How Does Context Shape Comedy as a Successful Social Criticism as Demonstrated by Eddie Murphyâ•Žs SNL Sketch â•œWhite Like Me?â•š

The University of Maine The University of Maine

DigitalCommons@UMaine DigitalCommons@UMaine

Honors College

5-2012

How Does Context Shape Comedy as a Successful Social How Does Context Shape Comedy as a Successful Social

Criticism as Demonstrated by Eddie Murphy’s SNL Sketch “White Criticism as Demonstrated by Eddie Murphy’s SNL Sketch “White

Like Me?” Like Me?”

Abigail Jones

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors

Part of the Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Ethnicity in Communication Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Jones, Abigail, "How Does Context Shape Comedy as a Successful Social Criticism as Demonstrated by

Eddie Murphy’s SNL Sketch “White Like Me?”" (2012).

Honors College

. 58.

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors/58

This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted

for inclusion in Honors College by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information,

please contact um.library.technical.ser[email protected].

HOW DOES CONTEXT SHAPE COMEDY AS A SUCCESSFUL SOCIAL

CRITICISM AS DEMONSTRATED BY EDDIE MURPHY’S SNL

SKETCH “WHITE LIKE ME?”

by Abigail Jones

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for a Degree with Honors

(Communications)

The Honors College

University of Maine

May 2012

Advisory Committee:

Nathan E. Stormer, Professor of Communication, Advisor

Kristin M. Langellier, Professor of Communication

Sandra Hardy, Associate Professor of Theater

Mimi Killinger, Honors College Rezendes Preceptor for the Arts

Adam Kuykendall, Marketing Manager for the School of Performing Arts

Abstract

This thesis explores the theory of comedy as social criticism through an

interpretive investigation. For comedy to be a potent criticism it is important for the

audience to understand the context surrounding the sketch. Without understanding the

context the sketch still has the ability to be humorous, but the critique is harder to

acknowledge. “White Like Me” as performed by Eddie Murphy on Saturday Night Live

will be used as an example for understanding the social criticisms presented in the sketch.

This will be descriptively analyzed by dissecting the three major jokes shown and then, to

conclude the thesis, there will be a discussion of the dangers of not understanding context

in comedy.

iii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................1

Method ........................................................................................................................6

Comedy as a Social Criticism .......................................................................................7

Defining Social Criticism .............................................................................................7

Defining Context..........................................................................................................8

Chapter 2: Over Explaining Comedy (Until There is None Left) .................................... 13

Tragedy vs. Comedy .................................................................................................. 14

The Comedic Triangle................................................................................................ 15

Context ...................................................................................................................... 25

Social Criticism ......................................................................................................... 30

Chapter 3: “White Like Me” .......................................................................................... 33

Chapter 4: The Results of Comedic Social Criticism ...................................................... 42

African American Comedy......................................................................................... 44

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 47

References ..................................................................................................................... 50

Author’s Bibliography ................................................................................................... 53

Chapter 1: Introduction

How does context shape comedy as a successful social criticism as demonstrated by

Eddie Murphy’s SNL sketch “White Like Me?”

This thesis argues that for comedy to be a social criticism it must rely on context

to form a successful critique. Comedy is an ambiguous art form based on double

meanings and irony, and to be able to recognize those underlying implications the context

of the situation must be understood. In the theory of comedy, there is a gap in the

research regarding the necessity of context. Much of the literature I read on the subject

included an explanation of how comedy is created and how performance and timing is

used in a sketch. What the theories lack is the attention to the use of context and to the

importance of modern culture. I will focus on the importance of contemporary culture in

comedy and support my argument through analysis of an example of comedy as social

criticism.

The sketch I have chosen for my comedic analysis is Eddie Murphy’s Saturday

Night Live sketch “White Like Me.” In the beginning of the sketch Murphy breaks the

fourth wall and talks to the audience about the racial problems of 1980’s America. To

see if the rumors are true about the split Americas, Murphy goes undercover as a white

man to see if he is treated differently. As he goes through the transformation from black

to white, Murphy learns how to act as a white man by studying Dynasty and Hallmark

cards. He concludes that to be a white man he must enunciate his syllables and walk as

though he is clenching his butt cheeks. The next scene shows Murphy walking around

the corner with white skin and clenched cheeks. His first stop is a convenience store

where he buys a newspaper. His encounter with the cashier concludes with Murphy

leaving with a free newspaper because he is white.

Murphy then proceeds with his journey through white America on a public bus.

The bus is filled with white people and one African American man. Once the African

American man leaves the bus, the white citizens begin to party. Waitresses pull off their

clothing to reveal work uniforms and start serving drinks. Couples start dancing and

people start mingling. Murphy has never seen this before because he has always been on

the opposite side of white privileged society. Murphy does not realize the divide was

such a problem. Finally, he decides to test the differences between the races one last

time; he applies for a loan. He goes in to the bank under the alias of Mr. White, and he

has no collateral and no identification. The banker who started assessing the application

was African American. He began to deny him the loan when his white boss walked in

and sent the banker on a break. Afterward, the boss takes out a suitcase of money and

tells Murphy that he does not need to pay the bank back. The sketch concludes with

Murphy telling the audience to be careful when they meet a white person because he or

she might be an African American in disguise, and the camera scans a make-up room

filled with African Americans getting transformed.

What drew my attention to the sketch “White Like Me,” compared to the other

comedic sketches in SNL, was its humorous but critical view on racism in America. The

issue of race in America has historically been a sensitive topic. The sketch still holds

significance because of the ongoing struggle between the different races. When I was

younger I remember watching this sketch and thinking it was quite funny because Eddie

Murphy dressed up and acted like a white man, which was the opposite of his usual

characters. I did not realize the message Murphy was trying to send about the racism in

the United States. Yet, seeing the sketch now I realize how much social criticism is

projected through this sketch. I have come to understand the historical significance and

the potent issues this sketch is presenting. Yet, without this knowledge, I would still

perceive the sketch as funny because of the contradictions it introduces. Without the

knowledge of the context surrounding the sketch, the sketch loses its ability to criticize

society. This sketch is a great example to use in my thesis because it shows the

importance of context for comedy to enact social criticism.

I was particularly interested in the sketches of Saturday Night Live (SNL) because

of their intimate closeness with the audience and the current culture. SNL is truly live,

which makes the show unique compared to all other comedy shows in this era. SNL has

the ability to receive live reactions from the audience and to incorporate highly current

events within its comedy, such as Tina Fey imitating Sarah Palin during the 2008

elections. One of the reasons why those sketches are so popular is because the audience

is able to watch the news and literally that night see a parody of that day’s events on

SNL. The audience reaction to the contemporary material is useful in determining what

topics are considered comedic. SNL has survived 36 years of television, and throughout

those years the comedy has reflected national crises and attitudes of the times. The start

of SNL was attributed to Johnny Carson’s want for more vacation time. Before the

creation of SNL, the network NBC was showing reruns of Johnny Carson on Saturday

nights to fill in the empty time-slot. Carson complained that he wanted those reruns to be

played during the week so he did not have to work as much. So NBC put out a call for

young directors to create a comedic show. Essentially SNL was created as a “throw-

away” show. Yet, with Lorne Michaels as the director, SNL became a legacy by

successfully appealing to their target audience (Shales & Miller, 2002).

SNL is an excellent resource to use to research comedy as social criticism because

of the risks that the show takes. In fact, because of those risks the show has experienced

many dips in popularity and many skits have flopped. Different arguments can be made

as to why sketches fail but, given the argument of this thesis, I believe that many of the

sketches did not make proper use of context to connect with the audience. Many of the

sketches were created from the surrounding environment of the news and media. Some

of SNL’s most famous skits involved political figures, celebrities, or crises. These

subjects provided a plethora of material to work with because the media exacerbates

scandals and exploits people nationwide. SNL pushed the envelope of televised comedy

because of its constant, and sometimes created very pointed criticism of pop culture.

However, many of the sketches were not fully comprehended by the audience because the

pop culture references were not current. For example, the parodies of older public figures

do not work as well a criticism of current political figures. The context of the sketch is

lost because they lacked currency. But, since SNL has survived over several decades,

this allows us to see how successful the criticisms were and whether it has inspired a

change in the current society.

As a form of communication, comedy is common to all societies yet, until

recently, many scholars did not find it necessary to research the phenomenon. People

often believe that comedy’s significance goes no deeper than the surface of its jokes.

Aristotle barely mentioned comedy within his Poetics and many educated minds have

underestimated its importance. Although Aristotle really only focused with tragedy in his

Poetics, there are some rumors of a lost third book that examined the comedic aspects of

theater (Levin, 1987). Even if this was the case, a more thorough study of comedy is only

a recent development. One reason why people may think that comedy is not a serious art

form is because it invokes laughter, which is almost proof that the subject is not serious.

People may laugh at something, but they do not necessarily need to know the whole

meaning behind the situation to do so. Laughter comforts people and, therefore, tricks

them into believing that there is nothing serious within the comedy. One aspect of

comedy’s social function is its relation to critique and, therefore, I believe researching the

critical functions of comedy is important given the pervasiveness of comedy within the

arts.

