Disidenitfying and the Erotic Politics of Laughter

Lynette Dixon 

“The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter” echoes the logic in Jose Munoz’s Disidentifications. While the Munoz text isn’t one that we read for this class specifically, the theory is integral to my final paper so it’s important that I connect the two. The process of disidentification entails taking the modes of representation that serve to oppress (stereotypes, institutions) and recycling them in performance in order to gain the ability to be able to renegotiate and redefine the terms of representation by the one who is being represented. This practice hinges upon the cultural material that is already used to represent a group. This is precisely the process that the Willets describe happen through comedic feminist discourse. Comedy, as a disidentificatory practice, works to subvert structures of power and ideas of motherhood and sexuality. “Borrowing from the shock value of the (allegedly) obscene,” allows for “illuminating the inversions and inflaming the passions that fuel social awareness and activism” (19) which necessary for political change. This is a practice that embraces powerlessness, as Young describes as a result of the exploitation of the marginalized that causes a lack of decision making, in order to redefine and reconstruct power dynamics so that at the end the whole concept of powerlessness itself has to be dismantled.  

This idea supports my claim that there must be a redefinition of political action that includes art, social media, etc. Furthermore I don’t believe there is such a thing as “art for art’s sake”,I think that politics and art are intimately linked. I think where we have perceived art to be apolitical is where we have failed to see the ways in which politics are being subverted.  Also, I think there is something to be said about this alternative political action as it is done through means that allows politics to be more accessible and yet easier to use to one’s advantage because it erases the lines between that which is political and what is not. 

Willetts': The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter

I really enjoyed this reading. Having grown up in the era of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, and struggled with young adulthood with Lena Dunham and the women of “Broad City,” I am acutely aware of the importance of women in comedy and feminism. One point in “The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter” that really struck me was in discussing Wanda Sykes and her ability to point out social and political issues, her message is much more palatable because “she refuses moral or epistemic privilege to her standpoint”(31). Not taking a specific stance and acknowledging equality with everyone in terms of fault, Sykes makes these serious issues more approachable. I think a major part of comedy, and comedians, importance in addressing issues facing society is that it is observational and personal. Comedians do not tell people that they’re right, just lay out a situation with humor, and people can digest the message and come to conclusions on their own. These personal anecdotes are humorously framed, placing the responsibility of digesting the message and coming to conclusions to the audience.

The Seriously Erotic Politics of Feminist Laughter

This reading was very interesting. Cynthia and Julie Willett discuss the role of humor and how it affects social norms and political movements. Humor is something that can completely level the hierarchy of social norms through its appeal to irony and laughter. The importance of humor comes as one that, throughout history, has been crucial to that shaping of micro-norms in everyday life, some things society finds funny and others society does not. But the important thing is that humor can be exclusive to a certain group of people, shaping the way in which they think of themselves as beings in a realm of micro-norms and therefore changing the affects of these norms on them and others. Through humor the norms change and cognitive habits change with it, and by proxy so do political movements."Individuals regardless o f gender perpetuate these norms through practices that are often perceived as voluntary. Just as ridicule and humor provide an arsenal o f tools that can reinforce these norms and practices, so too this arsenal can tear those conventions down."

Cynthia & Julie Willett

I really enjoyed this week's reading, "The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter: Bitches, Whores, and Other Fumerists," because it addressed the role humor plays in fighting female oppression. The authors took a more tangible approach to discussing these issues, as opposed to Butler and Athanasiou's more theoretical conversations that we have been reading. The Willetts claims that they seek to analyze the feminism that "would shake up oppressive norms with a good and gutsy belly laugh" (19). While on the surface, female comedians doing stand up about motherhood and "detachable pussies" may not appear to fight oppression as overtly as a protest or policy-change, ultimately, humor is one of the most effective and comfortable ways to communicate the oppression women face that men may not be aware of. Feminist humor, or "fumerism" provides a pill men can swallow to begin to address their male privilege. While Wanda Sykes cannot convey the full scale of oppression women have to face throughout their lives simply because they are women, her "detachable pussy" routine communicates one instance of the oppression women face- the fear of not being able to run alone outside at night. I would expect that plenty of women find this routine comical because they can relate to the feelings and experience Sykes describes. I think the power in this comedy, however, lies in the men who experience "the moment of laughter [that] may jolt one out of habitual habits and cognition, and open up fresh posibilities" (25). There is always the possibility that ignorant men who laugh at this joke are not laughing at the absurdity of the situation, but actually laughing at women themselves. However, hopefully "fumerism" can provide that space for some men who otherwise have not grasped the oppression women face, to gain a glimpse of understanding through comedy, and in turn reflect on their position in society once the laughter has ceased.

