Jokes are widely utilized to bewilder and enlighten the human mind, as well as provoke thought while being disguised as comedy. Comedic tricks such as clownish, gross, invective, irony, logical implausibility, misunderstanding, parody, satire, self-deprecation, slapstick, surprise, socially inappropriate and wordplay are employed to instil contemplative thought and shock the viewer or the audience. Of all these devices, self-deprecation draws the audience in and creates a special bond between the supplier and receiver of the joke.
Self-deprecation is the act of underestimating oneself. The comic uses techniques of sarcasm and irony to generate humour, however the object of conflict is the comic’s own self. Freud (1905) perceived that humour comprises of the dyadic interaction between the group that laughs and the object whose behaviour provokes the laughter. Self-deprecation is a comedic technique employed, with great success, by a wide range of comedians and performers. From, the visual, physical slapstick of Groucho Marx, the hysterical grammatical configurations known as ‘Bushisms’- that are unique to President George W. Bush, the unfortunate social blunders of Larry David to the remarkable yet self-disparaging use of wit by Woody Allen, both pop culture and counter culture has astonishingly accepted this form of humour into not just our screens but also as part of our lives. In self-deprecating humour, comedians often tend to use their own calamities as the subject. For instance: “Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member”. Groucho Marx’s famous resignation telegram to a private members club in 1959 illustrates that the gift of the comedian to draw attention to their insecurity and poke fun at them is much adored by the public, so adored in fact that a private members club in London is ironically named after Groucho. Another comedian, famous for hilariously and creatively executing his self-deprecating jokes, is Woody Allen. Allen as the affable yet miserable, Alvy singer in his comical depiction of vulnerability in Annie Hall (1977) is an infamous example of self-deprecating/ referencing comedy. Self-deprecation is not just directed at the self but also to other objects such as Singer’s passion for jazz, psychoanalysis and sex. A more recent example of a very popular comic that employs the self-deprecating gimmick in their comedy routine is the avant-garde, Louis C.K. He has been dubbed the “funniest comic alive” by GQ magazine and “darkest, funniest comedian in America” by The Rolling Stone. Louis C.K, the Mexican American with Jewish & Irish roots is not only regarded as creatively successful but more surprisingly financially. Forbes magazine (2012) reports that he has earned $1million in 12 days for his stand-up special and his live show grossed at $4.5 million in just 45 hours.The success of Woody Allen’s Hollywood career and Louis CK as a self-deprecating protagonist makes one wonder why the public are so drawn towards to this specific form of humour. Why is there a certain fascination with individuals that denigrate themselves for the sake of comedy?
In ‘Jokes and its relation to the Unconscious’ (1905), Freud suggest that jokes, like dreams are formations of the unconscious. Freud, in ‘The interpretation of dreams’ (1900) suggests that the dream encompasses of two textures: the manifest and the latent. Similarly, the formative process in jokes contains a deep, dark, latent layer that is often textured by a superficial, comic and manifest layer. In jokes, latent thoughts are condensed, displaced or set up for a double entendre or double meaning. Lacan revisited these Freudian terms after being influenced by Jakobson’s dichotomy between metaphor and metonymy. There are two parts to consider when using language: a metaphoric area where a selection of words is put together to reveal an idea and a metonymic area where a combination of words is chosen to again, reveal an idea. Lacan (1957) builds on Jakobson’s theory of metonymy and metaphor and contextualises it to understand the structure of the unconscious. Lacan found parallels between Freud’s defence mechanisms of repression and displacement & metaphor and metonymy, respectively. Metaphor in language is similar to the psychic state of repression where certain similarities in words can be substituted whereas metonymy is the linguistic equivalent to the psychic displacement where the difference or the proximity of the signifiers combines them. Like Freud’s connection between the unconscious formation of dreams and jokes, Lacan’s linguistic dichotomy and the formation of jokes can find an association. If we take Lacan’s linguistic models into consideration, the metaphor and metonymy involved in a joke is a repressed or displaced unconscious mechanism, which insinuates that the comic using metaphors and metonymy is camouflaging some sort of a trauma.
Comedy deriving its roots from trauma, reverberates the famous Hegelian reflection of history always repeating itself, which Marx expanded on: ‘first time as tragedy and the second as farce”. Perhaps, why a lot of Jewish humour is inclined to have a self-deprecating shtick. Freud, in Jokes and their relation to the unconscious, talks of the joke teller participating as the glitch in the joke. Ruth Johnston (2006) indicates that for Jews, humour has been a mode of survival (laughing to keep from dying) rather than as a mode of perseverance that are found in other minority humour. Repetition of a tragedy makes the tragedy unexceptional and ordinary. Zupancic (2008) suggests that in tragedy, we are threatened with the Real where the tragedy echoes a pre-existing emotion that is in our imagination whereas; in comedy the real repeats itself. It repeats, as Marx stated, first as tragedy and then as farce.
