptualised and, after much thought, performed at JNU at the end of a series of comic sketches. Walk has since travelled to various Indian cities and been adapted to register protest against various manifestations of inequalities such as Section 377 and the lack of safety for women in public places.
In response to a question from the audience, Prof. Rao also noted the influence of Kathakali on her performance. This influence can be seen quite clearly – in the powerful way in which she occupies space, the gravity of her every motion, the purposeful sharpness of every hand gesture, and the effortlessly calculated movements of her eyes.
I found this description of Prof. Rao’s process to be particularly interesting because of how much it relies on chance. I’m not entirely convinced it would work for others the way it does for her. Her spontaneity is such that it only augments a sharply political and deeply sensitive manner of looking at the world. Prof. Rao’s work is influenced by a curious mixture of experiences, emotions, and through training in Kathakali – an eye for character and an ear for voices.I was left with the distinct feeling that without a space in which such myriad influences can flourish, humour (and other forms of expression) will find themselves without a space; yet, humour seems political and subversive enough to protect such spaces.
Meenakshi Nair
Image: Deyasini Chatterjee
Prof. Rao explained one of the processes she used in order to create comedy. She said that she relied on chance – the first story in a news bulletin or an article on the front page of the newspaper would serve as the day’s inspiration and would be the source of a sketch by that afternoon. It was to perform such a series of sketches that she had been invited by the National School of Drama in late 2012. On 16th December (around the time Prof. Rao was preparing for the show) Jyoti Singh was brutally raped on a bus somewhere near Delhi’s Munirka locality. The violent nature of this crime was unprecedented and Prof. Rao found it impossible to work on comic pieces at a time when fear and despair threatened to overwhelm.
On 31st December 2012, by which time Jyoti Singh’s injuries had proven fatal, Prof. Rao was asked to speak and perform at a vigil at Jawaharlal Nehru University. Prof. Rao explained that she decided to explore some pieces of music in order to make sense of the violence and express solidarity with Jyoti Singh. It was then that 'Walk' was conceptualised and, after much thought, performed at JNU at the end of a series of comic sketches. Walk has since travelled to various Indian cities and been adapted to register protest against various manifestations of inequalities such as Section 377 and the lack of safety for women in public places.
In response to a question from the audience, Prof. Rao also noted the influence of Kathakali on her performance. This influence can be seen quite clearly – in the powerful way in which she occupies space, the gravity of her every motion, the purposeful sharpness of every hand gesture, and the effortlessly calculated movements of her eyes.
I found this description of Prof. Rao’s process to be particularly interesting because of how much it relies on chance. I’m not entirely convinced it would work for others the way it does for her. Her spontaneity is such that it only augments a sharply political and deeply sensitive manner of looking at the world. Prof. Rao’s work is influenced by a curious mixture of experiences, emotions, and through training in Kathakali – an eye for character and an ear for voices.I was left with the distinct feeling that without a space in which such myriad influences can flourish, humour (and other forms of expression) will find themselves without a space; yet, humour seems political and subversive enough to protect such spaces.
Meenakshi Nair
Image: Deyasini Chatterjee
Paper Presentation 1: Texts and Academia
Following the panel discussions, there were two panels of paper presentations by students. 'Paper Presentations 1: Texts and Academia', involved a panel of undergraduate and postgraduate students whose papers were selected after careful consideration by our faculty. The engaging session was chaired by Dr. Shernaz Cama from the Department of English, LSR.
The first presentation was by Anushmita Mohanty, a second year student at the Department of English, LSR. Her paper on 'The Zigzagging of Humour and Translation in the works of Ruskin Bond' won the David Lynn Prize for Academic Writing this year. By contextualising Bond’s Anglo-Indian identity as well as the love for nature and sense of nostalgia that marks Bond’s world, Anushmita explained how these different factors helped create a unique element of humour in his writings.
The second presentation was by Samidha Kalia, also a second year student at the Department of English, LSR. Her paper on 'Reflections in Humour: Gaiman’s American Gods' analysed how politics and humour come together to create fantasy in Neil Gaiman’s American Gods. Samidha also examined how the tussle for power between the Old Gods and the New Gods is due to the shift in American values.
