Jez's Blog

In his 2004 book, Status Anxiety, Alain de Botton, a philosophical writer, argues that the chief aim of humorist is not merely to entertain but "to convey with impunity message that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly." Further, because society allows, humorists --including cartoonists, stand-up comics, satirical writers, hosts of television programs, etc -- to say things that other people cannot say or will not say, de Botton sees humorists as serving a vital function in society. I cannot agree more with de Botton's assertion.

The end of our beloved world is just around the corner of our lifetimes. Just kidding, but seriously. Just kidding, but seriously? So is this a joke or what? Unless you have never heard about global worming, the butterfly effect, the ozone depletion, the rapid climate change, or other global environmental issues that are in presence, otherwise you probably won't take it entirely as a joke. Humorists are able to say things that other people cannot say or will not say because, with humor, they are able to make an unpleasant subject, or critic sound agreeable. According to de Botton, performances of humorists do not only aim to entertain their audiences, they also convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly. These messages are often attempted to bring up people's awareness of certain issues in the society in order to "correct" the society. As a result, these messages may involve critics of the authority such as the government or important public figures. However, people do not accidentally do bad things. They knowingly do wrong. This is why these messages may be dangerous to state directly. For instance, stand-up comics often make fun of social issues, particularly about sex or politics which are usually very sensitive topics to talk about in public. Yet, stand-up comedians are able to get away from openly stating their opinions or critics about these topics because they are funny, their performances are funny, which in fact makes their performances enjoyable. Humor is like lubricants: it alleviates the tension between the speakers or writers and their audiences who object their ideas or opinions. It is hard to say no while laughing.

Nevertheless, the advantage which allows humorists to present messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly is also a disadvantage. Being funny, indeed, is a main factor that allows humorists to say what others might not be able to say. However, being funny might also make it harder for the audiences to take humorists seriously. But the problem is that who else can effectively present sensitive topics in the public? Certain topics that are related to the society, especially those that are concerning flagrant social issues that nobody wants to discuss about. The purpose of the messages given by humorists are to "correct" the society. However, if nobody wants to talk about the problems, or to bring up people's awareness about the problems, then how is it possible to find the solution for these problems?

Certainly, when things finally gotten out of control, the authorial figures of the society, such as the president, will have to present the issues of the society, solemnly, to the people. The seriousness of a presentation of an authorial figure will, without a doubt, attract people's attention to the topic immediately. However, such seriousness may also cause intense objections. For instance, it has been hard for the government, or even some media, to discuss about homosexual. This is because that they cannot encourage, nor can they despite homosexuality in public. On the other hand, though, humorists can easily joke around with this topic. Furthermore, by discussing the topic with a humorous and relaxing appearance, humorists would less likely to offend their audiences, or cause intensive objections from their audiences (perhaps from the actual homosexuals, if there is any). In addition, if there is anything that has gone to the point where it needs an authorial figure to publicly address it to the people, man, it has got to be very serious. Perhaps it would take a war to solve it! Just kidding, but still, it could be hard to solve. Hence, this is why is humorists serving a vital function in society -- they bring up people's awareness for current issues in the society, intending to encourage people to "correct" the "flaws" of the society before they get too serious.

Personally, I enjoy reading works from humorists, or watching their performances. I realized that the reason why people, including myself, find the contents that are performed by humorists funny is generally because that many of them are about the reality. In fact, a lot of them may be similar to many people's personal experiences, so people can relate to them easily. Different types of humorists use different techniques to present their presentations. Cartoonists uses cute, goofy cartoon characters; satirists uses exaggeration, irony, sarcasm, and understatements; stand-up comedians use great humor, and present personal awareness...etc. But, after all, they all serves for the same purpose: not only to entertain people, but also to bring up our awareness to our societies. I wonder have any of you ever go, "oh my goodness, that is so true!" when you read, or watch humorists present their works? I have.

Reference:

People pray to god when they hope for comforts, good lucks, and other things. However, some of them might be atheists. I am technically a Buddhist, but I doubt the existence of Buddha sometimes. Am I a doublethinker? Or am I only a skeptic? Or are they the same? Referring to George Orwell’s novel, 1984, doublethink is “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” For instance, in 1984, Winston Smith, the main character, works for the Ministry of Truth, where historical certain documents are destroyed, and are rewritten before bring published in order to fit the policies that are established by the “Big Brother,” or the totalitarian government of Oceania. Thus, he believes that the real history of Oceania is possibly not exactly the same as how it is written in textbooks, and how it has been taught to people. However, he is forced to believe that the history of Oceania is exactly how it has been written, and how it has been taught. Doublethink is considered as a crime -- thoughtcrime -- in Oceania, and doublethinkers will be punished by death. Is Winston in life danger? Is he committing doublethink, thoughtcrime? Is doublethink possible in reality? If so, how do we determine it?