This thesis will investigate comedy as a form of social criticism and particularly

the importance of context in producing social criticisms through comedy. Criticizing

social norms is a useful tool for creating change, especially for challenging the disfavored

norms and the beliefs they manifest. Although history is usually written by the powerful,

the non-dominant culture often writes comedy. Comedy has been an important means of

surviving, even contesting, oppression; in order to survive, the non-dominant voice had to

subtly implant the criticism without being noticed. “This is why festive folk laughter

presents an element of victory not only over supernatural awe, over the sacred, over death

it also means the defeat of power, of earthly kings, of the earthly upper classes, of all that

oppresses (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 92). To understand these subtleties the audience must

understand the surrounding context of the culture. For comedy to be useful as a social

criticism there has to be an acknowledgment of the culture itself, both by the comedian

and the audience. The audience has to be conscious of the social and historical references

in comedy to appreciate the criticism along with the humor.

My investigation is interpretive and exploratory rather than historical or social

scientific. I work with a single example, an Eddie Murphy sketch form SNL, to illustrate

a general understanding of comedy. I use an exploratory and interpretive approach

because this thesis is meant to argue a question, not to give a final answer. As such, the

research is based on describing examples of human and cultural behavior rather than

using quantitative approaches to predict their behavior. This thesis is meant to explore

the different possible views people may have on comedy according to their knowledge

and experience of society. Comedy is supposed to be ambiguous and therefore an

interpretive approach, unlike a social scientific one, would not limit the analytical

possibilities by presupposing a set of stable categories to determine meaning instead of

analyzing the range of potential meanings (Martin & Nakayama, 2009).

Method

I will present my claim about comedy as a social criticism through descriptive

analysis and interpretation of a specific comedic sketch. First, I will set forth a

conceptual explanation of comedy as social criticism and the importance of context both

for humor and for critique. Comedy can be a powerful form of critique if it focuses on

the ideological assumptions and the failures of society. Behind the concept of social

criticism is the thought of justice (Polimeni & Reiss, 2006). Social criticism challenges

societal stereotypes and addresses failures in the hope of helping to fix social injustices.

To understand comedy in terms of social criticism, the audience must understand the

references to events, people, and values made by the comedian and the causes of the

failures it satirizes. If the audience understands the motivation behind the jokes they will

be able to understand the criticism made of society and, hopefully, more effectively seek

justice. Then, the comic has successfully recruited social critics. “The comic can appear

as a lawless element for subverting staid contentions or serve as a leveling force against

hierarchy bonds, but it also can generate new ones” (Willett, 2008, pg. 5).

Second, I will conduct a close reading of “White Like Me” in which I perform a

descriptive analysis of the key elements of the sketch. I will address the type of language

that is used, the juxtaposition of the jokes, and the relationships between the characters.

After the descriptive analysis I will interpret the sketch in light of the historical context

relevant to the key elements of the sketch. These will include brief, illustrative histories

and interpretations of “black face,” segregation, and redlining. I will explain the way that

context makes the sketch funny and gives it critical bite. For example, it might be

ridiculous to see an African American painted up with a white face, but when one stops

and thinks of the historical relevance behind the act of covering up one’s skin to

experience equality, it is a sobering acknowledgement to how racially divided America

is. Finally I will specifically look at racial humor in the United States and talk about the

progress that it has made as a social criticism.

Comedy as a Social Criticism

Defining Social Criticism

Social criticism has been defined and developed in many different ways, but in

this thesis it will be understood as a way to seek justice within an oppressive society.

Kenneth Baynes (1992) quotes John Rawls’ definition of society as “the way in which

major social institutions fit together into one system, and how they assign fundamental

rights and duties and shape the division of advantages that arises though social

cooperation” (p. 162). Social criticism arises when the fundamental rights and duties are

not equitable within a society. Comedy is a vehicle for subtly (or not so subtly)

addressing these injustices by mocking the social norms in the hope of slowly changing

the masses beliefs about the inequalities.

“To our knowledge, no culture exists that is unfamiliar with humor” (Polimeni &

Reiss, 2006, p. 348). From the jesters in ancient Greece to the political humor in South

Park, comedy is an ancient activity that fulfills many social functions. However, I

believe the most important function is its ability to criticize. If comedy is observed from a

shallow point of view, it is easy to believe that comedy is a useless form of art. Yet a

closer look at comedy reveals a rich store of underlying significance. Without a critical

function comedy loses its voice and then it does seem like nothing more than a bunch of

“crotch shots” and “fart jokes.” Understanding that social criticism fuels comedy casts

comedy as a rather dangerous form of protest that needs more attention.

Defining Context

For comedy to have a critical edge it must trade on double meanings, hence the

key to understanding the social criticism behind comedy must be context. Context will

be equated with experience, in the sense of knowledge gathered and awareness of

surroundings. Raymond Williams (2005) defined experience in Keywords as “(i)

knowledge gathered from past events whether by conscious observation or by

consideration and reflection; and (ii) a particular kind of consciousness, which can in

some contexts be distinguished from reason or knowledge” (p. 126). I will deal mainly

with the first definition in this thesis, but in accordance to Williams’ definition, I will also

add “unconscious observation” when talking about context. This is important because

living in a society means constant immersion in culture, so we must have unconscious

experiences that form our way of looking at the world. Comedy works basically as a

reading of culture.

Hence, the more we look about us, the greater becomes our belief that the

“planned incongruity” in the concept of the ‘socialization of losses’ gets us pretty

close to the heart of things. The formula seems basic for purposes of “putting

things together,” by establishing modes of convertibility between economic,

religious, and esthetic vocabularies. (Burke, 1964, p. 98-99)

Therefore, context is important for comedy because without it, the meaning behind

comedy would not have any grounding. This thesis will use historical analysis to help

explain the jokes in Murphy’s sketch, but the purpose is not to tell the history behind the

jokes. By stating the context surrounding the sketch, the richness of his criticism made

will be clearer.

This thesis has three main chapters. The first chapter will address why a topic

that could be taken as offensive can be seen as comedic. This chapter will include a

history and explanation about the theory of comedy. Also, in this chapter I will explain

why context is so important to humor. There are many factors that contribute to a

“theory of comedy” to consider, and context is not the only aspect necessary for

producing laughter. Most people have heard the phrase “comedic timing,” which many

experts say is the most important rule for comedy. Yet partnered with timing is the

argument that performance means everything. But still, there cannot be a successful

performance without successful writing, which includes sub-categories such as character,

plot, and technical devices (Levin, 1987). All these parts contribute to a successful

comedic sketch, but nothing guarantees a response of laughter. This thesis will argue that

context is the glue that holds all these parts together. I do not claim that context is the

“rosetta stone” of comedy because misunderstanding is always possible. Yet context is

the key to understanding the joke and the social criticisms that are presented by a

performance. Context needs good timing in the performer and understanding in the

audience and, therefore, logically context connects to all the other factors required of

comedy.

The second chapter is a descriptive analysis of “White Like Me.” In this chapter,

I will explain the three criticisms that Eddie Murphy presents as jokes in the sketch. The

overall joke that Murphy asserts in the sketch is the subject of “white face.” Eddie

Murphy was, and still is, known for his race humor and in this sketch he is made up to

look like a white male who walks around New York City experiencing life through a

white man’s eyes. On his journey, he discovers that if you are white, other white people

secretly give you everything for free; for example, when he walked in a newspaper shop

the white store clerk whispered to him, “There’s no one around. Go ahead take it, take

it.” As the sketch unfolds the audience is exposed to other stereotypical African

American references that acknowledge the divide between the black and white America.

The references evoke many notoriously racist acts that have marked U.S. history, such as

references to African Americans being denied access to buses and the inability for an

African American to receive a loan.

Context is not understood to have the same meaning to every person; in fact,

context is quite personal and individualized. This is an important factor that explains

why comedy is difficult to produce. The context in which “White Like Me” was set does

not deal only with the events of 1985 or even the decade of the 1980’s. In fact, the

context in which this sketch is situated is centuries long. For example, the topic of black

face/white face was very popular during the late 19

century, carrying over into the early

century. Black face got its start because the white society did not allow African

Americans right to perform, yet white Americans still looked at them as a source of

humor. The comedy of most traveling minstrel shows’ involved mocking and exploiting

the black slave. Since real African Americans were not allowed to be performers, the

actors of the minstrel group would paint their face black and pantomime exaggerated

versions of imagined slave behavior. White audiences enjoyed the comedy but soon they

desired a more authentic representation of a black slave, although they still wanted to

laugh at their ignorance (Banjo, 2011).

Some African Americans aspired to become actors and when they were given a

chance to act as an “authentic black person” they had a tough decision to make. Should

the ambitious African American performers take the offer and risk being scrutinized by

their own race or should they rebel against what the dominant race wanted and risk not

being able to pursue their dream? Most African American performers battled with these

two opposing sides, yet secretly they were able to make their own social critique within

their performance for the oppressing audience (Krasner, 1997). These accomplishments

will be discussed in later chapters.

