Semites and Stereotypes: Characteristics of Jewish Humor (Contributions in Ethnic Studies)

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Recent Titles in Contributions in Ethnic Studies In the Mainstream: The Jewish Presence in Twentieth-Century American Literature, 1950s-1980s Louis Harap Dramatic Encounters: The Jewish Presence in Twentieth-Century American Drama, Poetry, and Humor and the Black-Jewish Relationship Louis Harap The Politics of Racial Inequality: A Systematic Comparative Macro-Analysis from the Colonial Period to 1970 J. Owens Smith How Minority Status Affects Fertility: Asian Groups in Canada Shivalingappa S. Halli Religion, Intergroup Relations, and Social Change in South Africa Human Sciences Research Council Latino Empowerment: Progress, Problems, and Prospects Roberto E. Villarreal, Norma G. Hernandez, and Howard D. Neighbor, editors Contemporary Federal Policy Toward American Indians Emma R. Gross The Governance of Ethnic Communities: Political Structures and Processes in Canada Raymond Breton Latinos and Political Coalitions: Political Empowerment for the 1990s Roberto E. Villarreal and Norma G. Hernandez, editors Conflict Resolution: Cross-Cultural Perspectives Kevin Avruch, Peter W. Black, and Joseph A. Scimecca, editors Ethnic and Racial Minorities in Advanced Industrial Democracies Anthony M. Messina, Luis R. Fraga, Laurie A. Rhodebeck, and Frederick D. Wright Asian and Pacific Islander Migration to the United States: A Model of New Global Patterns Elliott Robert Barkan

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES Characteristics of Jewish Humor Edited by

AVNER ZIV & ANAT ZAJDMAN

CONTRIBUTIONS IN ETHNIC STUDIES, NUMBER 31

GREENWOOD PRESS Westport, Connecticut • London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Semites and stereotypes : characteristics of Jewish humor / edited by Avner Ziv and Anat Zajdman. p. cm. — (Contributions in ethnic studies, ISSN 0196-7088 ; no. 31) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-313-26135-0 1. Jewish wit and humor—History and criticism. 2. Jewish wit and humor—Psychological aspects. 3. Jews—Humor—History and criticism. 4. Jews in literature. I. Ziv, Avner. II. Zajdman, Anat. III. Series. PN6149.J4S45 1993 809.7935203924—dc20 92-28979 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 1993 by Avner Ziv All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 92-28979 ISBN: 0-313-26135-0 ISSN: 0196-7088 First published in 1993 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Printed in the United States of America

@ The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984). 10987654321

Contents Preface

Avner Ziv

Introduction: Jewish Humor — A Survey and a Program

vii xiii

Raphael Patai

Part I: Psychosocial Characteristics of Jewish Humor 1 The Schlemiezel: Black Humor and the Shtetl Tradition 3 Jay Boyer

2 Sholom Aleichem's Humor of Affirmation and Survival

13

Emanuel S. Goldsmith

3 Exploring the Thesis of the Self-Deprecating Jewish Sense of Humor

29

Christie Davies

4 Three Jews and a Blindfold: The Politics of Gallows Humor

47

Paul Lewis 5

Are J e w s F u n n i e r t h a n Non-Jews? Carolyn Miller

6 Since When Is Jewish Humor Not Anti-Semitic? Bernard Saper

59

71

vi

/

Contents

7 The Origins and Evolution of a Classic Jewish Joke

87

Richard Raskin

Part II: Men and Women in J e w i s h Humor 8

Love among the Stereotypes, or Why Woody's Women Leave

107

Richard Freadman

9

Philip Roth and Woody Allen: Freud and the Humor of the Repressed

121

Sam B. Girgus

10 From Eve to the Jewish American Princess: The Comic Representation of Women in Jewish Literature

131

Judith Stora-Sandor

11 The Transactional Implications of the Jewish Marriage Jokes

143

Anat Zajdman

P a r t l l l : Humor in the Promised Land 12 Jewish Humor in the Service of an Israeli Political Leader: The Case of Levi Eshkol

165

Ofra Nevo

13 The Development of Humor in Israeli Children's Literature in the Twentieth Century

177

Miri Baruch

Selected Bibliography Name Index Subject Index About the Editors and Contributors

185 187 191 195

Preface Avner Ziv

Jewish humor is humor created by Jews and reflecting some aspect of J e w i s h life. While encompassing the universal techniques of humor, such as incongruity, surprise, local logic, and bisociation, Jewish humor has some particularities distinguishing it from other national or ethnic styles of humor. Not only does it have deep and ancient roots, found already in the Bible (Stora-Sandor, 1984), but it has long fulfilled a n important role in Jewish life and the Jewish quest for survival. The question of survival has always been central for Jews, who have a long history as a persecuted minority. The m a n y p u n i s h m e n t s imposed on Jews because of their Jewishness make for a unique horror story culminating in the Nazi "final solution. " Among t h e m a n y ways Jews learned to cope with sad and terrible realities, humor holds a special place. It helps change, if only for a short while, the sadness of reality, twisting it into something funny and so more easily bearable. It is probably not accidental t h a t it was a Jew, Sigmund Freud, who constructed the theory of humor as a defense mechanism to help cope with distress (Freud, 1928). He was also the first to underline a particular characteristic of Jewish humor: self-disparagement. In his book Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious Freud wrote, "I do not know of whether there are many other instances of a people making fun to such a degree of its own character" (1905/1976, p. 116). If F r e u d was right — and the pilot research presented in this volume by Carolyn Miller's essay would seem to support it — there must be some reason why Jews make more fun of themselves t h a n do other people. J e w i s h humor in general seems to have fascinated Freud in no small degree. Not only was his book full of Jewish jokes

vlii /

Preface

illustrating his theory, but he collected Jewish jokes with the idea of publishing them. His preoccupation with Jewish jokes may have reflected his own problem with Jewish identity, an aspect of Freud's life brilliantly analyzed in Oring's The Jokes of Sigmund Freud: A Study in Humor and Jewish Identity (1984). The special relation between Jewishness and humor (Oring, 1986) is recognized by Jews and non-Jews alike. A study of the most famous American comedians (Janus, 1975) showed t h a t 80 percent were Jewish. The Jewish interest in humor can also be seen in the academic area. Three Jewish theorists from different countries and different disciplines m a d e very i m p o r t a n t contributions to t h e scientific approach to humor. In three classic books they exposed the theoretical paradigms on which most modern research on h u m o r is based. Sigmund Freud from Austria proposed the psychological view (1905/1976), Henri Bergson from France wrote on the social view (1899/1956), and Arthur Koestler from Britain on the cognitive one (1967). In addition, Jewish humor is the only national humor to be studied in a series of international conferences. The First International Conference on Jewish Humor was held in Tel Aviv in 1984. Sixty-four scholars from eleven countries presented papers on different aspects of the subject. Academics from such diverse disciplines as literature, psychology, sociology, anthropology, theater, and linguistics approached the study of Jewish humor from their particular points of view. The Second International Conference, held in New York in 1986, and the Third, held in Tel Aviv in 1989, gathered similar numbers of scholars from many disciplines. Their work in the study of J e w i s h h u m o r h a s enriched our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of this fascinating phenomenon. The present volume includes some of the best papers presented and discussed at the last two conferences. The book is organized in three parts preceded by an introduction by Raphael Patai. His chapter, which was the keynote address at the opening of the Second International Conference, describes the historical importance of Jewish humor as part of the cultural heritage. He points out the main tasks in the development of research on Jewish humor: the need for a taxonomy and for systematic collection of the wealth of humorous material produced by Jews. P a r t I of this volume focuses on psychosocial aspects of Jewish humor. J a y Boyer proposes the thesis t h a t American "black humor" has some of its deepest roots in the Eastern European Jewish tradition. The shtetls (small villages) inhabited by the Eastern European Jews produced many comic figures. The schlemiel and the schlimazl are two such figures. Making their appearance in American literature, they represent an antithesis of the macho type. They are new types of American protagonists, more Eastern t h a n Western, serving to enrich our understanding of the complexity of h u m a n nature.

Avner Ziv

/

ix

Emanuel S. Goldsmith's chapter on Sholom Aleichem presents his work in the context of the ideological changes in European J e w i s h life. The Hasidic movement and the Haskalah (Enlightenment), in conflict with the orthodox traditional view, produced intellectual "wars" without changing the living conditions of the Jewish masses. Poverty, fear, and persecutions were p a r t of daily life, and Sholom Aleichem's humor helped people cope with them. By creating lovable and funny characters typical of shtetl life, he expressed an indefatigable optimism, typically Jewish. His ironic look at what happens to God's chosen people served to forge a strong sense of solidarity and cohesiveness. Laughing at difficulties and knowing t h a t they will pass — t h a t things could be worse — encouraged a certain optimism, making coping a bit easier. Sholom Aleichem's satire belongs to a very Jewish genre: the "loving satire." The main elements of self-disparaging humor can be found in his writings, which contributed in large measure to the Jewish feeling t h a t things can, and will, get better. Christie Davies's chapter develops further this particular aspect of Jewish humor: the tendency toward self-disparagement. He analyzes how minority groups use humor to repudiate negative stereotypes found in the humor directed against them by majority groups. Jewish self-disparagement, in Davies's view, illustrates the ability to combine the paradox of the high achievements of J e w s and t h e negative stereotypes of the hostile environment. And how better express a paradox t h a n through humor? Paul Lewis develops the idea t h a t one of humor's main functions is to help us deal with difficult situations. Gallows h u m o r is the a t t e m p t to be humorous in serious a n d even tragic m o m e n t s . However, Lewis doubts the value of this type of humor and sees it as a not very effective defense mechanism. Sometimes gallows humor can celebrate destructive values, distort reality and deny painful truths. It might be wiser to face reality and, instead of laughing, fight. I cannot help but see an analogy between this view and the difference between Jewish humor in the Diaspora and in Israel. While Jews in the Diaspora use gallows humor in ways similar to self-disparaging humor and see it as beneficial, Israelis have decided t h a t it is b e t t e r to change reality t h a n to laugh at it. This may explain why, until recently, self-disparagement was not one of the characteristics of Israeli humor. Carolyn Miller's chapter is the only empirical one in the volume. While in the last two decades there have been m a n y empirical investigations of humor in general, Jewish humor h a s only r a r e l y been approached in an experimental setting because of the m a n y methodological difficulties involved. Miller's research, although using a small sample, can be considered a pilot study worthy of larger scale research. In an ingenious design, she compares t h e

x /

Preface

behavior of Jews, blacks, and white non-Jews in a mildly stressful condition (they expected to be given an intelligence test). The results showed that, in this situation, Jews utilized humor significantly — t h a n either blacks or white non-Jews. Miller's interpretation of the results is based on the cultural propensity of Jews to use humor u n d e r stress. In his chapter, Bernard Saper, another psychologist, analyzes the elements t h a t make a Jewish joke anti-Semitic. After briefly assessing t h e recent l i t e r a t u r e on ethnic humor and anti-Semitism in America, Saper presents a way of understanding these phenomena in the framework of cognitive behavioral psychology. Jokes about Jews may or may not be anti-Semitic depending on who tells the joke a n d how t h e audience perceives his or h e r motivations. Saper's analysis clarifies some characteristics of Jewish jokes and shows when they are not anti-Semitic. The same question, t h a t is, the distinction between Jewish and anti-Semitic jokes, is approached in a different way in Richard Raskin's chapter. Concepts like international switchability, interpretive margin (an openness to alternate ways of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the point of a joke), a n d a t t i t u d e s toward J e w i s h n e s s a r e used in Raskin's analysis. Following the evolution of a classic Jewish joke from its first published version in London in 1882, where it h a d strong anti-Semitic traits, the study shows how the image of the Jew changed in later versions. The gradual change in the characters in the joke relates not only to stylistic devices b u t also to psychosocial developments in J e w i s h stereotyping. The method proposed by Raskin to analyze the manifest and latent elements in Jewish jokes offers a promising approach to u n d e r s t a n d i n g psychological and social roots of stereotyping relating to Jews. P a r t II includes four chapters on how Jewish females are depicted in humorous ways. The authors touch upon one of the basic reasons why J e w i s h women are so frequently the b u t t of jokes. The two mythical female figures in American Jewish humor are the Jewish m o t h e r a n d t h e Jewish-American princess. However, all four chapters deal mainly with the Jewish wife (or sex partner). Richard F r e a d m a n considers Woody Allen's use of humor in his dealings with women not only as a means to produce hilarity. By using humor and stereotyping, Allen probes both the laughable and the lamentable relations of men and women. Sam Girgus, who also writes about Woody Allen, sees his male characters, together with Philip Roth's, as J e w s striving h a r d to escape the boundaries of ethnic identification and determination as embodied in J e w i s h women, only to find alienation and insecurity in the arms of blond, very goyish ladies. Both Roth and Allen, who are proud to be Jews b u t also criticize their Jewishness, make many references to another Jew, Sigmund Freud, who explicated the tension between the

Avner Ziv

/

xi

conscious a n d t h e unconscious. Roth's and Allen's relations to women are complex, and their Jewishness relates repression and sexuality in a humorous vision. J u d i t h Stora-Sandor links women's evolution in J e w i s h humor from the original "sinner," Eve, to the modern one, t h e J e w i s h American Princess. As men have been the m a i n contributors to world l i t e r a t u r e , their view of women prevails. Especially in the comic literature, it is extremely nonflattering. The woman is seen as a t r a p , sexually sinful, and therefore a t h r e a t . As a wife she is shrewd, dominant, and insatiable. As a Jewish mother, she is at the same time loved and hated, and men's frustrations with J e w i s h females find their expression in humor. Stora-Sandor r e v i e w s Jewish literature from the Talmud to modern American literature in order to illustrate her point. Anat Zajdman's chapter is an analysis of t r a d i t i o n a l m a r r i a g e jokes in terms of transactions, profits, and losses of the marriage partners. The shadchen (a Jewish matchmaker) is frequently the joke-teller, and most jokes about Jewish marriages satirically present an image of a matriarchal institution. Zajdman offers a model for analyzing jokes which can fulfill many functions simultaneously. She illustrates her model with a joke and shows how it reflects five different functions of humor. P a r t III comprises two chapters about humor in Israel. The first, by Ofra Nevo, is an analysis of humor in the service of a political figure. Levi Eshkol, who was prime minister of Israel, was known for his keen sense of humor based more on the Jewish D i a s p o r a tradition t h a n the Israeli one. Using his witty r e m a r k s , m a n y of which became classics in Israel, Nevo analyzes humor as a coping mechanism. Three main functions of humor are illustrated: the emotional, social, and cognitive. Her model of analysis relies heavily on many known characteristics of Jewish humor. Miri Baruch's chapter on humor in Israeli children's l i t e r a t u r e studies its evolution during the short history of Israel. At t h e beginning of the twentieth century humorous children's l i t e r a t u r e was didactic and based mainly on traditional Jewish humor, with roots in t h e Bible and in Diaspora life, i n s t i t u t i o n s , and personalities. Israeli humor appeared about 1930, incorporating new values, which found their way into children's l i t e r a t u r e . Much emphasis was p u t on word-play, which enriched the reborn Hebrew language. As Israel's famous humorist, E p h r a i m Kishon, once said, "Israel is the only country in the world where p a r e n t s l e a r n the mother tongue from their children." (Kishon, 1952) In t h e 1970s, humor in children's literature became less traditional (in the Jewish sense) as elements of universal, absurd humor were used more to amuse t h a n to instruct. This trend is visible in Israeli humor in general.

xii

/

Preface

I do hope that scholars and people interested in a better understanding of Jewish humor will enjoy this book, which is the result of a joint effort of all the authors.

REFERENCES Bergson, H. (1899) Le rire: Essai sur la signification du comique. Revue de Paris. English translation: Laughter. In Sypher, W. (Ed.) Comedy. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1956, pp. 59-190. Freud, S. (1905) Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten. LiepzigVienna: Dueticke. English translation: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. Penguin Books, 1976. (1928) Humor. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 9, pp. 1-6. Janus, S.S. (1975) The great comedians: Personality and other factors. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 35:169-174. Kishon, E. (1952) This country. Positively. Misrad Habitahon. (in Hebrew). Koestler, A. (1967) The Act of Creation. London: Hutchinson. Oring, E. (1983) The Jokes of Sigmund Freud: A Study in Humor and Jewish Identity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Stora-Sandor, J. (1984) L'humor juif dans la litterature de Job a Woody Allen (Jewish Humor in Literature from Job to Woody Allen). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, (in French).

Introduction: Jewish Humor — A Survey and a Program Raphael Patai

We all know t h a t the joke is the most poignant expression of humor. What is less widely realized is t h a t the study of humor is no joke. In fact, the study of humor is a very serious m a t t e r to which, through the ages, some of the greatest philosophers, historians, sociologists, and psychologists have devoted their attention. In classical antiquity, Plato and Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian gave their own answers to questions such as What is humor? What is ridiculous and ludicrous? What is it t h a t makes us laugh? From the Renaissance on, hundreds of thinkers addressed the problem of humor. In his highly informative book, Laughter and the Sense of Humor (1956), Edmund Bergler enumerated and summarized more t h a n eighty theories of laughter, and his list is by no m e a n s complete. He does not mention, for instance, Francis Bacon, J o n a t h a n Swift, August Penjon, Sydney Smith, John Dewey, and dozens of others who made contributions to the analysis and interpretation of humor; nor could he have foreseen t h a t in the decades following the publication of his book interest in the study of humor would grow, and t h a t highly original and encompassing approaches to humor, such as A r t h u r Koestler's (1967) widely acclaimed theory of bisociation, would emerge. As frequently h a p p e n s when m a n y g r e a t minds focus t h e i r a t t e n t i o n on one subject, differences of opinion a n d contradictions inevitably surfaced. Some theories of humor are r a t h e r complicated, involving physiological, neurological, psychological, a n d other considerations. My purpose here is to give a brief survey of w h a t t h e study of Jewish humor has accomplished so far a n d to outline a program for what remains to be done in this greatly neglected field.

xiv /

Introduction

Among theorists of humor, J e w s occupy a p r o m i n e n t place. Jewish philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza, Moses Mendelssohn, Henri Bergson, and Horace Kallen t u r n e d their attention to the subject. They were joined by psychologists such as Sigmund Freud and comedians such as Charlie Chaplin. Although Freud said, "It is easy to laugh, but difficult to explain why one laughs," he did not hesitate to tackle this difficult subject, and his study Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905/1960) has firmly established the study of humor as an integral part of psychological investigation. COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS When we come to Jewish humor, we are faced with a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, Jewish humor is famous all over the Western world. There is an almost endless n u m b e r of collections, anthologies, and treasuries of Jewish humor, bulging with tens of thousands of Jewish jokes and anecdotes. On the other hand, the scholarly study of Jewish humor has been so neglected hitherto t h a t even to characterize it as being in its infancy would be an exaggeration. True, one can find a few dozen articles, some of t h e m valuable, on various aspects of Jewish humor, b u t to the best of my knowledge, no comprehensive investigation of t h e m a n y interconnected problems and issues represented by Jewish humor exists. I say this despite the recognition due to the work of Theodor Reik, Salcia L a n d m a n n , H e r m a n Hakel, Georg Nador, and others who devoted their scholarly attention to the subject. The meagerness of this crop is especially puzzling because the three most important studies analyzing humor in general were written by famous Jews whose n a m e s I have already mentioned, F r e u d , Bergson, and Koestler. To them can be added a fourth valuable overview, The Psychology of Humor by Avner Ziv (1981; in Hebrew), which discusses primarily the educational aspects of humor and which so far has not received the international attention it deserves for the simple reason t h a t it has not been translated into English. French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese translations have been published, b u t it seems t h a t Americans are for the time less receptive to the topic. This prodigious expenditure of Jewish analytical power on humor in general and the simultaneous neglect of the study of J e w i s h h u m o r is in itself a r e m a r k a b l e phenomenon calling for investigation. Pending t h a t , I see in it an analogy to the situation in anthropology, w h e r e J e w i s h scholars were a m o n g t h e m o s t p r o m i n e n t , p r o d u c t i v e , a n d i n n o v a t i v e s t u d e n t s of g e n e r a l anthropology while the anthropology of the J e w s long remained neglected; even today it has not received the attention it so richly deserves.

