Peace Change - 2008 - Sorensen - Humor As A Serious Strategy of Nonviolent Resistance To Oppression

ORIGINAL
XXX
Blackwell
Oxford,
PEACE
PECH
©
0000-0000 ARTICLES
2008 Peace
UK
& Publishing
CHANGE
HistoryLtd
Society and
Humor as a Serious Strategy of

PEACE & CHANGE/?? 2008
XX
Nonviolent Resistance to Oppression

by Majken Jul Sorensen
This article explores how humor can be used as one aspect of a strategy of
nonviolent resistance to oppression and dictatorship. It combines sociological
and philosophical theories about humor’s duality and incongruity with theories
of nonviolent resistance to oppression in order to investigate the links between
topics that have previously been considered unrelated. Experiences from
the Serbian Otpor movement, which used humorous actions as a part of its
strategy to bring down Slobodan Milosevic from power, serve to illustrate
the dynamics of humor as a form of resistance. Empirical examples and
existing theory are combined to make an outline of an innovative theory of
the functions of humor in nonviolent resistance.
Nothing undermines authority like holding it up to ridicule.

—Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army (CIRCA)1
When the great lord passes the wise peasant bows deeply and
silently farts
—Ethiopian proverb2
INTRODUCTION
How can humor be used as nonviolent resistance to oppression? What

is the dynamic of humor as nonviolent resistance? What theoretical
framework is needed in order to understand the functions of humor as
resistance to oppression? These are the central questions this article
aims to answer by combining the insights of existing literature with a
case study of the Serbian Otpor movement. The article illustrates how
humor can be part of a powerful strategy of nonviolent resistance to
oppression, and discusses why humor is a unique approach to nonviolence
and challenges oppression in a different way than traditional resistance.
PEACE & CHANGE, Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2008

© 2008 Peace History Society and
Peace and Justice Studies Association
167
14680130, 2008, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0130.2008.00488.x by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
168 PEACE & CHANGE / April 2008
Humor as nonviolent resistance to oppression is an underresearched

area within peace studies, and little attention has been given to how and why
humor can be a powerful strategy in challenging oppression. Neither have
the people who study humor given much attention to the particular dynamics
of humor as resistance to oppression. Both humor and nonviolent resistance
are multidisciplinary fields that have received attention from researchers
with a variety of academic backgrounds. A central work in the field of
humor that I draw on in my construction of a theoretical framework is
Michael Mulkay’s On Humor: Its Nature and Place in Modern Society.3
Mulkay’s distinction between the humorous mode and the serious mode
plays an important role in analyzing the complex interaction between
seriousness and innocence in humorous resistance to oppression. Stephen
Brigham’s study4 of how absurdity transcends rationality and helps us
gain new insights that we cannot reach with reason and logic is not
directly linked to my study since he writes about personal and not social
transformation. However, in spite of our differences in focus, his insights
about how absurdity works has been a great inspiration for understanding
the irrational elements of humor and attempting to, paradoxically,
formulate the irrational in logical and academic terms.5
Gene Sharp’s classic work The Politics of Nonviolent Action6 is
probably the most central theoretical work on nonviolence, and although
he mentions the possibility of using humorous skits and pranks as a method,
it does not appear as an aspect of his theory.7 However, my suggestions
here build on his notion of political jiu-jitsu which I will return to later.
James Scott’s book Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden
Transcripts8 on everyday and often hidden resistance plays a central role
in my analysis of how humor can facilitate a culture of resistance, although
the book itself only mentions jokes and satire in passing.
Few people have written explicitly about the use of humor in an
oppressive situation, and one of them, Gregor Benton, who has studied
humor in the Soviet Union, does not think that political jokes can achieve
anything at all. He writes:
But the political joke will change nothing. It is the relentless enemy
of greed, injustice, cruelty and oppression—but it could never do
without them. It is not a form of active resistance. It reflects no
political programme. It will mobilise no one. Like the Jewish joke
in its time, it is important for keeping society sane and stable. It
cushions the blows of cruel governments and creates sweet illusions
of revenge. It has the virtue of momentarily freeing the lives of
Humor as a Nonviolent Resistance to Oppression 169
millions from the tensions and frustrations to which even the best
organised political opposition can promise only long-term solutions,
but its impact is as fleeting as the laughter it produces.9
Benton does not offer any documentation for his claim, and in this article
I intend to show why I think Benton is wrong and illustrate how humor,
including jokes, can play an important role in resistance to oppression.
A few other scholars share my optimism about the potential of humor:
Jørgen Johansen writes about using humor as a political force in social
democratic Norway in the early 1980s.10 His examples play a central
role in my development of a theory. Kathleen Stokker’s work on humor
against the Nazi occupation of Norway11 has provided material from a
different time period and she also gives conclusions that have theoretical
implications. Linda D. Henman has written about humor as a coping
mechanism for prisoners of war,12 and Bertil Neuman about humor in Nazi
concentration camps.13 Their examples have also been useful for under-
standing how humor can be a valuable tool for individuals in extremely
stressful situations.
The remainder of this article focuses on the experience of the Serbian
Otpor movement, which helped bring down Slobodan Milosevic in October
2000. I researched Otpor’s use of humor through qualitative interviews
in Belgrade in June 2006. Former Otpor activists were asked how they
used humor, what it meant to them, and what they thought they achieved
by using humor. These interviewees represent a diverse group of former
Otpor activists when it comes to age, gender, and their role within Otpor.
The interviews were conducted from a phenomenological and constructivist
understanding of the importance of people’s personal experiences and
meanings that construct their reality.14
The case of Otpor (which means “resistance” in Serbian) was selected
for this exploratory research on humor and nonviolence because it is a
special and unusual case, both when it comes to the amount of humor, the
importance it played in Otpor’s success and the strategic way it was used.15
This makes the case rich in information and useful for this exploration.
In the terminology of sampling strategies for qualitative research, Otpor
is an extreme or deviant case16 which is selected purposefully because it
is outstanding and special. Looking more closely at the unusual, we can
often get more information about the less unusual.17 To better understand
the dynamic of humor as nonviolent resistance, we need to investigate
where somebody has gathered some experience and learn from them,
and on the topic of humor as resistance, Otpor can provide us with
indications of which functions humor can serve, and what the special
dynamics of humor are. In most other cases of nonviolent resistance to
oppression, humor is used so little that it becomes invisible and “dis-
appears” among all the other factors that play a role in resistance. Because
Otpor is an unusual single case, it cannot be used to draw conclusions
on the prevalence of humor in nonviolent resistance. What it can do is
provide new data about how humor can be used as part of a strategy
for nonviolent resistance and why this strategy works. This means that
the case study has provided new information, which I have combined
with existing theory on humor, nonviolence, and resistance, to construct
the sketch for a new theory of nonviolent resistance to oppression,
which in the future can be tested on other cases.
Before we turn to the analysis, it will be necessary to clarify how I
define the central concepts in this article: Resistance is a response to
power that challenges oppression and domination. Oppression can take
many forms, and what is considered oppression changes across time and
space. For the purpose of this article it is not necessary to set criteria for
“oppression” as long as those concerned regard themselves as oppressed
and use humor. Humor here means everything that causes amusement,
from a joke, story, play, skit, movie or book, to a way of acting or a slogan
in a demonstration. It can be based on irony, satire, parody, or ridicule.
The humor investigated here is political, directed against oppression,
and encourages critical reflection about how society is and how we
want it to be. However, humor can indeed be oppressive and cruel, for
example when it is used to ridicule ethnic minorities or women. By
strategy I mean a consistent and thought through way of behaving in a
conflict situation. A good strategy includes an accurate estimate of this
conflict, including the strengths and weaknesses of all parties. A strategy
focuses on the long-term goals and how to stir the conflict toward these
desired outcomes, whereas the tactics and methods determine the short-
term reactions to a certain situation.18 Among researchers of non-
violence it is common to separate the practitioners of nonviolence into
two categories: Those who use it as a pragmatic tool and a technique
that can be used effectively against oppression without being pacifists
or finding violence morally wrong, and those who consider nonviolence
to be a way of life and reject violence for principled reasons.19 Although
I write about nonviolent strategies and how humor can be a strategy,
I do not intend to contribute to this debate. Strategies as defined above
are used both by “principled” and “pragmatic” groups to work toward
their objectives.
THE CONTRAST BETWEEN INNOCENT HUMOR AND

