Introduction
What happens when nonviolent political activists use humour to challenge those they consider more powerful than themselves? What does it mean to the activists, and what types of responses do the use of humour generate from opponents, media, police, bystanders and other activists? – Sorensen, 2014
A 2014 PhD thesis written by activist-scholar Majken Jul Sorensen explores how creative activists combine humour with seriousness via stunts to create change. The following excerpts from ‘Humorous Political Stunts: Nonviolent Public Challenges to Power’ briefly outline what such actions involve, how they work, and what they can achieve. The category of ‘Supportive stunts’ is then discussed along with the example of the John Howard Ladies’ Auxiliary Fan Club.
Defining Humorous Political Stunts
This is what I mean by humorous political stunts:
A humorous political stunt is a performance/action carried out in public which attempts to undermine a dominant discourse. It is either so confrontational that it cannot be ignored or involves a deception that blurs the line between performers and audiences. It includes or comments on a political incongruity in a way that is perceived as amusing by at least some people who did not initiate it.
The discourses which are challenged can be major and all-pervading discourses like militarism, consumerism or neo-liberalism, or it can be more limited discourses controlled by a powerful political party. This challenge can be directly aimed at a person or institution considered an opponent, or it can be communicated to other audiences using a variety of media. That the humorous political stunt takes place in public means that this is more than a humorous critical comment or joke whispered in secret. One can observe someone doing something without hiding it, although they might try to hide their identity.
The stunts are political in the broad sense that they comment on a political theme of how society should be organised. Humorous political stunts also have to be humorous. Since what people consider funny varies greatly, not everyone will necessarily find the stunts amusing.
Types of Humorous Political Stunts
Supportive Stunts
Supportive stunts are framed as ostensible attempts to help and protect from harm by exaggerating and over-emphasising the discourse and claims to truth upheld by those in power.
Corrective Stunts
Corrective stunts also use exaggeration to present an alternative version of the power holders’ truth, but they hijack the identity or message of those in power and declare their protest from this disguise.
Naive stunts
In the naive stunts, the challengers put forward their critique from behind a pretended innocence that seems unaware that a dominant discourse exists. It provides the possibility to act as if the pranksters do not understand that what they do can be interpreted as protest.
Absurd stunts
Absurd stunts attempt to defy all rationality and ignore all dominant discourses.
Provocative stunts
Finally, in the provocative stunts the pranksters transcend power by appearing not to care about the consequences of infuriating the powerful.
More About Supportive Humorous Stunts
Supportive humorous stunts are framed as attempts to help, support, protect from harm, and celebrate. Those who carry out supportive stunts appear supportive and rational, but what happens is that the target is invalidated.
On the political scene, those assumed to be in power and control are joined up front by the pranksters. Apparently the pranksters do not dismiss the truth and rationality the representatives of the dominant discourses present, instead it is exaggerated and overemphasised. Usually irony plays an important role in supportive humorous stunts, since they are not supportive at all, but instead attempt to disconfirm their targets.
The targets will know that they are being watched, and the audiences are presented with an image of the power holders’ vulnerable sides. Here the protesters do not appear irrational in their relation to what they actually oppose, they are constructive, helpful and supportive. By acting in this way they attempt to undermine their opponents’ claims to truth and transcend the unequal relations of power.
Compared to conventional political protest, at first glance supportive stunts look like real support, but a closer look reveals an underlying message that exposes and disconfirms.
Case Study: John Howard Ladies’ Auxiliary Fan Club
Australia’s conservative prime minister from 1996 to 2007 had an extraordinary fan club consisting of four young women plus their driver and camera women. In characters as Bea Wight, Bea Wright, Bea Rich and Bea Strait they mocked him and his politics during the last part of his time as prime minister.
In an interview, the women explained how the names “reflect the key pillars of Howardism – being white, right, rich and straight.” The women were provoked by Howard’s conservative politics and what they saw as his attempt to bring Australia back to the 1950s. They set out to confront his politics in an unusual manner, starting with the 2004 election.
Dressed up in silly hats, pearls, long white gloves, lots of makeup and frocks, representing the stereotypical Australian housewife of the 1950s, they tried to confront him with these ironic personas.
In 2004 they did not get closer than 50 metres, but in the following years, the characters were developed. Prior to the 2007 election campaign, they did their first public performance on a tram. Here they launched the “White blindfold campaign” and explained to the passengers “Now, this is the official John Howard view of history. What happens with the white blindfold is that you put it on and you can’t see a thing. It completely whites out everything. All you can see is white.” Then they had a “patriotic” Australian history quiz, satirising Howard’s perception of what Australia’s history was like. Responses from the passengers were positive, and even Howard supporters thought it was funny.