Raphael Patai

/

xv

One can only hope t h a t one of the results of the ongoing series of conferences on Jewish humor will be to direct the interest of Jewish (and non-Jewish) folklorists to this stepchild in the family of Jewish folklore research. Meanwhile the collection of Jewish humor m u s t go ahead, and special attention m u s t be paid to those categories of humor whose vehicles are Jewish Diaspora languages, which themselves are threatened by extinction. TERMINOLOGY AND TAXONOMY A similar paradox can be observed in the field of terminology. The richest medium of Jewish humor until now has been Yiddish. There is practically no area of life about which Yiddish wit does not have many poignant things to say. To mention only one facet, a treasure trove of anecdotes shows in a critical light the mental peculiarities attributed to, or actually possessed by, all the traditional and modern Jewish occupations and types including rabbis, Jewish learned men and ignoramuses, Hasidim and their opponents, the assimilationist and the observant, the tailor and the milkman, the beggarman, and even the highwayman, not to mention the doctor and the lawyer, and, last but not least, the Jewish-American princess and the JewishAmerican mother. There are probably more Jewish anecdotes in Yiddish t h a n in all other languages combined. Very often J e w i s h jokes in English, German, and other modern European languages are merely t r a n s lations from the Yiddish. But this wealth of Yiddish humor is not paralleled by the amount of analytical attention one would expect it to attract. In fact, the Yiddish language in itself is remarkably poor in the terminology of humor. In English, German, and French we have terms such as joke, wit, irony, satire, repartee, sarcasm, parody, ridicule, and so on, each with a well-defined meaning covering a clear-cut a r e a within the general realm of humor. The Yiddish terms denoting the same categories of humor, however, are recent borrowings from the German; thus we have humor, witz, or witzigkayt, shpass, ironi, satire, sarkazm, parodi, and so on. H a n d in h a n d with the absence of indigenous Yiddish terminology goes a lack of analytical studies of J e w i s h humor. For example, the 16-volume Encyclopaedia Judaica, published in Jerusalem in 1972, contains no articles on Jewish humor or Jewish jokes; the only entry t h a t has anything to do with the subject deals with the literary form known as parody. At first glance it would seem t h a t this situation testifies to a rich Jewish talent for humor and at the same time an indifference to the contemplation of the phenomenon itself, to its analysis and classification. Given the traditional Jewish proclivity toward taxonomy (expressed and epitomized in such Talmudic statements as "There are four main categories of damages . . ." or

xvi /

Introduction

references to the four New Years, the seven Noachide commandments, the careful differentiation between mishpatim [ordinances] and hukim [statutes], and so on), this absence of interest in classifying the varieties of humor, although humor as a whole is an essential characteristic of the J e w i s h mind, is something t h a t demands investigation. A primary prerequisite for studying Jewish humor is to establish the categories it comprises. For instance, there can be no doubt t h a t in addition to Jewish literary parody, there is also Jewish satire, but the characteristics of the two still remain to be studied, as do the differences between them. The same kind of scholarly attention must be devoted to establishing a typology of Jewish jokes and to determining the salient features of each type. Likewise, the major objects of ridicule in the Jewish jokes, in addition to the Jewish American princess and the Jewish American mother, m u s t be identified and studied. I know of no systematic studies of these important subjects. THE CULTURAL BACKGROUND But the study of Jewish humor must not stop here. It must extend into the cultural background of the Jewish joke, in particular into the interrelationship between Jewish humor and Jewish folk life. T h a t the humor of every ethnic group mirrors its conditions of life, its economic, political, and social circumstances, its position vis-a-vis other population groups, is so self-evident t h a t it needs but passing mention. What is perhaps not so apparent is t h a t the jokes, the anecdotes, and t h e other manifestations of humor are keys to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the life of the people in question and can serve as peepholes through which we can look into otherwise hidden corners of existence. As far as Jewish folk life is concerned, treasuries of Jewish humor can and should be used in the m a n n e r in which my late friend, S. D. Goitein used the Cairo Geniza to paint a picture of Jewish life in Arab lands in the Middle Ages. The same can and should be done with the much richer and more accessible treasure houses of Jewish humor. The Nazi Holocaust effectively put an end to Jewish folk life in Eastern Europe, but the humor produced by Polish, Lithuanian, Galician, and other Jews still survives in writing and even orally, and it can and must be used by researchers as a basis for the reconstruction of a fuller image of the Jewish commoner — the amkho — as it was represented by several million Jews in the decades preceding their genocide. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DIMENSION Closely related to its cultural background is the psychological dimension of Jewish humor. Jewish humor is second to no other

Raphael Patai

/

xvii

product of the Jewish mind in revealing the mental state of the Jews in any given place and at any given time. Whether it contains selfcriticism, directing its barbs at a Jewish group from which the humorist wishes to distance himself, or whether it compares the J e w s and the Gentiles, most often to the latter's detriment, the Jewish joke is a manifestation of Jewish thinking and feeling about t h e in-group a n d various categories of out-groups. This huge reservoir of information has only recently begun to be tapped in studies such as those collected in Jewish Humor, edited by Avner Ziv (1986), which contains a selection from the papers presented at the First International Conference on Jewish Humor in Tel Aviv in 1984. Many more such volumes will have to be published before Jewish humorologists can allow themselves to relax, satisfied t h a t they have extracted all the hidden features of the Jewish psyche contained in Jewish humor. Had such studies been available when I was working on my book The Jewish Mind (1977), in which I make passing reference to two or three jokes expressive or illustrative of certain mental traits attributed to Jews by others or by their own critical observers, t h a t study would have been considerably enriched. THE TASKS OF JEWISH HUMOR RESEARCH Implicit in w h a t I have said so far are the tasks Jewish humor research m u s t shoulder. But let me be explicit. The tasks are many, important, and weighty. There is, first of all, the imperative of continuing energetically and systematically the work of collection. Six million Jews of Europe were exterminated by the Nazi Holocaust. The survivors, who found new homes in Israel, America, and elsewhere, are today in their sixties and seventies. W h a t e v e r they remember of life and culture in their countries of origin, even if they share it with their children, may be lost with their passing, which today is not far off. Today more t h a n ever before t h e once rich t r e a s u r y of E a s t E u r o p e a n Jewish humor, whose m e d i u m was Yiddish, is t h r e a t e n e d with disappearance. The Yiddish language itself is rapidly losing ground, and with it will be lost irretrievably the entire oral folklore t h a t only two generations ago was the common heritage of a numerous and vital Ashkenazi Jewry. And one of the prime constituents of this great cultural loss will be Jewish humor. Compared to the many large collections of Ashkenazi humor, the wit and wisdom of the Sephardic and Oriental Jews have been sorely neglected, and it is almost too late today to gather whatever has survived. The traditional Jewish communities of the Middle East are no more. Almost all of the Jews of Greece, Turkey, Kurdistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Bokhara, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco have been ingathered in Israel, where they and their descendants today constitute the majority of the Jewish

xviii /

Introduction

population. Their exodus and transplantation into Israel was one of the miracles of the rebirth of the Jewish state. No less providential, although more limited in scope, was the migration of Sephardic and Oriental Jews to France, Britain, and America, where they settled n e a r their Ashkenazi brethren. The conditions in these new homelands of the Jews are far from conducive to the maintenance of their cultural continuity. New languages replace old ones, new environm e n t s d e m a n d social and economic a d j u s t m e n t s , a n d t h e old cultures, including the treasuries of humor, are rapidly disappearing. It is now truly the eleventh hour for rescuing from oblivion the humor of these communities of which we know so woefully little. But the recording and preservation of the humor of all Jewish communities are merely the first steps. The collections m u s t be regarded as raw material and nothing more, on which humorologists, folklorists, sociologists, and psychologists m u s t get to work to extract the information hidden in them. The studies to be undertaken by these experts will be able to furnish the answers to whole batteries of questions. I can mention only a few by way of illustration: 1. W h a t are t h e major characteristics of t h e h u m o r of t h e various Jewish Diasporas or ethnic groups, and what are the similarities and differences between them in their t r e a t m e n t of humor? 2. Is there such a thing as a historical development of humor in a given Jewish community? 3. What are the differences between the humor of the Jews and of the Gentiles in each country? 4. What specifically Jewish psychological traits are evidenced by J e w i s h h u m o r in general, a n d by J e w i s h h u m o r in a particular country? 5. W h a t new characteristics are manifested by the humor of Israel? 6. What can we learn from Jewish humor about the conditions of Jewish life in a given country? 7. How did Jewish humor portray the Jews and Gentiles in the big Jewish centers such as Warsaw, Cracow, Odessa, Vienna, Budapest, and Berlin; in the E a s t European shtetl; and in the villages where only a few Jewish families lived in isolation? 8. W h a t role did humor play in J e w i s h survival in various Diaspora countries? To find the answers to these and many other similar questions is important not only from a scholarly and historical point of view, but also for Jewish futurology, if I may thus term the sum total of Jewish endeavors, plans, efforts, and strategies aimed at securing the

Raphael Patai

/

xix

survival of the Jewish people both in Israel and in the Diaspora. That which proved helpful in the past can be applied, mutatis mutandis, in the future, and it is our Jewish duty to scrutinize the past with a view to finding in it useful lessons for the future. Throughout this overview of the achievements t h u s far in the study of Jewish humor and the tasks t h a t lie ahead, I have refrained from illustrating my points with Jewish jokes, preferring to underline the seriousness, the scholarly nature, and the social value of the work of Jewish humorologists. Having mentioned the future, let me in conclusion recount a single Jewish joke. I leave it to you to draw on your own conclusions as to w h a t it teaches about the Jewish psyche: Scientists predict t h a t in a month's time an enormous n a t u r a l catastrophe will be visited upon the earth as a result of which the whole surface of the globe will be covered with water. Thereupon the Pope issues from Rome an encyclical exhorting his flock to make use of the remaining days of grace to seek salvation in Christ, and to hope for resurrection. The chief Mufti of the grand mosque on Mecca issues a fetwa to all the true believers in Allah and His prophet Mohammed, assuring them t h a t they will go straight to Paradise where great pleasures await them. And the Chief Rabbi of J e r u s a l e m calls upon all our b r o t h e r s , t h e Children of Israel, saying, "We have four weeks to learn how to live under water!"

REFERENCES Bergler, E. (1956) Laughter and the Sense of Humor. New York: International Medical Book Corp., 1956. Freud, S. (1905) Der Witz und Seine Beziehung zum Unbesussten. Leipzig Vienna: Dueticke. English translation: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. Penguin Books, 1976. Koestler, A. (1967) The Act of Creation. London: Hutchinson. Patai, R. (1977) The Jewish Mind. New York: Scribner's. Ziv, A. (1981) The Psychology of Humor. Tel Aviv: Yahdav, 1981. , ed. (1986) Jewish Humor. Tel Aviv: Papyrus.

This page intentionally left blank

I PSYCHOSOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF JEWISH HUMOR

This page intentionally left blank

1 The Schlemiezel: Black Humor and the Shtetl Tradition Jay Boyer

THE SCHLEMIEZEL AND BLACK HUMOR In A Glossary of Literary Terms (1981), M. H. Abrams aligns black humor with the theater of the absurd. In the Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms (1976), Harry Shaw defines it as humor which is perverted or morbid, a literary elaboration on our sick joke or on an American brand of gallows humor. In "Anatomy of Black Humor" (1970), scholar Burton Feldman describes it as the American correlative to French existentialism, with a commitment most of all to "detachment." Scholar Ihab Hassan (1971) puts it in an American tradition of the grotesque. John W. Aldridge (1983) places it in an American romantic tradition, one heading "away from the fictional t r e a t m e n t of actual events toward the creation of metaphoric and fabulative impressions of the kind of derangement t h a t may be responsible for these events" (p. 74). Bruce J a y Friedman, less willing to commit himself, and not nearly so t r u s t i n g of the scholarly method, fails to come up with a satisfying definition. "I think I would have more luck defining an elbow or a corned beef sandwich," he explains in the foreword to Black Humor. "I am not, for one thing, even sure it is black. It might be fuchsia or eggshell" (1969, p. viii). Friedman throws up his h a n d s in the end, defining black humor as t h a t which cannot be defined. T h a t ' s a joke, of course, b u t one much in keeping with the a b s u r d i s t spirit of black humor. It's t h e kind of joke Richard Kostelanetz, writing in 1967, was finding central to this new, strange subgenre of American fiction:

4

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

In recent American fiction, both long and short, many of the best works express one of two complementary themes: the absurdity of society and t h e m a d n e s s of the self. In contrast to t h e European absurd novel of, say, Sartre and Albert Camus, which discovers through description of r a t h e r normal activities a disjunction between values and behavior, intention and effect, belief and reality, so broad and irrefutable t h a t t h e world is meaningless, the American absurd novel . . . [is] an exuberant, nonrealistic portrait of thoroughly ridiculous events which, in toto, suggests that the world is ultimately senseless. In the novel form, the absurd writer can take on history itself, as Thomas Pynchon, J o h n Barth, and Joseph Heller do, and show in a sprawling, diffuse narrative t h a t history, both in its single events a n d on the whole, is absurd . . . b u t American [short] story writers confine their absurd vision to more modest, m u n d a n e activities. To Donald Barthelme, in m a n y of his stories, the capacity to spend large amounts of money renders life absurd. To Kenneth Koch . . . the absurd activity is the vain attempt to define in declarative sentences the ambiguous experience of art; for Bernard Malamud, it is the artist's irrational and indestructible devotion to his own work; and to Jack Ludwig, it is all situations t h a t reveal the nonsensical discrepancy between social d e m a n d s and images and individual desires and identities. (Kostelanetz, 1967, pp. 16-17) Reading w h a t has been written about black humor since the 1960s, one is apt to be impressed with how little specific agreement there is about w h a t the term really means. Too, one is apt to be impressed with the tendency of scholars of American literature to acknowledge its debt to European letters only in passing. Perhaps t h a t is the most impressive thing as one reviews this scholarship, in fact — that, somehow, black humor is agreed to be a literature of the absurd which, by degree if not kind, stands distinctly apart from any European writing. I w a n t to suggest an alternative line of thought. I am going to propose t h a t black humor, coming to the American canon of letters after World War II, may have some of its deepest roots not in our literary traditions but r a t h e r in a tradition we think of as E a s t e r n European. I have in mind the tradition of the fool-as-protagonist; and more precisely, the shtetl tradition of the schlemiel and the schlimazl. For the purpose of this chapter, I am going to call this peculiarly modern, American protagonist the schlemiezel. In broadest terms, I mean by schlemiezel a protagonist who has only lately come to our novels, one who is a loser, a failure, a m a n out of control, a city dweller living most often on the E a s t Coast, and, matters of proper geography aside, an "immigrant" who feels he lives

Jay Bqyer /

5

among "natives." This is a protagonist who emerges in his most pristine form, I believe, not in the novels of such widely accepted American black humorists as Pynchon and B a r t h and Heller, but r a t h e r in the novels of writers we think of as being pronouncedly Jewish American, among them, Saul Bellow, B e r n a r d Malamud, and Philip Roth. This is a protagonist who by his very presence violates some of our most basic suppositions about this country and the literature it has produced. To be sure, a full exploration of the m a t t e r s I intend to raise is well beyond the scope of this chapter; a reader m u s t stand warned. Rather t h a n define black humor once and for all, or to find the place of the fool within it, all I hope to do is to offer a line of thought t h a t might be worth pursuing, one t h a t m a y lead to some g r e a t e r agreement about what black humor is and how it came to be. THE FOOL AS SCHLEMIEL AND SCHLIMAZL Traditionally, ours has been a literature of accommodation at one extreme and of rebellion at the other. Black humor holds t h a t neither choice is viable any longer, and it is often from the p r o t a g o n i s t ' s failure to recognize this t h a t the comedy originates. We see, even if he doesn't, t h a t choosing is out of the question. If not by an act of God, then at least by an act of cultural fate, he is doomed to live the life he lives — helpless, without alternatives, not better off t h a n he is at the moment. Such a point of view is virtually un-American. It suggests a spirit more often associated with the European immigrant t h a n with the native, a sense of an America close at hand and yet nevertheless out of reach. And t h a t may be telling. For black h u m o r may owe a greater debt to European influence t h a n we have fully recognized. In fact, a literature we associate with B a r t h , William Burroughs, Pynchon, J a m e s Purdy, a rather WASPish group, really, may owe a significant debt to the fools of Eastern European shtetl tradition, the schlemiel and the schlimazl. The simplest definition of these terms is probably the best, to begin with. The cliche would have it that the schlemiel is the poor soul who spills his bowl of soup, while the schlimazl is the poor soul he spills it on. That's not a bad distinction. But the m a t t e r is slightly more complicated. The schlemiel is a "loser," I would argue. He's a failure. He was born t h a t way. There is nothing he can do to change this, for he was born without the resources necessary to become more t h a n he already is. To be a schlimazl, though — that's a different matter. The schlimazl is a combination of strengths and weaknesses. He's just a man, to be sure, but a man with the potential for better.

6

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

The schlemiel tries to understand his world using what we quickly recognize are oversimplified beliefs. It's not j u s t t h a t he believes in magic, superstition, and more of the same. Logic, facts, the assimilation of information — such things are virtually beyond him. Rather than allowing facts to alter his beliefs, the schlemiel i n t e r p r e t s events to fit w h a t he already believes. This is j u s t the opposite of what the schlimazl does. Possessing a keener, more rational mind, the schlimazl tries to integrate more information t h a n he should. Try as he might to hold one set of beliefs fixed in his mind, try as he might to maintain one logical superstructure, new information bombards him. He cannot revise quickly enough to keep up with events. Unlike the schlemiel, the schlimazl takes it all in — that's not his problem. His problem is rather t h a t he doesn't know what to do with t h e information once he h a s it. And as a consequence, he is constantly modifying his system of beliefs, trying fruitlessly to find a place for everything, then trying to put everything in its place. The schlemiel is the butt of the joke. Lacking the skills and resources t h e society embraces, he becomes t h e outsider. He is incapable of fitting in, for he is incapable of the sort of accommodation the culture demands. But that is not true of the schlimazl. Often he h a s these skills. Too, he often occupies w h a t m i g h t otherwise be a respected position in the community, if only someone else were to occupy it. He learns all the rules, obeys all the laws, lives by all the orders . . . and yet, somehow, for some reason, he never quite prospers. He does all the things the culture says he must do in order to succeed, and fails nevertheless. The schlemiel doesn't develop very much as a character from beginning to end of the story. He is already who he is going to be at the moment we meet him: a dim-witted fellow, most often, someone without the skills of self-preservation his culture demands, someone ruled more by the heart t h a n by the head. He is also someone more likely to react to situations as they occur t h a n someone who acts on his own behalf. It doesn't really occur to him to try to have his own way with the world. This last point is particularly significant, for it speaks to why we tend to embrace the fool of shtetl tradition. Without fully recognizing it, the fool stands in opposition to what his culture holds up as a model for manhood. And when we compare him with t h a t model, it is the model, not the schlemiel, that we are most likely to question. We recognize through the process of comparison that the schlemiel is too good for this world — too sweet, too kind, too h u m a n to fit in. This is less true of the schlimazl, though the function he serves in the narrative is closely related. He embraces his culture, accommodates it, makes its rules and regulations his own, compromises his

Jay Bqyer

/

7

wishes and dreams, bends to accommodate his culture until he finds himself in the shape of a paper clip — and for v/hat? Everything he touches t u r n s to dung. Nothing his culture has taught helps him get what he wants. BLACK HUMOR AND THE AMERICAN LITERARY TRADITION These distinctions may help us u n d e r s t a n d and appreciate the protagonists of t h a t form of fiction we have come to call black humor. I identify black humor with particular post-World War II American novelists and their work. I am thinking of the novels of writers as otherwise diverse as J o h n B a r t h , William B u r r o u g h s , Thomas Pynchon, J a m e s Purdy, J. P. Donleavy, Terry Sothern, and J o h n Hawkes. Joseph Heller is occasionally placed in their midst as well, but of late he is just as likely to be grouped with B e r n a r d Malamud, Saul Bellow, Bruce J a y Friedman, Philip Roth, and Herb Gold — t h a t is, as more a Jewish humorist, whatever t h a t means, t h a n a black humorist. And, as I will discuss a bit later, we may be able to account for this cross-over and be guided by it, perhaps. By t h e p h r a s e black humor, I m e a n much w h a t the g i f t e d American scholar Donald Greiner has in mind in the introduction to Comic Terror, his study of the works of J o h n Hawkes, one of the darkest of our black humorists. Like Greiner, I use the phrase black humor with three things in mind. The first of these h a s to do with authorial vision, one which is comic, and then again not: The comparable blackness of a particular writer's h u m o r is indeed secondary — all are black, b u t some are blacker, a n d funnier, t h a n others. More important is the a t t e m p t to decide what the presence of so many modern American comic novelists means. Taken together, the novels of Hawkes, Kurt V o n n e g u t , Heller, J o h n Barth, Donleavy, Friedman, Thomas Pynchon, Ken Kesey, J a m e s P u r d y and others suggest a type of fiction so refreshingly different from the conventional novel t h a t one suspects prophets of the novel's death to be wrong. What these authors do have in common is a vision of their world as chaotic and fractured. How can one affirm order in a world which is fragmented? (Greiner, 1973, p. xiii) In addition to this fragmented, disjunctive sense of lived reality in t h e modern world, t h e novels themselves seem fragmented, disjointed, often out of whack and comically illogical. Conventions of plot, character, setting, and theme are often called into question. And why not? None of these writers is certain t h a t an inherent moral order can be found, he suggests, nor do they believe t h a t we can be

8

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

ordered to approximate it. Writes Greiner, "At the risk of oversimplification, I suggest t h a t these authors refuse to verify a moral code because verification would allude to order and sanity in a world which they see as fractured and absurd" (p. xiii). Satirists have long pointed out the absurdity of h u m a n experience, of course, and much of the humor in literature is dark to the point of being gallows humor. Yet the black humorist is not a satirist as such, nor is his humor precisely gallows humor. For "black humorists reject the satirist's faith in the ability of satirical l a u g h t e r to reform man's follies. Even the most elaborate definition of satire m u s t emphasize the author's use of laughter not so much to tear down as to encourage rebuilding. The black humorist dismisses reformational and ethical certainties" (Greiner, 1973, p. xiv). I would agree with Greiner on all of these points, but I would like to try to go beyond them. If black humor is not what we normally think of as literary satire, neither is it what we normally think of as American literature. That's a sweeping statement, I realize, and it calls for a bit of background and explanation. To begin with, ours is a literature more a g r a r i a n t h a n urban, more Western t h a n Eastern. As Leslie Fiedler, Richard Chase, and countless other scholars have demonstrated, the American novel has its deepest roots in a romantic, frontier mentality, one evident in this country well before we had a printed literature of our own. One has only to consider our oral traditions to see what they mean. As a country, we are somewhat unique insofar as our richest oral traditions are divisible by gender. On the one hand, there are what we call fairy tales. These were known as old wives' tales in the last century, and in either case they are stories and story lines brought to this country from Europe and handed down from the "old wife," t h a t is, the grandmother of the family, to the children for whom she was caring. T h a t in the extended family the t a s k of raising infants was generally left to the husband's mother is reflected in the fairy tales we read to our children today. The most positive image of an adult woman in our fairy tales is the fairy godmother, the white-haired, apple-cheeked matron who makes wishes come true with the wave of her wand. In other words, the grandmother has cast herself in the most favorable adult female role, leaving her daughter-in-law to fend for herself. Daughters-in-law, mothers, in other words, don't fare very well in our fairy tales. This is t r u e even in their Disneyfied, twentiethcentury variations, in which the wicked mother becomes the wicked stepmother. She is more often the cause of the young protagonist's dilemma — think of the mother-daughter sexual rivalry in Snow White, to name but one instance — than the source of the protagonist's salvation.