Despite African American struggles, the image of the “coon” has still survived as

a stereotype. This image, created by and for dominant white culture, has led to many

other stereotypes of African Americans in modern America. Murphy touches upon these

issues in his sketch. For instance, he touches upon segregation, alluding to historical

events regarding the segregation on public buses. Finally, his last criticism references the

discrimination African Americans receive in contemporary America. The criticism that

Murphy makes is that, even though slavery is over and formal segregation a thing of the

past, there is still an informal, even unconscious segregation of whites from blacks, and

whites are still oppressing blacks in many ways.

Finally, after discussing the components of comedy, the third chapter will address

the justification for studying comedy and context. Context references the state of the

culture and its views on different issues. It will show how the jokes could be meaningful

today. The justification for this thesis is that comedy is truly a social criticism. The

study of comedy, and the context surrounding it, reflects on broader attitudes toward

societal conflicts. Comedy is usually the voice of nondominant class speaking out

against the superior class, and if people listen to that voice, then change is possible, for

better or for worse.

Chapter 2: Over Explaining Comedy (Until There is None Left)

Before you move on with this thesis you are warned that after you read this

section, comedy will be over-explained until it is not funny anymore. The basics of

comedy must be understood in order to recognize the deeper criticisms it can make.

According to Polimenti and Reiss (2006) there are three basic rules to comedy.

Three essential themes, however, are repeatedly observed in the majority of

humor theories: 1) humor reflects a set of incongruous conceptualizations, 2)

humor involves repressed sexual or aggressive feelings, and 3) humor elevates

social status by demonstrating superiority or saving face. (p. 348)

Much comedy is based on incongruities, such as Eddie Murphy changing the color of his

skin. Yet the theme that is essential for comedy to become a social criticism is the

statement that says humor “involves repressed sexual or aggressive feelings.” This

theory shows that comedy is more serious than often believed, and that the comic is

expressing repressed feelings in order to change something about the current society, or

at least to register his or her desire.

Tragedy vs. Comedy

Instead of classifying tragedy and comedy as two separate identities it is easier to

think that they are two separate leaves, or as Aristotle says, roots of the same tree.

Contrary to popular belief, comedy deals with very serious topics in life. “We cannot

help but laugh at this grotesque report of a thwarted suicide, and yet in its own grim way

it does reiterate the commonplace that comedy and laughter are serious business”

(Corrigan, 1980, p. 2). Without touching upon the serious aspects of life, comedy would

be less than effective in criticizing society. Comedy and laughter are the release of

tension, but the difference from tragedy is that comedy instills hope in the audience.

Comedy and tragedy are very similar in many respects, which means it is quite

easy to make a comedy a tragedy, or vice versa, by changing the ending.

The difference between tragedy and comedy is the difference between experience

and intuition. In the experience we strive against every condition of our animal

life: against death, against the frustration of ambition, against the instability of

human love. In the intuition we trust the arduous eccentricities we’re born to, and

see the oddness of the creature who has never got acclimatized to being created.

(Fry, as quoted in Corrigan, 1980, p. 4)

One significant difference between comedy and tragedy is that comedy usually has happy

endings. As Corrigan (1980) says, “The constant in the comic view of life or the comic

spirit: the sense that no matter how many times man is knocked down he somehow

manages to pull himself up and keep on going. Thus while tragedy is a celebration of a

man’s capacity to aspire and suffer, comedy celebrates his capacity to endure” (p. 3).

The comic tries to endure daily life, but without hope the audience will retract their

connectedness with the characters and so the story becomes a tragedy.

Styan (1968) explains how thin the line is between comedy and tragedy. If the

audience sees an elderly lady, many people will have pre-formed reactions to be

sympathetic toward her. Yet if the elderly lady is over-dressed and is heavily made-up,

the incongruity causes the audience to laugh. However, if that behavior was intended to

keep the interest of her husband the audience’s sympathy reappears and the comedy is

lost. It is quite easy to switch between comedy and tragedy with a mere change of the

ending, and this is why comedy is as critical of how we live and what we believe as

tragedy is.

The Comedic Triangle

Comedy has one crucial element that is not necessarily present within tragedy and

that is the audience’s relationship to the comedic subject. Comedy is based on the

audience’s reaction, after all. “Moreover, Purdie implies that both the source of the

stimulus and the recipient are involved in an active process of construction” (Pye, 2006,

p. 59). As Olsen (1965) said, comedy requires three components; “the Laugher,” “the

laughed at,” and the relationship between the two. Although the term “Laugher/Laughed

at” is used when describing comedy, the audience must realize that there is a very distinct

difference between the act of laughing and comedy.

In other words laughter and comedy are not synonymous. Comedy is more

difficult to analyze than simply judging it by the vocal response that is produced by the

audience. “Laughter is only a symptom, and not a very reliable one …it is only an

unreliable external sign of a particular internal—I mean psychic phenomenon” (Olson,

1968, p 11). What Olson is saying is that people laugh for many different reasons

including reasons that do not include humor. Many people will laugh if they are nervous

or uncomfortable, and some may even laugh when they are mad. People will laugh when

a tragic event happens and some may not make a sound when they are thoroughly

enjoying themselves. “The Laugher” will be described as the audience member who is

outside looking in on the comedic situation.

Next is the “laughed at,” which, as Bergson (1921) argues, has to be

characteristically human and have human tendencies because people have to be able to

create a relationship with the “object.” That is not to say that humans cannot, or do not,

find animals or inanimate objects funny, but what the audience actually finds humorous

are the human characteristics that are displayed within the animal or object. The

“laughed at” would be considered the “butt” of the joke.

Through experience and context the audience is able to create a relationship with

the “butt” of the joke. This relationship is the ham in the middle of two slices of bread;

without the ham you do not have a complete sandwich, and without context, experience

and a relationship to the “butt” of the joke, you do not have a social criticism. For the

audience to be able to identify the social criticism within comedy the audience must form

a relationship with the “laughed at.” This usually is a dominant versus an non-dominant

relationship.

Hobbes’ (1968) superiority theory argues that enjoyment of humor messages is

derived from a falsely constructed sense of superiority to the disparaged. In other

words, the perceiver not only fails to identify with the disparaged, but also

receives gratification from seeing an inferior group belittled because it makes

them feel more positive about themselves.” (Banjo, 2011, Pg. 142)

Maintaining this relationship involves a third party, the comic, to keep the

audience connected to the action. Pye (2006) mentions that in comedy there has to be a

“two-against-one” scenario. The “butt” of the joke has to be perceived as incompetent in

some way. In order for the tables not to be turned on the audience, both the comic and

the audience must feel as if they are both superior over the “butt” of the joke. This is

accomplished if there are two people declaring that the one is a fool.

If the creation of the comic involves the construction of oneself as ‘discursively

strong’ then the identification of a butt in humor, a figure who is laughed at,

usually involves constructing him as somehow discursively incompetent, as

someone who does not have “full control” of the signifying system (Pye, 2006, p.

58).

It is the job of the comic to keep the control. When the audience loses the control they

are vulnerable to feeling ridiculed. This invokes vulnerable emotions such as sympathy,

guilt, or compassion, and then comedy is lost because the audience has an emotional fear

for the comedic character. This distracts the audience from the content and allows them

to focus on more personal problems and ultimately the audience feels like they are

experiencing these vulnerable feelings along with the character. That is why a third party

needs to be involved to help maintain the audience’s connectedness towards the “butt” of

the joke.

Individual people find meaning in everything, yet for comedy to be successful it

must allow individuals to form some sort of relationship that does not rely on emotions.

As Bergson (1921) states, “Laughter has no greater foe than emotion” (p. 63). If an

audience experiences a sympathetic emotional reaction to the sketch, the comedy

immediately dies because emotion becomes too real and too painful to the audience

emotion is tragic. Therefore, the number one rule of comedy is no vulnerable emotions.

Yet there should be a certain connection or all meaning is lost on the audience. The hard

job for the comic is to create not only a sense of closeness but also a false sense of

distance. This is so the audience can use the “butt” as a scapegoat. The emotions and

tensions of the audience member is transferred over to the “butt,” and the “laugher” is

able to proceed without fear that their reaction incriminates here or him emotionally.

These parts of comedy create a triangle, which is similar to Ogden’s “semiotic

triangle” that is used in the study of communication. Ogden’s triangle, as described in

the ABC of Communication Studies (1998), is a great resource for describing language,

but it is also helpful for understanding comedy. The triangle notes three components in

Communication: the concept, the form, and the referent. The form is the symbol used to

invoke an image, the concept is the image that is associated with the form, and the

referent is the object that is referred to by the image. The lines that form the triangle and

that connect the three elements together are the “denotations” and the “connotations.”

Denotations are the meanings that can be found in the dictionary, and connotations are

the meanings that are defined by experience and culture. These lines that connect the

triangle are the “ham” of the sandwich that was mentioned above. Without the lines to

connect the three separate components the equilateral triangle cannot be formed (Gill &

Adams, 1998).