Getting a chance to get close to Howard during the election campaign was difficult, since his schedule was kept secret, but in 2007 they finally found themselves at the right hotel. While the journalists were waiting for Howard, the women got a chance to introduce themselves as the John Howard Ladies’ Auxiliary Fan Club. They had a number of gags, e.g. playing on the electoral Viagra they had prepared for Mr. Howard and the race card that he could play during the election (which Howard had done in previous elections) and uranium export to Iran and North Korea. Later that day, they finally met him in the botanical gardens in Melbourne.
Bea Wight asked Howard if he would like some yellowcake, referring to a form of uranium concentrate powder, and Howard’s recent signing of an agreement with Russia about export of Australian uranium. Bea Wight explains what happened: “He looked at us and smiled as though all his dreams had come at once. He smiled. He was happy, just for one split second, and then he realised – ‘Electoral Viagra’ – that we were evil.”
The fan club continued to follow Howard, including by going to a horse race he attended. Here they found their way into the exclusion zone with their pink fluffy hats and white gloves in order to encourage Howard to play the race card. When security guards wanted to escort them out, they explained that “Johnny” had asked them to be there, and that they were his fan club.
Next time they tried to get to Howard, their costumes helped them though several security points, since they looked cute and harmless. That gave the four ladies time with Howard’s people and an opportunity to offer them xenophobia pills, with words like “Are you afraid of muslims dear, please take this pill it will help you.” They had white pills for fear of muslims, pink for gay people, purple for feminists and red ones for communists and unionists – all minority groups the fan club thought were attacked by Howard’s politics.
The fan club managed to get away with many stunts without being arrested or fined, and made it to the national TV news. They think themselves that because they presented themselves as absolute Howard lovers and behaved so nonthreateningly, they were perceived more as performers than as activists. It also helped that they were four small white women. And they were convincing.
A news reporter starts her account of the offering of yellowcake “Even if their message is not quite your cup of tea, it’s hard not to admire the commitment of the four mothers of the John Howard Ladies Auxiliary Fan Club.”
Download Resources
Humorous Political Stunts: Nonviolent Public Challenges to Power
The full thesis, Humorous Political Stunts: Nonviolent Public Challenges to Power, which analyses numerous examples of successful stunts, can be downloaded here.
“Humour and seriousness are frequently posed as opposites both in academia and everyday language. However, some nonviolent actions are both humorous and serious and living proof that the dichotomy misses an important type of humour.
These humorous political stunts publicly challenge dominant discourses and powerful institutions and people in five distinct ways.
1. Supportive stunts are framed as ostensible attempts to help, celebrate and protect from harm.
2. Corrective stunts present an alternative version of dominant discourses by hijacking the identity or message of people, companies and institutions.
3. Naive stunts disguise their critique behind a pretended innocence
4. Absurd stunts defy all claims to truth and rationality. In
5. Provocative stunts the pranksters transcend power by appearing not to care about the consequences of infuriating the powerful.
The particular dynamics of these five strategies are explored through 15 short examples covering everything from struggles against neo-liberalism and controversial bank investments to dictatorships.
A theatre metaphor further illustrates how humorous political stunts can be analysed. The nuances about relations of power and humour uncovered by this typology illustrate why it is inadequate to discuss whether humour should be considered subversive or a vent for frustration as has been debated within humour studies for decades. Instead the interesting question is what role humour can play in facilitating resistance, since political humour is so diverse and takes place in such different contexts that it is misleading to evaluate its impact as if it is all the same.
Two in-depth case studies are the basis for the further exploration of humour and nonviolent action. Inspired by participatory action research methodology, the study has utilised archival material, media reports, interviews, workshops, and participant observation to document and analyse the use of humour by the groups Ofog and KMV. Ofog is a Swedish anti-militarist network working on issues related to the arms industry, military recruitment and military test sites. Ofog activists have found the use of humour to be a positive way to reach out to media, passers-by and potential new activists. Even more important is humorous political stunts’ contribution to the discursive guerrilla war waged by activists.
Power does not just manifest itself in brutal repression and exploitation, but also in dominant discourses about what is true, right and just. In this struggle, humorous incongruity can deconstruct patterns of domination through the use of exposure, exaggeration, parody and irony among many other techniques.
