Hey rambot, sorry for the late response, too. In the discussion about effective communication with JW I almost missed your post.
Since I really do not have a sufficiently accurate idea of your performance and the circumstances, allow me to just adress the more general aspects and questions.
1) In general you ARE right: Humour (generally speaking) seems to necessitate someone being subverted or insult.
I don´t think so. It is the prerequisite of certain forms of humour, though, and certainly the prerequisite of the genre of your performance.
But the MORE question becomes: Why is humour funny? Why do humans think it is funny to make someone look fool (or some other derogatory descriptor)? Perhaps that's for another thread.
Well, these are indeed interesting questions, and they require a deep look into the psyche of humans in general and that of each individuum in particular.
Just some random thoughts (far from a conclusive analysis). I think there are basically two approaches:
1. is the antagonizing approach, which is intended to make a certain person or group look bad (I am also inclined to think that this approach - just like every aggressive appraoch - indicates the helplessness of the acting, his unability to deal constructively with conflicts).
2. The opposite attitude: Meant to socialize, to promote understanding. Accompanied or even driven by the underlying idea that "This could have happened to me, too (I´m glad that this time it wasn´t me who embarrassed himself, and I thank you for taking this part." or "You and I are so different. Ironically that is something we have in common."
Let´s also not forget that standing on a stage gives a performer a power that the adressed person does not have to his disposal if they are "ordinary joes". Plus, they have no opportunity to respond directly.
In fact, these genres like satire, parody, travesty have their roots in subversion, they traditionally were used as the only way of the powerless to critize and hit those in power, a means of gaining just a little power over them. Thus, satire (if working from attitude 1) is an upward-thing, downward-satire is merely obscene.
Back to the two approaches/motivations. It´s safe to assume that in most cases it´s a mixture of the two. But let´s, for the sake of the simplicity of explanation, keep looking at them as separable and separated.
There is a problem. Both approaches make use of the similar means and methods. Thus, the receiving person cannot clearly or objectively tell which it is. If assuming the performer to be driven by attitude2, the audience will - independently of the subject, substance and accuracy of the critique, will simply feel offended to be adressed in this attitude. Add to that the different threshold and inclination of different persons to take offence, his/her insecurity, his her own helplessness with the given situation, add to that the omnipresent phenomena of projection and counterprojection, and you get a whole mess of misunderstandings and confusion.
This is an inherent problem of these humour-genres, and everyone who engages in them would do well in being aware of it. That´s why we observe performers who want to make sure they are understood as working from attitude A making fools of themselves as one regular part of their program. It communicates: I am not targeting you or you or singling you out - I find our collective foolishness amusing.
(Although I spoke of performer and audience for clarity´s sake, all this goes for private situations, accordingly).
I think that "ridiculed" could be considered too strong a word as it doesn't always have to do with something being ridiculed (at least not specifically).
In our case, our directors and writers came to the front and described the show as "taking the p155" out of Korea: Strangely, their description of that phrase is FAR different from what the internet definition seems to be.
Again: I didn´t mean to say anything about your case in particular - I simply can´t from the distance.
And, yes, "ridiculing" was a simplification and exaggeration. I hope my above rant has added a more precise view.
Please also keep in mind that I am not a native English speaker, and sometimes fail to find the best word available in your language for what I mean to say. In lack of a better option I often end up with a less than optimal wording (adding a connotation I actually didn´t mean to imply), hoping that I might be understood nonetheless. I know that that asks quite some patience from my conversation partners. I appreciate it!
2) I think you're right: There must be SOME truth to it, otherwise it would not be relevant at ALL. And how could something be funny if there is no victim to the joke?
If EVERYONE can see that and KNOWS that we are playing in foolish and stupid stereotypes; if everyone knows that gross exaggerations are paradies of themselves, why does it stil remain offensive? How is it that the improbably unrealistic becomes offensive?
I guess, often because the "targeted" person does not even accept the idea to have a tad of the trait that has been pictured in an exaggerated manner.
In addition to the above said: A very common situation between two persons: Person A is frustrated with the behaviour of person B for a long time, but bites his tongue (for whatever reason). One day person A finds himself criticized by person B, and immediately the oppressed anger develops his full power (as oppressed emotions tend to do sooner or later anyway): "How dare B (whose permanent provocations I have been silently suffering from for so long) to criticize me in return (and for a comparably small or non-existent issue on top)?
"
You get the idea.
We humans
are funny, we
do have funny ways of dealing with others and ourselves, and our communication (even if we try to do our best) is a complete and complex mess.
That´s why I don´t think of the whole topic as being a moral/ethical question. You cannot put up rules for that which so strongly depends on the individual perception of different humans and the necessarily noisy communication that is to our disposal.
3) DARn Tootin! I still appreciate what you say though. Other people in the play have outright said, "I wasn't offended by it at all. I think it was fine". Moral relativism and all. It does seem weird to me that people didn't find it the LEAST BIT offensive.
oh well.
Moral relativism? Come on.
Despite the fact that people often make use of moral statements in such situations, I think it´s safe to assume that they are actually merely trying to express their personal frustration, emotions, disappointments and fears, and I am inclined to take these statements as such.
Greetings
quatona
CENSORED !!
Sir).
assist !!
