Psychological Issues of Jewish Humor - Assignment Example

Q In light of Davidheiser’s testimony in terms of conflict mediation within the Mandinka, it can be assumed that the Ndake, who also use joking as a form of mediation would uphold the same joking relationships as the Mandinka. Thus if Ego and his wife were having marital problems the best person to act as mediator would be Ego’s uncle on his mother’s side ‘Uta’ because ‘maternal uncles have a strong joking relationship with their nephews and nieces’ (8) and it is a joking relationship that matters the most in conflict resolution. The worst mediator for Ego and his wife however, would probably be his wife’s mother ‘Ubara’ because mediation is undertaken by males not females and ‘Ubara’ is associated to Ego by marriage; with no historical roots the relationship is considered as feeble. The most neutral mediator for Ego would more likely be Ego’s grandfather ‘Ubandu’ because grandparents have strong joking relationships with their grandchildren and ‘Ubandu’ is the male grandparent. It would not be wise and the outcomes would probably be negative if Ego and his wife were to go to a Western marriage counselor. According to Davidheiser (2), unlike American mediation, wherein an impartial third-party mediator is usual, the Mandinka operate with a more subjective relational mediator and the Ndake would do the same. American mediators are involved with the task of sifting out the underlying causal links to the conflict, while at the same time isolating people from the problem. Ego and his wife would be subjected to the Western ideology of conflict resolution and justice, which is in complete conflict to their own. Ndake like Mandinka mediators are more concerned with social order and good relations rather than the actual conflict and its causes; they do not concern themselves with mutual benefit or objective decision making and results, preferring instead to ignore the underlying issues in favor of forgiveness and continuing relationships. In other words, the result of a western marriage counselor would be the couple going separate ways with all assets divided equally in a win-win situation; the result of a Ndake mediator would more likely be Ego and his wife staying together in happiness. Q.2 Jewish humor, founded on satire and stereotypes is ‘alive and thriving’ Berger (xxiv). It does not however, invent the stereotypes or affronts it deals out but instead takes advantage of those already in circulation by manipulation and exploitation (Nilsen & Nilsen). Jewish humor emanates from within and among its own people to fill intellectual, social and emotional needs by mocking themselves along with everyone else around them. Although Jewish humor may appear funny it hides cunning and sometimes ingenious stratums, which when taken apart expose deeper underlying issues. It features an irony that is exclusive to the Jewish culture and by being a part of that culture the jokes contain even further meaning. Historically, the Jewish people have used their special brand of humor to deal the lot that life has bestowed them, including the adversities of Diaspora, the Holocaust and alienation. Freud (166-67 cited in Morris) remarked on the particular humor of the Jews, making comment on their preponderance of laughing at their own deficiencies; he further claimed that such humor may be both adverse and offensive, but when used in an adverse manner it is a form of defense. Most of the stories and jokes aimed against particular aspects of Jewish life in the past have been invented by Jews themselves, and because of Jewish dispersion they have endured generations of marginalization and have thus a different view of the world. Self-denouncing and complimentary stories and jokes come from within the group as a means of survival and as Freud claimed, to acquire control of their humor by doing it before and better than non-Jews (Morris). During the holocaust Jewish humor was very much a defense mechanism used as a means of survival that helped them maintain human dignity under such horrendous conditions; the objective was not to take things seriously but to make them appear comical so that they could pretend that such inconceivable things were not actually happening (Ostrower 3); in other words humor was used as a ‘buffer against harsh reality (Jones 2). Humor was connected with everything during this time but was mostly directed towards themselves and death; for example “…...Two Jews meet in Warsaw and one of them is eating perfumed soap, the other asks: 'Moyshe, why are you eating soap with such a scent'? He answers: 'If they turn me into soap, I might as well smell nice” (Ostrower 4); such a joke plays light on the fate before them. Jewish humor then has been one of the most important ingredients of mental preservation and perseverance in dire times of Jewish history; the following quote from Mihaileanu, Director of the movie ‘Train de Vie (Train of Life) epitomizes this point: We must distinguish between laughing "at" something and crying about it in a different way. Or telling a story in a different way...My people's history is a long line of tragic events that has brought us to the edge of madness, that bad madness, and against death and barbarians. We have survived and the invisible chain that holds us Jews together, down through the centuries is a combination of religion, humor and the permanent tragedy we have no choice but to undergo. Tragedy and its antidote: humor. That's our culture. We don't laugh about a tragic event. We laugh in order to survive.( Mihaileanu, cited in Morris). Jewish humor is thus a transitory mixture of fantasy, imagination and reality, wherein its people take an active approach in its invention and use in a controlled manner in relation to particular events in history and their lives. Emanating from times of adversity however, a number of Jewish stereotypes have evolved such as those pertaining to money and wealth. Historically, the Jewish people were not allowed to own property so they had to find other means of investment; they turned to money lending and highly developed banking practices resulted, whereupon many Jewish people became quite wealthy. Hence we have the stereotypical Jewish money lender or his opposing stereotypical greedy miser – ‘How do you start a Jewish marathon? Roll a penny down the hill’. These stereotypes were further ignited by Hitler and the war when the Jewish people were accused of controlling the banks and all the wealth of Europe. In America today Jewish humor maintains a social function and reflects on the Jewish situation and environment; it celebrates Jewish culture and heritage, and at times it is used merely for fun. As time progresses many of the jokes lose their humor and topics change, mainly because the Jewish communities are assimilating