In 1984, Winston, unlike other citizens under the Big Brother, does not follow Big Brother’s policies indiscriminately. Instead, he has his own thoughts. However, because having personal thoughts that are against the government’s will in any sorts is considered as a crime in Oceania. Thus, Winston kept his personal thoughts written, and hidden in his diary, and follows everyone else’s beliefs in public. In one part of the story, Winston questions the credibility of history textbooks in Oceania. Being enlightened by the content of his job -- destroying and rewriting historical documents -- Winston becomes curious about the real history of Oceania. He believes in both possibilities that the history of Oceania might be different than how it has been taught to people, and that it might be just the same as how the Big Brother says it is. The reason why Winston also believes that the history of Oceania might be exactly how it has been taught to people is because that, despite questioning the credibility of textbooks is considered as crime, he, himself, is also taught to believe that the textbooks are correct, and he has no historical documents to prove them wrong. Anyhow, Winston is accused for committing doublethink due to his ambivalence towards either or not to trust textbooks. According to this point, if ambivalence can be considered as doublethink as well, then doublethink is definitely possible in reality.

I am a Buddhist, but I doubt the existence of Buddha sometimes. I doubt the existence of Buddha because there is no hard evidence suggesting that Buddha does exist. The only “prove” seems to be the Buddhist legends, and stories. However, I accept the belief in which Buddha do exist because, as a Buddhist, I am supposed to. Further, when being inside a temple -- surrounded by the sacred atmosphere, and religious people who believe in Buddha by their hearts -- I automatically believe that Buddha do exist. Nevertheless, I am a skeptic about the existence of Buddha when I am on my own, in places that involves no religious matter. The definition of doublethink is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. In this case, I accept my religious belief, which suggests that Buddha exist. However, I also accept the belief which suggests that Buddha do not exist due to the lack of evidence proving that it does. And this probably explains how a religious scientist may be the master of all doublethinkers.

Doublethink is not the same as belying. Doublethink is to accept both contradictory beliefs whereas belying is only believing in one of the two contradictory beliefs, but pretending to believe the contradictory one as well in order to belie one’s true belief. In the reality, there are several cases where people belie their true beliefs, usually under a force, or pressure of the authority. For instance, North Korea is a totalitarian state. Recalling a documentary about the reaction of cataract patients when they were cured by a professional American surgeon, each patient, and their families thanked the ruler of the country, Kim Jong-il, by cheering for him in front of his portrait, and promised to serve for him forever. On the other hand, the American surgeon was ironically left behind. No one thanked him. All the North Koreans believed that every goods that they receive, are granted by their great ruler. However, was it their true belief? Or was it out of fear? Fearing that they would be punished for not worshiping their ruler. In this case, if one believes that all goods are granted by the Kim Jong-il out of fear, it is not doublethink. Instead, it is belying -- one is only pretending to believe that all goods are granted by Kim Jong-il in order to hide their true belief, which might be that the American surgeon, rather than Kim Jong-il, is the one who people should thank for the remedy for cataract.

As a result, doublethink is not impossible. According to the cases of Winston doubting the credibility, and accuracy of history textbooks, and my personal experience as a Buddhist skeptic for the existence of Buddha, doublethink may seems complex, but is actually almost equal to doubting! When one is in doubt, they have two contradictory beliefs, and will accept both beliefs are true. Let’s take another example: a girl suspects that her boyfriend is cheating on her, but meanwhile, she also believes that he is not that kind of person. Doublethink. Either the girl’s boyfriend is cheating on her or not, she believes both that he might be, and that he might not be. However, doublethink shall not be confused with belying. Belying does not require one’s believing in both contradictory beliefs whereas doublethink does. Belying is, perhaps, common under a totalitarian state, or dictatorship nowadays. People would belie their true beliefs, that are against the authority's will, by pretending to believe in only the belief which is for the authority’s will, due to the fear of brutish punishments.

Who says that one can no longer be stylish when he/she gets older? According to a CNNGO article by Bruce Foreman, Zoe Li, Hong Kong Editor on 18 November, 2010: 77-year-old Septuagenarian Cheng Shen Lai Fan "stands out on Tai Hang's Wun Sha Street like a gilded rose in a compost heap. This old looks geat every day."

Cheng is loyal to the traditional Chinese costume of the samfu, which she gets special tailored, favoring bright and bold prints. Cheng has lived in Tai Hang for her entire life, and is known by everyone in the neighborhood. Everyone calls he "ah lui," which means "daughter." It is a flitting nickname for someone who admits to vanity more suited to a young girl.

Under the reporter's encouragement, Cheng models her collection of samfu, the traditional shirt and trousers that were used to be worn by southern Chinese women. The outfit was a sartorial representation of the merging of the Han Chinese and the Manchu rulers during the Qing dynasty. Cheng says her mother was an advocate of this style of clothing. She also admits that she was once very embarrassed by her old-fashion mother. And so she found it ironic that later on, she has started to wear the samfu herself. Cheng's kids try to persuade her to give up the samfu. They even bought her modern clothes. However, Cheng has never considered of wearing them. Each of Cheng's samfu costs HK$200-300, depending on the material. They have lasted her as long as 3 decades.

In the society where I live in, many people have the same traditional belief of that one cannot be stylish anymore once they have grown old, or when they have had kids. However, I am not one of those people. "I just like to look pretty," says Cheng, in the article. A girl will always be a girl -- always likes to look pretty -- even at 77, and there is nothing wrong about it. In my opinion, no matter if one has grown older, has gained weight, has had babies, they can still be stylish if they want to. Of course, there may be certain circumstances where it may not be appropriate for some people to be as stylish as they wanted. However, despite that, being stylish is not young people, particularly young girls' priority.

Reference:

- http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/life/tai-hangs-most-stylish-granny-635206?page=0,0 [CNNGO. Tai Hang's most stylish granny. © 2010 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.]