Jay Bqyer

/

9

T h a t the grandmother should have cast her daughter-in-law in such an unfavorable light suggests t h a t certain family tensions have been common down through the ages; and this suggestion is complemented, perhaps, by her depiction of her son. Only the adolescent male, the handsome young prince, the u n m a r r i e d son, is sure to have our storyteller's blessing. Positive images of adult males are virtually as hard to come by in our fairy tales as positive images of women, for the men in our fairy tales are alternately ineffectual (that is, dominated by a scheming woman), evil, or downright stupid. Such sexual prejudices are small potatoes, however, when one compares them with those of our second oral tradition — the tall tale, the "fish" story. These are male stories with a capital M. They emerged on the frontiers of America as men sought to entertain one another at the end of the day, and perhaps as a consequence, they are about male exploits in the absence of women, told with j u s t the flare for exaggeration t h a t one might expect. List t h e legendary figures to emerge in this American oral tradition — Paul Bunyan, John Henry, and so forth — and you will note t h a t they share certain things in common. Size, for one thing. They're bigger t h a n life. Whether they are figures cut from whole cloth, like Paul Bunyan, or vast exaggerations of men who actually lived, John Henry or Johnny Appleseed, they are sure to be either men of giant size and capabilities or men with some special, n a t u r a l talent t h a t allows them to impose their will on the frontier landscape. This imposition of will is central to the heroes we have honored through our legends. If you seek to be an American folk hero, the subject of stories passed along from one generation to the next, you're wasting your time in investment banking. Choose instead to live on the frontier, t h a t is, to the west of city life, and choose to work with your body. For frontier, physical skills, and the prowess they entail are requisite to the image of maleness t h a t these folktales project. And requisite too is the need to perform as a male in the absence of women. In American folklore, you m u s t head for the sea or the nearest frontier if you want to be a man's man — the water, the wilderness, any place a woman might be unlikely to go. Women played a significant role in the settling of this country, b u t there is little evidence to t h a t effect in our folktales. Our folk heroes not only do their best male work independent of women, they do so far away from city life, from domesticity and churches and schools, away from all the institutions where a woman would be expected to leave her mark. To be a m a n in our folktales is to be most of all in control of things, and traditionally, this was to be found as well in our print literature. In its simplest form, this has m e a n t to impose your will on the landscape, cutting down timber at an impossible pace, say, or laying railroad ties due westward, but it has also meant imposing your will on other people without a woman there who will stop you. In

10

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

literature both "highbrow" and "lowbrow" we find such things. Take the western, the most American of all American genres. A nation too young to have an Odyssey or an Iliad or an Aeneid, we have in their place the American cowboy and tales of his exploits and journeys. The cowboy's physical courage, his stoic dignity, his self-sufficiency, his penchant for moving beyond the latest civilized settlement are more the stuff of legend and penny-dreadful novels t h a n of American historical fact. Yet the cowboy occupies a larger place in our mythology t h a n he could ever have occupied as a historical figure. To much of the world he is an icon of this country — for better or worse. He is the physical embodiment of American personhood (a euphemism for American manhood), the corporal reification of our obsession with independence, remaining in control of our own fate, and living by a code of honor having less to do with the letter of the law t h a n with a fiercely independent sense of right and wrong. IN THE TRADITION OF THE FOOL It is not hard to see why the schlemiezel might be a rather new addition to our literature, coming as he does with the rise of black humor and a particular sort of postwar Jewish American writing as well. Whether it be physical sexual prowess, as in Norman Mailer, the prowess of the seaman, as in H e r m a n Melville, the prowess of the frontiersman, as in J a m e s Fenimore Cooper, the prowess of economics, as in F. Scott Fitzgerald, or the prowess to be had through a private codification of American maleness, as in Ernest Hemingway, it is prowess our literature has honored traditionally. Perhaps t h a t has been its single greatest concern. From its very beginnings, ours has been a literature filled with protagonists determined to gain control of a situation, to take charge of their own destinies, to "light out for the territory," as Mark Twain puts it at the end of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and fend for ourselves. We have not suffered victims gladly in such a tradition. Beginning in this country before print literature itself, the victim h a s been alternately an enigma and an embarrassment. Or at least we haven't suffered victims until lately, for black humor is just filled with them. The protagonist called to mind by the phrase black humor is a loser. He's not simply the naif, the picaro figure, a Huck Finn — the outsider. We have always liked to honor outsiders. He's different. He's inept. Too, he's a weakling. And worse, he's out of control. I don't mean to say merely t h a t he can't gain control of his own fate, though that's often the case as well; I mean rather t h a t he himself is out of control. He's everything the stoic cowboy would despise. Women t o r m e n t

JayBoyer /

11

him, bullies kick sand in his face, parents nag him, and in response, he whines, he bitches, he moans. This new sort of American protagonist is more E a s t e r n t h a n Western, more likely to be city-bound t h a n at home on the range. As portrayed by our black humorists, he's defined by all the things t h a t limit him. He's the embodiment of t h a t great American male fear, impotence. Figuratively, and sometimes literally, he can't get it up. Overcome by the landscape in which he finds himself, he can't even flee when he wants to. He may try to flee the city, of course; but this won't come to much — we know t h a t . It's one of the great lessons of these novels t h a t all American highways lead back to where they began. This same sense of circularity is to be found on yet another level. Traditionally in our literature protagonists have followed one of two paths. The first of these has been the most satisfying, but it has also been the most risky: to create a system of values and live true to them, recognizing all the while t h a t to live true to yourself m u s t come at a price. The second, and often the more practical, p a t h has been to find one's place in the culture, to adopt a role, if you will, one replete with customs and values, and then accommodate t h a t role as well as you can. This is what it has often meant to live one's life as a man: to choose between rebellion, on the one hand, and accommodation on the other. But to choose — that's the thing! Not now, however; at least not in black humor. W h a t sense is there in making a choice when neither alternative can satisfy? Why choose at all, then? Why light out when there's no territory to light out for?

THE SCHLEMIEZEL AS CONTEMPORARY PROTAGONIST Both the schlemiel and the schlimazl serve to point us toward some higher order, toward some greater scheme of things t h a n the values of their own culture, and it is here t h a t black humor and t h e shtetl tradition of the fool meet and then p a r t company. Black humor denies this greater scheme of things. It envisions neither gods nor devils. It has faith in neither grace nor transgression. Nor, for t h a t matter, does it embrace the shtetl's schlemiel or schlimazl as such. What we find instead are protagonists midway between these two points on a continuum, as it were, characters embodying the failings of both extremes, moving first toward the right, then back toward the left, forever betwixt and between. This is a new notion of American manhood, American m a n as Homo incapacitus, one might say, where man is defined by his incapacities — a notion offering us in place of the fool and his goodness only the sense of man's loss. At one moment rebelling, at

12

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

another trying to accommodate, at one moment trying to fit the information to a closed set of beliefs, at the next moment furiously trying to rearrange these beliefs to fit the latest information, they are hybrids, one and all classic fools, and then again not: schlemiezels.

REFERENCES Abrams, M. H. (1981) A Glossary of Literary Terms. 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Aldridge, J. (1983) The American Novel and the Way We Live Now. New York: Oxford University Press. Feldman, B. (1970) "Anatomy of Black Humor." In The American Novel since World War II. Edited by M. Klein. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Publications. Friedman, B. J. (1969) Foreword to Black Humor, edited by B. J. Friedman. New York: Bantam Books. Greiner, D. (1973) Comic Terror: The Novels of John Hawkes. Memphis: Memphis State University Press. Hassan, I. (1971) Radical Innocence: Studies in the Contemporary American Novel. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kostelanetz, R. (1967) Introduction to Twelve from the Sixties, edited by R. Kostelanetz. New York: Dell. Shaw, H. (1976) Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York: McGraw-Hill.

2 Sholom Aleichem's Humor of Affirmation and Survival Emanuel S. Goldsmith

The humor of Sholom Aleichem (1859-1916) is a unique phenomenon in the history of Jewish culture and a surprising m u t a t i o n in the evolution of the Jewish spirit. When one takes into account t h a t for many centuries nonreligious literature was viewed as alien by J e w s and especially by Ashkenazi Jewry (92 percent of world Jewry i n 1939) and t h a t the reading of such literature was considered a sin (bittul Torah), his achievement becomes even more remarkable. While scattered examples of wit and humor may be found in the Bible, the Talmud, the Midrash, and medieval Hebrew writings, the higher reaches of humor are almost completely absent from Jewish literature before Sholom Aleichem's appearance. Still, his work too m u s t be viewed within the context of the evolution of Judaism and the history of the Jewish people. Biblical monotheism discovered God's presence in history and t h e purpose of h u m a n life in ethical behavior. It held the immorality and meaninglessness of h u m a n life in paganism up to ridicule and created a context of optimism which fostered confidence and hope. In t h e middle of t h e eighteenth century, two r e v o l u t i o n a r y movements in Jewish thought prepared the ground for the flowering of Jewish humor a century later. Hasidism or J e w i s h Pietism, in fostering joy as the proper mood for religious life a n d worship, criticized the strictness and rigidity of traditional Jewish religion. It viewed the religious leadership and accepted standards of piety with contempt. It could not help but make fun of conventional religious s t a n d a r d s and values. The H a s k a l a h or J e w i s h E n l i g h t e n m e n t movement, on the other hand, held both the Hasidim and their opponents u p to r a t i o n a l scrutiny a n d found t h e m w a n t i n g .

14

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Haskalah gave birth to a relatively large body of satirical writing in Hebrew and Yiddish t h a t sought to wean J e w s away from t h e excesses of religious tradition and the narrowness of isolation and exclusivism. Sholom Aleichem's appearance on the stage of Jewish history is best understood in terms of particular trends in the Jewish Enlighte n m e n t movement as well as general developments in R u s s i a n political and intellectual life in the second half of the n i n e t e e n t h century. E a s t e r n E u r o p e a n J e w i s h H a s k a l a h was based on t h e eighteenth-century German-Jewish H a s k a l a h of Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786), which had been influenced by rationalism and Deism. Later, romanticism entered modern J e w i s h t h o u g h t a n d contributed to the emergence of the Science of Judaism (Wissenschaft des Judentums) with its historical approach to Jewish studies. What all of this m e a n t was the weakening of the traditional theological rationale for Jewish existence and its replacement with historical and cultural approaches to Jewish survival. N a c h m a n Krochmal (1785-1840) in his philosophical work, Guide for the Modern Perplexed, shifted the center of gravity in Jewish thinking from God to t h e Jewish people, t h a t is, from theology to history. His disciple, t h e father of t h e H a s k a l a h movement in Russia, I s a a c B a e r Levinsohn (1788-1860), proclaimed t h a t "there is no greater sin t h a n t h a t of the m a n who causes the disappearance of his nation from the world" (Levinsohn, 1901, p. 84). The Hebrew j o u r n a l i s t Peretz Smolenskin (1845-1885) popularized these ideas in his essays and novels, underscoring the national significance of the Jewish religion and emphasizing Jewish unity, the Hebrew language, and the hope for national redemption as the basic elements of modern J e w i s h consciousness. In Russia, the populist approach of the Russian intellectuals, who preached a r e t u r n to the folk for authenticity and spiritual nourishment, strengthened similar "folkist" and protonationalist trends among Jewish intellectuals. Early Jewish socialism and Zionism as well as the Yiddish and Hebrew language and culture movements were founded on these nationalist and social s t i r r i n g s among t h e J e w i s h i n t e l l e c t u a l s of E a s t e r n E u r o p e (Goldsmith, 1987, p. 259). The emergence of modern Jewish humor is thus coincident with the proliferation of ideological diversity in Eastern European Jewish society and with the triumph of the Yiddish language as a major written as well as oral medium of Jewish culture. It is inextricably linked to the traditional Jewish way of life with its interweaving of poverty, ritualism, intellectualism, and wit, and h a s been described as the spiritual laughter of a people who laughed in order not to always have to cry. Modern Jewish humor is related to the historical experience of the Jewish people. Its primary characteristic, adumbrated in the Psalms and the Prophets, is the ridicule of idolatry and

Emanuel S. Goldsmith

/

15

all man-made gods. Other characteristic elements are the love of Torah and learning generally, the consequent opposition to ignorance, and a deep sense of justice t h a t refuses to recognize differences between rich and poor. The source of a good deal of Jewish humor is the eternal Jewish complaint voiced frequently by Sholom Aleichem's character Tevye: Where is God and where is justice? For the authentic Jew, God, justice, and equality are inseparable (Zeitlin, 1980, p. 178). The humor of Sholom Aleichem h a s been characterized as a gracious way to overcome an unpleasant situation in which one finds oneself through no fault of one's own. Without self-respect, purity of the spirit, and wisdom of the heart, no such humor is possible. It soothes the pain of a perplexing or degrading situation with inner spiritual power derived from faith in the dignity of m a n and in the ultimate victory of justice. Even in the most hopeless of situations, such humor playfully feigns victory in order to emphasize the meaninglessness, evil, and unnaturalness of our predicament. It protests sarcastically and gives oneself and others the courage to endure (Wiener, 1946, p. 287). To students of literature and philosophy, such humor is familiar as positive or divine l a u g h t e r a n d as divine comedy or humor. Sholom Aleichem's humor is the highest expression of divine comedy. "I wasn't worried about God so much," says Tevye. "I could come to terms with Him one way or another. W h a t bothered me was people. Why should people be so cruel when they could be so kind? Why should h u m a n beings bring suffering to one another as well as to themselves, when they could all live together in peace and good will?" (Sholom Aleichem, 1949, p. 160). Sholom Aleichem's laughter is philosophical, creative, affirmative, and healthful. It is provoked primarily by the discrepancy and the distance between what is and what ought to be. It helps to rationally and realistically evaluate the world and encourages improvement. It triumphs over pain and h a r d s h i p in loyalty to an ideal, and brings happiness, truth, and beauty into a dark world. It inculcates love for the Jewish people and its heritage of history, culture, and religion. On the day before Yom Kippur, Sholom Aleichem tells us, we would hardly recognize Noah-Wolf the butcher. "He stops fighting with the other butchers, becomes soft as butter toward his customers, is considerate to t h e servant girls, becomes so unctuous you could almost spread him over a boil." He puts on his holiday garment, goes from house to house, to all his customers and neighbors, to ask for pardon for the sins he may have committed during the past year. "If anything I have said offended you, I want to apologize, and wish you a happy New Year." "The same to you, Noah-Wolf," they respond. "May God pardon us all" (Sholom Aleichem, 1946, p. 321).

16

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Where Dante's Divine Comedy describes Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise, Sholom Aleichem describes God's dwelling in the midst of the Jewish people and participating in the daily tragicomedy of their life. Sholom Aleichem's humor opens a window on the enduring values and traditions of the Jewish people. It possesses broad humanity and profound faith in man's unconquerable spirit. In trying times, it sweetened the bitterness of a difficult existence. During the Holocaust, it brought comfort to the Jews locked in ghettos and annihilation camps. The primary characters of Sholom Aleichem's three major works — Tevye the Dairyman, Menahem-Mendl, and Motl, Son of Peysi the Cantor — are variations on the theme of the indefatigable optimism of the Jewish people. Motl's motif is "Hurray for me! I'm an orphan!" Menahem-Mendl refuses to permit his constant failures at earning a livelihood to dissuade him from trying something new. Tevye, like Job of old, refuses to permit adversity to t u r n him from the p a t h of faith. Unlike Job, however, Tevye is able to transcend tribulation through humor as well as religion. "I say t h a t the m a i n thing is faith," proclaims Tevye. "A Jew m u s t hope. What if we work ourselves to the bone? That's why we're Jews. . . . As you know, I'm a great believer. I never have any complaints against the Almighty. Whatever he does is good. As Scripture says, T r u s t in the Lord' — P u t your faith in God and he'll see to it t h a t you lie six feet under, bake bagels and still thank him. . . . I say t h a t we have a great God and a good God but nevertheless, I say, I would like a blessing for every time God does something the likes of which should happen to our enemies" (quoted in Trunk, 1944, p. 31). Tevye the Dairyman, Menahem-Mendl, and Motl, Son of Peysi the Cantor are Sholom Aleichem's masterpieces. Not novels in the formal sense, they are r a t h e r cycles of episodes about these three seminal characters. In the first episode of each cycle, the character is already fully developed. Subsequent episodes serve merely to confirm w h a t we already know about Tevye's indefatigable optimism, Menahem-Mendl's daydreaming, and Motl's precocious sense of humor. Each of the three characters is symbolic of one or another aspect of Sholom Aleichem's own personality and experience (tradition-rooted Jewish father, unsuccessful stockbroker, and prototypical luftmentsh, eternal child and prankster). Moreover, each character is an archetype (i.e., different from both the traditional hero, who is completely individuated, and the stereotype, who r e p r e s e n t s a specific group or class of people) (Miron, 1970). Tevye, MenahemMendl, and Motl are each representative of the Jewish people as a whole. Each represents, albeit from different angles, the psychology, characteristics, and aspirations of the Jews as Sholom Aleichem saw them. In a sense, these works are his own versions of the biblical books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, respectively.

Emanuel S. Goldsmith

/

17

Tevye the Dairyman harks back to the traditions of the medieval Yiddish folktales and the Hasidic legends of the righteous m a n who is able to transcend his sufferings and whose faith is ultimately vindicated. The various episodes also reflect the particular problems and circumstances of Russian Jewry at the beginning of the twentieth century. Tevye's misinterpretations of biblical and Talmudic quotations are a literary tour de force. They frequently came closer t h a n any literal rendering could to the inner meaning of the texts as they were perceived by shtetl Jews. Menahem-Mendl parodies the popular Yiddish letter-writing guides (brivnshtelers) with their stilted vocabularies, openings, and closings. The epistolary technique is especially appropriate to the character of Menahem-Mendl, who on one level symbolizes the Jew who h a s been overwhelmed by the lures of modern civilization and who completely succumbs to the hustle and bustle, noise, confusion, and rootlessness of u r b a n living. The garrulous monologue, on another level, enhances the elements of tradition-rootedness in Tevye and the childish playfulness in Motl. Motl, Son of Peysi the Cantor is an epic of Jewish childhood and a spiritual history of the great transition of Jewish life from E a s t e r n Europe to the United States in the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth century. It is a hymn to the Jewish people's ability to withstand and overcome whatever obstacles would t h w a r t its survival, growth, and continuing contribution to the h u m a n spirit. Sholom Aleichem's humor is actually the kind of divine gift and s t r a t a g e m for personal and national survival t h a t may yet save mankind from itself. The kind of laughter Sholom Aleichem evokes — the l a u g h t e r of acceptance, friendship, sympathy, and contentm e n t — is essential to h u m a n dignity and sanity. Laughter is, in fact, a tactic for h u m a n survival. Sholom Aleichem's laughter is the kind "born out of the pure joy of living, the spontaneous expression of health and energy — the sweet laughter of the child . . . the warm laughter of the kindly soul which heartens the discouraged, gives health to the sick and comfort to the dying" (Boodin, 1934, p. 212). In the Bible, Abraham is willing to sacrifice the beloved son of his old age in order to demonstrate his faith. In a Sholom Aleichem story, the "happiest man" in Kodno is the poor m a n who risks his life to save his dying son by throwing himself before the carriage of the physician who may be able to save him. "I would have liked to take a picture of him," writes Sholom Aleichem, "to let the whole world see w h a t a really happy m a n looked like, the happiest m a n in Kodno" (1949, p. 77). Joy, the higher pleasure of comedy, can be obtained only from an author in whom we sense joy's opposite, since "the comic dramatist's starting point is misery; the joy at his destination is a superb and

18

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

thrilling transcendence" (Bentley, 1964, p. 302). Sholom Aleichem concludes his travelogue of the town of Kasrilevka with a description of its two cemeteries — the old and the new. "The new one is old enough and rich enough in graves. Soon there will be no place to p u t anyone, especially if a pogrom should break out or any of the other misfortunes which befall us in these times." The Kasrilevkites take special pride in the old cemetery both because famous people are buried in it and because it is "the only piece of land of which they are the masters, the only bit of earth they own where a blade of grass can sprout and a tree can grow and the air is fresh and one can breathe freely" (Sholom Aleichem, 1946, p. 6). Five years before Sholom Aleichem's d e a t h , in a l e t t e r of consolation to friends mourning the death of a child, he revealed t h e deepest secret of his humor. "It's an ugly, evil world," he wrote. "I say to you t h a t j u s t to spite the world one m u s t not cry. If you w a n t to know, this is the t r u e source, the real reason for my usually good mood, for my 'humor,' as they call it. J u s t to spite the world — don't cry! J u s t to spite the world — only laugh, only laugh!" (Berkowitz, 1966, p. 168). It took m a n y years of privation, h a r d s h i p , and artistic struggle for Sholom Aleichem to come to t h a t realization. The little boy who delighted in mimicking his elders and whose first literary work was an alphabetical glossary of his stepmother's curses developed his u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the function of laughter and the n a t u r e of humor gradually. Slowly he overcame the n a t u r a l tendency to provoke laughter by telling jokes a n d pointing out t h e grotesque and incongruous, and i n s t e a d explored t h e healing powers of u n d e r s t a n d i n g , acceptance, a n d compassion. By t h a t time he had become the Columbus of Jewish l a u g h t e r and the discoverer of the power of the Jewish smile. He became the physician with an effective balm for his people's wounds, the engineer capable of tapping its hidden wellsprings of joy and comfort. The tremendous adulation t h a t Sholom Aleichem achieved from all segments of Yiddish-speaking Jewry during his lifetime, which continued unabated until the Holocaust, is one of the truly remarkable phenomena in the history of Jewish culture. Once during a r e a d i n g tour in Warsaw a pious young m a n r a n up to Sholom Aleichem on the street and kissed his hand. Although he belonged to t h a t sector of Jewry for which the reading of secular literature was absolutely forbidden, he could not help saying to Sholom Aleichem: "You are our comfort. You sweeten for us the bitterness of exile" (Berkowitz, 1958, p. 355). Even before the critics took to Sholom Aleichem, he was well known in almost every Jewish home. S. Niger, a literary critic who took many years to warm up to Sholom Aleichem, eventually admitted t h a t no one thing in J e w i s h life affected t h e modern Jew in E a s t e r n Europe so much as Sholom Aleichem's stories. J u s t as pogroms brought to the surface the Jew's