A SERIOUS MESSAGE
Almost all humor is based on contradictions and incongruity, and to

understand it, we have to be able to think of humor in more than one
dimension.20 Generally, what causes amusement is when things are turned
upside down or when things are no longer as we usually perceive them.
Michael Mulkay, a sociologist of humor, distinguishes between the
serious mode and the humorous mode, and what characterizes these
two modes. In the serious mode, we all assume that we share the same
world, and take for granted that other people perceive the world the
same way as we do. When we are in the serious mode, there has to be
a clear boundary between what is real and what is unreal. This is the world
based on reason and logic, and contradictions are considered problematic,
where something cannot “be” and “not be” at the same time. Contradictions
are treated as failure to communicate properly, and assumed to be based
on misunderstandings. In this mode, they have to be treated as problematic,
otherwise they threaten to undermine the perception that we share the
same world. In the humorous mode, on the contrary, there have to be
contradictions, because that is the basic principle of humor. Contradictions
are not problematic, but a necessary feature of the humorous mode.
Here we play with the misunderstandings, incongruity, and duality. In
order for something to be amusing, it usually has to turn things upside
down or present itself in more than one frame at the same time.21
The contrast between innocence and seriousness is especially useful
in humor used against oppression, because oppression is something very
serious. Oppression should be fought, it should not be laughed at, and
it is by definition not funny! Just the idea and attempt of using humor
in such a situation changes what is going on, no matter whether the
humor succeeds in making people laugh or not. The reformulation in a
humorous mode shows in itself that something has changed, and creates
the expectation of further changes. Humor, even the most aggressive
examples, signals innocence, although there is a serious intention behind
it. Humor changes the situation because however serious the message is,
it has a hint of “Don’t take me seriously,” and “I’m not dangerous.”
Here is an example: In Norway in 1983, a small group of total
objectors organized in the group KMV (Kampanjen Mot Verneplikt),
which means “Campaign against Conscription,” refusing both military
and alternative service. KMV members wanted to create public debate
and change the law that gave them 16 months in prison, but refused to
call it “prison” and instead, labeled it: “serv[ing] their service in an

institution under the administration of the prison authorities.”22 To avoid
having political prisoners, there were officially no trials, no prisoners,
and no punishment. The cases of the total objectors went through the
courts only to identify and establish the name of the objector, but it was
not a court case in the sense that there were anything to argue about—
the result was always the same, 16 months in prison. Often the prose-
cutor never showed up because the result was clear anyway, so KMV
exploited this in one of their actions: One of the activists dressed up as
the prosecutor and overplayed his role and demanded that the total
objector get even longer time in prison because of his profession (he was
a lawyer). As “the prosecutor” writes several years later:
We wanted to show the country the illusion of justice in these

cases. We planned to “wake” the people by laughter and make
them think about what they saw. We hoped to get a balance of
spectacular play and political arguments in order to, via headlines,
put the whole question of conscription on the political agenda.23
During the procedure in the court, nobody noticed anything wrong

in spite of the “prosecutor’s” exaggerations, and one week later KMV sent
their secret video recording of the case to the media and the result was
that most of the country was laughing. This is indeed a case of turning
things upside down to cause amusement. A friend of the accused playing
the prosecutor, and demanding a stronger punishment than what the
law can give, is a parody of the court. In this action, KMV activists
satirized the absurdity of having a court case when there is nothing to
discuss and succeeded in getting attention for their cause. A case against
the activist playing the prosecutor was dismissed “for lack of evidence,”
although KMV gladly sent the police the video as evidence.
In addition to turning the roles upside down, the parody of the
court also exposed the incongruity between what the Norwegian state
said and what it did. If the politicians call Norway a democracy, and
claim that it doesn’t have any political prisoners, then why are people
sent to prison for their beliefs? And why is it that imprisonment is not
even called a prison sentence, but rather an administrative term for serving
their alternative service? This is an absurd situation, and through dram-
atizing it in a humorous frame, KMV could cut through all rational
explanations and make people understand that this did not make sense.
The lack of congruity is what made the Norwegian population laugh.
Stephen Brigham suggests that through absurdity, we can gain new

