The Last Laugh (Part 2)

This became longer than anticipated, for which I appologise, however, I have included pictures and tea breaks along the way... skim reading is not advised.

I think that working with youth turns you towards wit - it is a sure way of generating respect. Most youths make very good use of their wit(s), and use them often upon suspecting or unsuspecting youth workers, and everyone else, to challenge, shock and show dominance. Wit works by making fun of people and knocking someone down a few pegs... If it is reciprocal then it is termed banter. If it is unreciprocal it may be labelled bullying.

Some people I know would say that wit is due to the "intellectual arrogance", and arises mainly in universities, especially Oxbridge. This is toss in my opinion - they've never worked in a factory or on a building site where, from my experience, banter is more prevalent than I ever saw in university. Yes the most famous 'Wits' are often posh intellectuals like Oscar Wilde or Stephen Fry. However, what about rap music, where battling, as exemplified by Eminem in 8Mile, is all about out-thinking and out-witting your opponent. What about Ant and Dec?(!)... hmm.

The truth is that wit is an integral part of our society (both high and low), from the X-factor, to The Weakest Link, to "Should have gone to Spec-Savers", to happy slapping; people are actively shamed. But where does it come from? - some say from insecurity or feelings of inferiority which causes people to try to push others down and elevate themselves. In some cases this is true, indeed Aristotle said that "wit is cultured insolence". However banter is a responsive process - if you give it you must be able to take it - which is far removed from ideas of personal elevation, and suggests both companionship and humility.

There is a third possible source of wit, stemming (as Dan aluded to in a comment on the previous post) from a morbid refusal of happiness. Cynicism and irony create a bitter humour, through which we laugh comparatively: if we are miserable, then the traumas and troubles of those around us can become funny either in a sadistic fashion (because we are not them, and we are glad their suffering is not ours) or in a masochistic fashion (because they are not us, and their suffering is incomparable to, and therefore less than, ours).

Indeed, while we term certain things tragi-comic, almost all comedy is basically tragic and that the reason for its comic value is the pity we feel. Charlie Chaplin (who I never realised did a film where he played his lookalike Hitler!), was described by Bertolt Brecht as embodying the pathos of the human condition - Chaplin films introduce a tragic figure e.g. the Tramp, who we then laugh at through their misfortunes, not out of spite but out of sympathetic pity (hopefully). Similarly, most comedy is composed of unfortunate characters, who we sympathise with because they are either stupid, innocent, incapable, abused or, ever more increasingly, because they are shamed.

Shame is the root of most negative self-concepts and dysfunctional roles. Tap into shame and you can destroy someone. While it used to be too risque, Hollywood comedy is embracing shame as an increasingly 'safe' source of laughs, e.g. Something about Mary, American Pie etc. These portrayals of shame are remarkably easily resolved by a bit of laughing, which is facile and crass. But is the comedy of shame necessarily a bad thing?

Anybody is capable of laughing at other people, but not many can laugh at themselves. Between people that can do both, there become fewer inhibitions and less 'sacred ground' - which can lead to openness and even accountability. There can be a social function to persiflage and verbal ribaldry! But the problem is that this can only happen if both parties realise this - it is certainly not everybodies' cup of tea. In fact wit can be extremely damaging if misunderstood or used inappropriately by second or third parties - "Wit is a dangerous weapon, even to the possessor, if he knows not how to use it discreetly" - Michel de Montaigne; "Wit without discretion is a sword in the hand of a fool" - Spanish proverb.

Not only should wit be used circumspectly, but also only as an enhancement, not as the basis of communication - "Wit is the salt of conversation, not the food" - William Hazlitt. Also, as Thomas Fuller observed "the more wit the less courage" - i.e. wit can replace real conversation and communion, but as such it is shallow and timid, removing the bravery needed for relationships.

Maybe Fuller knew this all too well about himself, as his friend Coleridge said in a eulogy: "Wit, was the stuff and substance of Fuller's intellect. It was the element, the earthen base, the material which he worked in; and this very circumstance has defrauded him of his due praise for the practical wisdom of the thoughts, for the beauty and variety of the truths, into which he shaped the stuff."

So wit can greatly bias peoples' view of you and what you say and do, and as such alters relationships, leading either to being ignored or even ridiculed. While wit, as described above may have some positive aspects, it can not only damage other people, but also disinherit and alienate the Wit him/herself. We are now left with the question "What is the role of wit in a constructive and forward looking society?" and even "Wit and Christianity: Discuss." Was Jesus witty?

The problem is that wit is a loose terminology, and can be taken to mean both positive and negative things depending upon your point of view and semantics. For me, I think the most constructive answer to the wit question comes from Lewis Carol:

"While the laughter of joy is in full harmony with our deeper life, the laughter of amusement should be kept apart from it. The danger is too great of thus learning to look at solemn things in a spirit of mockery and to seek in them opportunities for exercising wit."

"So Joe", you ask, or maybe even "So, Dr Joe", but this is not necessary, "why all this stuff about wit? What's the point, and what's the link between this and Part 1?"

Well, recently someone told me that I was 'quite witty'.

Given the thoughts, elucidated here-above, that were in my mind, it's no surprise that I found this slightly disturbing. I don't know if it was meant as a compliment or otherwise, but I didn't take it as one, rather as an indictment...

This is where I shall end Part 2; on a knife edge! Find out where I am going with this in Parts 3 and 4, for which there is still plenty think-writing to do. Tune in next week...