Why I Do Not Accept The Concept Of "Punching Up/Down" In Comedy
An inflammatory screed for you
Note: in saying this, I’m not saying…hm. Actually, no. Instead of my qualifying my every statement with “I’m not saying”, “None of this is to say” or “This doesn’t mean”, how about this: whatever I say in this article, I mean, and anything I don’t say in this article, I don’t mean. Stick to that and we’ll be fine.
The up/down framing attempts to impose objectivity on an inherently subjective enterprise. Comedy, like all art, is subjective. Whether something is good or bad can only ever be a matter of opinion. The “punching” formula is designed to deny this reality and make judgments objective and thereby inarguable. Once it has been declared that a show, routine or joke is “punching down”, that view is taken as established fact and anyone who disagrees therefore must be not simply of a different view, but factually incorrect.
It is used to render disagreement a moral failing. Because, as above, the framework is meant to turn a subjective judgment into an objective one, that means that no disagreement can ever be considered reasonable. Therefore, anyone who opines that a “punching down” joke is good must be doing so because they LIKE punching down, ie they are pro-oppression. So we end up with moral condemnation of people for laughing at jokes.
It attempts to generate a strict hierarchy out of a world that is far too fragmented and disorganised for such a hierarchy to be reasonable. The whole idea behind “punching up and down” is that people are separated into certain groups. Each group is granted permission to make jokes about members of some groups, but not about members of some other groups. But nobody is a member of just one group. People are not just a race, a gender, a sexuality or a class: they are a combination of myriad different identities and demanding that a member of one identity category not make fun of another, supposedly “less-privileged” identity category ignores the fact that the first person might ALSO belong to a “less'-privileged” category…and indeed the second to a “more-privileged” one. How does one determine if a rich gay black man is allowed to make fun of a poor straight Asian woman? But more pertinently: what is the earthly POINT of trying to determine it?
It denies our capacity to make up our own minds on a case-by-case basis whether a given joke is good or bad. In the normal course of things, we hear a joke and we laugh or we don’t. If we decide to engage in further analysis, we might give an opinion on whether the joke is original or unoriginal, tasteful or tasteless, offensive or inoffensive, and a whole range of other assessments possible to make about humour. Under the “punching” system, we don’t make up our minds about each joke on an individual basis: rather we simply separate every joke into one of two categories and the category it’s separated into is the sole basis for judgment. In other words, comedy is not to be judged on content, but on classification.
It assumes that making jokes about people is always equivalent to attacking them. Joking about people, or about groups of people, is not always - or even most of the time - an aggressive act. It is entirely possible to make fun of other people for reasons other than abusing or humiliating them. If you adhere to the “punching” philosophy, though, it’s not. Because to joke about someone is to “punch” them.
It makes comedy divide when it should unite. Comedy is frequently a means for bringing people together by highlighting the universal absurdity of humanity. Even when it’s not, the act of laughing together is a powerful uniting force. Except when you see jokes in terms of “punching up and down”, because then comedy becomes a battlefield, where the important thing isn’t what we have in common, or what we find funny, it’s whether we are on the right side or not.
It is a false dichotomy. The idea is we must always punch up, never down, and everything is then seen through that lens. Deciding whether a certain joke punches up or down leads to tunnel vision: the possibility that it actually “punches” sideways, or backwards, or in multiple directions at once, is eliminated.
It is based on a non sequitur. “You have more power than them, so you shouldn’t make jokes about them”. Who says? Why not? Be honest: you just made that up. Certainly, when compared to “don’t be a jerk”, it is both more pretentious and less compelling as a guide to behaviour.
It is death to intelligent analysis of comedy. Once it is decided that the direction of punch is above all other considerations, sophisticated, intelligent, entertaining assessments or criticism become impossible. Only one question needs answering, and once it’s answered, why bother with anything else? The number of reviews of comedies that don’t even mention whether they’re funny or not is a red flag.
It sucks the fun out of it all. Comedy is meant to be enjoyed, to bring relief or from the sadness and pain of the world. Even angry, politically-charged comedy serves as a consolation and a reassurance to its audience. Under the punching formula, we are not entreated to enjoy our comedy, but to decide whether it is righteous or sinful. The more we do it, the less we actually appreciate the art being placed before us.
It is not generally adhered to anyway, even by its most fervent proponents. The fact is, nobody really believes they should never “punch down”, as demonstrated by the breezy eagerness that even the most zealous proclaimer of the “punching” dichotomy displays when making jokes about people less affluent or educated than they are. As a rule, people invoke the strictness of the punching up/down rule not because they believe in it, but because it suits them to claim their pet peeve isn’t a personal preference but an iron law of comedy.
It’s super annoying.