Comedy involves a similar triangle in the sense that there are three participating

parties that need to exist as a basis for comedy. First there needs to be a “concept,” or

what closely identifies with the concept. Where comedy is concerned it would be

referred to as the “butt.” The “butt” is a mental image that is being created inside the

audience’s head. The “form” is what forms the image by using humanly-created

symbolic tools, such as language, costume, etc. Using forms to create the humorous

image is the job of the comic. The comic is responsible for helping the audience

recognize and relate to the concept, the “butt,” in a particular way. Then we have the

referent. The members of the audience bring their already defined experiences and social

memories and supply the concept for the referent.

Now that the points of the triangle are defined the triangle is almost finished. It is

important to realize that without the lines that represent the “denotations” and the

“connotations” we are left with three insignificant spots floating on a plane that are not

connected by anything. The “denotations” and the “connotations” form the relationships

“Figure 1: Semiotic Triangle, from Gills & Adams, 1998”

between the elements of the triangle; they are the context and the experience that are the

background of these relationships. By adding “denotations” and “connotations,” lines

connecting the three parts can be drawn and the triangle is formed.

The last point to be stressed is that the triangle is an equilateral triangle. No one

part is more important and no one relationship or context is stronger than the other. The

relationship between the audience and the comic is just as important as the relationship

between the “butt” of the joke and the audience, and the “butt” of the joke and the comic.

Comedy is a balancing act.

Figure 2: ‘The Definition of Comedy is Ambiguous’ or ‘The Definition of Comedy

IS ambiguity’

Both statements for Figure 2 are true because for comedy to be successful it has to

be ambiguous. It is up to the audience to decide, based on their experience, how the

relationships between the elements are formed.

Ambiguity allows the audience, no matter their background or beliefs, to create

their own meaning based on the interaction of elements of the joke. “White Like Me”

seems fairly straightforward, but it has ambiguity that allows for a wide variety of

audiences to interpret its social criticisms differently. The sketch fits into the triangle

model, but what makes the sketch funny to several different people is the fact that the

components to the triangle are ambiguous and allow the individual audience members to

insert what they believe should be the elements of the triangle. In the sketch, the only

thing that is not ambiguous is the fact that Murphy is the comic. He forms the audience’s

image of the “butt” of the joke and guides the audience on a journey through the social

criticism and helps create the relationship between the two. The audience and the “butt”

are both ambiguous, however.

Together, context, experience, and connotation are what define the other parts of

the triangle. There are many different perspectives presented in this sketch, and therefore

there are many different audience members and “butts.” When Eddie Murphy performed

this sketch on SNL in 1985, crime was rising within inner cities. The 80’s were an era of

national angst. Crime was rising within inner cities where many citizens were of African

descent. Reeves and Campbell (1994) researched the major news networks for their

coverage of drugs, especially cocaine. What they found was that stories related to the

“war on drugs” began to rise in 1982, spiked in 1986, and then again rose in 1988. Many

white Americans equated these crimes with working class Americans, and since it was

prevalent in the inner cities, white Americans believed that the drug problems stemmed

from African Americans. “[C]ocaine would be defined according to a ‘trickle-down’

paradigm in which what was once a decadent ‘glamor’ drug became increasingly

available and abused by the middle-class Americans” (Reeves & Campbell, 1994, p. 18).

After the mainstream discovery of crack, anti-welfare and anti-affirmative action rhetoric

skyrocketed. Reagan used the “war on drugs” to attract the votes from middle and upper

class whites and the made the decade of the 80’s the decade of a war against the people

who needed help (Reeves & Campbell, 1994). From a white American’s perspective, the

“butt” of the joke might be the African Americans. Murphy alludes to many stereotypes,

for example of an African American not being able to receive a loan. Murphy also looks

unnatural playing a white man so it is plausible, based on the criminal portrayals in the

news that some viewers may have taken, to see the sketch as a critique of the inner cities.

On the opposite end of the spectrum the audience may be the “black Americans”

perspective and Caucasian Americans are the “butt” of the joke. The 80’s were also the

time of Regan and his effort to extinguish accomplishments of the civil rights movement.

The tensions can be shown through the many jokes that Murphy does to reference the

“white culture.” He over-enunciates every consonant or walks with clenched butt cheeks

to over emphasize the white’s rigid attitude.

Finally, there is a third point in the triangle which includes the audience who is

the “other.” The “other” could be defined as people of different races, cultures, or

citizens who do not have a direct relationship with the historical events of the black racial

inequality and who believe that both whites and blacks are the “butts.” With this

audience, context is still important because in order to maintain an understanding of the

jokes this audience does need to have some knowledge of the history of the United States.

Ambiguity is also important within the structure of the joke. One main job of the

comic is to lead the audience, whoever it may be, to the punch line of the joke. The

ambiguity, in this case not knowing how the sketch will play out, is part of the

entertainment of the joke. If the comic leads the audience down the path to what they are

expecting, then the entertainment is lost because there is no room for surprise. Comedy

has a lot to do with surprising the audience, but this is part of the delicate balancing act of

comedy: surprising and confusing the audience in a way that entertains them. Therefore,

comedy deals with plausibility versus implausibility. “Examining the relationship

between the many possible variations in the balancing act between plausibility and

implausibility affords a fascinating insight into the complex way in which the comic

manipulates affective implication” (Pye, 2006, p. 67).

Eddie Murphy presents implausibilities, or incongruities, within his sketch. “For

Hazlitt the essence of the laughable was ‘the incongruous,’ a distinction between ‘what

things are and what they ought to be’” (Styan, 1962, p. 230). The first incongruity is that

Murphy starts acting as a white man. Because of racialized expectations, audience

members may assume Murphy is going to act like a stereotypical “black man.” But the

implausible happens when Murphy enacts the racialized opposite of what is expected.

The next implausibility is when Murphy presents the notion that white people get

everything for free. Through different perspectives, the implausibility of the situation

may not be so far from the truth; redlining is just one form of evidence of the white

culture hiding opportunities from the African culture, for example.

Comedy involves taking something normatively “true” within society and

applying an opposing meaning. The plausible situation is needed to provide the audience

with a connection to reality so that they can form a relationship with the joke. Plausible

situations are basically everyday situations whose outcomes are relatively normal. After

the comic is able to establish a routine with the audience, he breaks it, causing the

audience to be surprised; what they were expecting is suddenly gone. Finally, great

endings involve the comic incorporating the prior expectation back into the joke.

Because the plausible outcome was stripped away in the beginning, the audience is not

expecting a normal ending. When the comic ends the sketch with the plausible outcome

of the beginning, the audience is surprised again. Yet, because the comic returns to the

expected outcome, the comic made the audience feel like they are smart, thus reinforcing

the fact that the audience is not the “butt” of the joke.

The theory of plausibility and implausibility helps explain why many people find

physical and dark humor funny. The audience suspends disbelief, knowing that the

performer is not going to get hurt and this allows the comedy to ensue. Yet, once the

audience fears for the performer or the content invokes sympathetic emotions, the

comedy is done. This is why the cartoon of the Coyote and the Roadrunner has

maintained its comedy. For example, in Wily E Coyote cartoons the plausible ending

would be him falling off the cliff to his death, but the implausible ending happens when

he peals himself off the ground and continues chasing after the roadrunner (Pye, 2006).

If the coyote ever gets seriously injured or killed, the comedy has also died and the sketch

becomes a tragedy.

Comedy cannot be completely ambiguous, however, because the audience has to

be able to piece together some understanding of the situation. Incongruity is just a

technique. “If, as we have said, the ultimate effect of a play is dependent upon values

assigned to it by the audience, then one of the chief functions of the artist is to provide

those signs which will lead the audience to draw the proper conclusions about the play’s

meaning” (Corrigan, 1980, p. 8). Context allows the audience to read the ambiguity.

Context

Recently found, says The Huffington Post (2012), on tablets dating back 3,500

years ago was a statement saying “…of your mother is by the one who has intercourse

with her. What/who is it?” This has the claim of the oldest “Yo Mama” joke in history.

A “Yo Mama” joke is a joke that is created to insult another’s mother by calling her fat,

stupid, or ugly. The purpose of the game is for the two participants to keep “one-upping”

the other until one of them cannot think of any more insults. An example of a “Yo

Mama” joke would be, “Yo mama is so fat when her beeper goes off people thought she

was backing up.” This may seem like a simple insult, but in order to truly understand the

joke, the audience needs to know the context.

The first step in understanding the joke is to understand what a beeper is. The

problem that comedy faces is that the times, traditions, and technologies are changing so

fast that people of the next generation do not fully understand the joke because they were

not exposed to the context surrounding it. Beepers are a thing of the past; hardly anyone

uses a beeper except for doctors. Beepers also get their name from the sound that they

make, and within this joke the comic equates the sound of the beeping with the backing

up of a large truck. Not all cars or trucks make this sound when backing up. It is

common among Americans to understand that large trucks beep when backing up, but

that is only because of the Department of Transportation. The D.O.T has made it a law

that all large vehicles must beep when backing up to ensure safety (Department of

Transportation). Not every country has a Department of Transportation and not all

countries require trucks to beep when they back up. Therefore, someone without

knowledge of beepers or truck safety measures they would not fully understand this

particular “Yo Mama” joke. Furthermore, an audience member who does not know that

cultural besting one another with ritualized insults would not appreciate the skill, let

alone the frequent use of insult to assert power over another.