insights that we cannot reach, or at least are more difficult to reach,
with reason and logic. He writes mainly about personal transformation
through psychotherapy, but examples like the Norwegian one and
subsequent examples from Otpor will illustrate that this can also be true
for changes at the societal level.24
The oppression of Otpor was very different from the oppression of
the Norwegian total resisters. Norway was a democracy, Serbia a semi-
dictatorship. KMV was a small group, Otpor grew to become relatively
large. But they have some things in common as well. Both felt oppressed
by the current situation, wanted to create social change, and managed
to use humor successfully to achieve some change—a revision of the law
on total resistance in the case of KMV, and the fall of Milosevic for
Otpor.
What characterized Serbia during the 1990s were four wars with
neighboring countries, growing nationalism, international isolation, and
a decrease in living standards for ordinary people. Some space for opposi-
tion and independent media existed throughout this period, although
they were often harassed and repressed.25 During the NATO bombing
of Yugoslavia in spring 1999, most political opposition became impos-
sible, and for a while Milosevic enjoyed an increase in support for his
nationalist agenda. However, soon after the end of the war, Otpor,
opposition political parties, and civil society in general started to organize.
The Otpor movement played an important role in bringing down Milosevic,
providing much of the mobilization that brought half a million people
into the streets in October 2000 after his expected falsification of elec-
tion results.26 The nature of Otpor’s success was mainly on the psycho-
logical level—they were able to challenge the climate of fear and political
apathy prevalent in Serbia during the 1990s. This change in the psycho-
logical mood was a major achievement and a fundamental factor in
creating enough opposition to Milosevic’s rule. Otpor started in October
1998 as a network of mainly students and other young people, growing
out of student protests in 1996–1997. Otpor was using a combination
of serious “black” actions and humoristic mocking and ridicule to
change the agenda in Serbia.27 Although the focus in this article is on
the power of humor, it is essential to keep in mind that these kinds of
actions were only one side of the coin, and that they were combined
with actions without the slightest hint of humor.
One way Otpor created visibility was by hanging up posters and
painting graffiti with the symbol of the organization, a clenched fist,
Figure 1 Boy drawing Otpor fist. From left, Slobodan Miloßeviç, Mira
Markoviç (his wife), and Vojislav Íeßelj (leader of the nationalist radical
party) is coming to get him. Corax cartoon from “Danas” May 5,
2000.28
all over Serbia. The Milosevic regime tried to hit back at Otpor’s grow-
ing popularity with a campaign of terrorist accusations, labeling them
as fascists and drug addicts, and with brutal and systematic police har-
assment.29 The cartoonist Corax catches the irony of the situation with
the cartoon in Figure 1.
This is a play with contrast, because Otpor activists were not that
young, and through their actions they did in fact pose a threat to the
regime. Otpor borrowed the cartoon and used it on its leaflets. On the
leaflet, the drawing of the young boy is contrasted with statements
about Otpor from political parties in power. They refer to Otpor members
in extreme terms—calling them drug addicts, terrorists, and fascists.
Political humor needs some incongruity and absurdity in order to
thrive—if things are as the politicians say they are, then there is little to
joke about and almost nothing on which to build satire, parody, and
irony. In Serbia, there was plenty of this incongruity and absurdity
between what the politicians said and how ordinary people, including
Otpor activists, experienced their lives. This incongruity included
statements about how everything was fine while the real experience was
that Serbia was falling apart, or being called a terrorist because one
paints graffiti. For some, humor became a logical way of dealing with
this absurdity in everyday life.
THE FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR AS NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE
What different functions can humor serve in a situation of oppression?

Based on the existing literature and my interviews with Otpor activists,
I suggest that theoretically humor as nonviolent resistance can be under-
stood in three different ways: (a) “Facilitating outreach and mobilization”
concerning the relationship with people outside the movement; (b)
“Facilitating a culture of resistance” within the resistance movement—
building solidarity and strengthening the individual’s capacity for
participating in resistance; and (c) “Turning oppression upside down.”
This function has the most powerful potential, because it changes the rela-
tionship between the oppressor and the oppressed.
These three functions should be understood as ideal types, where a
distinction between them can help an analysis. It does not mean that
there is no overlap between them or that one action of humor can only
serve one function at a time.
Facilitating Outreach and Mobilization
If you do something on a volunteer base, you need to motivate

people. If you do something funny, people usually smile. If people smile
they feel very well, and that was another way to raise motivation
of the people.30
The first function of humor concerns issues about outreach and

mobilization, in other words contact with people who are not part of
the resistance movement. Humor can attract more members; it becomes
more fun to be involved, and it brings energy, something that Otpor
discovered. It especially worked to attract young people and students,
although the increase in membership was an unexpected side-effect of
the use of humor. Otpor’s biggest growth came in 2000 after the movement
became more serious, but many Otpor informants think that humor was
crucial to making Otpor attractive in the beginning stages of organizing.
However, many other things may have contributed to its popularity; for
instance, Otpor differed from political parties because of its nonhierarchical
structure where everybody was deemed important and no one was fighting
for their own position.
Humor became part of the style and the branding which made it “cool”
to be a part of Otpor. In relation to others, humor can make one stand
out, and it may become easier to get attention from the media, something
both the Norwegian total resisters and Otpor experienced. For Otpor,
it was also a way to stand out from other political organizations and to
highlight intelligence and wit as a contrast to the brute force of the regime.
The literature has little to say about this function of humor, but I consider
it to be straightforward and unproblematic. What has been mentioned
here are all important aspects of mobilizing for a nonviolent social movement,
but mobilization can be achieved without any use of humor. Many social
movements manage to attract new activists and to get attention, and
most of them do not consider using humor to accomplish this.31
Facilitating a Culture of Resistance
The second function of humor concerns what is going on inside the

resistance movement. What happens outside and inside are linked—for
example, the number of new activists influence what is happening
inside—but there is a fundamental difference in how humor works in
relation to the outside and the inside. Differences exist both in the form
and the content of the humor one uses to reach out and the humor one
shares with his or her friends in the movement.32 Humor facilitates a
culture of resistance both at the organizational and individual level.
Again, this cannot be achieved solely through the use of humor, and
many resistance movements have created a resistance mentality without
using humor. But it does occur, and can play an important role, as
discussed below; for Otpor, humor was one way of creating this culture
of resistance. As one informant put it:
[because of the humor] we were functioning much better in the

organization, we had better relations inside Otpor, we felt like a
family.33
In addition to its relationship with the outside world, an organization

also needs to work on its internal dynamics, creating a culture of resistance
where members support each other and overcome political and individual
apathy. That humor can be of help here is illustrated by jokes from
occupied Norway (1940–1945):
A Nazi officer brushed past a little gray-haired, aristocratic looking

old lady. She raised her cane and knocked off his hat, berating him
loudly for showing so little respect toward his elders. Embarrassed,
he apologized, but she continued her tirade until he fled. The little
old lady went on about her business chuckling to herself, “well,
we’ll all have to fight this war as best we can; that’s the fourth hat
I’ve knocked into the mud this morning.34
Kathleen Stokker notes that “quisling humor” (directed towards

Vidkun Quisling, the leader of the Norwegian Nazi party) protected
people’s self-respect and gave the population some sort of control in an
otherwise uncontrollable situation.35 The jokes also served to break
down isolation and create a solidarity and group identity within the
population. Because so many people shared the jokes, their very existence
contradicted the Nazi propaganda that people who did not join them
would stand alone.36 As Stokker writes, “The jokes also provided an image
of nation-wide solidarity that vitally assisted the resistance effort.”37
Stokker’s findings present a strong contrast to the statement of Gregor
Benton quoted earlier that jokes will never create any social change. In
Norway, this kind of humor helped create a resistance mentality,38 or
a way of showing who was “in” with the resistance movement, and
who was “out” with the Nazis.
Naturally, there are differences between cultures, and Stokker
contrasts the Norwegian occupation humor with jokes from Eastern
Europe during dictatorship, finding that in Norwegian humor “everyone”
fights back, and support for the resistance movement is found in the
most unusual places. By contrast, in Eastern Europe, the jokes show
that you should trust no one,39 as this example illustrates:
Two Rumanians are on a bus. One is sitting down; the other is

standing. The man sitting asks:
– Are you a member of the Communist party?
– No, I am not.
– Are you in the military?
– No, I am not.
– You mean you are not a government or party official of any kind?
– No, I am not.
– Then get the hell off my foot!40
But there is something else about the function of humor that Benton
fails to notice. Even a joke that is not showing solidarity in its punch line
still shows who is in with the resistance and who is not. One would only
share this kind of joke with people one trusts or wants to know if one can trust.
The space for resistance can be more or less limited and it consists
of many possible actions along a continuum, and should not be under-
stood only as either open rebellion or absolute submission. A hidden
transcript as opposed to the public transcript is the way subordinate
groups act and talk about their oppressor behind his back. In the public
transcript, the oppressed under a dictatorship say “Yes sir!” and show
obedience and compliance, but when she can get away with it during
the dark or together with a small group of trusted friends, the worker
will work more slowly, the slave will steal his master’s food, and the
oppressed citizen will mock and ridicule the dictator.41 According to
James Scott, who invented these terms, the hidden transcript has an
important role in itself in giving people dignity in the eyes of themselves
and their group, but it also serves as preparation for the day when the
hidden transcript is declared in public and resistance is made open, if
that day ever comes.42 Scott’s nuanced understanding of resistance to
domination, as opposed to traditional understandings of resistance as
open rebellion, provides us with concepts for looking at all the space
between complete compliance and openly declared rebellion, the space
where things are not as they seem on the surface. This understanding of
resistance and domination also means that “power” is not something
one has or does not have, but is a relational concept that involves a
dynamic interaction between opposing forces. This way of analyzing
power differs from the traditional understanding of it as a constant
where the person/group with “most power” is the group with most
weapons at its disposal. Gene Sharp nuances this understanding of
power by emphasizing that even the most brutal dictator is completely
dependent on the cooperation of a large number of people, and with-
drawal of cooperation from people in important positions will make the
dictator’s power crumble.43 Scott takes it one step further when he says
that challenges the oppressor does not know about do still have an
effect because they change the mind of the oppressed.
Jokes, satire, and ridicule are only one part of the hidden transcript,
and Scott does not give humor particular attention. But humor, as part
of the hidden transcript, becomes one way of developing the culture for
further and openly declared resistance and thereby empowers the resistance
movement.
This is a strong contrast to Benton, but links well with Stokker’s
understanding of how jokes can contribute to a resistance mentality. It
also links to another aspect of humor important to a culture of resistance:

how it can help overcome apathy. That humor can help individuals in
stressful oppressive situations has been documented, from Jews in Nazi
concentration camps44 to U.S. prisoners of war in Vietnam.45 But it is
one thing to help the individual preserve self-respect, dignity, and a wish
to live, and another thing to overcome political apathy. Two Otpor
activists commenting on apathy, describe their experience as follows:
[there was] an atmosphere of absolute fear, and everything was

destroyed [in NATO bombing] ... (overall feeling that we could
not do anything ... ) and this is really where humor came into the
picture: You couldn’t persuade anyone, in this kind of atmosphere
in the country, you couldn’t persuade anybody that something
could be changed, that something should be changed ... with using
different symbols, different narratives [Otpor succeeded]. And then
there was the energy it was somewhere there, you could feel it, it
was just to trigger it ... (people were really very, very eager to
change things ... ) you just needed something to wake them up and
make them active again.46
We wanted to show that however silly it can be, you can do some-
thing, although it may look silly, at least you do something, and
that was the idea of Otpor. You don’t support Otpor, you have to
join Otpor, to live Otpor. And you have to take part in this kind
of action, to do your own actions. Bite the system, live resistance
[an early Otpor slogan].47
A culture of resistance builds upon some degree of an us/them

divide. Although such kinds of divides are often considered problematic,
in an oppressive situation there has to be a difference between those
who are oppressing and those who are resisting. You need to name
what it is you consider oppressive in order to be able to fight it. Many
nonviolent resisters make an effort to separate between the oppressor as
a person and the oppression he is committing, thus the humor will
attack the oppressive system, but not the oppressor as a person.48
According to Berger, “Those who laugh together, belong together.”49
Sharing humor is built on shared knowledge of what we laugh at. For
Mulkay, most humor is conservative and reinforces the status quo. Even
political humor that at first seems to be radical and challenging, will in
the long run serve to underline the already established political divisions.
He thinks that political humor will only appeal to the already convinced,
and does not change political opinions.50 Is this really true? In the sense
of the us/them divide, Mulkay is right when he says that political humor
underlines established political divisions, but it is not correct, at least
not in oppressive situations, that it is conservative and reinforces the
status quo. In the case of Otpor it helped create the feeling that some-
thing can and must be done about the status quo, and in order for this
to happen, the difference between oppression and resistance has to be
clear. Humor’s play with duality and contradictions becomes one way
of making this distinction obvious.
Turning Oppression Upside Down
Turning oppression upside down is the third function of humor as

resistance, and here the humor deals directly with the relationship between
oppression and resistance. This kind of humor has a new dimension and
operates on a different level than the two previous functions. When it
works, three things happen more or less simultaneously: (a) The humor
used is confrontational; it provokes, mocks, or ridicules, which escalates
the conflict and puts pressure on the oppressor. (b) Although an increased
pressure raises the chances of repression, paradoxically the use of humor
reduces fear within the resistance movement. (c) Humor reduces the
oppressor’s options for reacting in a way he can later justify.
Otpor was built as a nonhierarchical organization, with no individual
leaders and where small independent groups organized their own
actions.51 However, it still had an informal leadership and a core group
that laid out the strategy, and part of that deliberate strategy was to use
humor to provoke Milosevic and reduce people’s fear of him.
The thing is, that [humor] was something like the main thing that
brought him [Milosevic] down, because people were afraid, there
was fear everywhere around and if we are going to change some-
thing, the main idea was to make fun of the things that make them
afraid ... to make people less afraid by using humor.52
There is no doubt that humor was an important factor for reducing

people’s fear of the regime and of the police. Some of those interviewed
for this piece stressed this element spontaneously, and everybody else
supported this premise when asked directly. It is a very simple logic; it
is more difficult to be afraid of someone when you laugh at him.
It is difficult to mock or ridicule those in power without some

humorous elements, although the humor can be more or less “gentle”
or more or less close to what is actually true. The closer one sticks to
the truth about the oppressor, the better the humor works. An example
of Otpor’s more subtle irony can illustrate this: Mira Markovic, the wife
of Milosevic and herself a politician in the Communist party, said in a
statement that the Communists came to power with blood, so they
would not leave power without blood. The Otpor activists then went to
the hospital to donate blood and say “Here is our blood, now you can
go.” This is humor that is not meant to make people laugh out loud,
but to smile a little and provoke thought, and it turns the regime’s own
words against it. This humor is not very aggressive, but stuck to what
Mira Markovic had said. Satire twists the meaning of words, so that the
person or case satirized finds her own force used against her. As Berger
says about satire: “Like the martial arts, it always uses the adversary’s
strengths against himself and thus turns them into weaknesses.”53
Most of the humor Otpor used was not very aggressive, although
some actions had aggressive elements. Let us examine an action that
was also a clear provocation: To support agriculture, Milosevic was
placing boxes in shops and public places asking people to donate one
dinar (Serbian currency) for sowing and planting crops. As a response,
Otpor arranged its own collection called “Dinar za Smenu.” Smenu in
Serbian is a word with many meanings; it can mean change, resignation,
dismissal, pension, and purge. This action was repeated several times in
different places in Serbia, and consisted of a big barrel with a photo of
Milosevic. People could donate one dinar, and would then get a stick
they could use to hit the barrel. On one occasion, a sign suggested that
if people did not have any money because of Milosevic’s politics, they
should bang the barrel twice. When the police removed the barrel,
Otpor said in a press release that the police had arrested the barrel, and
that the action was a huge success. They claimed they had collected
enough money for Milosevic’s retirement, and that the police would
give the money to Milosevic.
The power of humor is not in the level of aggression, at least not in
an oppressive situation, but in the courage it takes and in the ambivalence
between the innocence and the clear serious message. The provocation can
be camouflaged behind the innocence that is part of the innocence–serious
contrast explained earlier.
I have not investigated how the general public looked at Otpor’s
use of humor, but in order for the ridiculing of Milosevic to work, it is
likely that there has to be a perceived element of truth in the humor.

Otpor’s humor worked because they stayed within certain limits, and
played with what was apparent, such as statements from the daily
newspaper, or that Yugoslavia had fallen apart. If Otpor had tried to
call the regime drug addicts or child abusers and made fun of that,
people would have known that it was too far out. Instead they took
what the regime did and twisted it and turned it against them, as in the
leaflet with the cartoon of the boy painting graffiti and the statements
about Otpor activists as terrorists and fascists. It was not necessary to
invent new absurdities, because reality in itself was absurd enough.
As discussed above, humor used against oppression has a special
twist to it because the humorous mode is connected to a perception of
innocence, and contrasts so sharply with the serious issue of oppression.
This contrast can take us even further, because it leads to another special
advantage of using humor: How does one repress it?54
An example from Otpor illustrates this: In the beginning of September
2000, a few weeks before the presidential election, the police raided
Otpor’s central office in Belgrade. They took away everything—posters,
stickers, office equipment like photocopiers and computers, and left
only tables and chairs. Otpor called this police action “Unload 2000”
and said that since the police had done the action this time, they were
going to do the reaction “Load 2000.” Otpor planned for a time where
the new equipment would arrive, and pretended that this was a secret
action. However, because they knew who was informing on them to the
secret police, they made sure that the secret police would know when
all the new materials would arrive. A number of Otpor activists showed
up outside the Otpor office in the main pedestrian street in Belgrade,
apparently carrying heavy boxes that needed a lot of effort. The police
arrived, and ordered the activists to put down all the boxes, which they
reluctantly did. Some policemen were ordered to carry the boxes away.
The policemen lifted the boxes with all their strength, since the boxes
had looked heavy, but were in for a big surprise when the boxes flew
into the air. The Otpor activists had managed to fool the police, and all
the boxes were empty or full of old newspapers. Bystanders and Otpor
activists were laughing, while the police were swearing at each other
and the secret police’s inability to provide reliable information.
The Norwegian total resisters in KMV made another spectacular
action a few months after the “prosecutor,” which exposed the authorities
in a different way: A number of activists climbed over the wall into the
prison where one of their members was serving his 16 months. The
group demanded to be imprisoned together with their friend on the

grounds that they shared his views and therefore should be imprisoned
with him. This caused confusion in the prison, where the guards were
not used to getting extra inmates. How does one react to something like
this? If the activists are allowed to stay in the prison, they make their
point. If the police carry the protesters out, then the authorities look
ridiculous. And if one wants to punish the protesters afterwards, how
would this be done? Send them to prison as they had demanded?55
In addition to being a provocation, these two actions leave the
authorities with a dilemma: How to respond when the secret police and
prison system have just been exposed so directly? Humor and ridicule
is not part of the means the police, prisons, and courts are used to
responding to. They know how to react to violence, and how to act in
response to “ordinary” protest such as demonstrations. But if the
oppressor uses force against someone who is “just making fun,” he
makes himself look ridiculous and gives the movement new material for
further development of the fun. Two of the Otpor leaders I talked to
called Otpor’s actions “dilemma actions”—and the idea is to actively
create this dilemma—no matter how the Milosevic regime reacted, it
had to regret it. Both the “load 2000” and the “Dinar za Smenu” mentioned
earlier are examples of dilemma actions—if the police do not take away
the barrel, they lose face, and when they do something Otpor continues
the joke by calling it arrest of a barrel and saying the police will give
Milosevic the money for his retirement. No matter what the regime
does, it has lost.
This does not mean that an oppressive system does not respond with
violence, just that it is much harder to justify it. Playing with provocations
can be dangerous business, and the result can be a violent response.
Gandhi, for example, recommended not provoking or humiliating the
oppressor since it would increase the chances of a violent response.56
The concept of political jiu-jitsu can help us understand the dynamic
of turning oppression upside down. This central notion in nonviolence
theory refers to how the opponents own force, as in the martial art, is
used against him. When nonviolent resistance is met with violence, a
special dynamic arises: It becomes difficult to justify the use of violence
against a nonviolent resister. Gene Sharp, who was the first to write
about political jiu-jitsu, explains:
Cruelties and brutalities committed against the clearly nonviolent

are likely to disturb many people and fill some with outrage. Even
milder violent repression appears less justified against nonviolent

people than when employed against violent resisters.57
Such unjustified repression forces third parties and previously undecided

people to take sides. When the nonviolent resisters use humor, some-
thing else happens in addition. Not only is it hard to justify violence,
almost all kinds of reactions, violent or not, make the oppressor look
ridiculous. This is illustrated by the different examples from Otpor that
left the authorities without an adequate response, as well as by the
actions of the Norwegian total resisters in which the court and prison
did not risk a repressive response the activists could exploit further and,
therefore, the cases were dismissed for “lack of evidence.”
Turning oppression upside down is different from the other two
functions of humor because it directly challenges the relationship with
the oppressor. To achieve all three elements of “turning oppression
upside down” at the same time is a relatively unique dynamic, although
I do not exclude the possibility that it can be created through other
means as well.58
There will be cases where humor might be of great help in facilitat-
ing outreach, mobilization, and a culture of resistance, but it will not be
taken to this level. Neither is there any guarantee that this strategy will
work even in the cases where it is tried, because what happens also
depends on the reaction from the oppressor. Oppression and resistance
are so interlinked that one party does not control the situation alone.
Potentially the humor can become too aggressive and focus on the
oppressor instead of the oppression. If it is no longer based on wit and
intelligence but too much on provocation, it ceases being funny, and the
general public will lose sympathy. It is also possible to imagine scenarios
where a repressive response is so severe that it increases fear even
though the repression is ridiculous, or in which the oppressor manages
to find an adequate response, maybe by using humor himself.
CONCLUSION
Theories about nonviolence and resistance have little to say about

humor, and literature about humor has little to say about how it can
work to counter oppression. However, when these two traditions are
combined and related to empirical examples, new knowledge arises.
The case of Otpor is unusual precisely because humor was used to such
a large extent. Most nonviolent movements working against oppression
do not use much or any humor, and it would be easy to find examples
of cases where the questions asked here would be irrelevant. However,
through the case study of Otpor and examples from the literature, I
have documented that humor has been used successfully to resist
oppression. Because humor works in more than one dimension at the
same time it can combine innocence with seriousness in a way that can
alter relationships and transcend rationality.
The importance of humor as a way of resisting oppression should
not be exaggerated, but humor does have a powerful potential in
facilitating outreach and mobilization, a culture of resistance and turning
oppression upside down. How this power is exercised depends on the
situation, but humor’s main source of power is its ability to turn things
upside down and present them in a new frame. Examples of the unex-
pected are to jump into the prison or not to accept arrest as defeat.
Because of its irrationality, humor has an ability to affect relationships
in surprising and unpredictable ways and undermine traditional sources
of power, such as the police and the military, which are firmly based in
rationality. Because the serious mode is the common mode of inter-
action and communication, dictators generally expect to be taken seriously.
When a group like Otpor ignores this general rule by presenting things
in a humorous frame instead, they are suddenly the ones in charge
because here they are much more familiar with “the rules of the game”
than the dictatorship that still thinks in the serious mode.
Symbolic actions, including the use of humor, can have a profound
influence if they manage to change people’s perception of a situation. A
demonstration, a street theatre, or hanging up of a poster has a very
different impact in a dictatorial society, where fear dominates, than in
a democratic society. Fear is not something one can touch and feel, but
it still has a dramatic impact. When someone ceases being afraid or is
less afraid than before, the situation has changed as long as he or she
starts to act differently based on the changed perception of the situation.
In Serbia, the actions of Otpor made people far outside of Otpor’s own
circles think that maybe things could become different. In spite of their
experiences with years of deterioration and expectations of election
fraud, people did go out to vote in the hope that maybe it would be
different this time. And when the election fraud did happen, fear and
apathy instead turned into anger and persistence. Otpor was not success-
ful and powerful in the sense that they physically removed Milosevic,
but they played a crucial role in setting a different agenda and challeng-
ing fear and apathy.
The use of humor is explored so little in both theory and practice

that there is a need for more practical use of it and more research before
we can understand it better. This article has mainly focused on severe
oppression in nondemocratic settings, although the examples from
KMV are an exception to this. However, there is a strong tradition of
using political humor in “Western” societies as well. For lack of
space I have not been drawing on the tradition of for example the
French situationists or the American yippies. In further research, it will
be important to explore how these experiences can be linked to the
theoretical framework suggested here, and also to investigate in what
way the use of humor against oppression must differ in a democratic
and a dictatorial situation.
Another area where more research and practice is needed is to look
in more detail at how different kinds of humor work. Many different
kinds of humor exist—for example, satire, irony, and parody—and it
can take different forms, such as jokes, actions, or plays. What types of
humor will best serve the different functions of humor suggested here?
Are jokes for example more likely to facilitate a culture of resistance
while spectacular actions turn oppression upside down?
At the personal level, self-irony and joking about one’s own short-
comings are considered to have the greatest impact on self-liberation
through humor. Will this also be true for the social level? What happens
when a movement in addition to mocking the oppressor uses self-irony
and exposes its own mistakes and shortcomings?
How is the use of humor perceived by the general public; does it
change people’s thoughts or behavior in any way? And can humor back-
fire on the nonviolent movement so that it is not taken seriously or the
sympathy goes to the mocked oppressor?
A final area worthy of further exploration is to look at the oppressors’
reactions. What do they think about the humor directed towards them
and how do they try to deal with it? There is a possibility that the
oppressor will try to use counter humor: What would such humor look
like, and how can the nonviolent movement respond to the counter
humor?
NOTES
I would like to thank Brian Martin, Carol Rank, Howard Clark, Jørgen
Johansen, Stellan Vinthagen, the editor of Peace & Change, and the two anony-
mous referees for useful comments at different stages in the process of writing
this article and the background study to it. My greatest gratitude goes to the
Otpor movement that dared to experiment with humor while they were facing
both oppression and repression, and especially the thirteen informants who took
the time to answer all my questions. Without them, this study would never have
been possible.
1. CIRCA is a UK-based network of clowns that operate through nonviolent
action against capitalism and militarism, for example, at military recruitment
offices and G8 meetings. CIRCA, Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army,
available from http://www.clownarmy.org/.
2. Quoted before preface in James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of
Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990).
3. M. J. Mulkay, On Humor: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society
(Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1988).
4. Stephen Brigham, “Limitations of Reason and Liberation of Absurdity:
Reason and Absurdity as Means of Personal and Social Change. Case Study:
Psychotherapy” (Wollongong, NSW: University of Wollongong, 2005).
5. Two other works that I have found useful are Peter L. Berger, Redeeming
Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience (New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1997), and Simon Critchley, On Humor, Thinking in Action (London:
Routledge, 2002).
6. Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action (Boston: P. Sargent
Publisher, 1973).
7. In his 198 methods of nonviolent resistance, Sharp also includes one
which is called “Humorous skits and pranks.” Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent
Action, 148–149, where he uses examples from Eastern Europe. Although Sharp
is concerned with strategic nonviolent resistance, he does not have any comments
on the particularities of humor as a form of nonviolent resistance.
8. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts.
9. Gregor Benton, “The Origins of the Political Joke,” in Humor in Society:
Resistance and Control, ed. Chris Powell and George E. C. Paton (New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1988), 54.
10. Jörgen Johansen, “Humor as a Political Force, or How to Open the
Eyes of Ordinary People in Social Democratic Countries,” Philosophy and
Social Action 17, no. 3 – 4 (1991).
11. Kathleen Stokker, Folklore Fights the Nazis: Humor in Occupied Norway,
1940–1945 (Madison, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1995); Kathleen Stokker,
“Quisling Humor in Hitler’s Norway: Its Wartime Function and Postwar
Legacy,” Humor 14/4 (2001).
12. Linda D. Henman, “Humor as a Coping Mechanism: Lessons from
POWs,” Humor 14/1 (2001).
13. Bertil Neuman, Skratta Eller Gråta: Humor I Koncentrationsläger [Laugh

or Cry: Humor in Concentration Camps] (Stockholm, Sweden: Carlsson, 2005).
14. For more detailed information about the case study and the conduct of
the interviews, please contact the author at majken.sorensen@gmail.com.
15. Otpor’s strategic use of humor and creativity is well known by people
who are familiar with the organization. For an author that refers to Otpor’s
creativity and ridicule of Milosevic, see for example, Joshua Paulson, “Remov-
ing the Dictator in Serbia—1996–2000,” in Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th
Century Practice and 21st Century Potential, ed. Gene Sharp (Boston: Extending
Horizons Books, 2005), 319, 322.
16. Michael Quinn Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods,
3rd edn. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002), 230.
17. Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 45– 46, 55.
18. See for example Gene Sharp, Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century
Practice and 21st Century Potential, 447– 459.
19. See for example Jørgen Johansen, “Nonviolence: More than the
Absence of Violence,” in Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, ed.
Charles Webel and Johan Galtung (London: Routledge, 2007), 145, for a
discussion of these two traditions that also include an emphasis on the overlaps
between them.
20. Berger, Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human
Experience, 25, 32, 60.
21. Mulkay, On Humor: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society, 22–
30.
22. Johansen, “Humor as a Political Force, or How to Open the Eyes of
Ordinary People in Social Democratic Countries,” 24.
Ordinary People in Social Democratic Countries,” 25.
24. Brigham, “Limitations of Reason and Liberation of Absurdity: Rea-
son and Absurdity as Means of Personal and Social Change. Case Study: Psy-
chotherapy”.
25. Matthew Collin, This Is Serbia Calling, 1st edn. (New York: Serpent’s
Tail, 2001); Paulson, “Removing the Dictator in Serbia—1996–2000,” 315.
26. There does not seem to be any disagreement about Otpor’s central role.
See for example Roger Cohen, “Who Really Brought Down Milosevic,” The
New York Times, November 26, 2000; Albert Cevallos, “Whither the Bull-
dozer? Nonviolent Revolution and the Transition to Democracy in Serbia”
(Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2001); Helsinki Committee
for Human Rights in Serbia, Human Rights in Serbia 2000 (Belgrade, Serbia:
Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, 2001), 13.
27. An easy introduction to the work and style of Otpor is the film Steve
York, Bringing Down a Dictator, DVD film, York Zimmerman Inc., 2001. For more
information about October 5th 2000 see Dragan Bujosevic and Ivan Radovanovic,
October 5: A 24-Hour Coup (Belgrade, Serbia: Media Center Belgrade, 2000).
28. Predrag (Corax) Koraksic, On/He/Lui (Belgrade, Serbia: Plato, 2001),
158. Reprinted with permission.
29. Natasa Kandic and Humanitarian Law Center, Police Crackdown on
Otpor (Belgrade, Serbia: Humanitarian Law Center, 2001).
30. Author interview with former Otpor activist, Belgrade, June 22, 2006.
31. For many different examples of nonviolent social movements see for
example Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall, A Force More Powerful: A Century
of Nonviolent Conflict, 1st edn. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000), or Stephen
Zunes, Lester R. Kurtz, and Sarah Beth Asher, Nonviolent Social Movements: A
Geographical Perspective (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1999).
32. This is an area that can be explored much more when more examples
of humor as resistance are collected.
34. Stokker, “Quisling Humor in Hitler’s Norway: Its Wartime Function
and Postwar Legacy,” 351.
and Postwar Legacy,” 349. In the postwar time, the jokes have served a different
purpose. They helped create the myth that everybody participated in the resistance,
and that nobody supported the occupation, which is contradicted by the fact
that 60,000 Norwegians joined the Nazi party.
38. Stokker, Folklore Fights the Nazis: Humor in Occupied Norway,
1940–1945, 154.
1940–1945, 102–103.
1940–1945, 103. Stokker refers here to Banc and Dundes.
41. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, xii,
4–6, 17–19.
42. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, 202.
43. Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, 8–32.
44. Neuman, Skratta Eller Gråta: Humor I Koncentrationsläger [Laugh or
Cry: Humor in Concentration Camps].
45. Henman, “Humor as a Coping Mechanism: Lessons from POWs.”