Implying that comedy stems from a past trauma shouldn’t be mistaken for comedy explaining a trauma. Zupancic (2008) suggests that comedy occurs in the present and there is no past event that acts as an axis for the comedy to rotate around. Comedy doesn’t explain why something has happened; instead it portrays how something functions through ostentatious wit that is preserved in the present. Winnicott’s (1967) mirror stage is an important process in understanding the root of identification with the joke. The sense of self is very present in those that use self- deprecating humour and the mother has to be present for such sophisticated sense of self. The mother, whether ‘good enough’ or ‘not good enough’ is better than no mother at all. Kohut & Wolf propose that children with a lack of mirroring develop anxiety and lose a sense of their self (Kohut & Wolf, 1986). Identification of the audience or the listener with the comic can make self-deprecating jests fascinating. Identification, according to Lacan, can be developed the first few months, the child starts to form their identity when recognizing their existence in a mirror or represented by the primary care giver. Moreover, as the child identifies itself as a separate entity, it unlocks an alienating sensation. The sense of self or the ‘ego’ is created in the image shaped by the infant in its reflection. Lacan labels this as the ‘ideal-I’. The exterior reflection that helps with language acquisition and social interactionism is labelled as the ‘specular-I. The development of the ego is essential when identifying with a joke. Firstly, the public identifies with the joke through imaginary identification, e.g., the punch line or comedic style, however, they also identify with it in a more latent level with either the aggressive or tragic deprecating tone.
Lacan’s alienating mirror can create in the subject, a sense of hostility towards his or her own self that leads to self-deprecation. Once the individual identifies with the mirror and opposes everything else, it begins an aggressive dialectic towards the image on the mirror. The reflection does not completely satisfy the individual, ergo shoving them into a downward spiral of self-deprecating behaviour. The mirror reflects the flaws of the individual that are later addressed as ‘farce’ by the comedian. The self-deprecation gimmick limits the comedian’s creativity and can be considered as a form of self-suppression for the comedian. Jest is directed at the self, which restricts the comedian’s use of other external materials. Nevertheless, self-loathing also exuberates their desire of the self and exemplifies their narcissistic tendencies. Narcissism is a term coined by Freud (1914) and based on the myth of Narcissus, who fell in love with his own image mirrored in the water. Unable to differentiate between the mirror image and the real, and leave its beauty, Narcissus fell into his own death.
Narcissism provides the individual an opportunity to portray a Winnicott’s ‘false self’ to the audience. The false self serves as substitute of the true self. Winnicott (1965) suggests that the infant develops a false self as a defence mechanism to mask the attack of a primordial object or the Lacanian ‘Big Other’. The false self develops as an internalised view of the experience of others. The Narcissist depicts their false self as true self to the others as a ploy to create in the audience a sense of sympathy. The true self is often disguised and hidden whereas the false self is what is presented to others. In self-deprecation, occurs a shrewd reversal of the false self, which is almost always disguised as the true self.
Lasch (1979) explored narcissism in American culture and suggested that a narcissist upholds the image portrayed to others. They feel the need to remain as superior, either through praise or deprecation, as long as the spotlight remains on the self. Lasch depicts the narcissist tendencies of the American pop culture in the cult comedy sitcom Seinfeld. The four main characters denote a sense of superiority to others and present a controlled image of indifference and apathy and where in crux of it all they aim to do nothing. The comedy kicks in when they lack to sustain this integral image and their own superiority is tarnished by consistent personal failures or their lack. In comedy, the emphasis is that ‘funny things happen’ because the Other is lacking rather than it is funny because of the ‘lack’ (Zupancic, 2008). The funny things that occur due to the lack of the comic, or the lack in the characters in Seinfeld, creates a desire for the spectator to share in their banal yet miserable sitcom domain. However, the desire of the audience of this fantasy in Seinfeld is marred when the producers of the show suggests that the show is about ‘nothing’. Although this aggravated the audience, it also fascinated them and became one of the best-loved sitcoms in American pop culture. Zizek, in “The Sublime Object of Ideology” writes, “Fantasy is basically a scenario filling out the empty space of a fundamental impossibility, screen masking a void… As such, fantasy us not to be interpreted, only ‘traversed’: all we have to do is experience how there is nothing ‘behind’ it.” The audience are unable to capture the essence of the real and therefore stuck in a cyclic symbolic realm of frustration and enjoyment as they ‘go through the fantasy.’
