On Comedy: Punching Up vs. Down

DokiDokiTsuna 2021-07-23 22:51:42 UTC #1

This is a thread I've been wanting to start for a while...
Comedy in general is a topic that I think a lot about and that I'd love to discuss...it's just so complex and broad and subjective that it's hard to know where to start. So I guess I'll start here. ^^;

So in case you haven't heard it before, 'punching up/down' is a phrase that refers to what kind of person or entity is made the butt of a joke, usually in terms of power and privilege. When you're punching up, you're mocking people who have more power, and when you're punching down, you're mocking people who have less...which is usually frowned upon.

Although, to be honest, 'frowned upon' may not be the right way to put it. ^^; People laugh at jokes that punch down all the time, and have done so for ages...they may not even realize right away that you're doing it if you use one of the old socially-acceptable standbys, like women, or children, or convicted criminals...I promise, comedy centered around mocking demographics like those is still alive and well, and you've probably laughed at some of it yourself, even if you didn't want to (Don't hide your shame! Analyze it and criticize it instead).

I think what I'm trying to say is that, for people who think about these things, it's generally considered the lesser strategy (and in many cases, actively harmful). While comedy does admittedly have a lot of its roots in misery and suffering, a lot of the greatest and most memorable comedy challenges you to think about that misery at least a little critically, by presenting it as something relatable, or by deconstructing it and putting its elements in unusual places.

Like, consider the classic technique of portraying some rich character whining that their life is ruined, or some other over-dramatic thing, just because there are only three diamonds on their ring instead of four, or because their yacht didn't come with leather seats. ^^;
There's the baseline comedy aspect of a character being mildly disappointed and overreacting, but there's also a layer of irony on top of that, in seeing someone who already has so much still behaving that way.

'Their yacht doesn't have leather seats?? I've never even been in a yacht...or in real leather, for that matter...' The average person knows this automatically and internally, and being faced with the unfathomable alternate reality this character must be living in makes the joke just a little more chuckle-worthy. This is a good common example of punching up.

And that kind of irony is a large part of what makes punching up in general work. Governments, institutions, even just individual people in power-- despite all they have, it's still not enough. They can't be satisfied, they have to have more...even if it means taking from those who don't have anywhere near as much.
It doesn't make sense (a core tenet of comedy) and as such, it's to be mocked. If for no reason, than to make the average person under their boots feel just a little better about their plight. ^^;

Punching down, on the other hand, does the opposite: it attacks the people who are already under the boot...usually to make those who happen to be under lighter boots feel just a little superior. There's a kind of irony in that too, but I'm not gonna get into it. =P
Anyway, I think probably the most mainstream example is bullying 'nerds' throughout the 20th century. And not just nerds, but any young person society didn't find normal/desirable...any girl who was fat or ugly, any boy who was weak or effeminate, and any kid who found more joy in their hobbies than in pleasing other people...they all existed just to be laughed at and pressured to change, before they grew up and became a 'lost cause'.

And you could feel good about laughing at them, as an audience member, because despite any insecurities you might have, at least you weren't as hopeless as that poor slob. Or at least you were already trying to improve them or hide them; not like that character...'really, they deserve to be laughed at if they're not willing to try as hard as me.'

In my opinion, that kind of thinking is behind most comedy that punches down, and bullying as a whole (which in itself is often a sort of dark comedy performance, if you look at it psychologically). We enjoy seeing people worse off than ourselves, and we enjoy pretending that they deserve to be worse off because of something we feel that we've achieved, that they haven't. To some extent, we enjoy seeing them punished for that, especially if we've spent a lot of effort trying to avoid that punishment, or if we were punished in the same way until we were forced to change ('I turned out alright'...you know the deal).

So in conclusion, 'punching down sucks, and the sooner it disappears the better', right?
Probably yes...I mean, for the sake of the greater good, that would be ideal. ^^; But until that does happen, there are ways you can use it for comedy that isn't as cruel...just turn it on its head, and use it to punch back up. Frame the people who engage in that behavior as the ones worthy of ridicule, not their targets.