The third presentation was by Tanvi Chowdhary, another second year student from the Department of English, LSR. Her paper titled, 'Mischief Managed: The Interaction between Humour and Fantasy in Harry Potter' studied humour as a tool for dissent and questioning of authority by the characters in this extremely popular fantasy series. Her Foucauldian reading of the text, and analysis of the internal mechanisms of discipline and punishment existing within the narrative, ensured that the paper would provide great insight into Harry Potter.
The final paper was a joint presentation by two MA students at LSR, Surbhi Sindhu and Meetali Asiwal. Their paper titled, 'Reason in Madness, Madness in Reason' looked at the inversion of meaning and resulting humour in Lewis Carroll’s Alice books. They also contrasted the double life of the author and how it affected his writing- the stoic, respectable figure of Charles Dogdson, Dean at Oxford and the mischievous, subversive fiction writer, Lewis Carroll.
The session ended with questions and comments by members of the faculty and students.
Zehra Kazmi
Image: Deyasini Chatterjee
Paper Presentation 2: New Media
The penultimate event of the annual academic conference of the Department of English, Laughing Matters, was the second paper presentation, facilitated by Dr. Madhu Grover, on ‘New Media’. Three papers - amongst many written by students across different colleges - were selected for presentation.
The first paper, ‘She’s Beautiful and She’s Laughing: (En)gendering Jest in Sarah’s Scribbles by Sarah Andersen,’ was by a JNU M.Phil. student, Srinjoyee Dutta. Her paper attempted to study humour as a potent instrument for socio-political and historical subversion, and locate its significance in shaping the discourse around gender as a stratagem for feminist dissent. For this, she provided a close reading of popular web-comic (and subsequent graphic novel) Sarah’s Scribbles by Sarah Andersen, and dealt with the issue of “public-ness” when a woman uses humour as a tool to “deftly and tactfully challenge the many problematic ideations of patriarchy” through art.
After Dutta, Dibyajyoti Basak, from Jadavpur University, presented his paper on ‘Nocturnal Animals: How The Late-Night Talk Show Is the Most Dominant Form of Political Critique, and India’s Alienation from This Sphere.’ The first part of his paper examined the changing roles of political humour and the evolution of the genre of social satire through the ages. Further on, he discussed the launch of Saturday Night Live, and with it, the advent of late-night talk shows. He mentioned how the current era of American history and politics is being satirized by the great comics of our age — “From the sardonic humour of Jon Stewart, the belligerent jokes of Jay Leno to the cynicism of John Oliver”. His paper ended with an overview of talk shows in India, and examined why the format didn’t really take off.
The third paper in the panel was presented by Delhi University student, Cheshta Rajora, on ‘Just Meme Things: Politics of Humour and Internet Memes’. She started off by scrutinizing why humour is ephemeral, where “ephemeron is visual specimen that has a short shelf life in the public domain, but is a valuable source of reflection and reconstruction of the past.” The second part of her paper explored the phenomenon of internet memes as a “vortex of social critique and laughter”. For this, she analysed how the increasingly popular Facebook social group 'Just Savarna Things' uses humour as a subversive tool to “register their critique of everything Brahmanical”. She concluded her paper by arguing how despite their short shelf-life, memes go a long way in shaping collective thought.
The presentation concluded with a questions and answers session.
Ankita Adak
Image: Shivani Raturi
The first paper, ‘She’s Beautiful and She’s Laughing: (En)gendering Jest in Sarah’s Scribbles by Sarah Andersen,’ was by a JNU M.Phil. student, Srinjoyee Dutta. Her paper attempted to study humour as a potent instrument for socio-political and historical subversion, and locate its significance in shaping the discourse around gender as a stratagem for feminist dissent. For this, she provided a close reading of popular web-comic (and subsequent graphic novel) Sarah’s Scribbles by Sarah Andersen, and dealt with the issue of “public-ness” when a woman uses humour as a tool to “deftly and tactfully challenge the many problematic ideations of patriarchy” through art.
After Dutta, Dibyajyoti Basak, from Jadavpur University, presented his paper on ‘Nocturnal Animals: How The Late-Night Talk Show Is the Most Dominant Form of Political Critique, and India’s Alienation from This Sphere.’ The first part of his paper examined the changing roles of political humour and the evolution of the genre of social satire through the ages. Further on, he discussed the launch of Saturday Night Live, and with it, the advent of late-night talk shows. He mentioned how the current era of American history and politics is being satirized by the great comics of our age — “From the sardonic humour of Jon Stewart, the belligerent jokes of Jay Leno to the cynicism of John Oliver”. His paper ended with an overview of talk shows in India, and examined why the format didn’t really take off.
