When Humor Hurts: The Theory of “Joke Capital”

Source: RDNE Stock Project / Pexels

The following is the second of a three-part interview with Drs. Thomas Wilk and Steve Gimbel. For part one, click here.

What do you see as the relevant factors in determining if a joke is morally permissible to tell?

We both understood that, while being the butt of a joke can hurt—who among us has survived third grade without feeling the sting of a comic barb on the playground?—the exact same words from a dear friend, romantic partner, or family member can actually build intimacy in a relationship. We bust on our friends and yank our sibling’s chains in a way that no one else can. There is something about allowing ourselves to be comically vulnerable around certain people that both displays and increases the depth of that interpersonal relationship. So, we wondered what was happening in those cases.

The view we developed to explain it is that potentially harmful jokes can be not only acceptable but morally desirable when they are reasonably interpreted as a special sort of playful speech designed to do something other than communicate facts. When jokes are interpreted this way, they are far less likely to cause the harm they might otherwise inflict.

What has to be in place? We realized that there were four interconnected aspects of the act: (1) the joke, (2) the teller, (3) the audience, and (4) the context. To determine whether the telling of a given joke was permissible, we have to know what was said, who said it, to whom they said it, and where and when. All are important.

First, we have to look at the intrinsic harshness of the joke itself. A sharper, more cutting joke is likelier to be harmful compared to a milder one. Some jokes are silly wordplay, while others are rough invocations of hurtful stereotypes.

That’s just the beginning. As the punching-up/punching-down theorists highlight, we also need to consider the relative vulnerability of the target group to the teller. Some people are allowed to tell some jokes that other people aren’t. Steve is Jewish, but Tom isn’t. Doesn’t that give Steve permission to tell some Jewish jokes that Tom can’t? Further, there is the question of timing. A joke that might otherwise be OK would seem problematic in the wake of a tragedy or disaster. Additionally, jokes reinforcing common stereotypes tend to be more harmful, whereas genuinely clever jokes might do less damage.

When evaluating the joke we must consider several factors: harshness, vulnerability, timing, prevalence of stereotypes, and the quality of the joke. These combine to give a joke a certain moral price tag, a cost that looks at a whole range of factors, including the audience and the context. Certain jokes may be more allowable at the bar than at grandma’s Thanksgiving table.

We must also reflect on the identity of the joker, their social position, their likely intentions, and their past actions. To account for all of this, we developed the concept of “joke capital.” Think of it as ethical insurance against the potential harm a joke could cause. A given joker can only afford to tell a potentially harmful joke if they’ve accumulated enough joke capital.

Source: Wild Little Things Photo / Pexels

Could you describe your theory and how it accounts for these factors?

Joke capital comes from several sources. The primary source is inheritance: Being a member of a particular group gives you a certain amount of joke capital within that group. This implicit privilege means you can joke about your own group because we assume you don’t intend harm. This is why Jews can tell Jewish jokes that others may not.

You can also get a loan of joke capital from others. Friends often allow each other to make jokes based on their identities that they wouldn’t accept from strangers. This kind of ribbing can actually deepen trust and intimacy. This is why Tom can make some Jewish jokes about Steve to Steve in some contexts, but not in others: If the source of the loan is not present and the target, you cannot plead “but I have Jewish friends.” Loans of joke capital come with serious restrictions.

Joke capital can be earned, too. If you have a reputation for supporting a vulnerable group, people are more likely to interpret your jokes about that group as harmless. Someone who has been a tireless advocate for LGBTQ+ rights for decades has earned the right to make certain jokes since the care for the members of that community is not in doubt and the ribbing is seen as loving playfulness, not an attack.

Humor Essential Reads

Humor in Marketing: The Riches Are in the Glitches

When Humor Hurts: Playful Ribbing or Malicious Ridicule?

Finally, some groups have accumulated additional joke capital through reparations. If your group has been historically wronged by another, members of your group can joke about the other group in ways that might otherwise be off-limits. Black Americans and Native Americans can rag on white America in ways that are not allowed in the reverse. It is small payback, but the moral permissibility to use humor in reestablishing some sense of justice is owed.

Source: SHVETS Production / Pexels

Joke capital comes in different denominations, and each group has its own. You might have a lot of capital for dentist jokes, but none for West Virginia jokes. There is no way to trade in one for the other. Your ability to mock dentists says nothing about the jokes you might make about West Virginians.

According to our theory, we must first determine the potential harm of a joke and think of it as a moral cost. We look at aspects of the joke itself and where and to whom it is told. The more likely it is in that circumstance to cause harm, the more morally expensive it is to tell. Then, we determine how much joke capital the joker has in the denomination of the group the joke is about. If they have enough to cover the cost, their joke is likely to be interpreted as playful and not harmful and they are permitted to tell that joke there and then.

To see part three, click here.

© John Charles Simon.