It's easier said than done, though...I've seen it fail, and it's not pretty. ^^; Usually this happens when writers unconsciously get attached to having the 'target' be abused...they can have the other characters criticize the 'bully' until the cows come home, but when they put a lot of effort into using the abuse itself to get laughs out of the audience, it shows, and it sends mixed messages. Like...you can't just say that what the bully is doing is wrong and simultaneously try to make us enjoy it. =/

Probably the most common way to do this correctly is to give the bully their comeuppance. ^^ They can be vicious and evil and mean to everyone, but that's not what's supposed to make us laugh-- we're supposed to laugh when it comes time for them to pay for it.
Maybe they're like Wile E. Coyote and honestly doing more harm to themselves in their attempts to hurt someone else, or maybe (more realistically) they delusionally think they are the superior one in the cast, but it's obvious to the viewer that everyone else thinks they're the cringiest person in the room whenever they're around (certain 70's sitcoms made brilliant use of this technique...sometimes a little too much, though ^^; )

So in that case, we don't necessarily want the punching down to stop...it's what makes the bully what they are, and what sets them up for their fall. We just want it to have funny consequences (often, consequences that never come to such bullies in real life...but again, I'm not gonna get into that here), and the way this is accomplished is what makes the joke a net 'punch up'.

...Well, that was actually a lot of fun to write. ^^ I hope some of you enjoyed reading it, and that it's made you think.
I guess the questions that I'd leave you with are as follows: First (and most obviously), how do you define punching up or down? What are the pros and cons of the techniques; why do you think people use them?

And if I do another thread on comedy, what would you want me to write about next? ^^ 'Cause I really think I might do this again.

TheGentleArtist 2021-07-23 23:47:48 UTC #2

Oh, this goes beyond simple height jokes? Oof, that is a tall order.

I guess I define "punching up" as making jokes about higher status people and/or objects while "punching down" is making fun of people that are equal/lower standing and/or objects to push them down more or just to joke around.

I guess off the top of my head.........
Pros for both:
Stress reducer
Focusing on a problem at hand
Gives a perspective

Pros for "punching up":
More talk about the higher-ups
Safe road for joking/show consequences
Give a closer eye to the higher status

Pros for "punching down":
Down the line, may cause others under the boot to receive aid
Enact a form of sympathy
A good way to set-up to a "punch up"

Cons of both:
Bad stereotyping
Hate/prejudice
Constant shifting of blame that causes the problem to not be fixed

Cons of "punching up":
Easily incites more cruelty in media
Incurs unnecessary level of mistrust

Cons of "punching down":
Bullying
Could be attacked for making the joke

I think people make these jokes to get a good laugh and other reasons like: reducing stress, give a lesson, give a story more power etc.,

I guess if you were to make another thread on comedy, writing about the fine line on dark humor and being an actual jerk could be a nice read.

Sad1000enial 2021-07-23 23:57:05 UTC #3

Somehow on topic, and off it, I watched the olympics opening today, and that sketch parodying the press was super lame, Japanese humor is so weird... I like gintama tho, the only exception.

DesiredUsernameTaken 2021-07-23 23:59:51 UTC #4

Heck yeah I enjoyed the read! I also never heard of the phrase, so thank you for teaching me that.

These are such loaded questions (not sure if I'm using that right) . I've never thought about comedy to such a degree; it's more of an unvoiced quiet thing that sits in the back of my head, and when something makes me laugh or rubs me the wrong way when everyone else found it funny, I can never quite place it. I suppose, knowing the terminology now, it's because said unfunny instances were always "punching down"*.

I'd probably sum up the terms for myself as "laughing at the delusional (ex. those with a false sense of superiority) or the fortunate (ex. the wealthy)", and "laughing at the underdog". I don't know if simplifying like that is accurate and captures the terms, so if it isn't...feel free to let me know! That's what I'm working off of when I answer your questions though, so now we know.

I can't think of many pros that are specific to these two things. In general, comedy is a great way to disarm someone's guard; if you can make them laugh, they kind of let loose. They try to see things your way and be more open minded, and they'll be a bit more receptive to information (be it bad or good information). Comedy in storytelling is immensely helpful, especially to get someone on the side of a certain character, or even to make them more palatable if they aren't that likable otherwise.

I'd think that when "punching up" or "punching down" can be applied to a situation, there's some level of wit involved, as well. It can give a good idea on how a character, a group, or even society (all being "entities") at large views something, and how that something is treated, and also how the entity goes about approaching humor, or an issue.

"Punching up" I think is easy to execute, and it's easy to relate to. "Punching down" as you said, can be pretty distasteful, but as with my question at the bottom I think in some ways it sometimes falls into a category for me where it's us laughing at a version of ourselves in a way, because we see ourselves on the same level in some shape or form and therefore we laugh at it in someone else as a pitying "I understand" kind of way. In the stories I've read, the "punching down" instances seem a lot more like punching...sideways? Of the ones that were indeed "punching down", it was always portrayed in a negative light, to show a variety of things like clarifying the antagonist, or some other bullies, or the ways in which a bad peer group is influencing an otherwise kind character.