more and more into American society and often times replacing their traditional values for the materialistic society of America (Ziv 62), a point to which they even make jokes, as in the following example: Esther, Yetta, and Sadie are sitting around talking about how much their daughters love them. Esther says, “My Rhoda loves me so much, she just bought me a fur stole!” Yetta says, “My Sheila loves me so much, she just paid for me to spend a month in an exclusive hotel in Miami Beach.” Sadie says, “Yeah, yeah, that’s nice. But my Michelle loves me even more than that. Every week she goes to a fancy Park Avenue therapist and pays him $300 a visit, and all she talks about is me!” (Scott). In Jewish society the stereotypical son was considered more important than their mother, was well educated to be a doctor or lawyer and the stereotypical mother stayed at home to take fulltime care of him. Jokes abounded therefore in relation to mother and son, such as: A man calls his mother in Florida. “Mom, how are you?” asks the son. “Not so good,” says the mother. “I’ve been very weak.” The son asks, “Why are you so weak?” She says, “Because I haven’t eaten in 38 days.” The son says, “That’s terrible. Why haven’t you eaten in 38 days?” The mother answers, “Because I didn’t want my mouth to be full of food just in case you should call” (Scott). In terms of husband and wife however, the jokes continue and like in other cultures the female takes the brunt of the ridicule: A Jewish boy comes home from school and tells his mother he has been given a part in the school play. “Wonderful,” says the mother. “What part is it?” The boy says, “I play the part of the Jewish husband.” The mother scowls and says, “Go back and tell your teacher you want a speaking part!” Q: Why is it so important for the groom at a Jewish wedding to stomp on a wine glass? A:Because it’s the last time he’ll put his foot down. Jewish humor remains self disparaging, which according to Ziv (61) shows maturity and self insight, and it attacks those people in society with authority, both Jewish and non-Jewish: ‘Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they’ve Stolen’ (Mort Sahl, cited in). It is still used as a defense mechanism in dealing with alienation and assimilation much of which is depicted in American sitcoms such as ‘Seinfeld’, cartoons such ‘The Simpsons’ and ‘South Park’, as well as movies and by a large populace of stand-up comics. Q.3. O’Rourke, in his tongue-in-mouth satirical look at politics in Northern Ireland makes reference to the phrase ‘acceptable level of violence’, coined by Reginald Maudling in 1973, the then British Home Secretary, in reference to the violence in Northern Ireland. O’Rourke very cleverly makes fun and illustrates how ridiculously governments impose policies fuelled by over inflated political egos. In reality at the time, half the people of Britain accepted the statement, while the other half renounced it (Townsend 26). While many would agree as to the absurdity of any level of violence being considered as tolerable the fact is that people living within a society that has suffered violence and long term armed conflicts (not full war but low intensity conflict) do in fact become more tolerant, maybe not immune, but definitely more compliant with what is going on around them. We are all aware of the upsurge in nationalism and the fear and hatred incited by terrorism, particularly after September 11; governments and media inflamed the abhorrence and terror provoked by the attack and most people in America and around the world were fearful of what lied in store for them in terms of terrorism. Further along in time, most remain fearful but there appears to be a growing sense of acceptance, perhaps not apathy, but a sort of lethargy or forbearance because the war against terrorism has been ongoing, and unless involved directly with such an attack the majority of people are able to distance themselves from such atrocities. The idea of acceptable violence is even evident with everyday life throughout America. Fifty years ago if somebody was killed or attacked on the streets of America the community would have been in an uproar and a murder would definitely have made front page and been the centre of conversation among the community for a while. Today however, there seems to be a sort of empathy towards violence on the streets; people do not like it but they have learnt to live with it, as far as living with violence is possible that is. Murder no longer makes the front page and people no longer dwell on the issues in lunch time conversations or over a drink after work. O’Rourke was commenting on life in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, but is life today in most major cities of the world including America any different? As populations are faced with violence within and outside of the communities on a daily basis and often with threats that never eventuate for most, there exists an acceptable level of violence, maybe on the most part subconsciously, but nevertheless it does exist. Bibliography Berger, Arthur The Genius of the Jewish Joke. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 2006. Bonanos, Christopher. Two Rabbis Walk into a Bar: 5,769 Years of the Jewish Joke. 2009 http://nymag.com/news/articles/09/05/nymag090601_jewishjokes.pdf (8 April, 2011). Davidheiser, Mark. "Special Affinities and Conflict Resolution: West African Social Institutions and Mediation." In Burgess, G. & Burgess, H. Eds. Beyond Intractability. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: December 2005 . (8 April, 2011). Jones, Rebecca. A Horse Named Adolf: European-Jewish Humor during the Holocaust. Thesis. Middlebury College. 2008. http://dspace.nitle.org/bitstream/handle/10090/6453/s10hist2008jones.pdf?sequence=1 (8 April, 2011). Morris, Jon. “Against the Comfort of Catharsis: Teaching Trauma and the Sobering Lesson of Train de Vie”. Transformations. XVI. 2 (2005) 38+. Questia. (7 April, 2011). Nilsen, Alleen & Nilsen, Don. “Just How Ethnic is Ethnic humor?” Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal. 38.1 (2006) 131+ Questia. (7 April, 2011). O’Rourke, P.J. “The Piece of Ireland that Passeth All Understanding”. In Give War a Chance: Eye Witness Accounts of Mankind’s struggle Against Tyranny, Injustice and Alcohol Free Beer. New York: Grove Press. 1992. Ostrower, Chaya. Humor as a Defense Mechanism in the Holocaust. PhD Thesis,Tel-Aviv University. 2000. (8 April, 2011). http://web.macam98.ac.il/~ochayo/absractn.pdf . Scott, Brenda. Jewish Humor. Creative Forecasting Inc. 2010. www.creativeforecasting.com. (7 April, 2011). Townsend, Charles. Terrorism: A very Short Introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 2002. Ziv, Avmer. Jewish Humor. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 1986. Read More