The third paper in the panel was presented by Delhi University student, Cheshta Rajora, on ‘Just Meme Things: Politics of Humour and Internet Memes’. She started off by scrutinizing why humour is ephemeral, where “ephemeron is visual specimen that has a short shelf life in the public domain, but is a valuable source of reflection and reconstruction of the past.” The second part of her paper explored the phenomenon of internet memes as a “vortex of social critique and laughter”. For this, she analysed how the increasingly popular Facebook social group 'Just Savarna Things' uses humour as a subversive tool to “register their critique of everything Brahmanical”. She concluded her paper by arguing how despite their short shelf-life, memes go a long way in shaping collective thought.
The presentation concluded with a questions and answers session.
Ankita Adak
Image: Shivani Raturi
An Impactful Death
There are times when you just can't help but wonder what the world would be like without art. Such a moment was felt by the audience of Dead. It was a short drama directed by Eman Rahman, a 3rd year student at the Department of English, Lady Shri Ram College. The performance, held on the 4th o f March, concluded the two-day conference hosted by the Department of English at the New Common Room. The cast included Nitika Dhanaya, Sanya Sodhi, Ankita Goswami, Soorya Shenoy, Aakanksha Aditi, Chetanya Godara and Yasha Spriha.
Upon entering, the audience found that the room was pitch black –black plastic sheets had been stuck on the windows and ventilators. A line demarcated where the audience sat and the stage began. The entire act was less than ten minutes long, and only a single character spoke throughout, describing the deaths of his near ones. The characters behind him, dressed in black – the dead— fell off their chairs, as one by one he described the way they died.
The entire play was a visual treat. The lights rolled around the room, focusing on the different emotions of the characters – the lights also revealed the protagonist’s behavioural change – from docile, to sad, to cynical and finally becoming almost psychopathic. By the end of the play the emotive pressure had built so much that everyone expected that the character would either cry or storm out, but instead he “cracked-up”. He couldn’t bear the number of deaths he had seen. For the first two deaths he tried to look at the positive side – the toys, the mother’s love – but by the end he questioned whether he was the one causing the “woe”.
This short act, beautifully directed, talked about not only the physical death of our loved ones but also the mental destruction of the one who gets left behind. Not only did Eman’s brilliant script highlight the immediate effect of death on people’s psyche but also the idea that someone’s absence can become a permanent emotional setback for a person.
The play ended with the man gathering his things and leaving the room. And this normalcy of his demeanour, in contrast to the emotional cracking up that the audience had just witnessed, is what hit the audience hard. There was something abnormal in his normal.
The entire room erupted in a round of applause for the wonderful execution, amazing acting and extremely moving story. It was thought-provoking end to a thought-provoking conference.
Samidha Kalia
Image: Swastika Jajoo
Upon entering, the audience found that the room was pitch black –black plastic sheets had been stuck on the windows and ventilators. A line demarcated where the audience sat and the stage began. The entire act was less than ten minutes long, and only a single character spoke throughout, describing the deaths of his near ones. The characters behind him, dressed in black – the dead— fell off their chairs, as one by one he described the way they died.
The entire play was a visual treat. The lights rolled around the room, focusing on the different emotions of the characters – the lights also revealed the protagonist’s behavioural change – from docile, to sad, to cynical and finally becoming almost psychopathic. By the end of the play the emotive pressure had built so much that everyone expected that the character would either cry or storm out, but instead he “cracked-up”. He couldn’t bear the number of deaths he had seen. For the first two deaths he tried to look at the positive side – the toys, the mother’s love – but by the end he questioned whether he was the one causing the “woe”.
This short act, beautifully directed, talked about not only the physical death of our loved ones but also the mental destruction of the one who gets left behind. Not only did Eman’s brilliant script highlight the immediate effect of death on people’s psyche but also the idea that someone’s absence can become a permanent emotional setback for a person.
The play ended with the man gathering his things and leaving the room. And this normalcy of his demeanour, in contrast to the emotional cracking up that the audience had just witnessed, is what hit the audience hard. There was something abnormal in his normal.
The entire room erupted in a round of applause for the wonderful execution, amazing acting and extremely moving story. It was thought-provoking end to a thought-provoking conference.
Samidha Kalia
Image: Swastika Jajoo
Background Image: Deepika Agrawal