Emanuel S. Goldsmith

/

19

repressed fears and t e a r s , so Sholom Aleichem evoked his less profound but equally suppressed laughter (Niger, 1946). To be properly understood, Sholom Aleichem's popularity m u s t also be viewed in terms of the position he attained relatively early in his career as the "grandchild" of Mendele Mocher Seforim and the colleague and contemporary of Yitzchok Leybush Peretz. These three writers, the founding fathers of Yiddish literature, all of whom died between 1915 and 1917, played a crucial role in the emergence of modern Jewish culture and self-consciousness. They wrote when the great masses of E a s t e r n European Jewry were emerging from their medieval s t a t u s as a segregated pariah people, leaving their traditional little towns or shtetls and becoming p a r t of Western culture. Mendele, Sholom Aleichem, and Peretz belonged to those small circles of maskilim or idealistic intellectuals who were at once committed to both the modernization of J e w r y and the conscious preservation and furtherance of Jewish distinctiveness and identity. As the east European Jews moved into the large cities of Europe and America, they took with them feelings of inadequacy t h a t stemmed from their lack of familiarity with Gentile languages and culture and from the inferior role t h a t Jews had traditionally been forced to play in Christian mythology. The founding fathers of Yiddish literature urged their people to step proudly into the modern world as heirs of a great culture t h a t h a d much to contribute to modern civilization. While repudiating Jewish isolationism and cultural backwardness, they pointed with pride to the humanistic impulses of the Jewish tradition and the superiority of Jewish ethical standards. For them the solidarity and spiritual unity of Jewry were inviolate and to be preserved at all costs. These concerns, popularly referred to since the early days of the Hasidic movement as ahavat Yisrael or love of t h e J e w i s h people, in fact constituted a modern, nontheological version of the doctrine of Jewish chosenness, albeit without overtones of chauvinism or exclusiveness. As several modern scholars have pointed out, the chosen people idea of Judaism, despite some of the narrow interpretations to which it was subjected over the course of the centuries, originated not in feelings of superiority but as an expression of humility. Whereas some peoples of the ancient world saw themselves as divine or semidivine beings and others as barbarians, the ancient Israelites intuited the unity of the h u m a n race. Israel was not divine or superior; it was only God's chosen people — chosen to bear witness to its God and spread the t r u t h of His existence throughout the earth (Kahler, 1967). Through the ages, this doctrine comforted the beleaguered Jewish people and compensated psychologically for the suffering and malice t h a t were its lot in history. It helped forge the character, conscience, and strong sense of solidarity of the Jewish people. The maintenance of group identity or we-feeling even as J e w s merged with the outside world was consciously fostered by t h e

20

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

founding fathers of Yiddish l i t e r a t u r e even w h e n other, more immediate concerns dominated their writings. Mendele, Sholom Aleichem, and Peretz became culture heroes who actually h a d a greater impact on the lives of their readers t h a n any of the characters they created in their fiction. Mendele was the wise, knowledgeable Jew rooted in the tradition who was also aware of new winds blowing in the Jewish community. Sholom Aleichem was the happy-go-lucky storyteller who made his readers marvel at the poor b u t cheerful characters of his tales and take pride in their traditional values and ideals. Peretz was the voice of Jewish h u m a n i s m and the modern teacher of national ethics and Hasidic idealism. Sholom Aleichem seems to have rediscovered two i n s i g h t s of t h e biblical Book of Proverbs: "A joyful h e a r t m a k e s for good h e a l t h ; despondency dries up t h e bones" (17:22) a n d "If t h e r e is anxiety in a man's mind let him quash it and t u r n it into joy with a good word" (12:25). The traditional rendering of t h e l a s t verse is "If there is anxiety in a man's mind let him talk it out of his mind." An awareness of the powers of l a u g h t e r and speech was Sholom Aleichem's most important contribution to Jewish lite r a t u r e . B u t Sholom Aleichem modified these two insights in the light of East European Jewish life. Laughter was not to mock or scoff b u t to fondle and encourage, and speech h a d to include movem e n t s , facial expressions, and vocal intonations. In his writings Sholom Aleichem includes comically detailed d e s c r i p t i o n s of facial movements and physical gestures. This technique, which he learned from Mendele Mocher Seforim, Charles Dickens, and some of the Russian m a s t e r s , was a major new d e p a r t u r e in J e w i s h writing. Verbal play with logic is a n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Sholom Aleichem's humor. His characters often sacrifice the rules of sound reasoning to considerations of humanity and kindness. They even find it impossible to conceive of their persecutors as impervious to the cause of justice and the cry of the oppressed. Sholom Aleichem's "little people" take things for granted. They count their chickens before they are hatched. They commit regularly every fallacy of logic. Rules do not appeal to them because they are creatures of the h e a r t (Roback, 1959). L a u g h t e r h a s been described not only as an expression of life but also as a revelation of life. Sholom Aleichem's writings took the Jewish world by storm. They did indeed seem to have the authority and power of a new revelation. His biblically inspired notion t h a t "laughter is healthy; physicians bid us laugh," despite its ironic overtones, h a d the impact of a religious edict p e r m i t t i n g laughter. It opened t h e floodgates of m e r r i m e n t and joy for the Jewish people. "If I were Goethe," Sholom Aleichem tells us,

Emanuel S. Goldsmith

/

21

I would not describe t h e sorrows of young Werther, I would describe the sorrows of a poor Jewish lad who was madly in love with the cantor's daughter. If I were Heine, I would not sing of Florentine nights; I would sing of the night of Simchat Torah, when Jews make the rounds of Hakafot and when young women and pretty girls mingle with the men in the synagogue — the one night when this is permitted. The women kiss the Scroll of the Law. They j u m p up and down squeaking in every key. "Long life to you!" The answer is "Same to you, same to you!" . . . One felt proud — this was the night of the Rejoicing of the Law! Above was the sky and God was there — your God, your heaven, your holiday! (Sholom Aleichem, 1955, p. 295.) Sholom Aleichem's artistic purpose was to portray the ordinary Jew, who may have been outwardly crushed by depressing conditions b u t who glowed inwardly with a majestic sense of his people's past and future. On Simchat Torah, Sholom Aleichem writes, even the grouchy J e w who disapproves of everything a n d is critical of everything is proud of his heritage. Though he be a m a n whom nothing can satisfy and no one can please, on this festival he too feels t h a t it is good to be a Jew. Joyously he shouts: "Friends! I want to know, is there anything better t h a n to be a Jew? I ask you one thing: What can be finer than to be a Jew on Simchat Torah?" (1949, p. 170). To l a u g h with Sholom Aleichem is to experience t h e joy of Jewishness. Sholom Aleichem's writings demonstrate t h a t the truly humanistic and universal elements of literature are firmly imbedded in the specific and particular. The natural breeding ground for responsible behavior a n d loyalty to m a n k i n d is indeed t h e civilization and tradition into which one is born. The great comic writers have often combined literary realism, philosophical rationalism, and cultural nationalism so t h a t their works might reflect and advance their national cultures. The contradictions t h a t Sholom Aleichem points out and utilizes to make us laugh are the contradictions inherent in Jewish life. At a time when Jewish continuity seemed t h r e a t e n e d because of immigration, religious and cultural erosion, and other factors, Sholom Aleichem's writings, which reached more J e w s t h a n those of any other author, gave a sense of reality and concreteness to a community in transition. "Is there a Jewish people in the world?" asked Y. H. Brenner, an important Hebrew writer, in 1905. "Is there a specific character to these transports which come and go? Do these wandering groups possess an approach of their own to the world? Can they laugh and cry about life in their own way? Has the Jewish street any vital strengths, any talent for living at all? Yes indeed! The a n s w e r is affirmative because t h e r e is a Sholom Aleichem!" (Brenner, 1967, p. 106).

22

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

One of Sholom Aleichem's major contributions to Yiddish literature was thus his conferment of an "illusion of territoriality" on the homeless Jewish people. His characters are presented in universal dimensions and bear resemblance to the non-Jewish characters of "normal" nations one finds in world literature. This legitimized Yiddish creative writing for a people t h a t had hitherto sought hidden, esoteric meanings — religious, ethical, mystical, didactic, tendentious — in its writings. Reading Sholom Aleichem, J e w s began to look at themselves with a sympathetic, understanding smile as if viewing themselves from afar. They could laugh through tears at their own misfortunes. This was the highest achievement of belles lettres: a liberation and redemption effecting complete transcendence (Rivkin, 1948). The roots of Sholom Aleichem's unique h u m o r m u s t also be sought in the traditional Purim-shpielers, who regaled the Jewish community with plays, songs, and e n t e r t a i n m e n t s on the P u r i m festival, and in the badkhonim or wedding jesters, who improvised t h e i r own h u m o r o u s r h y m e s a t wedding feasts. The i t i n e r a n t preachers (maggidim) often spiced their discourses with witty r e m a r k s and concocted parables and stories within stories to illust r a t e their moral preachments. The proverbs, witticisms, anecdotes, riddles, a n d jokes of J e w i s h folklore and t h e oral parodies of schoolboys and yeshiva students who jested good-naturedly about biblical verses, Talmudic disputes, religious hypocrisy, outdated laws and customs, and so on, also contributed to Sholom Aleichem's humor. Tales of religious saints (both Hasidic and non-Hasidic) and their wondrous adventures were often parodied by the skeptical. H a s k a l a h devotees often laughed a t the credulousness of t h e benighted traditionalists with their provincial outlooks. In t h e middle of the n i n e t e e n t h century Yiddish and Hebrew writing erupted with parodies, satires, comedies, and collections of jokes a n d humorous stories. Most significant of all for Sholom Aleichem's development were the early Yiddish writings of Sholom Jacob Abramovich or Mendele Mocher Seforim, which had begun to appear in the 1860s. Mendele's works were rich in humor as well as satire. He taught Sholom Aleichem how to utilize jokes, parody, and word-play. Sholom Aleichem actually dedicated one of his early novels, Stempenyu, to Mendele. Mendele had written to Sholom Aleichem t h a t Jewish novels should be different from those of other peoples. "Your words impressed me deeply," said Sholom Aleichem. "I began to understand t h a t a Jewish novel had to be very different because Jewish life and the conditions under which a Jew can fall n love are unlike those of other peoples. In addition, the Jewish people have a character and spirit of their own; unique customs and habits unlike those of other nations. Our national characteristics, always deeply Jewish, must appear in a Jewish novel if it is to be true to life"

Emanuel S. Goldsmith

/

23

(Sholom Aleichem, 1927a, p. 123). Mendele also t a u g h t S h o l o m Aleichem to constantly revise and rewrite his works. Literature was not the sin of bittul Torah but a serious matter that deserved one's best efforts. Moreover, literature had to inform as well as amuse. It had to educate and inspire as well as entertain. Sholom Aleichem drew freely on the writings of Mendele for plots, characters, and ambience. He succeeded, however, in transcending the predominantly critical approach to J e w i s h life in m a n y of Mendele's works by translating the latter's satire and irony into the language of joy and laughter. He replaced the latter's sadness and seriousness with compassion and humor. Mendele had spoken of his writings as expressing the very core of a Jew "who, even when h e does sing a merry tune, sounds from afar as if he were sobbing a n d weeping" (Mendele, 1960, p. 13). His view of life was trenchantly conveyed in the names he chose for the three towns in which his major stories take place: Idlersville, Foolstown, and P a u p e r s v i l l e . Sholom Aleichem, on the other hand, described the shtetl whose little people refused to allow poverty to depress them. The name of the town became a synonym for people who are "poor b u t cheerful." It was called Kasrilevka — a derivative of the Hebrew n a m e Kasriel, meaning "crown of God" (Sholom Aleichem, 1946, p. 1). There is a direct line from the Yiddish folktales of the "wise men" of Chelm through Mendele's Kabtzansk or Paupersville to Sholom Aleichem's Kasrilevka or Cheerfultown. In the Chelm tales wit dominates; in the Kabtzansk stories, satire reigns; in the Kasrilevka adventures, pathos and humor have the day. "The town into which I shall now t a k e you, dear reader," writes Sholom Aleichem, "is exactly in the middle of t h a t blessed Pale [of Settlement] into which Jews have been packed as closely as herring in a barrel and told to increase and multiply. The name of the town is Kasrilevka." The Pale of Settlement, the restricted are of czarist Russia in which Jews were permitted to live, was a symbol of Jewish degradation and oppression and could hardly be called blessed. Yet although Jews there were packed as tightly as herring in a barrel, they managed to reproduce themselves like fish in water as if they had been commanded to do so by their enemies, who instituted the Pale of Settlement and promulgated other decrees against them. Or was the act of proliferation perhaps the shtetl-dweWers' only way of getting back at their oppressors? It is significant t h a t the town's name is Kasrilevka — a happy name, a joyous name. "A kasrilik is not just an ordinary pauper, a failure in life. On the contrary, he is a m a n who has not allowed poverty to degrade him. He laughs at it. He is poor, but cheerful." When a kasrilik finally reaches Paris and manages to visit a famous fellow Jew, he convinces Rothschild t h a t he has brought with him something the latter can't buy in Paris for any amount of money: eternal life. Upon hearing how much eternal life will cost him,

24

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Rothschild says no more, but counts out three hundred rubles one by one. The Kasrilevkite slips the money into his pocket, and says to Rothschild: "If you want to live forever, my advice to you is to leave this noisy, busy Paris and move to our town of Kasrilevka. There you can never die, because since Kasrilevka has been a town, no rich m a n has ever died there" (Sholom Aleichem, 1946, p. 4). Sholom Aleichem also writes of the Kasrilevka melamed or schoolteacher who fantasizes about w h a t he would do if he were Rothschild. "This is the life! No more worries about making a living. No more headaches about where the money for the Sabbath is coming from. My daughters are all married off — a load is gone from my shoulders." After taking care of the needs of his family and his town, the melamed extends his philanthropic efforts to his brothers and sisters all over the world. In his daydreams, he brings an end to the persecution of his people and to wars throughout the earth. Do you understand what I've done? I have not only put over a business deal, but people have stopped killing each other in vain, like oxen. And since there will be no more war, what do we need weapons for? The answer is t h a t we don't. And if there are no more weapons and armies and bands and other trappings of war, there will be no more envy, no more hatred, no Turks, no Englishmen, no Frenchmen, no Gypsies, and no Jews. The face of the earth will be changed. As it is written: "Deliverance will come — " The Messiah will have arrived. (Sholom Aleichem, 1949, p. 19) Sholom Aleichem never completed his autobiography, From the Fair, but the last chapter he wrote tells of his decision as a young m a n to become a modern rabbi (Sholom Aleichem, 1927b, pp. 259-69). In czarist Russia, modern rabbis were public officials in the employ of the government. The institution of "crown rabbi," "government rabbi," or "authorized rabbi" was generally looked upon unfavorably by the Jewish masses, who correctly understood t h a t the government's intentions were not only to modernize them but to wean them away from their ancestral faith. Because of the proliferation of antiJewish decrees in the 1880s, many Jews who had finished secondary school were unable to go on to higher education or find employment in their professions. Many were thus ready to fall back on the post of authorized rabbi as a source of livelihood. As a result, many who took the position were secondary school graduates, doctors, veterinarians, pharmacists, jurists, engineeers, and so on (Shohet, 1975). When Sholom Aleichem lost his position as the tutor of the young daughter of a wealthy Jew because his student fell in love with him (he subsequently married her), he found himself without employment and decided to run for the position of crown rabbi in the small

Emanuel S. Goldsmith

/

25

town of Lubin. Having won the position, the young rabbiner decided to r e t u r n home to visit his family while he awaited government confirmation of the election. In his home town he was dismayed when his good friends and neighbors suddenly t r e a t e d him with coolness and distance. At last a good friend blurted out the collective sentiment of the town: "All crown rabbis are hypocrites and fakers. They are merely sycophants of the rich. Worse, they are toadies to the a u t h o r i t i e s . " Dejected, Sholom Aleichem asked himself why a government rabbi need be a hypocrite, faker, sychophant, and toadie. He vowed t h a t he would not become an authorized rabbi of t h a t kind. He would first and always be a mensch, a man of absolute integrity. Rabbi Solomon Rabinovich (Sholom Aleichem's real name) who had come into the rabbinate with idealism and hope, soon discovered t h a t his efforts were not dispelling the heavy plague of benightedness in the community he served. There had to be another way to help it. He decided to t u r n to the written word (Chiel, 1974, p. 27). As a writer, Sholom Aleichem sought to fulfill the task he had wanted to assume as a modern rabbi — to dispel his people's ignorance of the modern world while at the same time helping to preserve and advance its character and identity, its heritage of culture and religion. In a memoir of Sholom Aleichem, his son-in-law, Yiddish journalist B. Z. Goldberg, recalls the great humorist walking to the synagogue on the Sabbath in New York. In the noisy, busy city streets, he looked like "a bit of Jewish Sabbath i n a top hat, in a world which did not want to know about the Sabbath." He did not notice the people who stared at him on the street because he was too deeply engrossed in the mood of the Sabbath. What was it t h a t motivated Sholom Aleichem to attend synagogue despite the fact t h a t he was not outwardly pious in the accepted fashion? He did not, for example, keep the Sabbath or observe the dietary laws in the orthodox way. He did not don phylacteries or observe the religious fasts. Nevertheless, he had "a certain religiosity" not unlike t h a t of other great Jewish artists of his time such as Mendele and Haim N a h m a n Bialik. He observed the aesthetic and emotional p a r t s of Jewish ritual and on intimate occasions called upon the name of God (Goldberg, 1951). Sholom Aleichem's writings possess a strong spiritual dimension which qualifies them to be considered part of the Torah tradition of the Jewish people. Kierkegaard spoke of religious faith beginning with a sense of the discrepancy between the infinite and the finite, and felt t h a t the religious individual is the discoverer of the comical in t h e l a r g e s t m e a s u r e (Sypher, 1980, pp. 196f., 234). In his autobiography, Sholom Aleichem describes his Uncle Pinney as an extremely observant Jew for whom another person's business, anything t h a t smacked of communal affairs, everything t h a t constituted helping a fellow Jew took

26

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

precedence . . . he would hurry off to arrange the wedding of a poor orphan and dance all night with her poor relatives — h e r e surely was an opportunity to be kindly which did not often p r e s e n t itself. . . . The poorer the wedding, the g r e a t e r t h e merrymaking. T h a t is, the poorer the bride, the wilder Uncle Pinney danced. . . . Uncle Pinney would throw his coat off, pull his tallit katan [ritual garment] out, roll up his sleeves, his trousers tucked into his boots, his feet barely grazing the ground, his head thrown back and his eyes shut. Ecstasy and inspiration would illuminate his face as at prayer. The musicians would play a Jewish tune; everybody would clap to the r h y t h m ; the circle would gradually widen; and the dancer, balancing among the burning lights, became more ecstatic and more inspired as he proceeded. . . . It was not dancing. Rather it was a kind of divine service, a holy rite. (Sholom Aleichem, 1955, p. 61) Sholom Aleichem's humor was, like his Uncle Pinney's dancing, a divine service and a holy rite. Association with others is as necessary for laughter as it is for worship. If joke-telling requires a teller, subject matter, and an audience, Sholom Aleichem's humor also requires awareness of the presence of the God of Israel, who is the subjective and objective representation of the spirit of the J e w i s h people. "The tragic arc is only birth: struggle: death. . . . Comedy is essentially a Carrying Away of Death, a triumph over mortality by some absurd faith in rebirth, restoration, and salvation" (Sypher, 1980, p. 220). In his will Sholom Aleichem warned his descendants not to forsake their people or their faith and commanded them to bear with honor his hard-earned Jewish name. In the dedication of his autobiography to his children, he wrote: "Read it from time to time. Perhaps you or your children will learn something from it — to love our people and to appreciate their spiritual t r e a s u r e s which lie scattered in all the corners of our great Exile, in this great world." Sholom Aleichem's humor was suffused with a deep love for h i s people, committed to the alleviation of their suffering, and determined to record for posterity the radiance of a way of life based on h u m a n i t y and kindness. In Sholom Aleichem's legacy of divine l a u g h t e r t h e J e w i s h people lives. In his affirmative h u m o r it confronts itself and, getting to know itself and its heritage with a spoonful of sugar, is forever reborn with a chuckle and a smile.

REFERENCES Bentley, E. (1964) The Life of Drama. New York: Simon and Schuster. Berkowitz, I. D. (1958) Dos Sholom Aleichem Bukh. 2nd ed. New York: YKUF Farlag. (1966) Underzere Rishoynim. Vol. 4. Tel Aviv: Farlag Hamenorah.

Emanuel S. Goldsmith

/

27

Boodin, J. E. (1934) God: A Cosmic Philosophy of Religion. New York: Macmillan. Brenner, Y. H. (1967) Kol Kitvey Y. H. Brenner. Vol. 3. Tel Aviv: Hotza'at Hakibbutz Hame'uhad. Chiel, A. (1974) "When Sholom Aleichem Was a Rabbi." Jewish Frontier, February. Goldberg, B. Z. (1951) "Sholom Aleichem in Amerike inem Letstn Yor fun Zayn Lebn." Yidishe Kultur, May. Goldsmith, E. S. (1987) Modern Yiddish Culture: The Story of the Yiddish Language Movement. New York: Shapolsky. Kahler, E. (1967) The Jews among the Nations. New York: Frederick Ungar. Levinsohn, I. B. (1901) Zerubavel. Vol. 1. Warsaw: B. Z. Sheynfinkel. Mendele Mocher Seforim. (1960) Fishke the Lame. Translated by G. Stillman. New York: Thomas Yosseloff. Miron, D. (1970) Sholom Aleichem: Pirkey Masah. Ramat Gan: Masada. Niger, S. (1946) "The Gift of Sholom Aleichem." Commentary, August. Rivkin, B. (1948) Grunt-Tendentsn fun der Yidisher Literatur in Amerike. New York: YKUF Farlag. Roback, A. A. (1959) "Sholom Aleichem's Humor." Congress Bi-Weekly 26, no. 6: 16 March. Shohet, A. (1975) Mosad Harabanut Mita'am Be-Rusya. Haifa: University of Haifa Press. Sholom Aleichem. (1927a) Yidishe Romanen. New York: Sholom Aleichem Folksfond Oysgabe. . (1927b) Funem Yarid. New York: Sholom Aleichem Folksfond Oysgabe. . (1946) The Old Country. Translated by J. Butwin and F. Butwin. New York: Crown. . (1949) Tevye's Daughters. Translated by F. Butwin. New York: Crown. . (1955) The Great Fair. Translated by T. Kahana. New York: Noonday Press. Sypher, W. (1980) "The Meanings of Comedy." In Comedy. Edited by W. Sypher. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Trunk, I. I. (1944) Tevye un Menakhem-Mendl in Yidishn Velt-Goyrl. New York: Cyco Bikher-Farlag. Wiener, M. (1946) Tsu der Geshikhte fun der Yidisher Literatur in Nayntsntn Yorhundert. Vol. 2. New York: YKUF Farlag. Zeitlin, A. (1980) Literarishe un Filosofishe Eseyen. New York: Alveltlekher Yidisher Kultur Kongres.