48. For example, this distinction was very important for Gandhi. Arne
Næss, Gandhi and Group Conflict: An Exploration of Satyagraha: Theoretical
Background (Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, 1974), 74. However, my
informants from Otpor did not explicitly make this distinction.
49. Berger, Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experi-
ence, 57.
50. Mulkay, On Humor: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society, 209–
212.
51. Collin, This Is Serbia Calling, 175; Cohen, “Who Really Brought Down
Milosevic.”
53. Berger, Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human
Experience, 160. This parallel is also made by Marvin R. Koller, Humor and
Society: Explorations in the Sociology of Humor (Houston, TX: Cap and Gown
Press, 1988), 25.
54. Many political leaders have feared humor because they acknowledge its
power. Adolf Hitler made political humor illegal in 1939, which is so absurd
that it provided material for much humor. Neuman, Skratta Eller Gråta: Humor
I Koncentrationsläger [Laugh or Cry: Humor in Concentration Camps], 17.
Ordinary People in Social Democratic Countries,” 25–26; and Åsne Berre Persen
and Johansen Jørgen, Den Nødvendige Ulydigheten [the Necessary Civil Diso-
bedience] (Oslo, Norway: Fmk, 1998), 145–148.
56. Næss, Gandhi and Group Conflict: An Exploration of Satyagraha:
Theoretical Background, 70.
57. Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, 657. The concept of political
jiu-jitsu has been further developed by Brian Martin in his forthcoming book
about backfire. Brian Martin, Justice Ignited: The Dynamics of Backfire (Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).
58. It is not difficult to achieve these elements separately. Escalating the
conflict can be done nonviolently without use of humor, for example, by nonviolent
direct action that occupies public spaces. There are many ways of reducing fear,
for example, the military do this with strict organizing and orders, and nonviolent
groups achieve the same by good planning and affinity groups. The possibility
for a violent response that is considered justified by the general public is often
reduced by using nonviolence (political jiu-jitsu and backfire theories).

Peace Change - 2008 - Sorensen - Humor As A Serious Strategy of Nonviolent Resistance To Oppression

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peace Change - 2008 - Sorensen - Humor As A Serious Strategy of Nonviolent Resistance To Oppression

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORIGINAL

Humor as a Serious Strategy of

Nonviolent Resistance to Oppression

Nothing undermines authority like holding it up to ridicule.

How can humor be used as nonviolent resistance to oppression? What

PEACE & CHANGE, Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2008

Humor as nonviolent resistance to oppression is an underresearched

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN INNOCENT HUMOR AND

Almost all humor is based on contradictions and incongruity, and to

call it “prison” and instead, labeled it: “serv[ing] their service in an

We wanted to show the country the illusion of justice in these

During the procedure in the court, nobody noticed anything wrong

Stephen Brigham suggests that through absurdity, we can gain new

THE FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR AS NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE

What different functions can humor serve in a situation of oppression?

Facilitating Outreach and Mobilization

If you do something on a volunteer base, you need to motivate

The first function of humor concerns issues about outreach and

Facilitating a Culture of Resistance

The second function of humor concerns what is going on inside the

[because of the humor] we were functioning much better in the

In addition to its relationship with the outside world, an organization

A Nazi officer brushed past a little gray-haired, aristocratic looking

Kathleen Stokker notes that “quisling humor” (directed towards

Two Rumanians are on a bus. One is sitting down; the other is

also links to another aspect of humor important to a culture of resistance:

[there was] an atmosphere of absolute fear, and everything was

A culture of resistance builds upon some degree of an us/them

Turning Oppression Upside Down

Turning oppression upside down is the third function of humor as

There is no doubt that humor was an important factor for reducing

It is difficult to mock or ridicule those in power without some

likely that there has to be a perceived element of truth in the humor.

group demanded to be imprisoned together with their friend on the

Cruelties and brutalities committed against the clearly nonviolent

milder violent repression appears less justified against nonviolent

Such unjustified repression forces third parties and previously undecided

Theories about nonviolence and resistance have little to say about

The use of humor is explored so little in both theory and practice

13. Bertil Neuman, Skratta Eller Gråta: Humor I Koncentrationsläger [Laugh

45. Henman, “Humor as a Coping Mechanism: Lessons from POWs.”

You might also like