Many older comedians are finding that what was once commonly known is now

lost on younger audiences. “It is, moreover, a nuisance that what is comic to one age is

not to another; Shylock was a butt for the Elizabethans, but not for the Victorians;

Richard III was played for comedy by Irving, but for pathos by Oliver” (Styan, 1962, p

230). For example, rolling up a car window used to be mimed as a crank that required

much strength and struggle to get it closed. Now, younger generations are used to the

automatic windows and cars with the manual windows are slowly fizzling out of

existence. Soon a small amount of people will understand the function of the window

crank. Another example lost is that once a friend mentioned that her child asked why a

ringtone was called a ringtone. This baffled me because it is true that phones do not

“ring” any more. Most people have mobile phones and do not use landlines. Even when

you first buy a mobile phone, the default ringer is usually some watered down version of

Mozart’s Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, and then from there, most everyone changes it to some

popular song on the radio. Besides my mother, almost no one has a ringer as a ringtone,

so it is no wonder that the child was confused with the word.

All this ties in with the mention of the oldest “Yo Mama” joke above, and the

thesis. In 1976, J.J. van Dijk discovered a tablet that dated back 3,500 years ago that

contained what seemed to be jokes and riddles. van Dijk surmised that due to its

rudimentary style that tablet was in fact written by a student (Streck & Wasserman,

2012). Experts can see the carvings are trying to convey comedy but it is very hard for

the modern world to understand the joke. A joke deciphered on the text says:

“The deflowered (girl) did not become pregnant(!?),

the undeflowered (girl) became pregnant(!?).

(— What is it?)

(Answer:) Auxiliary forces(?).”

During the time that this tablet was written, the jokes may have been hilarious to the

people telling them. Although it is not hard to see the humor in some of them, the jokes

are out of context and it’s difficult to understand the full potential meaning of the jokes.

This explains why many different cultures have their own styles of comedy and why

outsiders often do not fully grasp the humor; it is because they do not fully grasp the

context.

When I was studying in Bulgaria, I had a few Bulgarian friends and sometimes

they would talk in Bulgarian to each other, and they would laugh at each other. I would

ask what was so funny, and they said that I would not get it because it was too hard to

explain in English. I said, “Try me.” Well, they were right. When they told me the joke,

and tried to explain the context surrounding it, I still could not understand it. I just ended

up faking a laugh and moving on to a different topic. What I discovered was that many

Bulgarian jokes revolve around animals and their personification, just like American

jokes can revolve around insulting other people’s mothers.

Even in a person’s own culture it is sometimes hard to understand a joke if one

does not understand the context, or is indifferent to it. The saying “He who laughs last,

doesn’t get it” is very true, because laughter is contagious. If everyone else is laughing

then one feels the need to laugh, regardless if one understands the joke. People do not

want to be the “butt” of the joke for not understanding it.

For example, I recently went to an Improv show in Boston, and there was one

joke that didn’t receive much acknowledgement because it was not understood. The

setting of the sketch was a spelling bee and three of the actors were the contestants and

two were the judges. The judges would call out to the audience for a word for the

contestant to spell. One person yelled out “Santorum.” After several political jokes later

the contestant began to spell out, “A, N, A, el-.” I let out a loud laugh. Unfortunately, no

one around me found the joke funny and the only thing that is worse than not getting a

joke is being the only one laughing very loudly.

My friend next to me asked me what the joke meant and I tried to explain it to

her, but it was to no avail because the show was still going on. One must know the

meaning of Santorum. Santorum is not just a candidate who is running for the

Republican nomination for president in the 2012 election anymore. Dan Savage, a gay

rights activist, coined a new meaning to Santorum’s name because Santorum is an

outspoken opponent of gay rights. If one were to look it up (which I advise caution in

doing so), one will find that the word “santorum” has to do with anal intercourse. Now,

if one does not know the context in which this is funny, again the meaning would be lost

on them. As some may hear from the critics in the news, people are calling Santorum a

theocrat who is trying to introduce much of his religious beliefs into public policy. All

this information is needed to understand this one joke; it is wonder humans are able to be

comedic at all.

One argument against this thesis may be that if context is so important, then why

have Shakespeare’s comedies and many other older works still retained their value? The

answer to this question involves context as much as modern sketches do. I would argue a

main reason why Shakespeare’s plays have withstood the test of time is because

Shakespeare was a brilliant writer who was able to write about topics that are still

meaningful to humanity. Meaning is everything in comedy and once something has lost

its meaning the comedy is not the same.

Thus, when a black moustache is used to signify an evil man, it is quite clear that

this significance is valid only so long as the audience assigns the value on the

basis of such a sign. When, for whatever reason, the sign is no longer accepted,

and when no natural signs are present in the work, the inference from sign to

value is impossible, and the sign ceases to have meaning (Corrigan, 1980, p. 9).

So, although Shakespeare’s comedies are able to get a comedic response out of a

modern audience, there are still many references in his plays that are lost on the audience

because of the context. For example, although it is not a comedy, in the opening of

Romeo and Juliet Sampson bites his thumb at Gregory. The meaning is lost on a modern

audience if they do not know the meaning behind the act of “biting your thumb.” Today

we express feeling of dislike towards another person through other nonverbal actions.

Shakespeare writes about many themes, like love and vengeance, that are still prevalent

in today’s society, but there are many other examples in Shakespeare that have lost their

meaning over the years.

Social Criticism

The comedic sketch with the word “santorum” is saying much more than just a

rude, funny definition for a word; it is a criticism of Santorum’s political beliefs. What is

funny is the incongruity with the meaning of “santorum” and the beliefs of the candidate

Rick Santorum. The irony of the situation is that Rick Santorum does not believe in gay

marriage, yet the made-up definition of his last name brings up rather raw associations

with homosexuality. Savage does not agree with Santorum’s opinion and wanted to fight

back. Therefore, by defining Santorum’s surname as something disgusting, many people

cannot take him seriously and this takes away from his influence and also, the critic’s

voice is heard.

Comedy is like a social ninja. It distracts you with the safety and the good feeling

of laughter and then out of nowhere it hits you with a roundhouse kick of criticism.

Comedy does much more than entertain an audience. Comedy calls attention to crises

within society and brings our problems “center stage” (pun intended). “[I]t is possible to

gain valuable insight into the ways in which comedy masks and unmasks sites of anxiety”

(Pye, 2006, p. 58). Although on the surface comedy may seem all fun and games,

underneath all the jokes there is a seriousness of someone saying something about

society. Thus, comedy is socially critical in that it can open the eyes of the audience and

makes them see the faults in themselves or their community.

It helps if the comedy uses subtle and non-accusational techniques. As Johnston

(2012) says, “Drama is for the feeling, comedy is for the thinking.” Comedy has the

ability for the audience to laugh at themselves even when they don’t want to. “Laughter

can capture us from outside and reveal aspects of ourselves even against our own will.

And strangely this experience is emancipatory” (Willett, 2008, p. 3).

Context is what gives comedy its critical edge. “Comedy is an escape, not from

truth but from despair” (Fry, 1960, p. 15). Comedy does not shy away from truths, and

context is the key to unlocking the truth of the time. The New York Times writer,

Michael Marder (2011), writes that comedy’s essence may be rooted in crisis. He uses

the example of Mitt Romney’s Republican primary campaign in Florida during which

Romney mentioned a joke about unemployment. He said that he was unemployed too

because he didn’t have the job of President of the United States. The joke did not get a

great response. In fact, it received the exact opposite response that he was expecting

because there is a great difference between an unemployed multimillionaire and an

unemployed middle-to lower-class citizen. The fault of his joke is that as the comic, he

did not create the illusion of two against one. Instead he increased the anxieties of the

Floridians and the joke was more on them instead on someone else. Marder explained

how comedy is a result of crisis and social criticism.

For comedy to be successful as criticism, the audience needs to feel a certain

distance from the topic of the joke. Romney’s joke was not successful in Florida because

unemployment is a real and present issue for people (and most everywhere these days).

The audience is very close to the crisis whereas Romney is not. “The after-taste of

laughter may be bitter, Bergson grants, but comedy is itself only ‘a slight revolt on the

surface of social.’ Its gaiety happens like froth along a beach, for comedy looks at man

from the outside: ‘It will go no farther’” (Sypher, 1956, p. 18). Comedy has to be from

the outside because if it’s on the inside it becomes a tragedy.

“To make fun of the future is to put it under our control, if only for a brief instant

of a shared explosive laughter, by mastering the fear it provokes” (Marder, 2011, para.

14). Comedy is a look at the present and a prediction of the future. The future holds fear

and anxiety, but by being able to take a hard look at the present, it is possible for comedy

to give people the feeling of control over current crises. Comedy has a sense of hope.