One big con that generally stands out to me for "punching down" is that it can often be misunderstood. Others take it so seriously that they think it's okay to actually think of a certain group that way, which is why I often just try not to make similar jokes because I don't want to cause any harm with some jokes that don't actually add to my life in any way, and things that I can do without.

I feel like we place a HUGE importance on being funny in society. I mean, when you ask someone what they look for in a friend? A boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife? Generally, "[Insert Name] should be funny, have a sense of humor, and..." Most people like the class clown. A lot of people want to be funny like the class clown, and be as seemingly lovable because it comes off as very charismatic, and it gets you places. "Punching up" and "punching down" is, on the surface, humor that's easy to pick up and understand because everyone is familiar with it and generally seem to get good reactions.

It reminds me of this little segment in Roger Rabbit. The detective asks Jessica Rabbit, "Why are you with that guy?" or something along those lines.
She says, very casually, "He makes me laugh."

I'm so sorry if all of that is a mess or if I went off-topic. I didn't know how to organize my thoughts. I hope it makes some sense.

Benign violation theory! I love reading about that in regards to comedy. It sounds like it's a bit along the lines of what you're talking about here and how "punching down" comedy can be executed properly.

*Is there such a thing as punching sideways . What if there's a "joke? about a certain class, but you're part of the class and you're on the same level, not below nor above?

crimson_mystery_cake 2021-07-24 02:50:24 UTC #6

This is something that I’ve thought about too! To me, punching down is more just, like, for dark humor. The humor is more in, the “the unexpected that someone would say that” kind of way. Personally I kind of think that punching down can be a bit lazy. Kind of just relies more on shock value then actually being comedic.

This is actually an interesting question because, what “punching up” or down is depends on the person. Like, let’s say I was a person that didn’t like identity politics in media, right? Like I got mad about feminism in marvel movies and stuff like that. So I made a comic making fun of identity politics. In my mind I’m punching up, I’m fighting back against the big corporations that insert unnecessary politics in movies just meant for escapism, but some people might see me as punching down, making fun and discriminating against a minority group. I think you kind of just have to be in tap with your audience and demographic in order to know who you should target in your comedy. Like if I was doing a stand-up routine for billionaires I’d probably would want to dodge the whole “not enough leather seats in my yacht” jokes.

I kind of think cartoons handle this situation best, things like a cat and mouse game a la Tom and Jerry, or a hunter vs prey a la Elmer Fudd and bugs bunny, are pretty neutral scenarios. All you have to do is not make your prey jerks. The reason why people root for Jerry and Bugs is because they are always reactive and never start the problems. However if Jerry/Bugs were jerks and Tom/Elmer Fudd acted more sympathetic, then we may end up rooting for the hunter instead.

As far as doing another thread idek bro lmao

AnonymousHouseCat 2021-07-24 07:22:01 UTC #7

I was really excited to see this question, because I have taken two courses on the philosophy of humor and have been thinking about a rebuttal to the phrase "relax, it's just a joke!" @DokiDokiTsuna I really appreciate your own interesting and enlightening ideas on this subject, as well as those in the comments! So I started writing a response, but it kept getting too long and unwieldy, so I'll just toss these ideas out there:

1) According to the sociologist Johann Galtung, oppression and violence in a society are actually the result of a "violent triangle" consisting of three elements that all feed into each other: 1) direct violence 2) structural violence and 3) cultural violence. Direct violence is what it sounds like: actual physical harm. Structural violence involves oppressive laws and societal norms that disadvantage a particular group. Cultural violence is the creation of a cultural narrative that makes the other two seem justified, acceptable, or invisible to those not impacted. All sorts of things contribute to cultural violence, including humor that may reinforce negative stereotypes (as @TheGreatArtisan entions or the idea that a certain group is inferior. That’s why, for me, “punching down” is humor that further marinalizes a marginalized group while “punching up” isn’t as harmful because there is little to no social or physical repercussion behind it. (Although @Crimson_Mystery_Cake makes the good point that one’s perception of who is/isn’t oppressed may be different regardless of the reality. In fact, this may in itself be due in part to harmful cultural narratives!)

2) Freud points out that “tendentious jokes,” that is, jokes with a target/”butt” can be used to express the joke-teller’s true feelings in a safe play-space of perceived non-seriousness (@emmzy touches on this I think). This is another reason jokes with malicious intent toward marginalized groups bother me: because there may be some seriousness behind the “play.”
In general, humor creates a looser space where we can test new ideas, combine ideas in novel ways and transgress/test social norms.

