General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYou Are Triggering me! The Neo-Liberal Rhetoric of Harm, Danger and Trauma
by Jack Halberstam
I was watching Monty Pythons The Life of Brian from 1979 recently, a hilarious rewriting of the life and death of Christ, and I realized how outrageous most of the jokes from the film would seem today. In fact, the film, with its religious satire and scenes of Christ and the thieves singing on the cross, would never make it into cinemas now. The Life of Brian was certainly received as controversial in its own day but when censors tried to repress the film in several different countries, The Monty Python crew used their florid sense of humor to their advantage. So, when the film was banned in a few places, they gave it a tagline of: So funny it was banned in Norway!
Humor, in fact, in general, depends upon the unexpected (No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!); repetition to the point of hilarity you can have eggs, bacon and spam; spam, eggs, spam and sausage; or spam, spam, spam and spam!); silliness, non-sequitors, caricature and an anarchic blend of the serious and the satirical. And, humor is something that feminists in particular, but radical politics in general, are accused of lacking. Recent controversies within queer communities around language, slang, satirical or ironic representation and perceptions of harm or offensive have created much controversy with very little humor recently, leading to demands for bans, censorship and name changes.
Debates among people who share utopian goals, in fact, are nothing new. I remember coming out in the 1970s and 1980s into a world of cultural feminism and lesbian separatism. Hardly an event would go by back then without someone feeling violated, hurt, traumatized by someones poorly phrased question, another persons bad word choice or even just the hint of perfume in the room. People with various kinds of fatigue, easily activated allergies, poorly managed trauma were constantly holding up proceedings to shout in loud voices about how bad they felt because someone had said, smoked, or sprayed something near them that had fouled up their breathing room. Others made adjustments, curbed their use of deodorant, tried to avoid patriarchal language, thought before they spoke, held each other, cried, moped, and ultimately disintegrated into a messy, unappealing morass of weepy, hypo-allergic, psychosomatic, anti-sex, anti-fun, anti-porn, pro-drama, pro-processing post-political subjects.
Political times change and as the 1980s gave way to the 1990s, as weepy white lady feminism gave way to reveal a multi-racial, poststructuralist, intersectional feminism of much longer provenance, people began to laugh, loosened up, people got over themselves and began to talk and recognize that the enemy was not among us but embedded within new, rapacious economic systems. Needless to say, for women of color feminisms, the stakes have always been higher and identity politics always have played out differently. But, in the 1990s, books on neoliberalism, postmodernism, gender performativity and racial capital turned the focus away from the wounded self and we found our enemies and, as we spoke out and observed that neoliberal forms of capitalism were covering over economic exploitation with language of freedom and liberation, it seemed as if we had given up wounded selves for new formulations of multitudes, collectivities, collaborations, and projects less centered upon individuals and their woes. Of course, I am flattening out all kinds of historical and cultural variations within multiple histories of feminism, queerness and social movements. But I am willing to do so in order to make a point here about the re-emergence of a rhetoric of harm and trauma that casts all social difference in terms of hurt feelings and that divides up politically allied subjects into hierarchies of woundedness.
http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/you-are-triggering-me-the-neo-liberal-rhetoric-of-harm-danger-and-trauma/
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)back in 79...
The world was not so different.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)"the re-emergence of a rhetoric of harm and trauma that casts all social difference in terms of hurt feelings and that divides up politically allied subjects into hierarchies of woundedness."
Caution--intersectionality ahead.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Bill Hicks or Richard Pryor and talk about how humor is transgressive and should make people uncomfortable. The problem is that a) most people aren't as talented as the people I mentioned and b) there's a difference between humor of the have-nots laughing at the haves and the haves laughing at the have-nots.
Bryant
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)it would have never happened. The original backers, EMI Film got skittish about the material and backed out. Harrison started Handmade Films in order to fund Life Of Brian with 3 Million Pounds of his own money. He said he did this because 'I wanted to see the film' which is in and of itself very funny.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)which gets slightly confusing. On DU, I think it's fair to say 'neoliberal' is about international policy - very pro-free trade, thinking that trade and economics solve pretty much everything, and a tendency to see western democracy and capitalism as a marvellous end-goal that all the world wants and will gravitate towards. But the article uses it like this:
However, I'm willing to forgive a lot from someone who can deploy so many Monty Python references.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)the odd use of "neoliberal" for this topic.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)But I didn't bother to quibble because it's useless. Just try defining "liberalism" on this board, let alone "neo-liberalism."
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)FUCK YOU! For demanding spoilers before you watch a piece of art.
Did I spell that correctly?
Let's see?
FUCK YOU!!!
Yeah I think I got that right.