Chapter 3: “White Like Me”

Before Eddie Murphy, SNL was a predominately white cast. Garret Morris was

an original cast member but he found it hard to rise above being type-cast in sketches that

needed an African American. Because of his inability to generate his own material

Morris was not able to gain stardom. In 1980, SNL came back for a sixth season. But

with new cast members the sketches annoyed the audience and created dislike. Most of

the sketches from that season have been described as tasteless and cultureless. Kay

Gardella described the premiere as being “so disgusting and tasteless that throwing up

would have been a compliment” (Whaley, 2010, p. 63).

Then, in 1981, Murphy joined the cast. At first he was put in sketches only as a

walk-on “black character.” Finally Murphy received an opportunity as a respondent on

the Weekly Update where he had the opportunity to try out racial humor. The audience

responded kindly to his outlook on race and the viewership began to rise again. Murphy

was promoted to full-time cast member (Whaley, 2010). This trend, although it is only

an indication, shows that audiences crave something more than just shallow comedy.

In 1985, Murphy performed a sketch on SNL called “White Like Me.” The

sketch started off with Murphy breaking the fourth wall and talking to the audience about

the existence of two Americas, one white and one black. He stated that “talk is cheap”

and that he wanted to find out whether white America exists, firsthand. Murphy built the

sketch around three historically defining racist practices that targeted African Americans.

The historical events alluded to by Murphy range across several decades of

discrimination in the United States. He took up stereotypes defined through blackface;

segregation, particularly on public transportation; and economic discrimination,

specifically in getting loans.

The start of his transformation in becoming white was to get a makeover. To be

able to be fully immersed in white society, Murphy had to look white so he put on “white

face.” Murphy also had to study the way that white people act, which he did by watching

episodes of Dynasty. Dynasty was a nighttime television drama that premiered in the

1980’s and portrayed rich, greedy white Americans. The results of Murphy’s research

are a pale skinned, “tight assed,” over-enunciating white male.

The concept of “white face” refers to “black face” and it references the

representation of African Americans in entertainment, particularly the minstrelsy

tradition. Minstrels used to observe black men as a sort of zoo animal and mimic them

on stage (Williams-Witherspoon, 2006). By putting on “white face,” Eddie Murphy

imitated the minstrels’ imitation of African Americans and so mocked white society.

This is the first and all-encompassing joke presented in the sketch. Black face had a long

and painful history within the United States, so painful that it is now effectively

outlawed. The context for understanding black face begins centuries ago, but the era that

is relevant for Murphy’s sketch began in the late 19

century and continued on through

the early 20

century. White minstrel groups in the early 20

century would wear black

face as a caricature of a black person. African Americans were not able to perform.

Whites believed that blacks were animalistic and, therefore, not capable of art (Williams-

Witherspoon, 2006). Since the actors were not able to employ “real” black people, they

would make themselves up and act as they perceived slaves. The white American saw

slaves as unintelligent, tribal beings that danced very strangely, and so the African slaves

were the “butt” of the joke in minstrelsy.

With black makeup on their faces and exaggerated white lips, minstrels would

strut around the stage doing various silly things that “negroes” did, such as the cakewalk

which had became popular in the theater. Although the cakewalk did have some roots in

tribal dances, many slaves danced that way to mock their owners. “Ironically, the

cakewalk was also a dance blacks used during slavery to imitate the strutting of whites”

(Krasner, 1997, p. 78). African Americans thought white people danced ridiculously

because of their stiff and rigid movements. When their owners had balls, slaves would

watch them dance and then, in turn, imitate their owners dancing. Their white owners

generally did not realize that their slaves were imitating them and thought they were

doing primitive tribal dances. In essence, by mocking the African Americans the white

minstrels were unknowingly mocking their own race (Krasner, 1997).

Many minstrels also sang the songs slaves would sing on the plantation. This

again is ironic in that many plantation owners suppressed slave culture by not allowing

slaves to sing or tell stories, by mocking plantation life, white minstrels were in fact

salvaging African culture. This incorporated black culture into American history

(Williams-Witherspoon, 2006). Although the intention of the minstrels was to criticize

primitive ways of former slaves, their comedy did the opposite and empowered them.

Eventually, white audiences wanted more authenticity. They wanted real black

characters. “According to Lisa Anderson, because audiences perceived blacks onstage

‘not as actors but as real live exhibits, or freaks shows” (Krasner, 1997, p. 23). This gave

many African American actors the opportunity to perform and the opportunity to subtly

change the way white people perceived the black community. Unfortunately, African

American performers were restricted to performing the stereotypical “silly” slave.

Although they had the opportunity to perform, minstrels and the audience limited the

range of material to demeaning caricatures of black people (Krasner, 1997).

Post-slavery, African American performers were able to sneak criticism into their

performances in ways intended to be noticed by many other African Americans and pro-

equality Americans. “Counter-codes, innuendoes, and subtle shifts in emphasis suggest

that the significance underlying performance was open to broader interpretations, and that

performers, producers, and audiences could play against the grain of restrictive racial

codes” (Krasner, 1997, p. 4). If the African American performers were too bold in their

criticisms they would be fired, so actors resisted dominant culture by putting

camouflaged criticism in their performances. Sometimes, however, African American

audience members did not understand the criticism embedded in the performance and,

therefore, also believed that the black performers were mocking African American

culture. This caused African American performers to live in a sort of limbo, or a double

consciousness (Krasner, 1997).

Murphy’s use of white face had a rich set of possible meanings as a result of this

history. Murphy was not the first African American to perform in white face. Before

him there was the character Willie Wayside, played by the famous African American

performer Bob Cole. Willie Wayside was the town drunk and although the character was

not the protagonist of several plays he made appearances in, he was an important

comedic character during that time. He was an antagonist engaging in social critique.

Through exaggerated signs and multiple codes configured in the lyrics, the music,

the unsaid, the implied, the historical context, the gestures, and the racial

(whiteface) mask, Cole confronts Jim Crow by attacking, albeit indirectly, its

symbolic representation, while simultaneously appearing as the “town drunk” in

the midst of a carnivalesque ambiance (Krasner, 1997, p. 37).

The white audience would laugh at the predicaments that Willy Wayside would find

himself in. Yet, what the audience was laughing at was a caricature of itself. By

presenting a caricature of white culture to a white audience, it allowed a black performer

to critique members of the ruling society to their willingly attuned ears.

Thus, African American comic performers found a way to critique an unjust

society during the late 19

century. Similarly, Murphy’s performance is a critique of

contemporary society.

The 1980’s in America were characterized by large-scale immigration “and the

changing complexion of the large cities coupled with de-industrialization,

growing unemployment, the flight of capital to states with permissive work laws a

large reserve army of labor and the upward redistribution of wealth” (Patterson, as

quoted in Williams—Witherspoon, 2006, p. 86.)

Although the minstrel theater and black face has ended decades ago, white Americans

still maintained the image of the “’black-skinned, blubber-lipped, [and] ‘flat-nosed’

character” (p. 50). This image has carried through the decades and is still resonant in the

80’s. Murphy was using the same critical method as Willie Wayside; he was highlighting

the injustices of a racially divided country while making the white audience laugh at

itself.

The second joke that Murphy made in “White Like Me” is about the racial divide

itself. As Eddie Murphy walks through New York City, he discovers that there really is a

white America hidden from Blacks. Eddie Murphy finds himself on a public bus, in New

York City, with only one other black man. The bus is filled with deadpan faces of white

folks sitting and waiting for their stop. Although the African American is not sitting in

the back of the bus, he is surrounded by contemptuous white people; they are just waiting

for him to get off. Finally, when the African American bus rider gets off, the white

people, not knowing that Murphy is actually black, start to throw a party. So, although

contemporary American society had destroyed formal segregation, the sketch argued

there is still segregation between whites and blacks, although it did so through absurdity.

The bus as the scene for the joke has a great rhetorical significance when it comes

to the oppression of African Americans. Prior to desegregation, African American were

not allowed to sit at the front of the bus and had to stand if there were not enough seats

for white Americans. Although the sketch did not represent segregation in terms of who

can sit where, the setting of the bus symbolized a century of post-emancipation

segregation that African Americans had to endure.

During the 1950’s, when bus segregation became an iconic scene of the civil

rights struggle, Morris (1984) argues there was a “tripartite system of domination”

wherein whites controlled blacks economically, politically, and personally. In 1953, in

Baton Rouge, black leaders successfully petitioned the city council to pass an ordinance

to allow seats on the bus be a “first-come-first-serve.” Although this law was passed,

many bus drivers ignored the ordinance and still made African Americans sit at the back

of the bus. African Americans started protesting the bus system by refusing to use the

buses (Morris, 1984). President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, banning

any type of discrimination based on race, religion, color, or country of origin (Bruner &

Haney, 2012). Although African Americans gained civil rights in the 60’s, presumably

opening all aspects of society to all people, Murphy depicts the persistence of a secret

world of white America, a conspiracy to keep the races apart. The iconic setting of the

bus provides the context that Murphy needed to make an absurd situation into a critical

comment on racial divisions.