"The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter" by Cynthia Willett and Julie Willett's

What struck me the most about this reading was the idea that feminist philosophy could be considered to be a lesser theory simply because it lacks universality. During the semester, we have discussed the obstacles to women face when attempting to organize a universal women's movement, and the fact that these obstacles can cause such a negative outlook on feminist theory and philosophy due to a lack of a "cohesive movement" seems absurd. What's more, it lacking the mainstream component gives people (men especially) cause to discard it hysterical and radical, encouraging women to adhere to ideals of motherhood, chastity, and serving/pleasing men. Yes, many obstacles exist within the feminist movement, but that does not mean it negates or invalidates its ideals and arguments. What I really loved about this piece is that is shows how women can adopt humor mixed with vulgarity to become something that does not fit the viewpoint men have of women, which leads them to shed their characterization of bodily pleasure for men. It allows women to create their own unique persona, invalidating the stereotype men place on women. Furthermore, when women shed this veil of purity and demonstrate a character similar to that of men, the action destroys any submissive illusion men may have while at the same time demonstrating that having universal feminist movement is naive. This is due to the diversity within the female population, one that mimics the one within the male population, putting everything into perspective and perfectly invalidating the immature view that the entire female population needs a united, feminist movement to equally represent all women.

Cynthia Willett and Julie Willett's "The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter"

I think The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter has to be, hands down, my favorite reading so far! In this piece, the Willetts discuss how feminist philosophy has been viewed as a lesser form of theory because of its lacks of universality and mainstream topics. Moreover, they explain that while men are seen as the humorists or comedians, it is feminist (or women in general) who are viewed as unfunny, told to maintain notions of Republican motherhood and chastity, and are merely reduced to “tits and ass.” In explaining the stereotypes and pressures of women, the Willetts flip the script and discuss the concept of “fumerist,” a term coined by writer Kate Clinton to describe a humor that is both “fuming” and “fun” and “captures the idea of being funny and wanting to burn the house down all at once” (19). Thus, it is comedians like Roseanne, Tina Fey, Margaret Cho and Wanda Sykes who understand the limitations of such stereotypes and discuss their problems in an open, clever way. The Willetts write, “…we argue that fumerist comedy can make visible the history of identity and the struggles for recognition and identification, but as a moment of dislocation and transformation. In other words, the moment of laughter may jolt one out of habitual habits and cognition, and open up fresh possibilities” (24).

Reflecting back on our previous readings, this piece reminded me not only of Butler and Athanasiou’s discussion of “biopolitics,” but also Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression” and the practice of “render[ing] the particular perspective of one’s own group invisible at the same time as they stereotype one’s group and mark it out as the Other” in cultural imperialism (Young, 59). I think, however, what drew me to this piece was its relevance to the phenomenon that is occurring in our television programs and movies today. Though we have had shows like Roseanne, more movies like Bridesmaids and television shows like The Mindy Project and Girls (a show that I have not seen, but have read much about) are now showing female comedians throwing these concepts of motherhood and female respectability out the window. There is a scene in Bridesmaids when Maya Rudolph’s character literally poops in a wedding dress in the middle of the street (after eating bad food for lunch). Though this scene could be viewed as vulgar, it is showing that women can be just as uncouth as the boys. Looking deeper into this scene, one could make the stretched argument that Maya Rudolph’s character is “shitting” on the ideas of proper decorum for women and marriage. Nevertheless, the age of “fumerists” are in full swing and I could not be happier! 

Chapter 17

Lynette Dixon 

Throughout this book, I have had the following questions: where the line between self and community exists, if there is a line at all, and if there even be a line? Chapter 17, Public Grievablity left me asking the same questions but I feel as if the answer to these questions lie in their discussion of the performing body. Butler states that performance makes it possible to articulate “a voice of the people from the singularity and the obduracy of the body, a voice at once individual and social’ another is the reproduction of community or sociality itself.” (175) Therefore in performance, the body no longer holds the same limitations, it is no longer tied to one self, and holds many more possibilities.

 I think I always understood that they were calling for a radical subjectivity and a radical body but I just didn’t know what that looked like. I think that it is the performative self/body that is the alternative. In performance, the obduracy of the body is manipulated so that a person can be both self and other. With this body it is possible for there both to be a line between the two and for there to be no line at all depending on the moment of performance. I think that it is because of this possibility that I could never quite pinpoint the answers to my questions.