Laughing In The Face Of Danger

There are different types of humor that we use in a variety of ways e.g. there is affiliative humor, that we use to create bonds, and enhance existing friendships, there is aggressive humor, that is used to promote and reinforce the identity of the individual, such as when somebody makes fun or mocks something somebody else has done, and there is self-defeating humor, that although potentially injurious to the individual, is used in a self-deprecating way to establish a lower position in the pecking order, so as to be accepted by those above them, etc. Humor is also used as a coping mechanism to relieve an immediate stressor or threat, or to voice a dangerous concern that we’d rather not acknowledge; if we make light of something that we’re genuinely concerned about, we can put it in a context, where we don’t have to actually face its reality. This week, ex-NBA executive, Michael Redlick was stabbed to death by his partner – who is being charged with second-degree murder. Only a few weeks previously, he had publicly joked about having to hide the steak knives from her. Such comments and remarks aren’t accidental, and don’t come from nowhere. Michael Redlick knew he was in potential danger, however the laughs he received from the comment, instead of being an acknowledgment of that fact/danger, were used to downplay the seriousness of his situation – he was able to dismiss, deny and discount his concerns. His dark humor was a predictor of an event, that he knew at the very least was a serious possibility, if not a certainty. Humor plays a number of roles in predicting violence; we may use it as a socially acceptable way to voice a concern, and receive confirmation that we’re overreacting, being stupid or paranoid, etc., without overly-embarrassing ourselves, or we might use it as a form of denial so that we don’t have to acknowledge the immediate threat or danger that we’re facing, etc. In this article, I want to look at the ways in which humor can be used as a predictor of violence.

When Pat Sherrill fired the initial shots, that signaled the start of his shooting spree at the post-office in Edmonton California, where he worked (this is where we get the term “Going Postal” from”), a co-worker taking a break, joked to another that this was probably “Mad Pat” coming back to shoot his Managers/Supervisors – and it was. By the end of his short rampage, twenty were dead, including himself, with another five seriously wounded. The co-worker was spot on — Mad Pat had come to work with the intention of shooting the supervisors who the previous day had seriously reprimanded him – unfairly, as he saw it - for misconduct; however, his anger wasn’t just directed at them, but at everyone, and the institution where he worked. The fact that he’d been given the “humorous” nickname, “Mad Pat” was a warning sign in itself – another dispositional risk-factor in predicting violence for both the mentally healthy and the mentally ill is that of anger; both Sherrill and Redlick’s wife (at the time that she stabbed her husband, she was on probation for assaulting/punching a paramedic), had a long-term history of anger, however this is often also a risk-factor that is dismissed — as previous outbursts that didn’t lead to violence are discounted as singular events, etc. If such a history of anger leads us to make dark jokes, as a coping mechanism and/or an attempt to normalize somebody else’s behavior, we should be taking note.     

A 2004 (Ryan & Kanjorski) study of college students found that despite women finding sexist/disparagement jokes more offensive and less enjoyable than men did, they were not significantly less likely to tell them. Such “humor” – telling jokes, making remarks you personally don’t find funny, but think/believe others will – serves many purposes e.g. it can be used as a tool to fit in, to demonstrate that you don’t take certain issues too seriously, even if you do, or as a coping mechanism, that allows you to deny and dismiss the reality behind the joke, etc. The telling of aggressive, sexist jokes by men is associated with rape-related attitudes and beliefs, and when told by women is only positively correlated with an acceptance of interpersonal violence. Our use of humor, and the way others use it, can help us assess our levels of risk. It is worth noting that whilst exposure to such humor is not likely to create negative stereotypes, it has been found to increase the tolerance for incidents and events of discrimination for people who already have existing prejudices (Thomas & Ferguson, 2004), against a certain group, such as women – expanding the boundaries of what would be considered normal and acceptable behavior i.e. exposure to sexist and/or rape jokes, is not going to create or turn somebody into a sexual assailant or rapist, but for somebody who already possesses a level or degree of sexual aggression towards women, it may lift some of the behavioral restrictions that they once had e.g. before they may have thought unwanted touching was a boundary that they shouldn’t cross, but now they don’t believe that this is a convention they should or have to adhere to, etc. Perceived social boundaries normally get pushed bit-by-bit, and people who have not yet crossed them, may find that their negative attitudes suddenly become acceptable within a group, without having to advance or push them, themselves.

Humor is a large part of who we are – or for most of us, anyway. However, it is used in a myriad of ways and not just for personal entertainment purposes e.g. it can be used to assert identity, both positively and negatively, and it can be also used to deny a reality. We should observe both when/how we use it, along with the way in which others do, as both can help us determine potential risks, as well as assess the culture and environment we are in.