The last joke in this sketch is in regard to economic discrimination of African

Americans. Murphy’s character goes into a bank as a white man because the joke is that

African Americans cannot get a loan. Murphy goes into a bank called “Equity” looking

for a loan. He uses the alias “Mr. White” to reinforce his race. He sits down with an

African American banker who looks through his history to see if he qualifies for a

$50,000 loan. The African American banker says, “you have no collateral, you have no

credit, you don’t even have any I.D.” Just before the banker is about to turn Murphy

down for the loan, the banker’s white boss relieves him by sending him on break. After

the African American banker leaves, the boss laughs and says, “that was a close one.”

The boss says that they do not have to bother with formalities, gives Mr. White a box of

money, and tells him that he does not have to pay the bank back. Like the bus scenes, the

sketch uses an absurdist plot twist to make a real issue visible.

This practice referenced in the bank scene is called redlining. Redlining is “the

refusal of lenders to make mortgage loans in certain areas regardless of the

creditworthiness of the individual loan applicant” (Holmes and Horvitz, 1994, p.81).

Redlining began in 1934 but did not gain much attention until the post-civil rights era.

As racial minorities started moving to the inner city, following newly granted equality

and opportunity, white Americans started to move out. Bankers were aware of this

“white flight” and would discriminate against the African Americans to make sure they

did not move into any white neighborhoods. The banks would outline African American

neighborhoods with a red line. That red line meant that the people living in that area

would not receive a loan, regardless of their credit (Wilson, 1997).

This decreased the value of the houses in that area which decreased the desire to

move in to those areas. Without loans, African Americans and other minorities also

could not move out of increasingly undesirable neighborhoods. On top of housing

discrimination, employers were not willing to move into the inner cities because of the

criminal stereotypes associated with those areas. This made it hard for the people living

in the inner cities to find work. Transportation was also scarce so it was nearly

impossible for the citizens to travel outside the city to find jobs. This combination of

factors did cause an increase in crime because without jobs there is no routine and

without routine there is boredom, and usually following boredom (along with economic

disadvantage) is crime. So, in essence the stereotypes were confirmed (Wilson, 1997).

All this history provides the context for Murphy’s surprising trip to a bank in the

sketch. The sketch was produced and performed in 1985, a time in which crime was up

and the inner cities were represented as lawless. “Despite a high rate of poverty in ghetto

neighborhoods throughout the twentieth century, rates of inner-city joblessness, teenage

pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births, female-headed families, and serious crime were

significantly lower than in later years and did not reach catastrophic proportions until the

mid-1970’s” (Wilson, 1997, p. 261). This immigration into the cities caused poverty to

shift from being mostly rural to mostly urban. Inner city poverty rose from 14.2 percent

in 1970 to 19.9 percent in 1982 (Committee on National Urban Policy, National Research

Council).

Also in the 1981, President Reagan was elected president; he staunchly opposed

affirmative action. He also proposed the biggest tax cuts in history to that point, which

were passed by both the Senate and the House, and which offset the governmental

programs put in place by Franklin Roosevelt during the New Deal. This resulted in less

government help for inner cities, which exacerbated the poverty. In 1982 the

unemployment rate was the highest since the depression, rising to 10.4 percent

(America’s Best History). The inner city “epidemic” was becoming a major problem in

the United States and Murphy chose to address this through his sketch, pointing to racism

as a cause of inequity.

By making references to these historical events in his sketch, Murphy made racial

discrimination a thing of the present, not just the past. The sketch, performed by one of

the most popular comedians in American history, showed that African Americans had

made great strides, but by juxtaposing the different eras next to each other it also showed

that despite all the social transformation surrounding race relations, discrimination

persisted. In doing so, it functioned as comedy and as critique, but only if the audience

understood something of the events that structure the action in the sketch.

Chapter 4: The Results of Comedic Social Criticism

Because it relies on ambiguity and double-meanings, comedy has different effects

on people with different backgrounds. Comedy is much like the story of the six blind

men and the elephant (Polimeni & Reiss, 2006). The story goes that there were six blind,

Indian men who were asked by the king to determine what an elephant was. When the

six men found an elephant they all grabbed a different part of the elephant. According to

the section of the elephant the man felt, he speculated on what an elephant was. The first

man felt the broad side of the elephant and thought an elephant was a wall. The second

man felt its tusk and thought an elephant was a spear. The third one thought it was a

snake because he had felt its trunk and the fourth one felt its knee and believed the

elephant to be a tree. The fifth man touched the ear and determined the elephant was a

fan, while the last man grabbed the elephant’s swinging tail and defined the elephant as a

rope. When the men gave their accounts to the king, with each reporting different stories

of what an elephant was the men all started fighting with each other and none of them

ever gave up his definition. The moral of the story is that the blind men each “saw” the

elephant with a different point of view and although they were all wrong, no man

accepted any other man’s opinion (Saxe, 1873).

This proverb was used to teach to preachers and scholars that there are many

different points of view, and none of them are right or wrong. This proverb can also help

explain how comedy means different things to different people. The context of comedy

is the elephant, and the different parts of the elephant are the points of view that different

people take, with their distinct cultural toolkits when hearing comedy. This story

explains why comedy in one culture is not comedic in another culture. People only see

and experience limited parts of the full context and therefore cannot understand the other

point of view.

Sometimes people are so blinded by their own points of view that they think

others are wrong, and this can especially be true when it comes to comedy. People from

different cultures can sometimes think that other cultures are not funny or do not have a

sense of humor. For example, some Americans do not think British comedy is funny

because they find it haughty and stuck up. By the same token, some people from Great

Britain think that American humor is crude and ignorant.

It is also notorious that a “sense of humor” is an unreliable quality, and what will

seem laughable to and English audience will not necessarily seem so to a Scottish.

As a psychologist Thoules (1937) has written, “If members of a social group

observe that their own objects of laughter do not produce laughter in another

social group they are inclined to express this fact by saying that second group has

no sense of humor.” (Styan, 1962, p.230)

This is why in the “semiotic triangle of comedy” there is the ability to have two

audiences and two “butts of the joke.”

African American Comedy

Depending on the perspective, people laugh at different jokes for different

reasons; this is where comedy becomes dangerous. Although the African American

performers in the early twentieth century were trying to speak out against stereotypes by

putting subtle criticisms within their performance, many of those statements were lost on

the white audience. Many of the white American audiences just saw the African

American performer as an authentic, ignorant Negro. “‘Nobody can deny that a Negro

can be one of the most amusing persons possible as long as he remains a Negro… It is

when he tries to speak, do and look like a white man that he is at his worst’” (Krasner,

quoting a racist critic, 1997, p.101). To some extent this state of mind has been carried

through the centuries to today.

Because of comedy’s ability to be ambiguous the meaning found within the

comedy is ambiguous too. For a white audience Murphy’s performance can be seen as

just so many incongruities such as his pale skin, or the fact that he walks stiffly (unlike a

stereotypical “black person walk”) or the fact that he over annunciates all his words like a

white person. For an African American, the sketch might be seen differently. “For black

performers, the tension between accommodating the needs of the public and a desire to

transform the image of blacks was never quite resolved” (Krasner, 1997, p 159).

During the minstrel times, the African American performers formed a type of

double consciousness. The first consciousness was the passion to perform in a hostile

environment, and the second consciousness was the strong roots they felt towards their

African culture.

It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking

at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a

world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness, --

an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two

warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being

torn asunder. (Dubois, 1903, p. 4)

Although the performers were given the opportunity to perform, they had to perform

under the restrictions of whites. This caused tension between the performers and other

African Americans because the latter thought that the performers were giving in and

strengthening the stereotypes as seen by white Americans. Yet the performers were at a

stalemate because they were not able to perform if they did not bow to the expectations of

the whites. This is what formed the double consciousness. The African American

performers lived their public life, under the eye of the white culture, and also lived a

private life, the life of their ancestors. Their performance was their way of subtly

resisting the double consciousness (Krasner, 1997).

Through his sketch, Murphy was making a criticism of the American culture, and

how double consciousness effects African American’s today. “Brenda Dixon Gottschild

asserts that the black performer, by and large, ‘has an intimate understanding of the

necessity of living in two worlds and utilizing the mask as a survival mechanism”

(Krasner, 1997, p. 4). The conundrum faced by early black performers, and negotiated

by Murphy, is alive today. The comedian Dave Chapelle used to have a show on comedy

central called the Chapelle Show. During the height of his career he ended his show and

disappeared from the limelight for awhile. He later went on Opera’s talk show to explain

why he had left.

Comedian Dave Chappelle confessed his discomfort on Oprah that while filming

one of his stereotypical Black characters, he noticed that the white cameraman’s

enjoyment of the disparaging depiction was unusually distinct (see Chappelle’s

Story, 2005). Chappelle shared that “I know the difference of someone laughing

with me and someone laughing at me.” He described the experience as “a

complete moral dilemma.” This implies that the underlying mechanism of

enjoyment of racial humor differs for White audiences specifically. (Banjo Pg.