This page intentionally left blank

3 Exploring the Thesis of the Self-Deprecating Jewish Sense of Humor Christie Davies

The thesis t h a t Jewish humor has a distinctly self-mocking and selfderogatory character is one t h a t h a s frequently been stated (for example, Freud, 1960; Grotjahn, 1970; Mikes, 1980) and yet also denounced as a myth (Ben-Amos, 1973). If all t h a t is m e a n t is t h a t Jews tell and invent large numbers of jokes about members of their own community t h a t impute negative qualities to them, then the thesis is true but not very important. The stronger version of the thesis — t h a t those Jews who invent, tell, and enjoy such jokes are masochistically attacking their own group and by extension themselves (see Greenburg, 1972; Grotjahn, 1970) — would be important were it not false. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the territory between these two versions, first in relation to minority groups in general, taking the Jews as one example; and t h e n in the special case of the J e w s seen in the light of their distinctive culture and history. The self-mocking and allegedly self-derogatory jokes for which the Jews are famous are, in some respects at least, very similar to the jokes of other ethnic minorities, t h a t is, Jewish humor is a special case of a more general phenomenon, namely, the a s y m m e t r y (see Middleton and Moland, 1959; Zenner, 1970) between the humor of culturally dominant majorities and the humor of culturally subordinate minority groups. Typically the members of the dominant group tell ethnic jokes only about subordinate peoples who are either ethnic minorities or smaller nations or subnations on the periphery of their nation or culture; they do not tell ethnic jokes about their own group. By contrast, those who belong to minority or peripheral ethnic groups tell jokes both about the majority group and about their own

30

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

group, and they may well tell more ethnic jokes about their own group (and find t h e m funnier) t h a n about the majority. T h u s empirical studies have shown t h a t (in addition to the case of the Jews) the Irish in England tell and invent jokes about Irishmen (O'Donnell, cited in C. P. Wilson, 1979), t h a t Polish-Americans laugh at jokes about Poles (Kusielewicz, 1969), t h a t black Americans tell a n d enjoy jokes about blacks being lazy, sexually immoral, and chicken thieves (Middleton, 1959), t h a t the Druze in Israel tell jokes about their own group (Zenner, 1970), and t h a t in Israel, where Jews are the dominant group, Arabs as well as Jews express a preference for jokes t h a t disparage Arabs rather t h a n those t h a t disparage Jews (Ziv, 1984). Since the ethnic jokes told by the members of a dominant majority tend to associate the butts of the jokes with some ludicrous, undesirable quality, such jokes fit reasonably well into the superiority theory of humor where the teller and audience laugh at a third party (cf. Carritt, 1922-23; Feinburg, 1978; C. P. Wilson, 1979). More dubiously, it h a s been argued t h a t the jokes in and of themselves constitute a form of aggression against the butts of jokes even when there is no independent evidence of hostility (see Kravitz, 1977; McCosh, 1976; Schwartz, 1973; Welsch, 1967). In doing so the proponents of the h u m o r as aggression thesis ignore both those cases where ethnic jokes are made about groups to whom the joke-tellers are not hostile and situations of ethnic or international conflict t h a t have failed to produce jokes at all (see Davies, 1990). The behavior of members of minority groups in telling, enjoying, and even inventing jokes about "themselves" threatens to falsify the crude versions of the superiority and aggression theories of humor. Accordingly, it may well be the case t h a t the thesis of masochistic indulgence and even self-hatred on the p a r t of those telling jokes about "themselves" has been wheeled in to protect these more general theories. If the joke-tellers really were suffering from and revelling in self-hatred, then the occasions on which members of the minority meet and exchange jokes about their own group ought in general to be tense and hysterical. Yet they are frequently, perhaps usually, relaxed and good-humored, and the jokes are told in a positive spirit (for example, see Jarvenpa, 1976). Almost by definition the members of an ethnic minority differ from the dominant majority in t h a t they have to live in two cultures which may well differ in language, religion, values, and way of life (cf. Glazer and Moynihan, 1975). In consequence they are able to laugh both at their own mores and at those of the dominant group, since each can be seen relative to the other. By contrast, most of the members of the majority are snugly trapped in their own normality and can only laugh at the way in which minorities deviate from this taken for granted world.

Christie Davies

/

31

For the members of the minority, there are two ways in which an individual can fail to conform successfully. One is by being unable to live up to the public expectations of the majority, for example by failing to m a s t e r properly the dominant language of the society. This is the basis of the successive American jokes and dialect stories about dumb Paddies (with a brogue), Svenskas, Norskies, Polacks, and so on. Not only WASPs but also all those of minority ancestry who feel they have demonstrated the necessary basic competence in mastering the language and culture are in a position to joke about the remn a n t of the ethnic minority who have not and to enjoy the laughter of superiority (for example, see Ben-Amos, 1973; Danielson, 1975). The jokes in this category will be very numerous, as they will be invented and understood by majority and minority alike, though, as we shall see, they may well differ in meaning for the two groups. The second mode of failure is t h a t demonstrated by those who have excessively taken on the way of life of the majority to the point where they seem to be neglecting or even leaving their ancestral group and to be in danger of assimilating. There are fewer standard set piece jokes about such individuals, 1 but they are often mocked and derided for being "bananas," "cocoa-nuts," lace-curtain Irish, Bootsies, Mayfair Highlanders, cut-glass Welsh, or agrigandos with a far more aggressive humor t h a n t h a t of the set piece ethnic jokes and anecdotes. 2 In practice, then, individual members of minority groups can and do enjoy humor directed at other members of their own group, including at times superiority h u m o r and aggressive humor, though in very different ways and under very different circumstances from those postulated by the upholders of the masochistic self-hatred thesis. The members of a minority can laugh at their own group in many different ways, including those favored by the majority, because of the high degree of social (and in the case of subnations or peripheral nations, geographical) differentiation of all minorities who are the butts of majority jokes (see Ben-Amos, 1973) and through the ability of each individual member of a minority group to manipulate and slide between his or her majority and minority reference groups in such a way t h a t the joke never applies to him or her personally. In this way English jokes about foolish Irishmen get told in Ireland about the people of Kerry (the county most remote from Britain) and by those of Irish descent in England about recent arrivals from Ireland; English jokes about canny Scots become Scots' jokes about Aberdeen. Similarly, Middleton (1959) has suggested t h a t the middle-class Negroes in his sample liked jokes about Negroes more t h a n the lower-class Negroes did because they saw the jokes as referring only to the lowerclass group; and Ben-Amos (1973) concluded from his field work among American Jews t h a t they told jokes about other groups of Jews from whom they dissociated themselves. In particular, as so

32

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

often in America, dialect stories were told by the second generation (who h a d safely m a s t e r e d the English language and American culture) about their predecessors in the first generation. Adherents of the self-deprecation thesis tend to confuse the mythical and conventional scripts (see Raskin, 1985) on which ethnic jokes are based (for example, the canny Scotsman) with stereotypes. A stereotype is a strong belief that the butts of the joke really do bear the characteristics imputed to t h e m in the joke to the point where it would influence one's behavior toward particular individuals, for example, Scots thought to be canny. In many cases, of course, there can be no such connection between script and stereotype because there is no real belief corresponding to the mythical script of the joke. Canadians tell jokes about filthy Newfies, and the French tell jokes about stupid Belgians, b u t there are no significant corresponding stereotypes. In other cases serious stereotypes do exist, b u t the relationship between jokes and stereotypes is problematic, for m a n y of those who invent and enjoy the jokes do not believe in the stereotypes. This is especially significant where those who are telling the jokes also belong to the group t h a t is the butt of the jokes, for while they clearly know t h a t outsiders hold a negative stereotypical view of them, it would be quite wrong to assume t h a t their liking for the corresponding jokes implies acceptance of the stereotype held by the others. Indeed, the members of the minority may make skillful use of the humorous script as a way of repudiating or transmogrifying the stereotype. There is an interesting example of this in Pahl's (1984) economic and ethnographic study of the Isle of Sheppey, a formerly isolated and marshy area on the north coast of Kent in England. Outsiders have an image of Sheppey folk as inbred and stupid. The local people are proud of themselves and their island b u t are well a w a r e of the stereotype held by outsiders. U n d e r these circumstances, says Pahl, they express and yet cover their pride by a selfmocking joke: "I was shown on a number of occasions how a crude drawing of E a s t Anglia and the Thames Estuary could demonstrate t h a t Sheppey was a piece of shit in the arse 'ole of England," (189). Negative stereotypes can also usually be reinterpreted in a positive way, especially if the stereotypers and the stereotyped have opposed values (see Apte, 1985, p. 142). Thus the Englishman's view of the phlegmatic Dutchman or the grimacing F r e n c h m a n can easily be changed to the sensible Dutchman and the polite F r e n c h m a n (see Arnold, 1910, p. 101). This is especially true in the case of ambiguous utter-ances, such as jokes which can have very different meanings for different ethnic audiences (see Burma, 1946, p. 712; Zenner, 1970, p. I l l ) or for people holding different value positions (Brown and Bryant, 1983). Jokes about the crafty, stingy, dour, joyless Scots are also jokes about the shrewd, thrifty, serious Scots; jokes about the wild, drunken Irish are also jokes about the madcap, convivial Irish;

Christie Davies /

33

jokes about the crude, coarse, unrefined Australians are also jokes about t h e matey, democratic, uninhibited, classless A u s t r a l i a n s ; jokes about cowardly Italians are also jokes about sensible, peaceful Italians; jokes about the devious, cunning Welsh are also jokes about the clever, subtle Welsh, and so on. In this way ethnic jokes t h a t are told from outside as mockery can become assertions of autonomy and vitality when told by the butts themselves (cf. Dundes, 1971). Mendel indeed declares t h a t the message of the Jewish joke mocking Jewish "shortcomings" is a defiant "This is the way we are, the way we always have been and the way we always will be!" (1970, p. 173; see also Cornell, 1986). Perhaps a similar construction can be put on the joke "The Priest and the Bird," told by an "old religious" Druze to Zenner: A priest found a bird was continually sitting on the cross in the church and defecating on it. Finally he decided to do something about this. He put on the cross a small piece of pork and a small glass of arak. The bird came and ate the pork and drank the arak and then fell to the floor in a drunken stupor. The priest said: "What kind of bird are you? If you were a Christian you wouldn't defecate on the cross. If you were a Jew you wouldn't eat pork. If you were a Muslim you wouldn't drink arak. So you m u s t be a Druze." (1970, pp. 101-2). It should by now be clear t h a t the telling of self-mocking jokes is very widespread among all m a n n e r of minorities b u t t h a t it is doubtful w h e t h e r t h e s e jokes are self-derogatory a n d t h a t the masochistic self-hatred thesis is a nonstarter. Indeed, it is difficult to see why it should ever have been t a k e n seriously given t h e widespread popularity of jokes at the expense of one's own group among the members of professions such as lawyers, doctors, the clergy, or academics who have entered callings t h a t are an important source of personal identity comparable to t h a t conferred by ethnicity. Yet in each case it is the members of the profession concerned who tend to be t h e source of jokes about crooked lawyers, greedy, callous, or incompetent doctors, weird psychiatrists, self-serving, bigoted, or foolish clerics, absent-minded, pedantic, or mad professors. Likewise, both liberals and conservatives enjoy jokes at the expense of their own group or ideology (G. D. Wilson, 1973). Even more striking is the case of individual politicians who have been known not only to collect and cherish the jokes others have made at their expense but to use jokes to dispel specific accusations made against them. Thus, as Charles Schutz (1977) h a s shown, Barry Goldwater, Lyndon B. Johnson, J o h n F. Kennedy, Al Smith, and Adlai Stevenson deliberately mocked themselves as being, respectively, reactionary, a wheeler-dealer, Roman Catholics under the control of the pope, and overly intellectual as a way of neutralizing serious statements about

34

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

t h e m being p u t about by their opponents. Self-deprecatory jokes denied or rendered harmless a negative political image of t h e m as individuals. Likewise, Roosevelt's joke about the personal hostility his patrician radicalism had aroused among those opposed to his policies served to defuse it: Every day a businessman on his way to the office would buy a newspaper, glance at the front page and t h e n throw it away. After several years of this, the vendor one day asked him what he was expecting to see in the paper. "I'm looking to see if someone h a s died," replied the businessman. "But the obituaries are on the back page," said the vendor. "This one won't be," came the reply. It is of course possible t h a t Jewish humor is uniquely different a n d t h a t the self-deprecation and masochistic self-hatred thesis applies only in the case of the Jews. It is not supported, though, by the observation t h a t the self-mocking jokes told by Jews are more numerous or funnier t h a n those told by other peoples. The preeminence of Ashkenazi Jews in joking and h u m o r of all kinds thoroughly dilutes such a claim, for there are in consequence more and funnier Jewish jokes about most subjects, and these include numerous jokes t h a t on the face of it are Jewish assertions of superiority3 that deride Gentiles as being stupid (goyischeh kop) and frequently inebriated (shikker is the goy); poke fun at the faith of the Christians, including its most sacred mysteries; celeb r a t e J e w i s h brain-power and success in business, t h e professions, a n d intellectual life; and refer casually to t h e special relationship t h a t the chosen people enjoy with Him who chose them. What is the definition of a CPA (certified public accountant)? It's a Jewish boy who can't stand the sight of blood and stutters. (Dundes, 1971, p. 194) Why did God choose the Jews? Because Goyim annoy 'im. (See Rosten, 1983, p. 143) An old Jew is r u n down in front of a church. A priest r u n s out and whispers in his ear, "Do you believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?" The Jew opens his eyes. "I'm dying and he asks me riddles." (Eliezer, 1984, p. 26. See also pp. 30, 58, 87) JEWISH DROPOUT: A boy who didn't get his Ph.D. (Wilde, 1986, p. 127)

Christie Davies /

35

For the past five years Neidel had been a Christian Scientist. One Sunday morning as he was leaving the house to go to church, his wife seized his arm. "What's the m a t t e r with you?" she cried. You're wearing a yarmulkah!" "Oy I forgot!" groaned Israel. "It's my goyisheh kupl" (Wilde, 1986, p. 167) Q. Why did God make goyim? A. Somebody has to buy retail. (Novak and Waldoks, 1981, p. 92) An elderly Jewish m a n walks into a jewelry store to buy his wife a present. "How much is this?" he asks the clerk, pointing to a sterling silver crucifix. "That's six hundred dollars, sir," replies the clerk. "Nice," says the man. "And without the acrobat?" (Novak and Waldoks, 1981, p. 219) On Houston Street, a young priest saw a large sign over a hardware store: PINCUS AND O'TOOLE. The priest went in to be greeted by a m a n with a beard and yarmulkah. The priest smiled, "I j u s t wanted to come in to tell you how wonderful it is to see t h a t your people and mine have become such good friends — even partners. That's a surprise." "I've got an even bigger surprise," sighed the old man. "I'm O'Toole." (Rosten, 1970, p. 145) "Was Harry Truman a Jew?" asked the emigrant. "No," replied the social worker. "What gave you the idea he was?" "Such a great m a n and not a Jew?" the emigrant pondered. (Harris and Rabinovich, 1988, p. 272) Two poor and elderly Jews looking for a warm place on a cold day made their way into a Catholic church. They found seats at the back of the sanctuary and looked around in astonishment at the ornate fixtures. In the front a ceremony was taking place as a hundred white-robed nuns were being inducted into the order. Noticing the unusual visitors, a young priest went over to the men. "Excuse me, gentlemen," he said, "but what exactly brings you here today?" "Not to worry," said one of the visitors. "We're from the groom's side." (Novak and Waldoks, 1981, p. 96) These self-gratulatory jokes refer to two main aspects of social reality, namely, the exalted religious position of the Jewish people

36

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

and t h e indisputable secular success of individual J e w s in t h e Western capitalist countries. T h a t the Jews are a holy people set a p a r t by God is the core belief of J u d a i s m and (however much Christians or Muslims may deny or distort the fact) was a necessary historical preliminary to Christianity and Islam. The disproportionately great intellectual contribution of individual Western Jews to the physical and social sciences, to mathematics and philosophy, to history and literature, to law and politics, to film, drama, and music is overwhelmingly obvious a n d likely to continue. The r a t e s of upward mobility of individual Jews in Britain (Gould, 1984; Holmes, 1979) and America (Herburg, 1960; Rinder, 1973) are very high indeed, and in consequence the Jews are concentrated in professional, business, and white-collar occupations (Herburg, 1960). It is a striking p a t t e r n of achievement for people whose ancestors were often penurious immigrants or even refugees and whose success was often achieved in the face of opposition, prejudice, and discrimination not only from the majority but from other minorities as well (for example, see Bayor, 1978; Fisk, 1985; Holmes, 1979). It certainly differentiates the Jews from those ethnic minorities whose members have not on the whole succeeded in the anonymous competition of the marketplace and the examination hall. This aspect of Jewish social experience h a s produced a humor t h a t appears to be the opposite of self-deprecating, though it could just be argued t h a t self-gratulation had to take the form of jokes because overt serious s t a t e m e n t s would have triggered the hostility of a prejudiced majority resentful of Jewish "over-achievement" and apt to construe it in a negative way (cf. Merton, 1957). As against this, it should be noted both that these self-gratulation jokes have especially proliferated in contemporary English-speaking countries where antiSemitism is a social nuisance r a t h e r t h a n a political t h r e a t (Rosenberg and Shapiro, 1958) and t h a t historically the Scots did not allow their regular and uninhibited proclamation of superiority (Here's tae us, wha's like us?!) to interfere with their inventing and telling jokes on this same theme. The other relevant and distinctive factor in the history of the Jews t h a t sets t h e m a p a r t from other minorities is the extraordinary, indeed possibly unique (see Cohn, 1970, pp. 279-91; Friedlander, 1976, p. 40) degree of hostility and persecution t h a t they have suffered at the hands of others. To some extent there is a parallel in the hostility and persecution experienced by other entrepreneurial minorities such as the Armenians in Turkey, the Chinese in Southeast Asia, or the Asians in East Africa (see Davies, 1972; Hagen, 1962, p. 249; Reitlinger, 1967, p. 98; Toynbee, 1915). Indeed, in the case of the last of these Paul Theroux (1967) has in his article "Hating the Asians" compared their "self-deprecating humor" to Jewish humor. Nonetheless, there is nothing to match the sheer virulence, persistence, and

Christie Davies

/

37

genocidal impact of anti-Semitism, which has come to constitute a coherent though crackpot ideology. Anti-Semitism was particularly vicious a n d t h r e a t e n i n g in Europe in t h e l a s t q u a r t e r of t h e nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth, and even in those countries less affected, the awareness and memory of its destructive force rendered it a real threat. Many of the jokes in circulation about Jews are congruent with what we know to be the key themes in anti-Semitic ideology. The jokes are not p a r t of this ideology, b u t there is a correspondence between t h e comic images of avarice and consipiracy of the one and the serious and hostile beliefs of the other. One of the larger sets of jokes of this type consists of jokes about Jews burning down their own store or business fraudulently to get the insurance money. Given the large number of Jewish t r a d e r s dealing in inflammable dry goods (Jones, 1960), it is probably the case t h a t there have been proportionately more J e w i s h t h a n non-Jewish i n s u r a n c e a r s o n i s t s despite the generally very low crime rates among Jews (see Glazer, 1961) simply for reasons of skill, opportunity, and temptation. In and of itself this would be no more noteworthy and no more likely to grip the attention of the serious or joking publics than, say, the generally high crime rate of Roman Catholics in Britain (see "Catholics and Crime," 1981) or t h e high suicide r a t e of Czech-Americans (see Sainsbury and Barraclough, 1968, p. 1252). However, it is a theme t h a t has at times become a preoccupation, indeed almost an obsession, of many committed anti-Semites, who in Britain have long referred to fires as "Jewish lightning" and to the noise of a fire engine as "Jewish wedding bells" (see Robb, 1954, pp. 107-9). Indeed, it is likely t h a t insurance arson is for them a metaphor of the classic anti-Semitic view (Podhoretz, 1986) of the "Jew as manipulator of malign power dangerous to everyone else." During the first half of the twentieth century jokes about Jewish insurance arson were very common in anthologies of jokes: Blum met Levy. "You are looking pleased with yourself this morning, Levy. What is going on?" Levy rubbed his hands together. "Ah yes, I a m pleased with life. J u s t think — today I have insured myself against fire and hail." Blum thought for a moment. "Fire I can understand . . . but how do you start a hail-storm?" (Geiger, 1923, p. 11) Within and Without the Ghetto "I m u s t congratulate you, Mothes, dot vos a g r a n d t fire of yours last Tuesday."