Kampanjen Mot Verneplikt, KMV, was a Scandinavian campaign against conscription active in the 1980s. Here the focus is the work for improving the conditions for Norwegian total resisters who refused both military and alternative service. KMV pursued different strategies in its work, one of which was to create a spectacle around court hearings and imprisonments, including several humorous political stunts. Together with the legal work of filing charges against the state for violation of their human rights, KMV’s spectacular actions were crucial in changing the law on conscientious objection.
The phenomenon of humorous political stunts is discussed in relation to Vinthagen’s theory of nonviolent action and its four dimensions. Just like other nonviolent actions, some stunts are strong in one dimension while others mainly work in another. Almost all the stunts temporarily contribute to breaking power and many also include a dialogue facilitation element. The absurd and naïve stunts have demonstrated a particular ability to be part of utopian enactment and normative regulation, since Santas, clowns and similar figures speak to people’s imagination and hopes for a more just and peaceful world.
Analysing humorous political stunts can give both academics and activists insights into what type of stunt is most likely to emphasise a certain aspect of a humorous nonviolent action in relation to various audiences. It will also bring a deeper understanding of the nature and dynamics of power, resistance and humour.” – Source
Contents
- Introduction
- Chapter 1: Nonviolence, humour and relations of power
- Chapter 2: A methodology for emancipation and social change
- Chapter 3: Humorous political stunts
- Chapter 4: Radical clowning as humorous political activism
- Chapter 5: Ofog – playful anti-militarist mischief
- Chapter 6: Kampanjen Mot Verneplikt – combining legal and spectacular actions
- Chapter 7: Humorous political stunts and relations of power
- Conclusion
- References
Humour and Political Activism: Creative Nonviolent Resistance
A shorter version of the thesis is published as the book Humour and political activism: Creative Nonviolent Resistance.
Contents
- Introduction
- Humour and Pockets of Resistance
- Humorous Political Stunts from Around the World
- Facilitating Outreach, Mobilisation and a Culture of Resistance
- Confronting the State Through Humorous Political Activism
- Dilemmas and Risks in Humorous Political Activism
- Humorous Political Stunts and Theory of Nonviolent Action
- Conclusion: Humour, Power and Nonviolent Resistance
About the Author
Majken Jul Sorensen is an associate professor of sociology at Østfold University College, Norway and Karlstad University, Sweden. Her interest in nonviolent social movements, conflict transformation as well as humour and political activism has to a large degree focused on participants’ experiences and people’s agency and ability to create change from below.
The question of how change occurs has taken Majken to social science areas such as social movement theory, resistance studies and sociology of humour, law, history and emotions. She is the author of a number of articles, chapters and books, details of which can be found here.
Explore Further
- No War Opera House Graffiti Action: An Interview with Dave Burgess
- How Artistic Activism can move us Toward a Better Future
- Campaign Tactics
- Listening to the Artivists: Podcasts about Activism and the Arts
- Humorous Political Stunts: Nonviolent Public Challenges to Power
- From Little Things Big Things Grow: Events That Changed Australia
- Pranks, performances and protestivals: Public Events
- Activism and the Power of Humour
- Defending Democracy with Humor and Dilemma Actions Tactics
- The dilemma action: analysis of an activist technique
- Radical clowning: challenging militarism through play and otherness
- Dilemma Actions: The Power of Putting your Opponent in a Bind
- Strengthen a Campaign with Dilemma Demonstrations
- Cheeky and Disorganized: Nannagogy and the Knitting Nannas
- Pranks, Performances and Protestivals: Public Events
- Laughtivism: The Power of Humor in Nonviolent Struggle
Video – Lecture by Srdja Popovic, activist, global thinker, and the founder & Executive Director of the Center for Applied Nonviolent Actions and Strategies (CANVAS). - Seriously Funny: Humor, Satire, and the Art of Protest
Video – Stephen Duncombe is theauthor, professor and co-founder of the Center for Artistic Activism. - The Power of Humor and Ridicule as a Tool of Influence and Opposition
Video – Charlie Chaplin, Daffy Duck, Dr. Seuss, Team America, and Winnie-the-Pooh have entertained audiences using humor. What is perhaps less known about these entertainers is how their humor and images have been used to denigrate and ridicule dictators and authoritarian regimes. When thinking about propaganda and mass influence, humor and ridicule do not often come to mind. However, humor and ridicule are powerful tools of influence and can be used to encourage opposition to authoritarian rule. This talk explores what makes humor and ridicule such effective tools of influence and why authoritarian regimes fear ridicule so much. The speaker is Dr. Caitlin Schindler is a Research Professor at The Institute of World Politics and Adjunct Professor at Patrick Henry College.