142)

Many black comedians have experienced the scrutiny of white culture, but also have tried

to maintain their identity. Murphy did not have leading parts on SNL until the audience

started to enjoy his performances and Chapelle thought that he was losing his identity by

reaffirming African American stereotypes. “[O]ne mistake these colored comedians did

was the attempt to invade the white man’s territory” (Krasner, 1997, p. 100). African

Americans performers even today are stuck in a constant “catch-22” of acting as the

minstrels portrayed them or not pursuing their passion because they were too “white and

serious.”

One way that African Americans are taking a step in maintaining their identity is

through the use of language. One word that comes to mind is the word “nigger.” This

word has created much tension between the races. While white people ask “why are they

allowed to used the word, but I can’t,” African Americans are trying hold firm in their

stance of the word. “The matter of language becomes rooted in a struggle of usage,

definition, and connection. David W. Blight observes that ‘the ownership of language—

the liberation of words from debasement and control by the masters of plantation or

states—can rescue the human spirit from totalitarian control’” (Krasner, 1997, p. 106).

Conclusion

Just like the elephant in the proverb, comedy can be seen as different parts of a

whole context. Assuming that one does not know anything about “white face” the sketch

can still be funny on the surface. All the painful emotion from the history of black face is

absent but the incongruities are still there. Essentially, to the naïve eye, the sketch is

about a black man who dresses up like a white man and looks funny. Someone with a

broader view of the context surrounding black face may know that white minstrels used

to paint their face black, but might not necessarily understand the brutal segregation

reinforced by the act. This view can be dangerous because it can encourage the humor of

the criticism without fully grasping the meaning and, therefore, run into the danger of

making wildly insensitive jokes. For example, if Murphy became carried away with

making white people look foolish, that group of the audience could turn on him just as

the Floridians turned on Romney, and part of his intended audience would miss the

criticism within the comedic sketch. Knowing the history that formed the context

surrounding the joke makes it possible to establish the critique and to do some resistant

work with it.

The same can be seen during the bus party scene. In fact, I almost missed the

reference to the bus, but the location of the party seemed so unusual. If an audience

member is not knowledgeable about the segregation on buses then that person would not

understand Murphy’s point that segregation is still alive in contemporary America, even

though it is trying to be hidden.

None of the jokes are being harmful outright toward African Americans, but what

Murphy seems to be showing the audience is that treating someone a little more kindly

because of the color of his or her skin can turn into a disaster. By ending on the most

recent discriminatory events in history, redlining, Murphy is showing the United States

the issue of racial division is still a problem even though it may not be physically hurting

anyone. Without knowing the effects of redlining the audience would not know what

problems inner city citizens face, and why certain stereotypes apply to certain races.

What is worse is when the audience does understand the concept of redlining but does not

understand the ramifications. Not knowing the consequences of actions can enable

certain races to continue to be labeled by specific stereotypes, which is more harmful

than being ignorant to the discrimination.

This sketch can be seen as funny without understanding the background behind

the jokes, but it does not have the effect that the writer hoped it would if not. Knowing

that black face was started to oppress and humiliate African Americans an audience

member can recognize the discrimination that is being referenced to when they see

Murphy’s “white face.” Remembering that segregation was enforced on the public bus

system can help the audience be critical of any segregation going on around them.

Finally, recognizing the consequences of economically discriminating against a race is

useful because it can instill hope in trying to redress injustices. Murphy does give the

audience a hopeful ending by telling them that if you get to know someone and like them,

their skin color does not matter in the end. By understanding all these elements the

audience is able to “form the whole elephant.”

References

Arnold, R. (1965). Techniques of Farce John Maddison Morton. Western Speech.

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and His World. Bloomington, IN. Indiana University

Press.

Banjo, O. (2009). What Are You Laughing At? Examining Predictors of Whites'

Enjoyment of Black Entertainment. Pennsylvania State University.

Baynes, K. (1992). The Normative Grounds of Social Criticism: Kant, Rawls, and

Habermas. Albany, NY. The University of New York Press.

Bergson, H, & Sypher, W. (2009). Laughter. New York, New York. Atropos.

Bratslavsky, L. (2010). Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era.

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly.

Bresnahan, K. (2009). To Make a Nation Laugh: The Framing of Governor Sarah Palin

through the Satire of Saturday Night Live. Conference Papers. National

Communication Association.

Bruner, B, & Haney, E. (2012). Civil Rights Timeline. Retrieved from

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html

Burke, K. (1964). Perspectives by Incongruity. Bloomington, IN. Indiana University

Press.

Corrigan, R, Stayan, R, & Fry, B. (1980). Comedy Meaning and Form. New York, NY.

HarperCollins Publishers.

Du Bois, W.E.B. (1903). The Souls of Black Folk. New York, NY. Penguin Classics.

Flowers, A. (2010). Parodying Palin. Journal of Visual Literacy.

Gills, D, & Adams, B. (1998). ABC’s of Communication. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com.prxy4.ursus.maine.edu/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qhXZU39

BVJYCoi=fnd&pg=PA56&dq=ABC+of+communication+studies+David+gill,+br

idget+adams&otz=MdCTw29vwk&sig=A_RWLuw7gfLH6Zosy2CA49Dv5zs#v

=onepage&q=ABC%20of%20communication%20studies%20David%20gill%2C

%20bridget%20adams&f=false

Hurrell, J. (1959). A Note on Farce. Quarterly Journal of Speech.

Johnston, I. (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.siue.edu/~ejoy/eng208NotesOnComedyAndTragedy.htm

Krasner, D. (1997). Resistance, Parody, and Double Consciousness in African

American Theater, 1895-1910. New York, NY. St. Martin’s Press.

Levin, H. (1987). Playboys and Killjoys: An Essay on the Theory and Practice of

Comedy. New York. Oxford University Press.

Marder, M. (2011). Jokes and Their Relations to Crisis. The New York Times. Retrieved

from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/jokes-and-their-relation-to-

crisis/

Martin, J, & Nakayama, T. (2009). Intercultural Communication in Context. Boston,

MA. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Morris, A. (1984). The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities

Organizing for Change. New York, NY. The Free Press

Morrison, J. (1992). Comedy/Cinema/Theory. Postmodern Culture.

Olson, E. (1968). The Theory of Comedy. Indiana. Bloomington.

Peacework Back Issues: Racism, Prisons, and the Future of Black America. (2011).

Peacework Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/1200/122k05.htm.

Polimeni, J, & Reiss, J. (2006). The First Joke: Exploring Evolutionary Origins of

Humor. Evolutionary Psychology. Retrieved from

http://www.epjournal.net/wpcontent/uploads/ep04347366.pdf

Pye, G. (2006). Comedy Theory and the Postmodern. International Journal of Humor

Research. Retrieved from

http://www.degruyter.com.prxy4.ursus.maine.edu/view/j/humr.2006.19.issue

1/humor.2006.003/humor.2006.003.xml

Reeves, J, & Campbell, R. (1994). Cracked Coverage: Television News, The Anti

Cocaine Crusade, and the Reagan Legacy. Durham, NC. Duke University

Press

Rosmarin, A. (1985). The Power of Genre. Minneapolis. University of Minnesota.

Saxe, G. (1873). The Three Blind Men and The Elephant. Retrieved from

http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html

Shales, T, & Miller, J. (2002). Live from New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday

Night Live. New York, NY. Jimmy the Kid Inc.

The Internet Classics Archive Poetics by Aristotle. (2011). The Internet Classics

Archive: Works of Classical Literature. Retrieved from

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.html.

Top 35 Best 'Saturday Night Live' Skits of All Time. (2011). AOL TV. Retrieved from

<http://www.aoltv.com/2010/10/14/best-saturday-night-live-skits/>.

TV Network for Primetime, Daytime and Late Night Television Shows. (2011).

Saturday Night Live. Retrieved from http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/.

Wasserman, N, & Streck, M. (2012). The World’s Oldest ‘Yo Mama” Joke is 3,500

Years Old. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/babylonian-yo-mama-

joke_n_1242617.html

Whaley, J. (2010) Saturday Night Live: Hollywood Comedy and American Culture.

New York, NY. St Martin’s Press.

Willett, C. (2008). Irony in the Age of Empire: Comic Perspectives on Democracy and

Freedom. Bloomington, IN. Indiana University Press.

Williams, R. (2005). New Keywords : A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society.

Malden, MA. Blackwell Pub.

Williams-Witherspoon, K. (2006). The Secret Messages in African American Theater:

Hidden Meanings Embedded in Public Discourse. Lewiston, NY. The Edwin

Mellen Press.

Wilson, W. (1996). When Work Disappears: World of the New Urban Poor. New York,

NY. Vintage Books.

Author’s Bibliography

Abigail Jones was born on April 23, 1990 in Rockport, Maine. Abigail, who likes to go

by Abby, was raised in a small town called Owls Head where she went to Rockland

District High School. She is studying Communications at the University of Maine and

she has a double minor in Theater and Political Science. Abby joined the on campus

improv group called Improv In Sanity where her interest in comedy grew. She was a

resident assistant, student ambassador, and studied abroad in Bulgaria.

Upon graduation Abby is staying at the University of Maine to get her Masters in

Communications. After Graduate school she would like to move to Chicago and try out

for Second City.