38

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

"Vat yer mean? Not last Tuesday, next Tuesday." (May, 1914, p. 41) Talking about insurance, Robinski, he said "Here is a strange letter I got from ze insurance company about a shop of mine in ze Brompton Road — Sir, — we understand you effected a policy of insurance over premises occupied by you in Brompton Road yesterday afternoon. We are informed t h a t the premises took fire at half-past four the same afternoon when considerable damage was done. Kindly explain the delay. "It is very funny," Robinski he said, "and I do not know vot to write in reply." (MacDonald, 1915, p. 62; Ferguson, 1933, p. 168) A Jew crossing the Brooklyn Bridge met a friend who said: "Abe, I'll bet you ten dollars t h a t I can tell you exactly w h a t you're thinking about." "Veil," agreed Abe, producing a greasy bill, "I'll have to take dat bet. Put up your money." The friend produced two fivers. "Abe," he said, "You are t h i n k i n g of going over to Brooklyn, buying a small stack of goods, r e n t i n g a small store, t a k i n g out all t h e fire insurance t h a t you can possibly get and then burning out. Do I win my bet?" "Veil," replied Abe, "You don't exactly vin, but the idea is worth de money. Take id." (Patten, 1909, p. 173) The Cause of the Fire There h a d been a conflagration at Isaac's tailoring e s t a b l i s h ment and the usual enquiry was taking place. "And what do you think was the cause of the fire?" asked t h e I n s u r a n c e Inspector. "I t h i n k it was t h e gas light," replied Isaac. The Inspector looked dubious, so Isaac's friend Cohen broke in with: "You vos wrong, Isaac mine frient. I think it vos the electric light." But the Inspector wrote down in his report: "Cause of fire — Israelite." (Robey, 1920, pp. 228-29) The tone of some of these jokes can perhaps be termed inflammatory; also, such jokes have been explicitly referred to by writers describing actual cases of Jewish arson in a way t h a t h a s played up the largely irrelevant ethnicity of the participants. A good example of this is to be seen in David Master s's (1937) account of the g r e a t London "Harris fire conspiracy," in which he half suggests t h a t his readers should take seriously the comic canards about Jewish fireraisers:

Christie Davies

/

39

The tendency of the average m a n who heard t h a t J e w s were wandering about the country raising fires would be to regard the story as a variation of the old joke and leave the fire-raisers to go on lighting fires in peace. Fortunately for the insurance companies and underwriters, Mr. William Charles Crocker was not the average man. He was a solicitor who specialized in sifting t h e claims m a d e a g a i n s t u n d e r w r i t e r s and i n s u r a n c e companies, consequently the trickery and knavery revealed by his logical mind made him realize t h a t there is no smoke without fire and t h a t even a jest may contain the germ of t r u t h . The ultimate result, as the whole world knows, was the sensational fire conspiracy trial which flared up on July 4, 1933 and raged for thirty-three days at the Old Bailey at the end of which time Leopold Harris was sent to fourteen years penal servitude and his fellow conspirators both Jew and Gentile to varying terms of imprisonment. Let t h e r e be no mistake about the intelligence of Leopold Harris. He was a clever man, with all the acumen of his race developed to an exceptional degree and such an extraordinary memory t h a t it remains a source of wonderment to those who laid him by the heels. The fire-raising activities of Harris were necessarily of the most intricate character, so involved t h a t it seems impossible for anyone to follow t h e m through all their ramifications without copious notes or books for guidance. But Harris had such a prodigious memory t h a t he could recall at will the most trifling things about all his activities. (Pp. 64-65) M a s t e r s ' s account h a s t h e flavor of t h e t h o u g h t l e s s social prejudice of his class and time r a t h e r t h a n virulent political antiSemitism. An illuminating example of Masters's crass amplification of the ethnic dimension in his tale is to be seen in his use of the p h r a s e "[Harris's] fellow conspirators both Jew and Gentile." Not only is the largely irrelevant identification of Harris and many of his colleagues in arson as Jewish unnecessarily emphasized, b u t the precise ethnic identity of t h e non-Jewish conspirators r e m a i n s undisclosed. They are referred to as Gentiles, t h a t is, they are defined entirely in terms of their automatic relation of oppositeness to the central Jewish conspirators. In contrast to this is Masters's (1937) description of the victims of Harris's insurance frauds: "That he [Harris] was not satisfied by an honest income is well known, but it is impossible to state when he first departed from the path of rectitude and started to despoil the Christians, otherwise the underwriters and insurance companies" (p. 66). No evidence is provided by Masters to demonstrate t h a t the underwriters were Christians rather t h a n Jews, Parsees, Hindus, or atheists, and it is difficult to see how a large, impersonal, secular

40

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

corporation such as an insurance company can be said to subscribe to a particular faith. None of Harris's Gentile aides is described as a Christian. There is a hint here of the traditional anti-Semitic view t h a t the Jews are dangerous outsiders who conspire to despoil their host community, the honest, innocent Christians. Where it is not clear from the evidence t h a t a particular conspirator with a blandly Anglo-Saxon sounding name was in fact Jewish, Masters is quick to point out the original Jewish-sounding name of his family; for example, "Harry Gould who had been known in his earlier years as Goldstein" (1937, p. 73), and "Louis Jarvis who had changed his name by deed poll from Jacobs" (p. 74). By contrast, no such explanatory ethnic glosses are added to the names of the Gentile conspirators such as Captain Eric B. Miles, M. C. officer, gentleman, and thoroughly corrupt chief of the London Salvage Corps. It is only from the list of illustrations tucked away among the unnumbered pages at the front of Masters's book t h a t we learn t h a t the worthy captain's full n a m e was Eric Brynmor Miles, and t h u s his ethnic origin as one of the sons of Gomer. Masters probably did not even notice the name or its implications because he was not searching for ethnic associations other than Jewish ones. Sed Miles sed pro patria. Indeed, very few readers of Masters's book will have ever picked out the true ethnic affiliation of the m a n in the photograph, the City-bowlerh a t t e d , reliable-Baldwin-pipe-smoking, officer-gloved, disciplinemoustached, impeccably English, indeed almost Anglo-Milesian Miles (Masters, 1937, between pp. 98 and 99). Given the highly prejudiced way in which insurance arson was described in the interwar period, a high and rising level of antiSemitism, and the ease with which the jokes seem to slip into these threatening frameworks, it is easy to see why many editors of books of jokes about Jews (but not about other ethnic groups) carry disclaimers of malign intent to try and reassure anxious or angry Jewish readers (for example, see Hicks, 1936, pp. 214-15; Junior, 1927, p. 3). Raymond Geiger (1923), editor of the anthology Histoires juives, which contains the first of the arson jokes cited above (it is the first joke in the book), felt obliged to write the following apologia: Jews and Christians alike have objected t h a t this collection of jokes nourishes anti-Semitic passions. Love of money, cowardice, cunning, dishonesty — these are the characteristics ascribed to the Jews in these stories. There is a misunderstanding here [for] in judging men irony is worth as much as indignation. Besides isn't the folk-lore of all peoples largely constituted by tales and jokes which glorify trickery at the expense of honest folk. What would one think of someone who assessed people from the South of France on the basis of the filthy stories of the "cycle d'Olive"? (Pp. 207-8)

Christie Davies /

41

The jokes, while not in and of themselves anti-Semitic, can certainly be used for anti-Semitic purposes (on this distinction see also Levin, 1979, p. 214). An instance would be T. W. H. Crosland's malicious and prejudiced book, The Fine Old Hebrew Gentleman, which sandwiches three pages of "Jew Stories" (1922, pp. 74-77) between two long sections of violent and at times paranoid antiSemitic abuse. Under circumstances like these it is not surprising to find t h a t in the experiments done in America by Wolff, Smith, and Murray (1934) Jews rated jokes about greedy, stingy, or dishonest Jews much lower then Gentiles did. The experimenters also found t h a t when they turned these jokes into similar jokes about the Scots, the Jews rated them somewhat higher, b u t even so, they still rated the Scottish jokes lower t h a n the Gentiles did. Even Scottish jokes, when presented in the inevitably self-consciously serious context of a social psychological experiment without the reassuring cues t h a t are present when friends and acquaintances exchange jokes, seem to have been an unpleasant reminder of the hostility of one's enemies out there in the real world. Yet, then as now, jokes essentially similar to those used by Wolff but of Jewish origin were in circulation, including fire insurance jokes,4 which, if told by a non-Jew, might well have been denounced as anti-Semitic (Bermant, 1986, pp. 214, 242). It is these jokes told and invented by Jews themselves t h a t have been the basis of the view that Jewish humor is not merely self-deprecating but masochistically self-denigrating or even self-hating. The argument, ironically, is fallacious for the reason given by Rosenberg and Shapiro: "Sam Levinson and the sociologist Milton Barron have independently observed t h a t the jokes Jews tell to one another about themselves are fundamentally different in spirit (even when identical in words) from those told about them by Gentiles with anti-Semitic intent" (1958, p. 70). Jokes are ambiguous comic utterances without a single clear meaning, and their relation to aggression or fear is variable and problematic. Jokes are playful aggression and play with aggression and are not necessarily a mask for real but temporarily hidden or unrecognized hostility. Tendentiousness is not a quality of a joke as such but is a quality of the teller. It is the teller who decides by choice of tone and context whether he or she is playing at or with aggression and whether the play is rough or friendly. The differences between these are so large t h a t it is meaningless to bundle them all together as common examples of a "guilt-free expression of aggression" and to view Jewish jokes as a form of aggression masochistically turned inward (Grotjahn, 1970, pp. 135, 137). To argue in this fashion is to ignore the ambiguous n a t u r e of humor and to misunderstand the way in which individuals construct safe mock versions of real fears to amuse both themselves and others, as with the passengers who laugh as they emerge from their car after the helter-skelter or the big dipper, or the small child who

42

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

chuckles at a pretend attack from someone it knows and t r u s t s . Depending on context, the same joke can either inflame fears or domesticate and master them. When jokes are invented by the butts of the jokes themselves and told within the community or by one of its members, then they are likely to be perceived as safely funny. The self-mocking Jewish jokes are thus a way of coping with a difficult situation by an overt, controlled, and temporary fantasy t h a t combines imagination with reality (see Ziv, 1986, p. 53) to produce a laughter of endurance for those within the group. There may well be some individuals for whom this is an exercise in self-hatred, j u s t as there are some Jews who have embraced or even invented an alien religion or secular ideology and become anti-Semitic; b u t the vast majority of joke-telling Jews m u s t have remained loyal to their community. Martin Grotjahn's (1970) Jewish masochism thesis is, however, also based on his analysis of the communication of self-deprecatory Jewish jokes to potentially hostile outsiders. Grotjahn describes the Jewish joke-teller as "taking the enemy's dagger, splitting a hair in mid-air, stabbing himself and giving it back with the query 'can you do half as well?'" (137) This is a vivid b u t misleading image, for the point of getting hold of the dagger is not only to demonstrate superior dexterity b u t to switch daggers so t h a t an innocuous r a t h e r t h a n a potentially envenomed weapon is used. This is a tactic t h a t has both frustrated and infuriated anti-Semites, who see Jewish humor as humanizing those whom they wish to demonize and as making a people whom they seek to r e p r e s e n t as a malign t h r e a t a p p e a r comically harmless. Among the anti-Semites who disliked Jewish h u m o r and jokes about J e w s for this reason were the English journalist Crosland (1922) and Adolf Hitler (see Mein Kampf, 1926/1974, p. 287). There is, though, no point in asking whether the self-mockery of Jewish humor had any significant or long-run effect in hindering or, alternatively, encouraging anti-Semitism. There is no way of answering such a question, and even were an effect to be discernible, it would be utterly trivial in comparison with other political, economic, a n d religious forces. Jokes are t h e r m o m e t e r s t h a t help us to understand social reality; they are not thermostats controlling t h a t reality. The most striking and relevant aspect of the cultural a n d historical situations t h a t have produced the self-mocking jokes is their paradoxical quality. The paradox is the dichotomy between, first, the legitimate pride t h a t Jews have taken in their distinctive and learned religious and ethical tradition and in the remarkable intellectual eminence and entrepreneurial and professional achievem e n t of individual members of their community, and, second, the anti-Semitic abuse and denigration from hostile outsiders whose

Christie Davies

/

43

malice was fueled by Jewish autonomy and achievements. Neither of these elements on its own would have led to a self-mocking humor, but taken together they form a paradox, and for an intellectually alert and self-conscious people such paradoxes are likely to give rise to a humor t h a t is both a n outcome of the paradox and a way of living with it. The h u m o r is one of neither s t r e n g t h nor weakness, of confidence nor despair, but of a situation in which both are present. It is not the humor of unbalanced people b u t of people seeking and temporarily creating balance in a n unbalanced world. NOTES 1. Perhaps significantly, there are far more and funnier Jewish jokes about converts, apostates, and Jews pretending not to be Jewish than for any other group (cf. Dundes, 1971), probably because of the very close association of ethnicity and religion and the minute concern for defending boundaries characteristic of Judaism, which has been the reason why the Jews have survived repeated exile (see Davies, 1982). 2. The inference of aggressiveness is not based on content analysis which (though vital to an understanding of other issues) tells us very little about aggression. Rather it is based on observations about how jokes are used in relation to individuals; for example, Limon (1977) speaks of Mexican-American humor as "affectionate depreciation" in relation to those who conserve Mexican-American identity and eschew social mobility (see Schoeck, 1969), but as very aggressive toward agringados who are moving into the wider-American society. By his own account these individuals are forced to accept such attacks with "an attitude of anxiety, discomfort and concession" (Limon, 1977, p. 42). It is very significant that he is quite unable to see the unfairness and uncivility of treating people in this way, presumably because he shares the delusion that only members of dominant majorities can misuse humor to persecute individuals. The confusion of group autonomy and individual rights and their respective spheres runs throughout not only humor scholarship but the social sciences of liberal society. For a particularly inane version see Bourhis et al. (1977). 3. In humor, though, things are never quite what they seem. Just as selfmockery can hide pride, so too self-gratulatory jokes can contain doubts or accusations. It is worth noting that individuals responding to praise, such as Nobel laureates making acceptance speeches, employ an exaggerated humorous selfdeprecation in order that they may still appear modest, for the ambiguity of humor permits and requires the creation of comic images that are at once self-praise and self-deprecation (see Mulkay, 1987, pp. 249-57; and cf. Raskin, 1985, p. 220). In the world of humor things are never quite what they seem, and it is dangerous to try to reduce humorous statements to a single, straightforward, serious equivalent. 4. I can say with certainty that fire insurance jokes are both invented and told by British Jews today. When I have lectured to Jewish audiences about this humor, the older people present have told me that this was also the case in the period before World War II both in Britain and elsewhere. The lectures also elicited reminiscences about real fires. These ranged from a retired Jewish cabinet maker's reminiscences of fires in the business premises of neighboring Jewish craftsmen to a Polish Jewish intellectual's statement that in one small town of his former native country the insurance companies refused to do business with the inhabitants because there had been so many fires in the premises of Jewish small businessmen

44

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

who wanted to realize their capital in order to emigrate (that is, the insurance bookvalue was greater than the market value of the business). These fires were conducted in a very responsible way, as the arsonist would take care to warn his neighbors in advance so that they would not suffer injury.

REFERENCES Apte, M. L. (1985) Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press. Arnold, M. (1910) On the Study of Celtic Literature and Other Essays. London: J. ML Dent. Barron, M. L. (1950) "A Content Analysis of Inter-group Humor." American Sociological Review 15, ho. 1: 88-94. Bayor, R. H. (1978) Neighbors in Conflict: The Irish, Germans, Jews and Italians of New York City 1929-41. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ben-Amos, D. (1973) "The Myth of Jewish Humor." Western Folklore 32, no. 2: 112-31. Bermant, C. (1986) What's the Joke. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Bourhis, R. Y., N. J. Gadfield, H. Giles, and H. Tajfel. (1977) "Context and Ethnic Humor in Intergroup Relations." In It's a Funny Thing, Humour. Edited by A. J. Chapman, and H. C. Foot. Oxford: Pergamon. Brown, D., and J. Bryant. (1983) "Humor in the Mass Media." In Handbook of Humor Research. Edited by P. E. McGhee and J. E. Goldstein, vol. 2, Applied Studies. New York: Springer Verlag. Burma, J. H. (1946) "Humor as a Technique in Race Conflict." American Sociological Review 11: 710-15. Carritt, E. F. (1922-23) "A Theory of the Ludicrous, a Footnote to Croce's Aesthetic." Hibbert Journal 21: 552-64. "Catholics and Crime." (1981) The Month 262, no. 1368 (September): 293-300. Cohn, N. (1970) Warrant for Genocide: the Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Cornell, G. W. (1986) "Jewish Humor." Washington Post, May 31. Crosland, T.W.H. (1922) The Fine Old Hebrew Gentleman. London: T. Werner Laurie. Danielson, L. (1975) "The Dialect Trickster among the Kansas Swedes." Indiana Folklore 8, no. 1-2: 39-58. Davies, C. (1972) "Asians of East Africa." Quest 77: 33-39. (1982) "Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries." American Journal of Sociology 87, no. 5: 1032-63. (1990) Ethnic Humor Around the World: A Comparative Analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Dundes, A. (1971) "A Study of Ethnic Slurs: The Jew and the Polack in the United States." Journal of American Folklore 84, no. 332: 186-203. Eliezer, B. (1984) The World's Best Jewish Jokes. North Ryde, Australia: Angus and Robertson. Feinburg, L. (1978) The Secret of Humor. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Ferguson, J. (1933) The Table in a Roar. London: Methuen. Fisk, R. (1985) In Time of War. London: Paladin. Freud, S. (1960) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. Vol. 8 of Complete Psychological Works. London: Hogarth. Friedlander, S. (1976) "The Historical Significance of the Holocaust." Jerusalem Quarterly 1: 36-59. Geiger, R., ed. (1923) Histoires juives. Paris: Nouvelle Revue Francaise.

Christie Davies

/

45

Glazer, N. (1961) "Social Characteristics of American Jews." In The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion. Vol. 2. Edited by L. Finkelstein. London: Peter Owen. Glazer, N. and D. P. Moynihan, eds. (1975) Ethnicity, Theory and Experience. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Gould, J. (1984) Jewish Commitment: A Study in London. London: Institute of Jewish Affairs. Greenburg, A. (1972) "The Ethnic Joke: Form and Function." Keystone Folklore Quarterly 17, no. 4: 144-56. Grotjahn, M. (1970) "Jewish Jokes and Their Relation to Masochism." In A Celebration of Laughter. Edited by W. M. Mendel. Los Angeles: Mara. Hagen, E. E. (1962) On the Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins. Home wood, ill.: Dorsey. Harris, D. A., and I. Rabinovich. (1988) The Jokes of Oppression: The Humor of Soviet Jews. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson. Herburg, W. (1960) Protestant, Catholic, Jew. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Hicks, S. (1936) Laugh with Me. Norwich: Soman. Hitler, Adolf. (1974) Mein Kampf. London: Hutchinson (1926). Holmes, C. (1979) Anti-Semitism in British Society 1876-1939. London: Edward Arnold. Jarvenpa, R. (1976) "Visual Expression in Finnish-American Ethnic Slurs." Journal of American Folklore 89, no. 351: 90-91. Jones, M. A. (1960) American Immigration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Junior, A. (1927) The Aberdeen Jew. Dundee: Valentine. Kravitz, S. (1977) "London Jokes and Ethnic Stereotypes." Western Folklore 36, no. 4: 275-301. Kusielewicz, E. (1969) "Reflections on the Cultural Conditions of the PolishAmerican Community." Edited by Renkiewicz, 1973. pp. 97-106. Levin, B. (1979) Taking Sides. London: Jonathan Cape. Limon, J. E. (1977) "Agringado Joking in Texas Mexican Society: Folklore and Differential Identity." New Scholar 6: 33-50. MacDonald, W. H. (1915) Yarns, Ancient and Modern. Edinburgh: Hodge. Masters, D. (1937) What Men Will Do for Money. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. May, P. (1914) Humorous Masterpieces. Glasgow: Gowans and Gray. McCosh, S. (1976) Children's Humour. London: Grenada. Mendel, W. M. (1970) A Celebration of Laughter. Los Angeles: Mara. Merton, R. K. (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. Middleton, R. (1959) "Negro and White Reactions to Racial Humor." Sociometry 22: 175-83. Middleton, R., and J. Moland. (1959) "Humor in Negro and White Subcultures: A Study of Jokes among University Students." American Sociological Review 24: 61-69. Mikes, G. (1980) English Humour for Beginners. London: Unwin. Mulkay, M. (1987) "Humour and Social Structure." In Social Theory and Social Criticism. Edited by M. Oathwaite and M. Mulkay. Oxford: Blackwell. Novak, W., and M. Waldoks, eds. (1981) The Big Book of Jewish Humor. New York: Harper and Row. Pahl, R. E. (1984) Divisions of Labour. Oxford: Blackwell. Patten, W. (1909) Among the Humorists and After-Dinner Speakers. New York: P. F. Collier. Podhoretz, N. (1986) "The Hate that Dare Not Speak Its Name." Commentary 82, no. 5: 21-32. Raskin, V. (1985) Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

46

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Reitlinger, G. (1967) The Final Solution. London: Valentine Mitchell. Rinder, I. R. (1973) "Mental Health of American Jewish Urbanites: A Review of Literature and Predictions." In Ethnic Groups of America: Their Morbidity, Mortality and Behavior Disorders. Vol. 1, The Jews. Edited by A. Shiloh and I. C. Selavon. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. Robb, J. H. (1954) Working Class Anti-Semite. London: Tavistock. Robey, G. (1920) After-Dinner Stories. London: Grant Richards. Rosenberg, B., and G. Shapiro. (1958) "Marginality and Jewish Humor." Midstream 4: 70-80. Rosten, L. (1970) The Joys of Yiddish. London: W. H. Allen. . (.(1983) Hooray for Yiddish: A Book about English. London: Elm Tree.1983) Hooray for Yiddish: A Book about English. London: Elm Tree. Sainsbury, P., and B. Barraclough. (1968) "Differences Between Suicide Rates." Nature 220, 5173 (December 21). Schoeck, H. (1969) Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour. London: Seeker and Warburg. Schutz, C. E. (1977) Political Humor from Aristophanes to Sam Ervin. Cranbury, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Schwartz, A. (1973) Witcracks: Jokes and Jests from American Folklore. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Theroux, P. (1967) "Hating the Asians." Transition 7 (ii), no. 33: 46-51. Toynbee, A. J. (1915) Armenian Atrocities: The Murder of a Nation. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Welsch, R. L. (1967) "American Numskull Tales: The Polack Joke." Western Folklore 26: 183-86. Wilde, L. (1986) The Ultimate Jewish Joke Book. New York: Bantam Books. Wilson, C. P. (1979) Jokes: Form, Content, Use and Function. London: Academic Press. Wilson, G. D. (1973) "Conservatism and Response to Humour." In The Psychology of Conservatism. Edited by G. D. Wilson. London: Academic Press. Wolff, H. A., C. E. Smith, and H. A. Murray. (1934) "The Psychology of Humor: A Study of Responses to Race-Disparagement Jokes." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 28, no. 4. Zenner, W. P. (1970) "Joking and Ethnic Stereotyping." Anthropological Quarterly 43: 93-113. Ziv, A. (1984) Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer. . (1986) "Psycho-social Aspects of Jewish Humor in Israel and in the Diaspora." In Jewish Humor. Edited by A. Ziv. Tel Aviv: Papyrus.

