UlrikaBalcom220

The current representation of conflict over the freedom to create cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) in western media while the confli...

In its original historic meaning, a (from the Italian cartone, meaning "big paper") is a full-size drawing made in writing as a for a further art, like a painting or tapestry. In contemporary print media, an animation is definitely an example, often humorous in intent. Recent representation of conflict over the freedom to write cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) in western media while the conflict between freedom of speech and expression and Muslim sensitivities - obscures what is really going on at the deepest level of our collective global psyche.

I strongly believe that the publication of the cartoons in Danish Jyllands-Posten was almost no about the debate on freedom of expression that we cherish so highly", as argued by the writers. While I do believe that liberty of expression, speech and press is one of many greatest human accomplishments, these freedoms should be protected where and when possible and wise although not no matter what.

That higher maxims just take precedence over human life is one of many main tenants of culture build on hierarchical and patriarchal values. The central tenant of a society build on values of centrality of human (and human - nature) relatedness is to take seriously concerns and interests of worldwide human community, in addition to the community, future generations of people and other living creatures.

What's considered interesting is always premised on the fundamental worldview. For example, for a racist joke to be seen as funny, bias needs to be a fundamental worldview, we've to have an internal racist within us. The joke about the difference between a blonde and a trolley (a shopping trolley includes a mind of its own) is just funny if we still involve some elements of sexism within us (since many of us, raised and residing in patriarchal societies nearly certainly do).

If on the other hand, the fundamental worldview may be the desire to negotiate - to work things out - with the other you become sensitive about what you can say, when and where about such group. You are also careful in what kind of behaviours you decide to participate in, choosing those who dont reaffirm various forms of primary, structural, social, epistemological and ecological violence.

Non-violent communication and humour

If jokes that deal in bigotry, sexism, bias, ageism and all of those other politically incorrect isms will be the perfect expression of bigoted, sexist, racist, orientalist, ageist and politically incorrect/hierarchically structured and (using Riane Eislers expression) dominator society, which kind of jokes would a different society with a different underlying worldview produce? For instance, what would comedy resemble in a culture where cultures of non-violent communication, empathy and peace are firmly embedded?

Perhaps:

1. People own up of their own material. There's an understanding of ones own agenda, assumptions, fundamental worldview, perceptions, worries, beliefs about self and the others is present. There's also an awareness and knowledge by what kind of measures might have particular (violence promoting) outcomes.

2. There is an overall comprehending that your talk could be part of the problem or part of the perfect solution is. That is, that your conversation could be expression of verbal violence or an expression of need to work things out and negotiate.

3. Humour becomes a way of reducing inflated individual and collective Ego, thus you take part in laughing at your own group and self more often then in laughing at her/him/them. You also do the later, if you must, in a safe place verbally, with your personal, taken from the eyes and ears of her/him/them.

4. Lowering your own Ego entails that you dont recognize therefore much with policies and certain dogmatic axioms that help determine your own personal and collective identity. That is, you consider offence against yourself and your personal class as carefully as possible. And, most importantly of, you dont respond to one form of (ie. epistemological, social) abuse with much more powerful one (ie. physical, direct violence).

5. Humour becomes a means of destabilising companies of oppressive military, national, epistemological, financial and political power and hopefully a means which will help create a world without institutionalised violence and social injustice. Apparently, the Muslim world is full of Mullah cracks, and so far as I understand, portraying Mullahs isn't regarded as out of bounds by almost all of Muslims. This type of simple editorial intervention might have spared many grievances and extreme escalation of violence and still permit expression of the freedom to speak, expressing true feelings.

6. There's an appointment with local organizations, and various minorities (racial, spiritual, gender) when it comes to the limitations of free speech.

7. You manage to distinguish between different humour models, e.g. between Life Mocker (Loomans and Kolberg, 1993 and a Master, Joke Maker, Fun Meister. G. 15). Whilst the Joy Master has mostly good qualities, is comfortable hearted, inclusive, impressive, simple, humanising and recovery (ibid.) Life Mocker has mostly bad qualities, and is skeptical, cynical, exclusive, cold hearted, worldly and dehumanising (ibid.). The good sides of a Maker (e.g. wordplay, teaching experiences, parody, instructive, insightful) and Fun Meister (slapstick, clowning, naive, imitative, enjoyable) can be balanced with their negative qualities (JM: insulting, stinging, satiric, stereotyping, destructive; FM: ridiculing, black humor, tragedy and enduring, harmful, degrading) (ibid.).

Regardless of the societal principles, the primary issue is what is the spirit behind humour? Could it be to put down the others and return at them, in one single way or still another, or to produce new depths of mutual understanding and compassion?

Creatively, compassionately and actually coping with the existing conflict over values, freedoms and comedy at the global level is just about the necessity of our times. It's only by these ensures that we're able to possibly aspire to avoid a further escalation of violence and also to guard all our freedoms hvad er a kasse