COMEDY

98 POLITICSseems to assume—came to stand in opposition to the fundamentalistdogmas and joyless religious strictures that were believed tocharacterize those responsible for the attacks. The US comedian LewisBlack, whose routine takes the form of exasperated commentaries oncurrent affairs, puts this idea most succinctly when he argues that ‘theterrorist is a person without humour at all’ (Black, 2003). Can wetherefore imply a direct connection between the freedom to laugh andthe right to live freely? What is the nature of the relationship betweenhumour and freedom, and how does politics colour the world ofcomedy?The philosopher of humour, John Morreall, believes that a resilientsense of humour is an intrinsic defence against tyranny. ‘The personwith a sense of humour can never be fully dominated, even by agovernment which imprisons him,’ he writes, ‘for his ability to laugh atwhat is incongruous in the political situation will put him above it tosome extent, and will preserve a measure of his freedom—if not ofmovement, at least of thought’ (Morreall, 1983:101). A similar idea isfound in Lord Shaftesbury’s Sensus Communis (1709), where humouroffers a release from the frustrations of social justice, and a nation’sappetite for comedy is formed in direct proportion to the degree ofpolitical oppression at work there. Discussing the ‘spiritual Tyranny’ ofItaly, he writes that,the greatest of Buffoons are the ITALIANS: and in their Writings,in their freer sort of Conversations, on their Theatres, and in theirStreets, Buffoonery and Burlesque are in the highest vogue. ’Tisthe only manner in which the poor cramp’d Wretches candischarge a free Thought…. The greater the Weight is, the bittererwill be the Satir. The higher the Slavery, the more exquisite theBuffoonery.(Shaftesbury, 1988:141)Arguably the notion of humour as an inherent expression of freedomis over-romanticized, as it is possible to imagine circumstances orhardships where laughter offers no comfort. Nevertheless, humour hasbeen demonstrably policed or punished by many governments who seeit as a form of subversion. In 1737, the fear of ridicule prompted SirRobert Walpole to introduce the Licensing Act censoring the theatre andits satirical attacks on his government. Hitler ‘was so wary of the dangerof humour to the Third Reich that he had special “joke courts” set upfor, among other things, punishing people who named their dogs and