4 Three Jews and a Blindfold: The Politics of Gallows Humor Paul Lewis

Take a joke seriously and it dies; fail to take it seriously and it may kill. Joke and anti-joke, three Jews and a blindfold: Three Jews are about to be shot by a firing squad, and each is offered a blindfold by the captain of the squad. The first Jew takes the blindfold, and the second Jew takes the blindfold. When the third Jew says t h a t he would prefer not to wear a blindfold, the one next to him says, "Take a blindfold. Don't make trouble." Taking a joke seriously requires an analysis of its text and a consideration of its possible functions. The most striking feature of this joke text is its literal target: three Jews. If these men were described as Jewish bank robbers or rapists, we would probably assume t h a t the impending executions are the result of criminal prosecutions. Described as "three Jews," these men appear to be victims of their executioners' anti-Semitic hostility. Also prominent in this joke are the recounted and quoted snatches of conversation, t h e blindfolds which are either accepted or politely turned down, and a punch line based on the folly of worrying about offending someone who is about to kill you. What we have, then, is a joke about persecuted J e w s unwilling or unable to resist their persecution. Interestingly — or, perhaps, oddly — this joke has been cited as an example of the liberating power of humor. According to Harvey Mindess (1971), "When a Jew is amused at this old story, portraying as it does the absurd lengths to which the reputed propensity of Jews for avoiding u n p l e a s a n t scenes can go, he is exercising his ability to dispense with pride without rejecting himself because of his

48

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

idiosyncrasies" (p. 132). Elsewhere, Mindess et al. (1985) argue t h a t such jokes, when told by Jews, build social cohesion by conceding, "Yes, that's the way we tend to be, but it's okay" (p. 130). This argument assumes an in-group context ("told by Jews"), but a single joke can have m a n y tellers and m a n y audiences. How might this joke function as out-group humor? To take an extreme example, if one member of a firing squad were to tell this joke to the others to calm their nerves before an execution, would this be liberating? And even as in-group humor, when members of oppressed groups tell such jokes about themselves, are their jokes necessarily liberating, or can they serve as narcotics t h a t make their pain more bearable, and themselves therefore more likely to bear it? We might expect to derive answers to these questions from established thinking about the n a t u r e of gallows humor, of which this joke appears to be a prime example, but no single sense of this concept exists in the literature of humor research. Psychologists, following Freud, see such humor as a psychic process within a suffering individual, a process in which "the ego refuses to be distressed by the provocations of reality. . . . It insists t h a t it cannot be compelled to suffer, t h a t . . . t r a u m a s are no more t h a n occasions for it to gain pleasure" (Freud, 1961, p. 162). So conceived, gallows humor is one of the methods employed to evade pain, and Freud points out t h a t other methods include intoxication, self-absorption, and ecstasy. Sociologists, following Bergson, see gallows humor as in intergroup phenomenon, as "that humor t h a t grows out of attempts to transform their misery by poking fun at their oppressors" (Fine, 1983, vol. 1, p. 173). So defined, gallows humor is a subset of disparaging humor, amenable to the kind of analyses developed by Martineau (1972), Zillmann and Cantor (1976), and La Fave, Haddad, and Maesen (1976). While these definitions may have some common elements, they are not the same. Freud's classic example — about a condemned m a n being led to execution on a Monday morning who r e m a r k s , "What a way to start the week" — would not fit under the sociological definition because its gentle irony is not directed by a member of one group against the values or members of another group. An even more fundamental confusion plagues discussions of gallows humor, a confusion based on whether this kind of humor is defined simply in terms of its function or also in terms of its subject matter. The prisoner in Freud's joke derives some temporary relief from his jest, but would this be gallows humor if, instead of joking about his impending execution, he told an elephant joke? Is every joke told in a dangerous situation an example of gallows humor, or do only jokes about danger t h a t are told by endangered people fit into this category? When the prisoner in Freud's joke offers his comment to the guards, he is employing gallows humor. When Freud offers

Paul Lewis

/

49

the same joke as an illustration of an idea in his theory, it serves a different purpose and is, therefore, no longer gallows humor. If this is so, then a paradox La Fave et al. (1976) would appreciate follows: there is no such thing as an intrinsic piece of gallows humor; context is all-important. Held to a functional definition, gallows humor can occur only in situations where the joker is literally or figuratively on a gallows. And, although any joking done in such a situation may help the joker relax, a clear case of gallows humor will focus, by way of its subject matter, on the danger, playfully dismissing it through the resolution of the joke's incongruity. The most perplexing issue plaguing discussions of gallows humor is both psychic and political, revolving around the unconsidered assumption t h a t this humor is liberating. Freud insists t h a t gallows humor is liberating in the sense t h a t it allows us to distance ourselves from pain. Obrdlik, who spent nine months in occupied Czechoslovakia, insists t h a t this humor is liberating insofar as it "bolsters the resistance of the victims and, at the same time, . . . undermines the morale of the oppressors" (1942, p. 713). We are dealing here with two very different notions of liberation, one purely internal, t h e other both internal and political. Consider Freud's prisoner again. He may achieve a temporary liberation (that is, relief) through his joke, b u t his execution following the joke will prevent him from a prolonged enjoyment of this last laugh. It is, therefore, fair to wonder whether the fact t h a t he spends his last moments joking — r a t h e r t h a n looking for some way to escape, or resist, or protest — may help to seal his doom. The weakness of the term liberation in this context is starkly highlighted by the fate of Freud's prisoner: first he is liberated, then killed. He is liberated in the sense t h a t he experiences a moment of detachment from his fear or anxiety, but, as Freud notes, since this humor works by denying or evading reality, by definition the joke can do nothing to change the reality it evades. As with intoxication, when you sober up from this evasion, when your laugh withers to a smile and the smile fades from your face, the gallows still looms. Obrdlik's use of the term liberation is closer to its common political meaning. In his study Obrdlik does for gallows humor w h a t Emile Durkheim had done earlier for suicide: demonstrate a correlation between the occurrence of the event and other social norms and conditions. Obrdlik notes that before the invasion of Czechoslovakia one h e a r d m a n y lighthearted jokes about Nazi leaders, jokes t h a t manifested morale during a period of uncertainty. Immediately following the defeat of the Czech nation, this humor vanished, but only for a short time. Later, during the occupation, people directed their jokes against the Nazi order. Obrdlik's observations led him to conclude t h a t "gallows humor is an u n m i s t a k a b l e index of good morale and of the spirit of resistance of oppressed people" (p. 172).

50

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Obrdlik also claims t h a t gallows humor bolsters t h e morale of victims and u n d e r m i n e s the oppressors. B u t if this resistance inspired additional oppression, was the humor truly liberating? Obrdlik notes t h a t the Nazis responded to each new round of disparaging humor by launching a "new wave of mass arrests." And so, as with Freud's prisoner, we are left wondering who enjoyed the last laugh. The American revolutionary proclaimed, "Give me liberty, or give me death," never assuming they were the same thing. We like to identify with the users of gallows humor because it is n a t u r a l to empathize with people who are suffering, b u t is this empathy, this sense of shared goals, a definitive characteristic? Allow an example to pose the question: a kidnapper stands above his i n t e n d e d victim, a four-year-old g r a n d d a u g h t e r , heir to a large fortune. The police are closing in, and there is time only to kill and flee, having destroyed all evidence and the only witness. Perhaps he is nervous, having killed only two or three other children in the past. His hand trembles in fear; his stomach tightens with his fist. Before he can strike the killing blow, he hears loud steps outside. For a moment he panics — perhaps they will burst in and shoot him. In a moment he may be dead. But then gallows humor comes to his aid: every comic policeman he has ever seen or read about comes into his mind: Poe's Prefect of Police, Inspector Lestrade, the Keystone Kops. Relieved, his breathing back to normal, he raises the crowbar and brings it down on the sleeping child's head. Can this be gallows humor? Nothing in the literature precludes t h e possibility. We are inclined to identify with t h e prisoner in Freud's joke, to imagine t h a t he is a small man, a Chaplinesque victim, whose humor reveals a nobility of spirit. But he might just as easily be a convicted kidnapper or m u r d e r e r who h a s a habit of kidding when the work gets rough. With all of these complexities in mind, I w a n t to r e t u r n to the blindfold joke and to the too-simple notion t h a t it is liberating. I have said enough to indicate t h a t , depending on m a n y s i t u a t i o n a l variables — on who tells a joke and why it is told — it may be politically liberating or oppressive, psychologically t h r e a t e n i n g or relaxing, self-effacing or hostile. For this reason, if the concept of gallows humor is rooted in function, in many situations this joke about Jewish passivity would not be an instance of gallows humor even though its narrative takes place before an execution. If someone were to come up to you today in New York City and tell you this joke, it would be an instance of dark humor, of ethnic humor, but not of gallows humor, because neither the teller nor the listener would be in any apparent danger. In this instance, would the joke be liberating? It would in the psychological sense t h a t any humor experience briefly liberates us from the burden of being serious, b u t in a larger political sense, like much ethnic

Paul Lewis

/

51

humor, this joke can be oppressive. By assuming t h a t J e w s are passive, indeed by incorporating this slander into its resolution material (that is, the images or ideas we arrive at in the process of getting a joke), the joke can support an anti-Semitic stereotype, a stereotype especially comforting to those who might wish to attack and destroy Jews. If this seems extreme or prudishly hostile to ethnic humor, let me describe a more highly charged situation in which this joke might be told. We are somewhere in Poland in the early months of the German occupation, the Poland described in such a Holocaust memoir as Erna F. Rubinstein's The Survivor in Us All (1983). The German army has j u s t moved into a rural town and is preparing to murder almost all of the Jews caught in its net by rounding them up — 250 men, women, and children — in a single house and then setting it on fire. Perhaps this is the first time one of the German enlisted men has ever witnessed such brutality; perhaps he is nervous about how and whether the Jews will resist. A comrade, noticing this enlisted man's tension, tells him this joke to calm him down and brace him for the tough work of killing. In this case the joke would relax the G e r m a n soldier and serve as a m o n s t r o u s example of gallows humor. It has been argued, at least as far back as Bergson, t h a t the p r i m a r y social and political functions of humor are conservative, t h a t humor works in a given society, within and between subgroups, to reinforce accepted values, goals, a n d ideals. Bergson drew on Aristotle in developing the view t h a t in humor there is always "an unavowed intention to humiliate, and consequently to correct our neighbor" (1961, p. 103), t h a t is, to subvert and embarrass deviant behavior and thought. More recently, humor historian Joseph Boskin (1979) has studied the ways in which American humor expresses the values a n d concerns of dominant economic and political forces, noting that for every mild New Yorker cartoon about big business there are a thousand savage jokes circulating about such unvalued minority groups as homosexuals, African Americans, or Hispanics. Even in the case of intentional social satire, research h a s demonstrated t h a t it is all too easy for audiences to admire a bigot like Archie Bunker, even though his creator, Norman Lear, had another end in mind (Vidmar and Rokeach, 1974). Christopher P. Wilson has demonstrated t h a t , by virtue of its structural elements, humor is frequently a "cryptic conservative," t h a t by quickly dismissing problematic issues as resolvable and, therefore, only funny, humor urges us to laugh, not to think or act (1979, pp. 226-31). In this way, a joke about two "fags" screwing in a lightbulb is unlikely to invite serious reflection on the n a t u r e of h u m a n sexuality, and a Ronald Reagan joke about welfare queens is directed not toward problemsolving and reform but toward an easy avoidance of real problems. In

52

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

certain circumstances our joke about the three doomed J e w s can serve as evidence in support of all these theorists: by disparaging J e w s as weaklings, it can mock a cultural out-group; by implying t h a t a more violent reaction would be more normal, it can support macho responses; and by dismissing the situation in laughter, it can insidiously, unconsciously urge us to avoid any serious consideration of how victimized people are best able to resist their oppressors. "But it's only a joke," I can hear a chorus of humor buffs chanting. "Can't you take a joke?" Of course I can, but first I want to know where the joke is taking me. The problem is t h a t jokes like this one have taken, or helped take, so many victims to the slaughter. In his philosophic Holocaust memoir The Sunflower (1970), Simon Wiesent h a l describes the execution of t h r e e Jews on a public gallows in Lemberg. What Wiesenthal remembers is t h a t "a witty fellow . . . fastened to each body a piece of paper bearing the words 'kosher m e a t ' " (p. 60). It's only a joke. And Wiesenthal recalls t h a t Polish citizens on the streets of Lemberg days after this smiled and laughed a t concentration camp work details because they remembered the joke and saw the passing Jews as so much kosher meat walking by. B u t W i e s e n t h a l also r e m e m b e r s t h e jokes t h a t s u p p o r t e d concentration camp inmates through their ordeal. In this way a prisoner who has lost his faith in God jokes about wanting to sleep until God r e t u r n s . This, too, is only a joke, b u t because it brings comfort to the comfortless, it is also a miracle of hope t r i u m p h a n t over reality, the brief, tinsel miracle of gallows humor at its best. Regardless of who tells the blindfold joke, it is based on a blood libel, a slander of such monstrous proportions t h a t it can promote anti-Semitism and attacks on Jews. The image of three executed men appeals a t least unconsciously to t h e source of C h r i s t i a n antiSemitism: the notion t h a t Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. And almost anyone hearing this joke today will instinctively have recourse to the false notion t h a t Jews throughout history and especially during the Holocaust did not resist, t h a t we went to our graves like sheep. The history of the period, now being written, reveals quite a different picture: J e w i s h armed resistance was considerably more widespread t h a n h a s been . . . a s s u m e d . In E a s t e r n E u r o p e , a h i g h proportion of those who survived the first wave of m u r d e r s participated in armed activities. Jewish rebellions in Warsaw a n d elsewhere were the first u r b a n struggles a g a i n s t t h e Germans anywhere in Europe, and the Jewish rebellions in the camps were the only ones of their kind. [The] . . . conclusion t h a t Jewish armed resistance was proportionally higher t h a n t h a t of other people, with few exceptions, is probably t r u e . This is remarkable in light of the greater difficulties J e w s encountered

Paul Lewis

/

53

and of their lack of modern military tradition. (Bauer, 1979, pp. 33-34) If there were laws of humor, the first might be t h a t for every joke it is possible to construct equal and opposite anti-jokes, an anti-joke being an image or narrative t h a t uses the original joke's incongruityresolution material to expose the value assumptions of the original joke. The anti-joke lays bare its source joke by insisting on a serious emotional and intellectual reaction to ideas and images t h a t are quickly and playfully dismissed in the joke. The entire history of the Jewish resistance during World War II is a n anti-joke to the joke under discussion here, b u t one episode is especially appropriate: the events leading up to the public execution of three members of the resistance movement in he Vilna ghetto. The story of the Vilna ghetto movement is one of courage and resolve in the face of inhuman oppression, a story t h a t began with the establishm e n t of the ghetto and ended only with its complete destruction. Between these events — t h a t is, between September 1941 and September 1943 — ghetto fighters organized themselves into the United P a r t i s a n Organization (UPO) and declared t h a t they would pursue the following objectives: "to prepare for an armed revolt in the ghetto, to defend the lives and honor of the ghetto Jews, to carry out acts of sabotage against German installations and institutions, and to make contact with the partisan movements known to be taking place in the forests" (Eckman and Lazar, 1977, p. 23). In their armed struggle, the resistance did manage to send fighters from the ghetto to the forests and to inflict casualties on the German forces. Lester Eckman and Chaim Lazar's study of the Jewish partisans in Lithuania and White Russia during the Nazi occupation d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t the Vilna fighters would not have urged each other to stop making trouble and take the blindfold. A passage from this history is worth quoting at length insofar as it will bring us to the very moment of our joke, b u t in a different context: On "September, 23, 1943, the final liquidation of the Vilna ghetto had been ordered. The old, the sick, the weak were weeded out for s l a u g h t e r at Ponary; the others were separated, men from women" (ibid., p. 37). The men were loaded into boxcars; the women and children started on a death march to various camps. But while this was happening, the resistance fighters in t h e ghetto were b r e a k i n g out and a t t a c k i n g the G e r m a n forces. For hours the escaping members of the resistance struggled through the close and filthy t u n n e l s of t h e sewer system. Three Jews who managed to escape reached the cemetery, where they h a d hidden some guns. After picking them up, they were stopped by a German patrol. They started shooting and killed two German officers, but were taken alive after using up all their ammunition.

54

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

They were brought to the park where the last Jews were being sorted prior to deportation to Estonia. Three gallows were constructed: one for Yankel Kaplan, who had been a teacher; another for the lawyer Abraham Chwojnik; and the third for the twenty-year-old student Asa Big. Gestapo chief Kittel himself addressed the Jews, telling them t h a t this would be the fate of everyone who dared defy the Germans. He then s t r u n g up the three heroes. (Ibid., pp. 37-38) This is the t r u t h which is confounded or ignored in the blindfold joke, and it is worth asking a single question before we leave t h a t park in Vilna: who is more likely to have enjoyed this joke, the three Jewish fighters or the Gestapo chief? My point is not t h a t ethnic jokes inevitably serve prejudice and promote hostility. In "Humor, Ethnicity, and Intergroup Relations," anthropologist Mahadev L. Apte (1985) observes t h a t any given ethnic joke can "serve several functions" (p. 145), and this is true even of the blindfold joke I have been discussing. Folklorists and social scientists have frequently observed t h a t within a given group such humor m a y support group cohesion and t h a t even between groups such humor can serve as a form of left-handed compliment (La Fave and Mannell, 1976). And Mindess has argued t h a t ethnic jokes can free us from false pride and rigidity (1971, p. 132). For this reason, t h a t is, because contextual factors are crucial and variable, the way a joke functions cannot be derived solely from its text. Still, the way a joke can function m u s t in p a r t be based on the images or ideas its resolution evokes. Because joking occurs in a humor-exchange situation, social cues call on us to respond to these images or ideas with amusement r a t h e r t h a n outrage or analysis. And this is why humor t h a t unfairly attacks or characterizes an ethnic group can be a useful, indeed a seductive, tool in the service of both oppression and internalized self-oppression. Moral imperatives originate in the assumption t h a t we ought to t r e a t other people not as objects but as subjects, as ends in themselves, not as means to be used. When we refuse to be amused by a joke, even after we get it, it may be because such amusement violates our values. In place of humor, we feel annoyed, disgusted, or confused. We should not ignore or denigrate such responses; they mark the boundaries of our moral life. And it is important to note what the b r u t a l centuries of h u m a n history have shown: t h a t our moral sensibility is fragile, one impulse among many. It is all well and good for us to delight in the way humor allows for brief moments of liberation from morality, but the ongoing popularity of savage jokes suggests that, carried to extremes, this liberation can contribute to a coarsening of our spirit, providing a cruel and i n h u m a n license to see others as objects, and as vile ones at that.

Paul Lewis /

55

Consider w h a t the following riddles, from the trend-setting first volume of Truly Tasteless Jokes (Knott, 1985), ask us to contemplate or visualize with pleasure and delight: Q: What's the difference between unloading a truckload of dead babies and a truckload of bowling balls? A: You can use a pitchfork on the dead babies. Q: What's black and red and h a s trouble getting t h r o u g h a revolving door? A: A n u n with a spear through her head. Q: How do you fit four gays at a crowded bar? A: Turn the stool upside down. The anthologist who collected these jokes implies through his or her pseudonym t h a t we should "blanch not" at them, b u t these jokes derive much of their force from sadism, bigotry, and hate. In the face of such cruel joking, we should insist t h a t a good sense of humor refers not only to someone who laughs readily and often, not only to someone who creates humor easily, b u t also to someone whose creation and appreciation of humor is mediated by humanity. Where has this meditation on a single joke brought us? I hope to a general caution about assuming t h a t any particular joke is intrinsically liberating, and to a particular urgency about the need for clarifying what we mean by gallows humor, arriving at a clear sense of its definitive characteristics of context, content, and function. Although I have allowed myself to wander away from gallows humor to a broad analysis of humor and values, I w a n t to conclude by pointing to a final paradox about gallows humor: t h a t the very characteristic t h a t delimits the concept, setting it apart from other kinds of humor, also undercuts the validity of this distinction. The apparently unique thing about gallows humor is t h a t its central incongruity is simply the attempt to be humorous in a serious, indeed critical, moment. It is humorous by virtue of insisting on the right to be humorous in spite of unpleasant facts. But does this distinguish gallows humor by kind or only by degree? In one sense gallows humor is a small subset of the larger category of dark humor: a grim joke enjoyed in a dreadful situation. In a larger sense, a sense t h a t makes t h e clarification of this concept key to u n d e r s t a n d i n g all humor, we are now and have always been on a gallows. What would a time-lapse film of a single h u m a n life — cradle to grave — reveal? An old B. Kliban cartoon shows a bare stage with a door left and right and a procession of h u m a n figures p a r a d i n g across. The procession traces the biological development of a h u m a n being, from a baby at extreme left where the line enters, to an ancient

56

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

man at extreme right where it exits. A sign on the wall behind the group reads "NO LOITERING." Herman Melville observes that the philosopher snug by his hearthside is aware of the presence of death, the whaleline that might at any moment haul him out of consciousness forever. And Ernest Becker (1973) has shown us how much energy those of us who are not philosophers put into repressing this knowledge. Beyond personal death, in our age, the individual incongruity of mortality (of a luminous spirit in a decaying body) is compounded by the occurrence of so many genocides and by the threat of global death. As Elie Wiesel observed after the screening of The Day After, the TV film about the end of the world, "Now we are all Jews." If Melville is right to suggest that our living rooms may at any moment become our coffins, if the MX missile and the SS-20 are the mobile extermination camps of a global humanicide, then all humor may be gallows humor: a temporary evasion of reality, amusement stolen in the midst of danger. The blindfold joke, then, is itself a metaphor for one significant way in which humor functions, and a final anti-joke can make this clear. We are all Jews about to be executed, and each of us is offered humor in turn, humor itself often serving as a blindfold, a mechanism of denial or evasion. Most of the time, like the first two Jews, we are happy to accept the humor that is offered. But sometimes, like the third Jew, we will make trouble by insisting that humor can celebrate destructive values, distort reality, or gloss over painful truth. It is all well and good to whistle in the dark, but it is often better to look for a candle and best just to kick down the door. NOTE An earlier version of this essay appeared in the Journal of Popular Culture 21 (1987): 63-74.