3) on that note: humor can be used to reinforce or question social norms, and also create/reinforce in-groups and out-groups. According to Freud, a typical tendentious joke involves a teller, listener, and the object of the joke. The teller is creating a bond/establishing similarity and a sense of superiority with the listener by highlighting the differences/percieved inferiority of the “outsider.”

On the other hand, In terms of “punching up,” perhaps we could also see humor as a tool of bonding when various people experiencing similar struggles come together by diminishing the source(s) of struggle through humor. Even if the struggle/target is significantly more powerful, the ego-boost and feeling of connection might be beneficial. For example, humans can’t overcome death, but they can make it less scary and more tolerable by diminishing it through jokes.

4) Just as jokes can be used for the distancing/ approximation of people, it can also be used for the distancing/approximation of qualities and behaviors. I think that’s what’s happening in @DokiDoki Tsuna’s example of a punch-down leading up to a punch-up against a bully: the punch-down isn’t the ending point. What we’re actually laughing at or enjoying is the shared recognition that the punch-down is wrong. Although, as @DokiDoki Tsuna also notes, there’s maybe a risk of the author/audience actually buying into the punch-down part, maybe revealing some true problematic underlying feelings… Also on the topic of humor, groups, and qualities, there’s the interesting example of some first-generation Jewish immigrants to the U.S using what appeared to be self-depricating humor to distance themselves from their parents’ culture (joking about what made them be percieved as different) while creating a connection with both mainstream U.S culture and other children of immigrants with similar experiences, but I don’t want to wander off into other topics too much.

As a final thought, sometimes what appears to be self-depricating humor can actually be subversive punch-up humor in disguise, only noticeable by those in the know.

Anyway, I’m not great at organizing ideas, so I hope this made some sense, I gave credit where credit was due, and I made a helpful contribution

AnonymousHouseCat 2021-07-24 07:28:24 UTC #8

oohhh what's benign violation theory? sounds interesting! And I think my response might touch on the punching sideways question a bit. Perhaps it's not the person, but certain qualities or behaviors being targeted or the real goal is the create solidarity with others in the same class by recognizing a shared experience or struggle?

DesiredUsernameTaken 2021-07-24 14:42:22 UTC #9

I'm pretty new to the theory and heard of it only so long ago, so here's this Tedx video where I came across the theory first, and haven't gotten the chance to look into it more (just 12 minutes :

I find that it's pretty accurate for me and that it touches on the delicate balance of humor that works for me without the risk of being harmful or dangerous.

Yes! You touched on it Loved reading your post

DokiDokiTsuna 2021-07-24 18:58:30 UTC #10

That sounds like it would be SO difficult...which means it would probably be fun if I gave it a try. ^^ I'll think about it.

Hmm...yes, maybe...that's a good theory; I'll have to think about it some more.

I think that's a form of self-deprecating humor, isn't it? Which would also make an interesting topic...lots of nuance there~

You raise a good point there, about it being subjective...I think it's entirely possible that 'punching up' has been taken in as a form of virtue signaling; where now the popular way to portray yourself as superior to the other is to actually paint yourself as the underdog, whose 'pure' morals are being suppressed by a corrupt higher power.

Perhaps that's why people say satire is dead...when everyone thinks they're the victim, poking fun by pretending the oppressor is the victim or vice versa no longer has any effect. You're just saying the same things. ^^;;

Nevertheless, I think it's also true that comedy doesn't exist in a vacuum...and its effects are not limited to just the 'intended' audience anymore, now that the internet exists.
I mean, when billionaires go on social media and snip about the few public/legal policies that they still have to adhere to, they're probably just intending to relate to their wealthy friends, who probably also see that as 'punching up' against the 'establishment' or whatever.

But the rest of us who are on social media can also see that, and we can see the wider context in which they really aren't punching up at all (considering the effects of lobbying and the demographic that actually gets elected into governments, I think their power levels are pretty much equal). And we're not laughing. =/

Two?? I wish I'd gotten to take even one course like that when I was in college...Personality Theory was the closest I got to anything really interesting. >_<

Anyway, you raise a lot of good points (I usually don't like Freud, but that idea about 'tendentious jokes' is really interesting). Thanks for sharing~

jkb4753 2021-07-25 16:26:22 UTC #11

Thank you for posting this thread it really gave me something to think about. I definitely need to evaluate the kinds of jokes I tell. I like to make fun of my peers but some of those are cheap shots.