When one gets down to it, we've resurrected the old class systems of the past, albeit in a different form. As opposed to family and lineage, this new system is a clear pecking order of ideas and beliefs. 19th century writing, whether literature or journalism, was often, to the point of staggeringly, contemptuous of the lower orders of society. Irish laborers and housemaids were mercilessly mocked and sneered at in the humor of the time for their stupidity (despite that they were among the hardest working people in Britain). Even this extended to the United States with the casual racism of the "obviously inferior in every possible way" sentiment towards American blacks, as well as the long standing discrimination against Irish immigrants. At the same time, for most of the 19th century, it was a much rarer to mock or make caricatures out of the upper classes and the establishments. The first attempts at the reverse, making fun of the upper classes, didn't emerge until the working classes started flexing their new political muscles circa 1900.
I daresay this was because for the longest time the class system was heavily associated with morality. The moral leaders were upper classes who ran the churches and the government and institutions, their adherents the middle classes, while the working classes were often seen as having no morals at all. The old class system genuinely did see superiority in ascending the class ladder. And it's interesting to see how that same thinking still persists to this day. The working classes still have no morals because they vote the wrong way that indicates, of course, they are racist and bigoted and sexist or whatever, whether Brexiteers in Britain or Trump voters in the US. And because they have no morals, it is fine, acceptable, and even appropriate, to mock them. But I do wonder if the contempt masks a genuine fear at the same time. Fear that a) you are in the wrong, b) you are more in the minority than you think, and c) someday the revolution will come for you. Who knows! It's fascinating. The Anglo-Saxon world has always been a tension between the idealism of the educated classes versus the suspicious "common sense" of the working classes.
A lot of our comedy required genuine affection to work - it wasn't intended simply to insult or demean. Basil Fawlty, Del Boy, Jim Hacker, David Brent, Hyacinth Bucket, Victor Meldrew etc. (and friends) had their faults, but were ultimately portrayed in at least a broadly sympathetic manner. That might be easier to do in a high trust society where the writers and actors somewhat like (or even see themselves in) the people they are portraying.
I've never really understood the 'punching up / down' metaphor. What are the really great British comedies - Fawlty Towers, The Office? In those, the main guy is mainly punching himself, I guess. Or Seinfeld, Friends, who are they punching, other than each other? I actually don't know if people who think in terms of punching (these open-minded left-wingers), really know much about being funny. The comedy greats, do they talk about politics much? You know what that means.
** As he put it: ‘You’re on the right. You’ve already won. You have no tragedy. You’re punching down.’ **
A person who believes that being "on the right" means one has no tragedy is not very observant. This gives me the impression that he's probably not very funny. My children say I have no sense of humor, but it's more that I'm much more amused by humor based on detailed observation of reality than humor based in stereotypes (or dirty words).
When one gets down to it, we've resurrected the old class systems of the past, albeit in a different form. As opposed to family and lineage, this new system is a clear pecking order of ideas and beliefs. 19th century writing, whether literature or journalism, was often, to the point of staggeringly, contemptuous of the lower orders of society. Irish laborers and housemaids were mercilessly mocked and sneered at in the humor of the time for their stupidity (despite that they were among the hardest working people in Britain). Even this extended to the United States with the casual racism of the "obviously inferior in every possible way" sentiment towards American blacks, as well as the long standing discrimination against Irish immigrants. At the same time, for most of the 19th century, it was a much rarer to mock or make caricatures out of the upper classes and the establishments. The first attempts at the reverse, making fun of the upper classes, didn't emerge until the working classes started flexing their new political muscles circa 1900.
I daresay this was because for the longest time the class system was heavily associated with morality. The moral leaders were upper classes who ran the churches and the government and institutions, their adherents the middle classes, while the working classes were often seen as having no morals at all. The old class system genuinely did see superiority in ascending the class ladder. And it's interesting to see how that same thinking still persists to this day. The working classes still have no morals because they vote the wrong way that indicates, of course, they are racist and bigoted and sexist or whatever, whether Brexiteers in Britain or Trump voters in the US. And because they have no morals, it is fine, acceptable, and even appropriate, to mock them. But I do wonder if the contempt masks a genuine fear at the same time. Fear that a) you are in the wrong, b) you are more in the minority than you think, and c) someday the revolution will come for you. Who knows! It's fascinating. The Anglo-Saxon world has always been a tension between the idealism of the educated classes versus the suspicious "common sense" of the working classes.
A lot of our comedy required genuine affection to work - it wasn't intended simply to insult or demean. Basil Fawlty, Del Boy, Jim Hacker, David Brent, Hyacinth Bucket, Victor Meldrew etc. (and friends) had their faults, but were ultimately portrayed in at least a broadly sympathetic manner. That might be easier to do in a high trust society where the writers and actors somewhat like (or even see themselves in) the people they are portraying.
I've never really understood the 'punching up / down' metaphor. What are the really great British comedies - Fawlty Towers, The Office? In those, the main guy is mainly punching himself, I guess. Or Seinfeld, Friends, who are they punching, other than each other? I actually don't know if people who think in terms of punching (these open-minded left-wingers), really know much about being funny. The comedy greats, do they talk about politics much? You know what that means.
** As he put it: ‘You’re on the right. You’ve already won. You have no tragedy. You’re punching down.’ **
A person who believes that being "on the right" means one has no tragedy is not very observant. This gives me the impression that he's probably not very funny. My children say I have no sense of humor, but it's more that I'm much more amused by humor based on detailed observation of reality than humor based in stereotypes (or dirty words).