REFERENCES Apte, M. (1985) Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Bauer, Y. (1979) The Jewish Emergence from Powerlessness. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Becker, E. (1973) The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press. Bergson, H. (1961) Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. London: Macmillan (1905). Boskin, J. (1979) Humor and Social Change in Twentieth-Century America. Boston: Trustees of the Public Library of the City of Boston. Eckman, L., and C. Lazar. (1977) The Jewish Resistance: The History of the Jewish Partisans in Lithuania and White Russia During the Nazi Occupation 1940-1945. New York: Shengold. Fine, G. A. (1983) "Sociological Approaches to the Study of Humor." In The

Paul Lewis

/

57

Handbook of Humor Research. 2 vols. Edited by J. H. Goldstein and P. E, McGhee. New York: Springer-Verlag. Freud, S. (1961) "Humour." In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 21. Edited by J. Strachey. London: Hogarth Press (1928). Knott, B. (1985) Truly Tasteless Jokes. New York: Ballantine. La Fave, L., J. Haddad, and W. Maesen. (1976) "Superiority, Enhanced SelfEsteem, and Perceived Incongruity Humour Theory." In Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research, and Applications. Edited by A. J. Chapman and H. C. Foot. New York: John Wiley and Sons. La Fave, L., and R. Mannell. (1976) "Does Ethnic Humor Serve Prejudice?" Journal of Communication 26: 116-23. Martineau, W. H. (1972) "A Model of the Social Functions of Humor." In The Psychology of Humor. Edited by J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee. New York: Academic Press. Mindess, H. (1971) Laughter and Liberation. Los Angeles: Nash. Mindess, H., C. Miller, J. Turek, and S. Corbin. (1985) The Antioch Humor Test: Making Sense of Humor. New York: Avon Books. Obrdlik, A. (1942) "Gallows Humor: A Sociological Phenomenon." American Journal of Sociology Al: 709-16. Rubinstein, E. F. (1983) The Survivor in Us All: A Memoir of the Holocaust. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books. Vidmar, N., and M. Rokeach. (1974) "Archie Bunker's Bigotry: A Study in Selective Percepton and Exposure." Journal of Communication. Winter: 3647. Wiesenthal, S. (1970) The Sunflower. London: W. H. Allen. Wilson, C. P. (1979) Jokes: Form, Content, Use and Function. New York: Academic Press. Zillman, D., and J. R. Cantor. (1976) "A Disposition Theory of Humour a n d Mirth." In Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applications. Edited by A. J. Chapman and H. C. Foot. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

This page intentionally left blank

5 Are Jews Funnier t h a n Non-Jews? Carolyn Miller

The idea t h a t Jews have a unique sense of humor is a fairly pervasive theme in the humor literature. Many writers discuss the special properties of J e w i s h h u m o r a n d a t t r i b u t e its development t o oppressive social and economic conditions (for example, Freud, 1960; Grotjahn, 1987; J a n u s , 1975; Mindess, 1972). Reading these works, one receives the impression t h a t the Jewish sense of humor is n o t only different from t h a t of non-Jews, but actually better. Perhaps the strongest evidence for the impression t h a t Jews have a special affinity for humor is their disproportionate representation in humor-related professions. In the United States, Jewish comedians have dominated their field for generations ( J a n u s , 1975), and J e w s are also heavily represented among those involved in t h e scientific study of humor. The popularity of Jewish comedians with predominantly non-Jewish audiences attests to the universality of their comic vision. Many hypotheses have been advanced to account for the excellence of the Jewish sense of humor. Berger calls Jewish humor "a survival mechanism of a people always in a marginal position to the societies in which they found themselves" (1987, p. 9), and this idea t h a t sense of humor was developed to cope with poverty and oppression is common. This influence could have taken a number of different forms. Since humor provides an acceptable way of expressing otherwise unacceptable thoughts, minorities may become skillful at expressing their r e s e n t m e n t s in this oblique m a n n e r (Mindess et al., 1985). Alexander (1986) regards humor as a social activity t h a t alters t h e status of the humorist positively and the victim negatively. Perhaps J e w s l e a r n e d to privately use self-aggrandizing h u m o r directed

60

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

against out-group members to restore injured self-esteem. Mindess (1972) saw Jews as having an exceptional talent for self-directed humor, and perhaps, as Weiss (personal communication) suggests, J e w s m a y have cultivated self-deprecating humor as a m e a n s of ingratiating themselves in dealings with potentially hostile out-group members. Or perhaps the pain of injustice and poverty is simply rendered more tolerable by developing an appreciation of absurdity. It has been shown t h a t laughter reduces stress (Dillon, Minchoff, and Baker, 1985-86; Dixon, 1980; Nezu, Nezu, and Blisset, 1988; Smith, 1971; Talbot and Martin, 1987). Perhaps Jews discovered humor's anxiolytic properties and cultivated it as a kind of folk remedy for stress. While these possibilities would apply equally to any minority group t h a t is discriminated against, Mindess (1972) attributed the Jewish sense of humor to conditions unique to Jews. He suggested t h a t the development of an excellent sense of humor was necessitated by the effort to live with and reconcile conflicting views of reality. Mindess proposes t h a t Jews traditionally regarded themselves as morally superior to Gentiles, and yet lived on the edges of non-Jewish societies which considered t h e m morally inferior. Believing themselves specially blessed as God's chosen people, they were confronted with unparalleled suffering. Mindess believes t h a t living with these contradictions eventually taught Jews to find humor in the disparity between the way things were supposed to be and the way they actually were. However, all speculation as to why Jews have better sense of humor t h a n non-Jews is premature, since there is as yet no actual evidence t h a t they do have better sense of humor. The p r e s e n t research addresses this issue. First, w h a t constitutes a "better" sense of humor? The problem is neatly illustrated by one subject who commented t h a t he felt he h a d a better sense of humor t h a n most other people because he laughed at fewer things and was therefore more discriminating. Does a person with a good sense of humor laugh at many things, or only at those that are really funny? And how are we to know w h a t is really funny? In the present research a person was considered to have a better sense of humor t h a n another if she or he used and/or expressed appreciation of humor more frequently. STUDY I The first study used t h e sociometric method, which involves subjects rating the sense of humor of other subjects with whom they are acquainted. As Ziv (1979) points out, this method measures only the humor t h a t is expressed and observed by others. If t h e Jewish

Carolyn Miller

/

61

sense of h u m o r excels only in silent appreciation of humor, this method would not demonstrate it. In Study I, students and faculty members at Antioch University in Los Angeles were asked to evaluate the sense of humor of other students and faculty they knew well. These sociometric peer ratings were supplemented by self-report in some cases. It was hypothesized t h a t Jews would receive higher humor ratings t h a n non-Jews. Method Subjects Subjects were 84 Jewish and 144 non-Jewish volunteers who were g r a d u a t e a n d u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s a n d faculty m e m b e r s a t Antioch University in Los Angeles. Subjects identified their own ethnicity as Jewish (defined as "raised by one or more p a r e n t of J e w i s h background regardless of religious conviction") or nonJewish (defined as "not raised by a parent of Jewish background"). Design The sociometric method was employed, using a design substantially similar to t h a t used by Babad (1974). Procedure Subjects were given questionnaires t h a t asked them to identify their own ethnicity as "Jewish" or "non-Jewish," and then to peruse an attached list of names of students and faculty members and to place a letter rating next to the names of any they felt they knew well enough to evaluate, using N for Nonhumorous ("Someone with little readiness to laugh; seldom tells jokes or creates humor; seldom actively seeks out humorous situations, or laughs at others' humor"); A for Appreciator ("Someone who shows readiness to laugh; enjoys the humor of others and seeks out humorous situations; does not tell jokes or make up jokes or humorous stories him- or herself); R for Reproducer ("A humorous person who does not invent his or her own humor, b u t retells amusing stories or jokes, or reenacts amusing situations. The 'Joke Teller"'); P for Producer ("A humorous person who invents humor; makes up jokes or witty, amusing stories, or creates humorous situations"); and P/R for Producer/Reproducer ("Someone who both produces and reproduces h u m o r as defined above"). These categories differ from those used by Babad (1974) only with respect to the definition of "Nonhumorous." Babad defined this as "someone with no readiness to laugh; never tells jokes or creates humor; never actively seeks out humorous situations, or laughs at others' humor." It was felt t h a t few people would presume to say t h a t

62

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

another person never used or enjoyed humor and t h a t the use of "seldom" would make this a more useful category. Ratings of N were assigned a value of zero; A a value of 1; R of 2; P of 3; P/R of 4. Data were used only for those subjects who were rated by three or more peers and were of known ethnicity and gender. Most subjects were rated by more t h a n ten peers. Analyses The mean humor ratings given each subject were analyzed using a 2 x 2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for two levels of gender (male and female) and two levels of ethnicity (Jewish and non-Jewish). In some cases subjects r a t e d their own sense of humor, and these ratings were analyzed separately. Results The hypothesis t h a t Jews would be rated as having a better sense of humor t h a n non-Jews was not supported by this study, which yielded no main effect for ethnicity. A gender difference did emerge clearly (F(l,224) = 18.22, p < .0005), with males being rated significantly higher t h a n females. The table below shows the statistics for each group. Mean Peer-Rated Humor Scores by Gender and Ethnicity Group Non-Jewish Females Jewish Females Non-Jewish Males Jewish Males

Mean n 1.448 104 1.614 58 1.955 40 2.054 26

In cases where subjects rated their own sense of humor as well, comparison of these self-ratings with the m e a n of the scores given t h e m by others revealed a consistent tendency for subjects in all groups to rate themselves about a point higher (more humorous) t h a n others rated them. About half the subjects h a d self-ratings within a point of their average rating, and only a third had selfratings more t h a n 1.5 points away from their average rating, which suggests t h a t most subjects saw themselves similarly to the way others saw them. Discussion The consistent tendency of subjects to score themselves somewhat higher t h a n others rated them may reflect unrealistic self-inflation, but is more likely due to the fact t h a t subjects know themselves better

Carolyn Miller

/

63

t h a n others know them. Other people's ratings are likely to err in the direction of underestimating a person's humor because of limited opportunities for observation. The similarity between self- and peer ratings suggests t h a t the sociometric data were reasonably valid and reliable measures of sense of humor. This study did not support the hypothesis t h a t Jews use humor more t h a n non-Jews. There are several possible explanations: (1) a real ethnic difference exists, but the methodology was too weak or inappropriate to allow it to emerge; (2) a real ethnic difference exists, but the Jews used in this study were too distant from their cultural roots to manifest it; (3) the oft noted Jewish talent for humor is a function of poverty and/or discrimination, and the Jews in this study were too affluent and successful to manifest it; (4) Jewish humor is a coping mechanism t h a t will only manifest itself under stress; or (5) there is no ethnic difference in sense of humor. If a real difference exists under ordinary conditions, it is most likely t h a t the sample was problematic. Subjects were primarily middle-class graduate students and faculty members in psychology. The criterion for inclusion in the Jewish category was simply "raised by one or more parent of Jewish background regardless of religious conviction." If cultural differences are at issue, subjects may have been too distant from their ethnic roots to show much effect. Similarly, if oppressed minority status is at issue, these affluent, highly educated Jews would not be likely to show the effects. A larger sample, or one derived using a different definition of "Jewish," might produce different results. The remaining possibility, t h a t Jews may be similar to non-Jews under ordinary conditions, but use more humor under stress, is the subject of the second study. STUDY II While Study I found no support for the hypothesis t h a t Jews use h u m o r more t h a n non-Jews u n d e r ordinary conditions, it is p a r t of the conventional wisdom t h a t Jews use humor as a coping mechanism. There is experimental evidence t h a t people perceived by others as humorous do exhibit superior coping skills (Bizi, Keinan, and Beit-Hallahmi, 1988; Rim, 1988), and, as noted earlier, t h e r e is research indicating t h a t l a u g h t e r does reduce anxiety. Perhaps clearer ethnic differences would emerge under conditions of stress. Study II explored the use of humor by Jews and black and white non-Jews under stress in the form of evaluation anxiety aroused by the expectation of taking an I.Q. test. It was hypothesized t h a t Jews would produce more humorous responses t h a n non-Jews u n d e r these conditions.

64

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Method Subjects Subjects were fifteen J e w i s h a n d fifteen white non-Jewish students and faculty members at Antioch University in Los Angeles, and ten black clinical social workers at the Children's Baptist Home in Inglewood, California. With the exception of one u n d e r g r a d u a t e student, all subjects had some graduate education and were middleclass people, most of them in their thirties. Procedure Subjects reported individually to the designated waiting room where most of them encountered the researchers' confederate 1 — in some cases a Jewish female s t u d e n t and in others a non-Jewish male s t u d e n t — who had ostensibly arrived early for the next appointment. A confederate was initially employed in case t h e subjects might regard t h e researcher interviewing t h e m as a n intimidating authority figure, which might inhibit their expression of h u m o r . However, comparison of the early t a p e d interviews indicated t h a t subjects joked as freely with the researchers as they did with the confederates, and it was concluded t h a t the use of the confederate was unnecessary. About twelve of the forty subjects were seen by one or the other of the researchers alone, and their humor production did not differ from t h a t of those who spent the first five minutes of their session with a confederate. An audiotape was made using a hidden microphone from the time the subject entered the waiting room. The confederate drew the subject's attention to a notice describing the research as a study of humor and intelligence and informing them t h a t an I.Q. test would be given. For the remainder of the five minutes, the confederate engaged the subject in playful conversation, first joking about the impending I.Q. test (for example, "Gee, is it possible to fail an I.Q. test?" and "If I'd known there was going to be a test, I would have studied!"). The object was to be sure the subject was aware of the I.Q. test, to create evaluation anxiety, and to establish a climate where subjects would feel free to cope with anxiety through humor if they were so inclined. At the end of five minutes, one of the researchers (either a Jewish male or a non-Jewish female, counterbalanced according to t h e subject's gender a n d ethnicity, as was t h e confederate) entered with the testing materials and asked the confederate to wait in another room. Subjects seen without a confederate spent five m i n u t e s in playful socializing with the researcher, who also called their attention to the impending I.Q. test and joked with them.

Carolyn Miller

/

65

Subjects were interviewed using the Humor Questionnaire (see Appendix 1) and were asked to write a funny epitaph for their tombstone before being given a maze task. They were told t h a t their performance on t h e maze t a s k would constitute a rough I.Q. measure and t h e n were given an easy practice maze before being timed on a complex maze t h a t had been altered in such a way as to have no solution. The object was to raise anxiety and elicit spontaneous verbalizations. After t h e maze task, the researcher confirmed t h e subject's conclusion t h a t the maze was unsolvable and debriefed him or her, explaining that, while a tape had been made of the session, no one had listened in and t h a t the tape would be erased on the spot if the subject objected to its use. No subject did. It was also explained t h a t the m a i n object of the study was spontaneous humorous behavior u n d e r stress, and subjects were asked to estimate their level of anxiety during the session relative to their usual level, using a 10point scale, where 1 equaled "comatose" and 10 equaled "panic attack." In closing, subjects were asked not to discuss the research with anyone until it was completed. Scoring Audiotapes of sessions were listened to separately by t h e two researchers, who scored for humorous content on a scale where zero equaled "no attempt at humor"; 1 equaled an attempt a t humor t h a t might provoke a smile, for example, a word, p h r a s e , or r e m a r k intended to contribute to a lighthearted mood but which is not so funny that most people would pause to laugh: "I was terminally bored!" (humorous exaggeration) or "Oh, really!" (humorous tone). Included were any feeble attempts at humor t h a t fell short o f . . . 2, a humorous r e m a r k t h a t provokes a chuckle, one t h a t is genuinely funny with good delivery, and would elicit a snort or a laugh among friends — a clever irony, a shift in meaning or mood; for example, "A lot of people tell me I look younger than I am." "Yes, but we're all just lying to be polite!" This included quick comebacks, etc., t h a t fell short of . . . 3, a comment t h a t provokes a hearty laugh — a really funny observation t h a t might be worthy of a professional comedian; for example, "My insurance company finally got so fed up with me t h a t they issued me a Bible and a crash helmet and told me I was on my own!" Witty, well-delivered, and appropriate to the context, these were notably funny remarks t h a t one might remember to retell. Each subject's Total Humor score reflected both the number and the quality of his or her humorous remarks. The majority of subjects e a r n e d mostly I s , and only a few received 3s. The i n t e r r a t e r reliability was .96 for all utterances, and .62 for discriminating the degree of humorousness of humorous r e m a r k s . It should be noted t h a t the raters were not blind as to the ethnicity of the subjects.

66

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Analyses Data were analyzed using an ANOVA or a Pearson R correlation, as a p p r o p r i a t e . Significant effects from ANOVAs were further analyzed using Tukey's Honest Significant Difference Test. Results The m a i n hypothesis of this study, t h a t J e w s would resort to h u m o r u n d e r stress more readily t h a n would n o n - J e w s , was supported (t38 = 2.51; p < .02). The mean Total Humor score for Jews was 10.07, compared to 6.88 for the combined black and white nonJews. The mean for blacks was 7.10, and for white non-Jews 6.73, and these groups did not differ from one another. Despite the findings of the previous study — t h a t males were peer r a t e d as more humorous t h a n females — t h e r e was no gender difference in the Total Humor scores of the present study. While the threatened I.Q. test did increase reported anxiety by an average of seven-tenths of a point on a ten-point scale, there was no relationship between either Anxiety During Testing or Increase in Anxiety Over Baseline and Total Humor. The difference between m a l e s a n d females on Anxiety D u r i n g T e s t i n g a p p r o a c h e d significance (F(l,34) = 3.703; p > .063), with females averaging 5.8 and males only 4.7. White non-Jews were significantly less likely t h a n blacks or J e w s to have remembered a joke about their own ethnic group (F(2,34) = 4.894, p < .01). Discussion This study indicates t h a t Jews are more likely t h a n non-Jews to utilize humor to cope with stress. It should be noted t h a t the anxiety induced in Study II was milder t h a n anticipated. The subjects in this research were students and colleagues of the researchers and were not very easily intimidated by them. As m a t u r e adults and highly educated people, they were probably considerably more self-confident t h a n the college sophomores used in much research. The friendly, joking atmosphere t h a t was maintained throughout testing offered maximal opportunity for subjects to display humor, b u t it probably reduced evaluation anxiety as well. There is no reason to believe t h a t the mild anxiety used in this study represents the optimal level for observing ethnic differences in humor production, and it would be interesting in the future to investigate the effects of several levels of anxiety. Contrary to the findings of the first study, female subjects in Study II were j u s t as funny as t h e i r male c o u n t e r p a r t s w h e n t h e i r

Carolyn Miller

/

67

utterances were carefully scored and rated. This raises the possibility t h a t t h e subjective impression t h a t males use h u m o r more t h a n females demonstrated by our peer raters is the result of halo effects or some other form of observer bias. Since a sense of humor is a socially desirable characteristic, it may be t h a t it is more readily attributed to males t h a n females. White non-Jews were less likely t h a n blacks or Jews to be able to tell a joke about their own ethnic group, and it is likely t h a t the reason for this was t h a t they did not strongly identify with one. White non-Jewish subjects often commented during the interview t h a t they had never actually thought of themselves as being from an ethnic group, and t h e n went on to mention several nations of ancestral origin. It was clear t h a t t h e i r p r i m a r y identification w a s as Americans and t h a t their ethnic roots h a d little significance for them. GENERAL DISCUSSION Taken together, the two studies indicate t h a t while Jews are no more likely t h a n non-Jews to display h u m o r u n d e r o r d i n a r y circumstances, they do seem to be more humorous when u n d e r stress. This research also contributes to our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the reasons people resort to humor as a coping mechanism. The view t h a t poverty and oppression in and of themselves predispose people to utilize humor finds no support here. The black subjects were much closer to these experiences t h a n the Jewish subjects. Despite comparable education, age, socioeconomic status, and profession, some of the blacks in this study had personally experienced and climbed out of poverty, as perhaps the p a r e n t s or g r a n d p a r e n t s of the other subjects had. If the necessity of coping with hard times leads to the use of humor as a coping mechanism, the black subjects should have been highest in Total Humor, yet their scores were virtually identical to those of white non-Jews. Clearly there m u s t be some other factor affecting Jews, even if it is only the length of time the group has been discriminated against. Humor may have been adopted as a coping mechanism by J e w s for any of the cultural reasons cited in the introduction, or others that are as yet unknown. It would be a mistake to draw firm conclusions from a single study based on such small samples. F u r t h e r research using Jewish and non-Jewish samples with different characteristics is indicated, and it will be particularly important to use raters who are blind as to the condition of the subjects. This was not possible in the present research, where the subjects were known to the r a t e r s personally. Nonetheless, the results of this research tentatively suggest t h a t Jews may use humor more t h a n non-Jews, at least under stressful conditions. So, are Jews funnier t h a n non-Jews? Maybe so.

68

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

NOTES The author thanks Laurie Monday and Wesley Whitmore for their assistance as confederates, and Arnold Weiss for his expert help with statistical analyses. 1. Researchers were Harvey Mindess, Ph.D. (a Jewish male), and the author (a non-Jewish female). Confederates were Laurie Monday (a Jewish female) and Wesley Whitmore (a non-Jewish male).

REFERENCES Alexander, R. D. (1986) "Ostracism and Indirect Reciprocity: The Reproductive Significance of Humor." Special Issue: Ostracism: A Social and Biological Phenomenon. Ethology and Sociobiology 7: 3-4. Babad, E. Y. (1974) "A Multi-method Approach to the Assessment of Humor: A Critical Look at Humor Tests." Journal of Personality 42: 618-31. Berger, A. A. (1987) "Humor: An Introduction." American Behavioral Scientist 30, no. 1: 6-15. Bizi, S., G. Keinan, and B. Beit-Hallahmi. (1988) "Humor and Coping with Stress: A Test under Real-Life Conditions." Personality and Individual Differences 9, no. 6: 951-56. Dillon, K. M., B. Minchoff, and K. H. Baker. (1985-86) "Positive Emotional States and Enhancement of the Immune System." International Journal of Psychiatry and Medicine 15, no. 1: 13-18. Dixon, N. F. (1980) "Humor: A Cognitive Alternative to Stress?" In Stress and Anxiety. Edited by I. G. Sarason and C. Spielberger, 7: 280-89. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere. Freud, S. (1960) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton. Grotjahn, M. (1987) "Dynamics of Jewish Jokes." American Behavioral Scientist 30, no. 1: 96-99. Janus, S. S. (1975) "The Great Comedians: Personality and Other Factors." American Journal of Psychoanalysis 35: 169-74. Mindess, H. (1972) The Chosen People. New York: Random House. Mindess, H., C. Miller, J. Turek, A. Bender, and S. Corbin. (1985) The Antioch Humor Test: Making Sense of Humor. New York: Avon. Nezu, A. M., C. M. Nezu, and S. E. Blisset. (1988) "Sense of Humor as a Moderator Variable of the Relation Between Stressful Events and Psychological Distress: A Prospective Analysis." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, no. 3: 520-25. Rim, Y. (1988) "Sense of Humor and Coping Styles." Personality and Individual Differences 9, no. 3: 559-64. Smith, R. E. (1971) "Humor, Anxiety and Task Performance." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19: 243-46. Talbot, S. M., and R. B. