Go Bleep Yourself! Why Censorship is Funny

Angelaki Journal of the Theoretical Humanities ISSN: 0969-725X (Print) 1469-2899 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cang20 GO BLEEP YOURSELF! Robert T. Valgenti To cite this article: Robert T. Valgenti (2016) GO BLEEP YOURSELF!, Angelaki, 21:3, 103-114, DOI: 10.1080/0969725X.2016.1205264 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2016.1205264 Published online: 29 Jul 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cang20 Download by: [Robert Valgenti] Date: 31 July 2016, At: 04:31  ANGELAKI journal of the theoretical humanities volume 21 number 3 september 2016 I [bleep] slowly, slowly, slowly getting faster, Once I’ve started [bleep]ing it’s really hard to stop, Faster, faster. It is so exciting! I could [bleep] forever, [bleep] until I drop. The Count, Sesame Street (modified) O n 21 June 2012, the Supreme Court of the Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 United States ruled in favor of broadcas- ters that had previously been fined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for airing programs that featured profanity and nudity.1 In these incidents, the court ruled that the FCC did not give the broadcasters in question fair notice about a change in its inde- cency policies. The Supreme Court did not, robert t. valgenti however, rule on the broader and more difficult issue regarding whether or not the FCC or any other government agency has the right to regu- late broadcasters and their ability to air what GO BLEEP YOURSELF! might be considered indecent by such bodies.2 why censorship is funny In response to these cases, and perhaps even as a preemptive strike against any future defeats in the courts, the FCC released a frequency of certain words increased, and at public notice (GN Docket no. 13–86) in April times significantly (e.g., “boobs” by 280%; 2013 that stated its intention to review the pol- “piss” by 400%; euphemisms for “fuck” by icies regarding its approach to the isolated use 160%). Moreover, the council discovered that of profanity3 and isolated incidents of non- sexual nudity, owing to their potential conflicts The largest increases were found in the use of the harshest profanities, and in explicit refer- with First Amendment rights. ences to genitalia and bodily functions. The One could interpret this series of events as a greatest increase in the use of the harshest move towards a general relaxing of indecency profanities occurred in the 8:00 p.m. ET practices on broadcast television, a trend docu- time period (the “Family Hour”), and at mented in a 2010 study of the use of obscenities 9:00 p.m. ET.5 during prime-time viewing hours (8:00–10:00 pm time slots) conducted by the Parents Televi- What might be the most interesting data point sion Council.4 Among its various findings, the in this study, however, is the increased use of study shows that in the 8:00 pm time slot, “bleeped” expletives, where the expletive is over a five-year period from 2005 to 2010, the covered by an audible high-pitched tone ISSN 0969-725X print/ISSN 1469-2899 online/16/030103-12 © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2016.1205264 103  go bleep yourself! intended to obscure the offensive word: “Across refers to the censor’s bleep in its most all networks and prime time hours, use of the common use where the intention is to cover up bleeped or muted f-word increased from 11 a profanity and ensure that such words do not instances total in 2005 to 276 instances in 2010 offend listeners who might be offended by – an increase of 2,409%.”6 The bleeped “shit” such language, or corrupt listeners who might increased 281% at 8:00, and the bleeped be corrupted by such language. We can call “fuck” increased 1,010% at 8:00 and 15,500% this use of the bleep “necessary, intentional cen- at 9:00.7 Those who have watched television con- sorship”: in this case, “necessary” means sistently over the past twenty years might not be “required by law” (at least until the FCC surprised by such findings; yet some are changes its censorship policies or until the undoubtedly dismayed and concerned that the Supreme Court rules that no regulatory body massive increase in the use of expletives reflects or government can censor speech on television a more liberal stance towards the use of profan- or radio broadcasts), and “intentional” means ity, with the use of bleeped expletives only more with the intent of covering up or obscuring confirmation that the profane has entered the what is considered obscene. However, if a Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 once sacred space of prime-time television. I word is bleeped intentionally in cases when the hope to offer a slightly different interpretation, word to be covered up is not considered one that might not cover all situations but that obscene by a regulatory body (or even by a com- certainly marks a trend that has coalesced munity of listeners and viewers), the practice is where free expression, the law, and comedy referred to commonly as “unnecessary censor- meet. Might it be the case that the increased ship,” which is “the practice of adding censor use of the bleeped expletive reflects a certain bleeps, mosaic blurs or black bars to source comedic technique, one whose viability relies materials that were neither profane or [sic] upon a specific moment (a comedic kairos?) in explicit to begin with.”8 The bleeps are typically the history of profanity where the bleeped exple- dubbed over words to make it sound as if they tive offers more comedic bang for the buck than were obscene, whether due to context, even the real word can? Has this form of censor- rhyming patterns, or even a residual fragment ship become funny, perhaps even funnier than of an initial or final phoneme. This practice is the actual expletive might be? My very simple not only a common user-created internet goal in this essay is to explore why this might meme (the “bleeping” of The Count singing be the case, how the examination of this very about counting from an episode of Sesame specific phenomenon might contribute to the Street being one of the most famous9) but has various philosophies of humor, and how it become a common practice on broadcast and might contribute to the understanding of cen- cable television