Alexis Boyer

Contribution Essay

Nathan Pensky

4/12/24

1737 Words

The Impact of Comedy: Harmful or Healing?

Abstract

Comedy has been an entertainment form enjoyed by society for thousands of years, with

roots dating back to 5 B.C. in Ancient Greece. However, recently this form of entertainment is

under attack by those questioning the allowance of comedy that crosses a moral boundary. Two

interesting sides emerge as to whether comedy acts as a catalyst to aid or to offend an audience. I

address a scandalous comedy routine from comedian Louis C.K. on child molestation as an

example of how immoral comedy can elicit mixed reactions. I argue that either way an audience

can not completely separate comedy from its moral components, especially if they share an

experience addressed in said comedy. I use articles from Carroll and Smuts to reach this

moralistic conclusion, addressing Dean/Anderson as an autonomist counterargument. I explore a

study done by Ken Corbett on the relationship between comedy and mental healing. As comedy

is increasingly under scrutiny, exploration of the potential effects on mental health is a positive

asset to this discussion. These conclusions of comedy’s effects can reinforce it as a therapeutic

technique for some and as an offensive trigger for others, but either way develops an

ineliminable intersection between comedy and emotions.

In May of 2015, the famous comedian Louis C.K. kicked off his Saturday Night Live

performance with jokes about his “mild racism” and war in the Middle East, garnering hefty

laughs from the audience. He shortly delves into the morally questionable topic of child

molestation, boldly claiming that it must be “really good”. Despite his comedy being centered on

controversial topics for the past 5 minutes before that, this was the first joke he made that evoked

a mixture of gasps and both uncomfortable and genuine laughs. These moments in questionable

comedy routines that elicit mixed reactions depict that these jokes can impact audience members

differently and comedy leaning towards emotionally charged subjects can be helpful for some

and harmful to others who have undergone the experiences these jokes address. This aspect of

audience demographics who fit into these categories are not explicitly addressed by any of the

authors who explore the debate of moralism vs autonomism. However, this relationship I submit

between emotions and comedy can be connected to the moralist ideas of Noel Carroll and Aaron

Smuts, while Dean/Anderson’s view of moderate autonomism presents itself as a

counterargument based on the separation of the two. As we start to progress forward as a society

in the realm of mental health, exploring this question of whether comedy can act as an agent of

help or hurt is important.

Moralist Approach to the Comedy/Audience Relationship

When it comes to how an audience receives comedy, I do not think it is possible for

emotions to remain completely adjacent to their enjoyment. This view is supported by Noel

Carroll’s ideas of moderate moralism and Aaron Smuts’s ideas of comic moralism. Firstly, as one

of his claims under moderate moralism, Carroll states that “...there are many kinds of
artworks…that naturally elicit moral responses, that prompt talk about themselves in terms of

moral considerations, and even warrant moral evaluation” (Carroll, 5). Comedy that touches on

morally compromised jokes (such as Louis C.K.'s child molestation routine) it is almost

impossible to see it from a purely objective view. This emotional aspect seeping through is

represented by the immediate reactions from the audience – it is apparent that the room became

tense after this questionable joke and a large majority laughed uncomfortably or not at all.

Moments like these are representative of how crossing moral boundaries that an audience can not

align themselves with emotionally will impact their perception of comedy, further reiterating this

intersection. As for Smuts, an aspect of his idea of comic moralism is that “Typically, moral

virtues enhance amusement, and moral flaws detract” (Smuts, 3). This quote showcases how

moral flaws impact comedy, but more importantly that moral flaws impact comedy, reiterating

the connection between the audience’s emotions and the comedy at hand.

Addressing Dean/Anderson’s Autonomist Counterargument

On the other hand, Dean/Anderson offer an idea that less supports the intersection

between the audience’s aesthetic perception of the comedy and its morality – a view they call

moderate autonomism. They declare, “We will be arguing that while ethical criticism of works of

art is a legitimate activity, neither Gaut nor Carroll have succeeded in showing that the

endorsement of an ethically reprehensible attitude entails that a work is in any sense aesthetically

flawed” (Dean/Anderson, 3). Although they do acknowledge that it is fair to assess art ethically,

their counter comes in when they claim that moral questionability of a work does not contribute

to a detraction of its aesthetic qualities. I feel that the aforementioned case of Louis C.K.’s

routine has disproved this, as it is just one case where the infringement upon a moral line of
“correctness” that cost the comedian some of the audience’s enjoyment. I think, along with

Carroll and Gaut, that when an artist/comedian is asking an audience to stray too far from their

moral compass so much so that they are unable to outwardly enjoy the content, that counts as an

aesthetic flaw by composition.