Self -deprecating humour can be seen as a mechanism that hopes to hide personal discrepancies and paralyzing insecurities from the public eye. Former US Cabinet Secretary Dan Glickman addressed the utilization of self-deprecating humour in politics as a ‘strategic tool of the political trade’ during a lecture to the National Press Club in Washington D.C. Glickman argued that if the politician does not make light of his or her political position, then the critics or the talk show hosts may take advantage of this opportunity. Comedy Central’s late night satirical shows such as ‘The Colbert Report’ or ‘The Daily Show by Jon Stewart’ would mercilessly take up chances to mock those in politics, however, making fun of one’s own flaw would preclude this humiliation and put the control back in the hands of the politician. During the 2004 presidential debate, Benedetto from USA Today reported a poll that showed that 57% of the undecided voters would rather have a beer with George W Bush than with John Kerry. Bush also won 56% to 38% when asked out Bush and Kerry, who comes across as a ‘real’ person. For politicians, self- referencing humour is an employable strategy to develop them as a humble, unpretentious, real character. Zupancic (2008) writes that the real comedy of George W. Bush is often caught off guard when he is administering his presidential duties rather than when he is mindfully trying to be funny. For example: “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we” (Washington D.C., August 5, 2004).
Self-referencing humour often disguises itself as sincere and humble. In his essay ‘E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction’, David Foster Wallace (1997) talks of the post modernist cynical genre of television that employs the use of self-reference mockery. He suggests that this ironic self-reference suggests that TV is excused from ridicule by anyone else. Self-reference helps shift the power from the audience to what is being portrayed on TV. The executives at television are not putting themselves out there as vulnerable beings, waiting for the acceptance and approval of their audience and instead taking their control back by mocking their own discrepancies. The acceptance of the self-deprecating individual is key to the development of the ego. The public serves as the proud, approving smile of mother, whilst reassuring the comedian that the joke is funny. Or are we made to believe that the one delivering the joke is looking for reassurance? This kind of humour could also shift the power into the hands of the ‘poor fool’ delivering the joke. In the Groucho Marx example, he could be suggesting his own superiority to the members-only club. Moncayo (2012) suggests looking at the perspective of negation from Lacan’s ‘Russell paradigm’ of identification and opposition. Groucho Marx identifies to oppose and opposes in order to identify. He comes across as superior and ‘too good’ for their clubs, as well as inferior and self-degrading. The mechanism in any discourse is the process of identification. In the situation of the politician and the public, the discourse identified with is that of the blundering grammatical errors of George Bush or the comical forgetfulness of Rick Perry during the poignant 2012 GOP debates (Dewberry & Fox, 2012). Lacan’s Master Signifier discourse can be embodied in this instance where the awkward self-deprecating instances predetermine the public’s identification with the politician as a ‘real’ person or someone to have a beer with. Master Signifier determines how the symbolic domain can be controlled.
Sharpe and Boucher (2010) suggest that Zizek in his critique of ideology argues master-signifiers of political ideologies are ‘empty signifiers’. The ideologies of Presidents and Politicians are so extraordinary, similar to that of people’s notion of God, that these cannot be fathomed by the layperson. They only make sense when other signifiers are ‘quilted’ together. The ideologies are beyond what’s fantasmatic to the public however, when the Politician on the pedestal is capable of mocking themselves, the gap between the people and the power gets a little narrow.
Self-mockery is closely associated with masochistic predispositions, where both the performer and the spectator partake in mutually. The performer finds enjoyment in denigrating him/herself and at the same time, the audience finds enjoyment or jouissancewhen going through the journey of manipulative comedy delivered by the performer. Both the performer and the audience act out a form of inhibited repression through the comic process of speaking and listening, presenting and watching. Here, masochistic jouissance derived is from acting out through shocking and transgressing the norm. The masochist always chooses pain to melt the external link of desire and pleasure. For Lacan, the pervert has had experience with the authority of the paternal metaphor however; they haven’t found a space for them to exist as a subject. The pervert does not deny reality but find him/herself in two varied mentalities. The paternal metaphor functions over the object rather than over a signifier. In the case of self-deprecating humour, the performer delivers their material through tactics of shock, which astonishes the spectator whilst continuously creating a new law or the “no factor” in comedy.
To conclude, it seems that self-deprecating humour, can be perceived as “sincerity with a motive”, as suggested by essayist Lewis Hyde (1986). It appears that although self-deprecation is an attractive form of humour that convinces the audience to feel pity towards the individual, the comedian or the politician, there exists an underlying concern that is set out to manipulate and trick the public successfully with the employment of psychoanalytic techniques. Self-referencing mockery has overstepped boundaries in humour by challenging the paternal metaphor in order to achieve jouissance and finding itself in an area in pop culture where it sits uncomfortably perverse yet attractive for the viewer when choosing what to watch or for the individual when choosing a mate.