shows, perhaps beginning with sorship (humorous or not) on a much broader the Jimmy Kimmel Live segment “Unnecessary scale. Censorship in the News,” where news clips fea- turing prominent politicians or celebrities were unnecessary bleeps intended to be edited to make it sound as if they were being bleeped for the use of profanity. The subtle humorous art of this practice involves the careful selection The form of censorship under examination in of verbal moments so that the bleep commences this essay involves what is commonly referred just microseconds after the sounding of the first to as the “bleep” (although sometimes also syllable – such as an “f” or a “sh” sound – in “beep”) – when a single, high-pitched tone is order to offer a clue to the listener as to what used in television or radio to cover up profane is supposedly being censored. or explicit language, as per the examples cited Unnecessary censorship is performed as a above (or in the case of profane/explicit comedic act, one intended to provoke laughter images, a blur effect or black bar is placed in an audience. As with all forms of humor, over the offensive part). The study cited above whether or not one finds this form of humor 104  valgenti funny depends greatly upon subjective tastes in position of superiority or one enjoys a situation humor, an issue I will not pursue here. If we can when the tables are turned and those who are assume that there is some comedic value in the normally superior have their standing lowered. practice of unnecessary censorship – by the The philosophers Plato, Aristotle and Hobbes simple evidence that a good number of individ- found laughter morally problematic for these uals find it funny, and that the practice has very reasons, especially when taken to spread across various media – I would like to excess.11 According to this superiority theory consider why such an act is funny and whether of humor, one would laugh at unnecessary cen- it tells us anything about censorship’s connec- sorship not only because one is part of the tion to humor. If one “gets the joke,” unnecess- group that is “in on the joke” but more likely ary censorship illustrates how the humor because one recognizes the practice as a form inherent in this use of the bleep is not necess- of condemnation: on the lighter side, a playful arily connected to the presence of any “real” reprobation of one’s own knowledge of the obscenity or profanity that it attempts to cover obscene and our ability to “fill in the blanks,” up. The laughter that arises from its use seems or even the light mockery of those among us Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 to originate in two possible reactions: on the who cannot help but engage in the use of obscen- one hand, one might be startled that the individ- ity – thus a feeling of superiority over one’s own ual who has just been bleeped would actually use self or any one of us at our weaker moments; and a word that needs to be bleeped – one is sur- on a more serious note, it expresses a position of prised by what just happened; on the other superiority against those who are foolishly con- hand, one is tempted to imagine what the cerned about the profane – a critique of the bleeped word might have been and thus partici- very practice of censorship. The former instance pates in (and maybe even completes) the joke. includes the self-awareness that arises when one But what if there is more here? Could the is amused by the unnecessary bleep owing to the experience of the unnecessary intentional surprise that follows one’s ability to insert the bleep also draw one’s attention to the idea of obscenity: rather than the usual cause–effect the obscene or the profane as such – the “that relation when we are censored for our use of which is in need of censorship”? And why an obscenity, it is reversed such that the censor- would this produce laughter? I want to suggest ing prompts our production of the obscenity. In that the unnecessary, intentional bleep does the latter instance, unnecessary censorship not produce laughter by simply adding would qualify as a form of satire that pokes another layer of humor (a kind of meta-joke) fun at – via a position of moral or political super- on top of what might be the humor implicit in iority – those who attempt to wield power a well-timed obscenity – another topic unto through the mere insertion of a censor’s bleep. itself. Instead, unnecessary censorship leads us This can certainly be the case in some instances, to the heart of humor and the production of but just as the superiority theory of laughter laugher. To begin, I will turn to the philosophi- fails to cover instances of laughter that do not cal theories of humor that have generally been involve a position of superiority, one can enter- applied to various forms of humor in order to tain the possibility that there is more to one’s see where they are appropriately descriptive laughter at unnecessary censorship than a and where they fall short of a thorough expla- feeling of superiority over others or oneself. nation of this phenomenon. What one finds humorous is not always due to A solid place to begin this exploration is with a relation of power with another, but rather the theories of humor analyzed by John Morreall with one’s knowledge of the world and how in Taking Laughter Seriously.10 The superior- such knowledge guides daily experience. Here, ity theory of humor states that laughter arises the reversal of the cause–effect relation men- when one expresses a position of superiority tioned above provides a useful guide. over another, a relation that at its core is mali- According to the incongruity theory, laughter cious and fault-finding. One is either truly in a arises when our expectations and knowledge of 105  go bleep yourself! the world are unexpectedly upset or placed out language. For some, the aforementioned of order. Rather than being affective in the examples might produce something other than manner of the superiority theory, the incongru- laughter, such as dismay or offense. Laughter ity theory is based in cognition and intellec- might still occur once it is revealed that this tion.12 Unnecessary censorship certainly was all a joke; nonetheless, the origin of that displays features of the incongruity theory of laughter might also arise from somewhere humor, as the well-timed, unnecessary bleep other than just a cognitive incongruity. often occurs when it is least expected, and for The relief theory of laughter offers a physio- increased comedic effect, to cover up the logical explanation for the type of laughter that language of a person one least expects to use arises when one’s emotional or intellectual such profanity. Examples such as “The expectations are reversed, changed, or unrea- Count” and “Unnecessary Censorship in the lized and laugher appears as a “venting of News” work because the bleep’s presence nervous energy.”14 According to the relief suggests the use of obscenity by individuals theory, particularly in its Freudian form, the for whom this seems highly unlikely or inap- laughter brought about by unnecessary censor- Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 propriate – in the former case, a muppet ship would be the product of a release of the whose audience is primarily children; and in energy normally used to suppress certain the latter case, newscasters and politicians who emotions. This works both ways. For the indi- are expected to set a certain standard for vidual normally offended by obscene comments public discourse who have too much to lose (pol- (and perhaps not in on the joke), the would-be itically, financially, etc.) if they are loose with feeling of offense is dissipated when the bleep- their language. Perhaps one of the most striking ing is revealed to be farcical; for the individual examples can be found during an episode of The who is in on the joke, and most likely not Colbert Report where the host Stephen Colbert offended by the sorts of obscenities that would interviews the actress and performer Julie have been covered up, the release comes, in Andrews.13 While retelling a story about how one interpretation, when the energy that would she was inspired to write children’s books, the have been summoned to reject the offense of iconic star from such films as Mary Poppins censorship itself is dissipated; however, by and The Sound of Music launches into a (suppo- another interpretation, one might consider the sedly obscene) rant that is bleeped for nearly release of nervous energy to be prompted by five seconds, much to the (feigned) disbelief of the realization that one’s own offensive words the host. Once again, this understanding of and thoughts are given cover by the comedian’s humor brings attention to a specific community bleep – one can feign offense like Stephen of knowers in on the joke, with the degree of Colbert, or just keep one’s normally unaccepta- incongruity proportional to the familiarity one ble ideas to oneself while enjoying the satisfac- has with those who are bleeped and those who tion of their indirect exposure through the are witnesses to the event; furthermore, it censor’s bleep. relies on a familiarity with the context of the While the variations of the relief theory are specific event (in this case, embedded within a too numerous and intricate to explain here, it political satire program) so that a broken expec- is safe to say that this account falls short of an tation or the introduction of an unexpected all-encompassing explanation for the humor occurrence achieves a high level of contrast behind unnecessary censorship. D.H. Monro between what should be and what is. This incon- points out that while relief from restraint or gruity theory of laughter seems a rather good inhibition is necessary for humor, it is not suffi- candidate to explain the effect produced by cient;15 moreover, John Morreall and others unnecessary censorship. Yet it presupposes a have been quick to point out that relief cannot certain disposition towards the use of profane fully account for the wide range of situations and obscene words, one that has already relin- in which laughter arises, despite the intriguing quished any moral condemnation of such hipster allure of a steam-punk-era hydraulic 106  valgenti psyche that retains and dispels its nervous such that the prohibited is always there in the energy through the response of laughter. As re-articulated scene. In this serious presen- the various examples and interpretations above tation, the oscillation between the two messages illustrate, the boundaries between the three creates dramatic tension, compelling us to face aforementioned theories are often indistinct the demands of the one option or the other. A and problematic. Moreover, the laughter pro- resolution of that tension – and an end of the duced by unnecessary censorship isn’t always oscillation – comes only at the expense of distinct from the sort of laughter that might some serious outcome in the film or perform- arise from “necessary” censorship or even ance, and in the real life of the audience a viola- from the straightforward use of profane or tion of a value that the prohibition seeks to obscene language. protect. Here there is also a reliance on the audi- A reason for this ambiguity can be found in ence as a community, and the serious outcome the conditions of the humorous event shared points to a rather unambiguous standard by all three theories. One condition is the idea shared by that group (in this case, signaled by of a common context delineated by a commu- the Production Code). Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 nity of participants who understand implicitly Comedy in the general sense toys with a the limit between the acceptable and the unac- similar form of dramatic tension, yet it is the ceptable (obscene, profane, etc.), such that it not-so-threatening outcome that provides an identifies who is in on the joke and the standard acceptable resolution. One might think of a by which such a joke is judged. Within that play such as Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors context, another condition is the sort of free as a classic illustration of how dramatic irony play that unfolds between the acceptable/unac- is central to the humor inherent in human mis- ceptable divide: the role shifts in the superiority understanding. Internal to the film or perform- theory, the problematic causality in the incon- ance, a potentially serious offense is revealed to gruity theory, and the foiling of expectations be a misunderstanding; and in terms of the audi- in the relief theory all point to a productive ence, that offense’s avoidance and resolution at but ultimately contingent oscillation that the expense of the characters’ temporary frus- brings to light the very relation between the tration validate the existing moral code of the acceptable and unacceptable because there is community (everyone lives happily ever after). really no actual obscenity present to set up the The ability of an audience to view it as two sides. One is left to grapple with empty sig- comedy relies on a contextual form of knowl- nifiers, the bleeped and the unbleeped. edge, one that allows the audience to be “in” Let’s examine a parallel example for some on the joke or to view the tension as humorous perspective. In a non-humorous and dramatic rather than dramatic because of a certain context, one might recall Slavoj Ž ižek’s analysis degree of detachment. Thus, for those in on of the famous scene in Casablanca where the the joke of unnecessary censorship, the oscil- viewer is given conflicting hints about whether lation between the acceptable and the unaccep- or not Rick and Ilsa have actually just “done table serves to release the tension, allowing it.” Ž ižek argues: them to enjoy having been fooled by the less savory option without having to submit to its The prohibition, in order to function prop- actuality. The audience is able to have it both erly, had to rely on a clear awareness about ways. what really did happen at the level of the out- This picture is far too general, but my intent lawed narrative line. The Production Code here is merely to suggest that while this sort of did not simply prohibit some contents, oscillation between the acceptable and unaccep- rather it codified their enciphered articula- tion […]16 table is operative in slightly different ways in drama and comedy, in both cases the existing Here, both the acceptable and the unacceptable moral order of the community is ultimately are placed in clear reference to one another, upheld and validated. On the way to this 107  go bleep yourself! validation in comedy, however, the community when one is faced by such an absence. The is given a respite from its everyday worries. laughter induced by unnecessary censorship The loosening of practical and moral concerns does not arise from the “necessary” act of bleep- is one of the key aspects of John Morreall’s ing out an actual profanity – this would indicate “pleasant cognitive shift” theory of humor, an operative norm that has been violated, with one that extends the incongruity model and laughter arising to deride such censors as was relies heavily on the idea of “disengagement.” demonstrated in the superiority theory. More- Practical and emotional disengagement is thus over, it does not simply arise from the pur- what separates the humorous from the serious ported obscenity behind the bleep, but from a and allows the oscillation to operate as a free complex of the two whereby one is able to and enjoyable play rather than as a real-life have it both ways, from the gestures embodied struggle between competing outcomes. Morreall by each action: the act of censoring as such, points out that most laughter comes not on the and the profanity as such. What is brought tail end of a joke or witty comment but simply into relief as the distinguishing feature of a as a social gesture that signals to other people certain community, and what the social Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 “that we are friendly and they can relax with gesture of laughter shares in such a community, us,”17 that we all are in on the joke and can is an acknowledgement of the “unnecessary,” of enjoy the oscillation. A confusion or ambiguity the contingency of life, of the absurd. is therefore not the difference between success Unnecessary censorship does more than dis- and failure, or even life and death, but some- engage us from real issues of censorship thing that is bracketed out of the tension of through a satire of the practice: the audible the daily struggle for existence and appreciated bleep hypostatizes the very conditions of within the safety of a common space. meaning, its illocutionary force, by disengaging It would not be inappropriate, then, to con- us from the interpretative play between the sider laughter as a release from the drama of appropriate and the profane, by opening up mortal existence, a break from the tension of the possibilities behind the very power of a the life–death struggle for survival. Morreall’s speech act, re-inscribing contingency within assessment of the evolutionary beginnings of (apparent) necessity. The play between significa- laughter offers some suggestive possibilities.18 tions, so crucial to humor, is not simply acti- The cognitive shift that describes the various vated but is pushed to its limit and broken stages of development in humor through child- down. In this dismantling, the very possibility hood, and perhaps through human evolution, of power, of those in and those out, those who is one that remains at the center of more can speak and those who must remain silent, mature humor. The laughter that arises from is bracketed out and exposed as a contingent such a shift denotes a transition from the imposition. Unnecessary censorship therefore acknowledgement of danger, or seriousness, to not only presents the bleep as a surrogate for the discovery that what was once perceived as the prohibited but as the very form of a prohibi- a threat no longer is. At the core of this theory tive illocutionary act. The insipid and mechan- rests the human capacity for interpretation – ical tonality of the bleep effectively (1) that various external stimuli could be under- announces the profane and obscene; but does stood in a multitude of ways, that reality is so by (2) liberating the signification of the plural, and that absolutes (moral or otherwise) bleep and allowing it to signify anything are more likely a silencing of speech than its obscene, or the obscene as such. In this way, foundation. the bleep reveals something more originary Does unnecessary censorship reveal this dis- than other forms of humor since it is not depen- engagement in a particular way, one perhaps dent on a specific meaning, word, or illocution- foreign to other forms of humor? If this is so, ary act, but takes on the formal aspects of any the answer is found in the complete absence of such meaning in the first place. Unnecessary any profanity and the oscillation that arises censorship exposes and replicates the very act 108  valgenti of censoring as such – the separation of the The extreme overuse of necessary censorship appropriate from the prohibited – as the in this sitcom revels, to the point of absurdity, formal and necessary condition for any and all in the proper and FCC-regulated use of the humor. censor’s bleep, and unlike unnecessary censor- ship relies upon the actual presence of profanity in the performance. At first, it would seem that “necessary” bleeps intended to be this phenomenon would be the place to start this investigation, as the proper use of censorship humorous precedes the unnecessary use and abuse of cen- The satirical heart of “unnecessary censorship” sorship; moreover, one might assume that what- lies in its ability to question overt and inten- ever laughter ensues from the necessary use of tional acts of censorship by drawing our atten- the bleep simply carries over into its unnecess- tion not only to the brutal silencing it enacts ary use – as there is no actual profanity in the but also to its ability to preempt the specific latter case, the consistent feature is the sound meanings and rules already proscribed within of the bleep, along with the listener’s expec- Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 a community or social context, to interrupt tation for what the bleeped word might be. My the play between acceptance and prohibition, hunch, however, is that there is more at work and to uncover the origins of the very form of here and that our current historical context the obscene. If Simon Critchley is correct has a great deal to do with the deployment of when he says that “satire transforms us into the bleep as a comic device. outlandish animals,”19 animals that we have Perhaps Action! arrived before its time: it always already been, we should not be surprised was 1999, pre-The Daily Show with John to find the origin of our use and abuse of cen- Stewart, pre-twenty-first century, pre-9/11, sorship in our most bestial and unregulated pre eight years of Bush and two interminable impulses. One could argue that “unnecessary wars – irony and satire were still merely censorship” is the unavoidable outcome of a comedic techniques rather than pervasive life- community’s need to censor the animal self, a style choices, cell phones were still a luxury logic that taken to its extreme announces the rather than a necessity, and millennials were replacement, rather than the covering, of an only beginning to cognize the idea that the rest obscene signifier with the bleep tone that of us were merely dark planetary bodies revol- takes on the role of the obscene as such. This ving around their shiny, starry center. It is not transformation – one that finds humor in the clear whether the increased use of the necessary very act of bleeping – is one that by all accounts bleep directly gave rise to the meme of took its first hobbling steps in 1999 on the unnecessary censorship; yet, in the early 2000s short-lived Fox sitcom Action! Created by there was undoubtedly a confluence of forces and starring comedian Jay Mohr, it was one that brought the censor’s bleep into the spot- of the first shows to feature and exploit the light: an increase of content on cable program- bleeping of profanity not fit for network televi- ming that needed to be bleeped according to sion for added comedic effect. The show is a FCC guidelines, and an increase in the popular- satire of the elite and powerful in Hollywood, ity and thus availability throughout the day of and if nothing more the brutal deployment of such material on both scripted and live/reality profanity and accompanying bleeps (along shows. One need only think of early episodes with its novelty at the time on network televi- of The Osbournes – where the unintelligible sion) underscores the animality of the central ramblings of an aging rocker stumbling about character, Peter Dragon, played by Mohr his mansion are buried in an avalanche of himself – who was not only aware of his real- bleeps – to consider the possibility that the life reputation as an asshole, but reality of reality television is found not so further exploited that reputation as part of much in the characters and content of those the satire. shows but in the way that the lines between 109  go bleep yourself! the real and the fictional, engagement and disen- bleeps, to find the spaces between the bleeps. gagement, the dramatic and comical, are effec- In ancient Greek, speaking is primarily tively undermined and bracketed out. Not krinein, and only secondarily poiesis. To be only the scripts but also all of television pro- human is not so much to create speaking but gramming becomes an open signifier, the mere to carve it out of the vast monolith of open possi- form of the obscene, and we the audience are bility and the totality of speaking. Sasquatch, left to fill in the blanks. Enkidu before he meets Gilgamesh, Rousseau’s In very different ways, reality shows such as human in the state of nature: all retroactive con- The Osbournes and satires like Action! arrive structions of ourselves at the point of origin that at the same point: the exposure of a point of is pre-humor, pre-censorship. origin, an outlandish animality where an Here Morreall is correct in asserting that obscene beast smashing against the bars of its there is a level of safety necessary for laughter cage echoes as a cacophony of bleeps. This is to evolve into humor. One needs to be con- funny because at once we are and are not such sidered a person – one co-constituted by a an animal, an anxious disengagement typical society of others who agree on a notion of per- Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 of satire. Let me offer two explanations of this sonhood, and thus constitute the rules of speak- originary moment, courtesy of Sasquatch and ing through a limiting, through a participation Nietzsche. in censorship – in order to be “in” on the In the first case, I refer to the long-running joke. Humor therefore does not belong to the series of commercials for Jack Link’s Beef human animal; it belongs to the person as recog- Jerky entitled “Messin’ with Sasquatch.” nized by a society.20 These commercials share a consistent plot: Nietzsche’s musings on the origins of moral- humans encounter a naı̈ve/trusting sasquatch; ity trace a similar lineage. What is The Geneaol- humans play a cruel joke on the sasquatch; the ogy of Morality if not the other side of a sasquatch transforms from placid missing link “Genealogy of Humor,” a history of nihilism into enraged beast; the sasquatch enacts phys- that unfolds slowly and inevitably towards a ical revenge on one of the humans. weakening of absolute values to the point of Why doesn’t the sasquatch get the joke? Why ironic detachment? For Nietzsche, the origin isn’t the sasquatch in on the joke? Sasquatch, of bad conscience is the human being “[…] the man beast, doesn’t know how to laugh finding himself enclosed once and for all because it doesn’t yet know what or how to within the sway of society and peace.”21 No censor: the man beast lives without inhibition, longer able to discharge his animal instincts out- without limit, or beyond the limits as a rep- wardly – no longer able to kick his persecutor in resentation of human animality that is effec- the crotch as sasquatch does in one of the com- tively excluded from the sort of community mercials – this individual harshly censors necessary for shared laughter. Sasquatch is himself by turning inward, alienating his con- funny to us (not just “ha ha” funny but also in science from his body, rendering his body an the sense of uncanny) because he doesn’t yet outsider, a strange animal other. It is not have a sense of humor; as Rousseau might humorous in this case precisely because the point out, he has yet to understand himself in body is so alienated, so othered, that it is not the light of the others around him, yet even to allowed to speak. It becomes humorous when speak on the condition of a communal censoring the arbitrary domination of the self – the force that is the condition for knowing when to laugh of guilt and bad conscience – is weakened and and when not to laugh. To be human, to be a dissolved in the history of nihilism to the speaking being, means one is always already point of self-satire (we become the animals we “messin’ with Sasquatch,” always already were trying not to be). inscribing limits on our animal selves. To Today we can laugh at unnecessary censor- speak per se is to censor our animality, to ship because we have already accomplished nihi- cover the everything-said with a barrage of lism, because we have moved from passive to 110  valgenti active nihilism to dissolve the drama of moral “necessary” bleeps not intended to ends in a shift of perspective, a disengagement be humorous from the seriousness of power that allows us to laugh – that activity so central to the animals At this point, it is safe to say that the laughter in Nietzsche’s allegory Zarathustra.22 This is which arises from the use of the censor’s bleep all presaged by the advent of necessary censor- in situations intended to produce laughter ship brought to the point of the humorous, depends neither on the inherent humor where the focus shifts from the prohibition of found in the bleeped expletive nor merely on an expletive to the creation of meaning – the the play between the appropriate and the inap- bracketing out of the fundamental role played propriate, but more originarily in the disen- by censorship in the creation of discourse. gagement produced by the encounter with What is the audible, mechanical “bleep” if not the very conditions of speaking in a social the exposing of one of the conditions for dis- context where one is accepted as part of a course as an arbitrary and contingent impo- larger community. We laugh not only sition, a reminder that we are animals who because we find ourselves surrounded by the Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 also happen now to speak and to joke. safety of a community that is also in on the Laugher arises when one realizes that what at joke but also because we realize that this first appears as a problematic ambiguity or very human level of safety is premised upon threat – the pang of conscience, the public a violent imposition of will that presents sense of decency, even common sense – is in itself publicly as its very opposite through effect a false alarm.23 The feigned sort of the human ability to speak. To speak is offense at a bawdy joke, accompanied with always to perform the contradiction of an out- laughter, is perhaps the clearest illustration of landish imposition, a brutal silencing of much this situation, of the ability to have it both more than ever gets said. Speaking is the ways when ill consequences do not arise from ending of possibilities and performance of transgression and one is free to laugh in rules – it is censorship. concert with one’s fellow beasts. And yet this Bergson’s great insight into laughter is sort of illocutionary freedom is never free and directed, as seems appropriate to his era, to depends upon the power of the originary prohi- the way in which our animal being, our other- bition – to transform satirically into an animal ness as biological mechanisms, is reflected in (to be reminded that we are animals) is not the the growing abundance of machinery that coex- same as being an animal. Such devolution is ists with us (certainly at his time, but perhaps not possible. One has to reckon with one’s even more so now): “The deflection of life own history. To disengage from the mortal towards the mechanical is the real cause of drama of life in the safety of humor is always laughter.”24 Here we confront the mechanical but a temporary victory, as the now infamous imposition of the bleep. The force of such a 2001 Southpark episode entitled “It Hits the mechanism – the knee-jerk response of the Fan” demonstrates. In the episode, the word censor to language that has transgressed its pre- “shit” is either spoken or written without any scribed limits – challenges us to consider censor’s intervention 200 times (roughly once whether or not the humorous element already every eight seconds). The “moral” learned by revealed in the first two iterations of the the young boys of Southpark is that saying the censor’s bleep carries through to the third and word in itself is not wrong, but that its use in final form I will examine here: the censorship excess leads to boredom – it loses its “pop.” of speech not intended to produce a laugh. Is Its power is in the prohibition, in the play it possible that a humorous element persists between the acceptable and unacceptable, in and, in fact, overflows the strict intentions of its contingency rather than in the absolute the individual or institution that works to freedom of a world without censoring, and silence speaking? Is there simply something thus a world without discourse. funny about censorship? Period? 111  go bleep yourself! A redacted document provides us a useful, vacuum but in an intense singularity of censor- visual analogue to the censor’s bleep. We ship that covers the everything already said, all should not be surprised that espionage is so at once. The birth of speaking, the origin of often the subject of comedy, as it seems that shared discourse, is not only violent – an orig- parody is built in to the very idea of taking on inal censoring – but its after-effects persist in another persona and sneaking into the territory all speaking, barely audible in a free society of the other side to gather information. We except when speech, ironically, is silenced. might even consider the true work of a serious The bleep, if I can run with this metaphor, is spy drama is covering up the inherently humor- the cosmic background microwave radiation of ous elements so that we take it seriously. The the originary event horizon of speaking, the appeal of the James Bond series of films, slowly dissipating sound of the totality of speak- especially those starring Roger Moore, is its pre- ing in its immutable iterations. When we hear carious dance on the thin line separating drama the bleep, we hear ourselves speaking for the from comedy. Top secret documents are of first time and we confront an artifact of our course a mainstay of such films, and nothing is birth as speakers. Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 funnier than a document redacted to the point Foucault laid the groundwork for this rever- of a nearly complete opacity of silence. This is sal in thinking about the origins of discourse. the clerical equivalent of the Bond villain As he explains in The History of Sexuality: making sure that the laser is slow enough, the “The forbidding of certain words, the decency sharks overfed enough, or the henchmen bum- of expressions, all the censorings of vocabulary, bling enough so that the hero can escape by might well have been only secondary devices the skin of his teeth every time. Why not just compared to that great subjugation: ways of ren- destroy the document? Why bleep out just dering it [the discourse about sexuality] morally about everything? What sort of artifact is the acceptable and technically useful.”25 Foucault’s redacted document? insight about the constitutive and productive Short of the destruction of information nature of censorship, operative throughout my outside of the public’s eye (the real problem of consideration of the connection between censor- censorship), the public revelation of a redacted ship and humor, is rendered most succinctly by document is in many ways a pure parody of Judith Butler: “Understood as foreclosure, cen- the conditions of speaking, a repetition of sorship produces discursive regimes through those same originary conditions where speaking the production of the unspeakable, of the is brokered upon the condition of censorship obscene […]”26 Censorship is constitutive and and almost nothing is said in relation to the world-forming, or, in other words, an original everything potentially said all at once. The per- censoring is the very condition for speaking. formative contradiction of the redacted docu- But is it possible that a continual “foreclosure,” ment – drawing attention to the secret which not only produces the distinction between information by placing it there right in front what is sayable and not sayable but constantly of us as cancelled out – illustrates the very tests and reasserts it,27 is also at the heart of powerful way in which public discourse the laughter produced by the “bleep”? The emerges through an originary act of censorship. bleep makes explicit that which operates All public speaking is, in essence, a redaction of implicitly; it is a performative contradiction redaction, a censoring of censoring, a silencing that rather than expose the very obscenity it of the originary bleep that attempts to comple- hopes to censor instead exposes the ongoing tely suppress our animal selves. And the bleep foreclosure; and rather than contradict a specific itself is perhaps the sound of the creation of obscenity it highlights and brackets out the speaking, of speaking without limits through form of the prohibited as such. the imposition of a limit. Two elements of humor seem to persist here: The origin of speaking, if I can use the the recognition of a shared community of power analogy of the Big Bang, is found not in a that can be “in on the joke,” and a level of 112  valgenti disengagement from the inevitable necessity of what allows us to speak; disengaging ourselves finite existence. This latter shift, a cognitive from its necessity is what allows us to laugh. shift, from necessity to contingency, from the And yet removing censorship altogether raises serious to the absurd, is the heart of the the question: would the end of censorship also humor of censorship. The bleep uncovers that mark the end of humor? originary, background censoring, revealing Such a question is not an that we are never reduced to the effect of a fore- apology for censorship but closure, even though any speaking subject an indication of how speaks on the condition of such a foreclosure: important humor is within a “censorship is at once the condition for agency free society. and its necessary limit.”28 That slight gap between the contingency of the condition and disclosure statement the necessity of the limit gives us room to breathe, to ask a question: how is it that this No potential conflict of interest was reported by irreducibility to foreclosure might be the the author. Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 source of humor? The source of play between the appropriate and prohibited, or even between the sovereign arbiter of decency and notes the unflinching force of animal drives? Does 1 The case, “Federal Communications Commis- humor arise precisely when we observe our- sion v. Fox Television Stations, No. 10-1293,” can selves and others being reduced (or reducing be traced back to two incidents: the use of exple- ourselves) to the necessary effect of a foreclo- tives on awards shows that aired on Fox, and the partial nudity of a character on ABC’s NYPD Blue. sure through the mechanism of the censor’s bleep, even though we are all in on the joke of 2 Adam Liptak, “The Supreme Court Rejects such a reduction?29 F.C.C. Fines for Indecency,” The New York Times The causes for laughter in the act of censoring 21 June 2012, available <http://www.nytimes.com/ highlight two ways in which the bleep functions 2012/06/22/business/media/justices-reject- productively. A laughter of contempt arises indecency-fines-on-narrow-grounds.html> (accessed 23 May 2013). through the performative contradiction of the bleep, realizing the ability to expose, satirize, 3 The terminology for the use of language in tele- and perhaps even undermine power that seeks vision and film that is obscene, indecent, blasphe- to restrict our freedom to speak. If the error mous, prurient, etc. varies significantly, with the of censorship depends on the fact that it takes most common being “profanity,” “expletive” and its norms to be absolute and authoritative, “obscenity.” William Safire clarifies their distinc- tions in use and etymology in “Bleeping Expletive” then we are wise to follow Arendt’s insight (The New York Times Sunday Magazine 31 Dec. that “The greatest enemy of authority, there- 2008). Throughout this essay I will use all three fore, is contempt, and the surest way to under- terms as appropriate. mine it is laughter.”30 And yet we know that with laughter also comes the potential for 4 “Habitat for Profanity: Broadcast TV’s Sharp great harm. The bleep also produces a laughter Increase in Foul Language,” available <http:// www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/ more profound than the laughter of contempt. 2010ProfanityStudy/study.pdf> (accessed 23 May This is the absurd laughter that arises with the 2013). accomplishment of nihilism and the undoing of absolute values; it is directed at our mechan- 5 Ibid. 2. ical and animal selves, a laughter that at the 6 Ibid. level of the species community arises when we are in the safe company of friends, when we 7 Ibid. are all able to reserve judgment and laugh at 8 <http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/unnecessa our shared condition. Originary censorship is ry-censorship#fn2> (accessed 8 Sept. 2012). 113  go bleep yourself! 9 In this famous example, the character known as Vattimo, The End of Modernity (Baltimore: Johns The Count sings about how much he loves to Hopkins UP, 1991); idem, Dialogue with Nietzsche count numbers of things he finds around his (New York: Columbia UP, 2006). castle (spiders, cobwebs, candles.), and crescendos 23 Comic Relief 42. with the verse: “I count slowly, slowly, slowly getting faster / Once I’ve started counting it’s 24 Henri Bergson, Laughter: An Essay on the really hard to stop / Faster, faster. It is so exciting! Meaning of the Comic, trans. C. Brereton and / I could count forever, count until I drop.” Of F. Rothwell (Rockville, MD: Arc Manor, 2008) 23. course, in the unnecessarily censored version, the word “count” throughout the song is bleeped 25 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An so that it seems as if The Count has used an Introduction, vol. 1, trans. R. Hurley (New York: obscenity that signifies a sexual act – in this case Vintage, 1990) 21. one perpetrated against the aforementioned 26 Judith Butler, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the spiders, cobwebs and candles. Performative (New York: Routledge, 1997) 139. 10 John Morreall, Taking Laughter Seriously 27 Ibid. 138–39. (Albany: State U of New York P, 1983). See also Downloaded by [Robert Valgenti] at 04:31 31 July 2016 by the same author: Comic Relief: A Comprehensive 28 Ibid. 141. Philosophy of Humor (London: Wiley-Blackwell, 29 Isolating a humorous element gets trickier 2009); and The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor when we turn our attention to the censorship of (Albany: State U of New York P, 1987). language – comedic or not – that relies on stereo- 11 Morreall, Taking Laughter Seriously 5–6. types intended to demean and disempower those already marginalized in society. Here, Morreall’s 12 Ibid. 15–16. analysis of humor based on stereotypes is helpful 13 “Grim Colberty Tales with Julie Andrews” but perhaps incomplete. He is correct to point from The Colbert Report, Season 8, episode 91, out that the harm done through such language aired Tuesday 24 Apr. 2012, available <http:// occurs not because stereotypes are perpetuated www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- but, at a more originary level, because in certain videos/413133/april-24-2012/grim-colberty-tales- cases those who are the butt of the joke do not with-julie-andrews> (accessed 2 Sept. 2012). enjoy the privilege and power of those perpetuat- ing the joke – they do not have the safety of belong- 14 Taking Laughter Seriously 20. ing or the luxury of disengagement. They are still on the limits of society where things are much 15 D.H. Monro, Argument of Laughter (Notre more serious and drama reigns. Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame P, 1963) 235. 30 Hannah Arendt, On Violence (Orlando: Har- 16 Slavoj Žižek, How to Read Lacan (New York: court, 1970) 45. Norton, 2006) 84. 17 Comic Relief 39. 18 Cf. ibid. 41–64. 19 Simon Critchley, On Humour (London: Rout- ledge, 2002) 35. 20 This formulation opens up the possibility that humor is not an anthropocentric phenomenon but one that is shared by certain forms of commu- nity that engage in a form of discourse. Robert T. Valgenti Department of Philosophy 21 Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Moral- Lebanon Valley State College ity, trans. M. Clark and A. Swensen (Indianapolis: 101 N. College Avenue Hackett, 1998) 56. Annville, PA 17003 22 Here I am indebted to Gianni Vattimo’s analysis USA of Nietzsche’s nihilism. Cf., in particular, Gianni E-mail: [email protected]