Comedy as Harmful: My Perspective Between the Two

To zoom out, I do find myself taking the more moderate side of moralism, so I can understand

that not all works are fit to be evaluated this way. However, when it comes to a comedy routine

that touches on topics such as the war in the Middle East that is resulting in tens of thousands of

displacements and deaths and child molestation being referred to as “really good”, an audience

has no choice but to consider it ethically. Also, this is not just common for Louis C.K.’s routines;

other comedians such as Matt Rife and Amy Schumer are under fire for joking about sensitive

topics such as normalizing domestic abuse and racist tweets about Hispanic men, respectively. In

the past, comedy was normalized as a sort of “safe place” for jokes like these that cross the line

to thrive. However, as mental health, racism, sexism, ignorance, old controversial tweets/jokes,

etc. bubble to the surface when what is referred to as cancel culture is on the rise, questions come

up as to how we should treat the realm of comedy in comparison to reality. Attempting to answer

these questions, I find myself aligning more closely with moralist viewpoints. To summarize, this

conclusion is because I do not think it is possible to appreciate these types of jokes for their

“humor” if you have a bad experience to associate with the topic being joked about. I also

disagree with Dean/Anderson’s view on the lack of causation between the moral and aesthetic

defects, so I do not think we should treat comedy routines as a free for all to say anything on the

basis of “it’s just a joke!” However, I do recognize that some jokes can be immoral and funny at
the same time. I am not as concerned with what the relationship between the audience's

emotional viewpoint and the topics being joked about consists of, but more that there is usually

an interminable relationship between the two.

Comedy as Helpful: Exploring Ken Corbett’s Analysis

To introduce a new perspective on this relationship, Ken Corbett explores comedy as a

therapeutic technique for people who have undergone a life of hardship. He introduces his

technique as summarizing how “Comedy expands and often creates relational space, frequently

cracking into the neurotic’s long-held isolation” (Corbett, 2). He goes on to explain how

unearthing and working through trauma is typically thought of as a rigid experience overcome

with tragedy and resistance. However, comedy provides a sense of community and a less tense

outlet to lift this pressure. More specifically, Corbett specifies how he and Mr. B, the man this

study was done with, built a rapport significantly through laughing together. Although not the

traditional setting for the type of comedy we picture, Corbett would make a clumsy move in his

office during a meeting with Mr. B, being the only spark of sparse moments of laughter and

amusement for him. He began to take note of how these were the times his patient felt the least

resistant to opening up about his turmoil and shared how these moments translated into his life’s

hardship:

“His was a life without intimates and friends, and he had lived much of it outside of

mutual recognition and the embodied pleasure that it can bring. These thoughts and

feelings sometimes led to reflections on the neglect that characterized his childhood. At

other times these comedic turns led Mr. B to contemplate how little he had laughed in his
 life, how infrequently he had felt the pull of play with another, and how odd and even a

bit frightening it felt to surrender to this newfound pleasure” (Corbett, 7).

Corbett acknowledges these ways of thinking as those of Mr. B’s past, and years later Mr. B now

reflects on these moments of laughter and subsequent vulnerability as what ultimately broke

down the barrier blocking him from trusting Corbett. Corbett specifies this process as “...laughter

and comedy served to crack up secondary processes and crack into primal density, which in turn

lubricated the gears of relational reverie” (Corbett, 10). In other words, the relationship between

comedy and healing is not cut and dry in a sense of one laughing through jokes about their

traumas. It instead serves as a primal guiding hand for raw trust and vulnerability to explore what

is behind one’s blemished mental environment.

Conclusion

Formerly, comedy used to be a space where morally questionable jokes were not only

welcomed, but encouraged due to a mental separation of comedy and real life. As we explore this

realm in current times, this notion of autonomism is falling apart. The question of whether we

should prioritize the avoidance of triggering people through comedy or let immoral jokes be

funny without consequences will always be debated. However, whatever one’s perspective may

be, it is important to recognize that the relationship between comedy and our moral implications

will always be there. Through acknowledging this, comedy can be explored no longer as an

agent of harm, but instead one of healing.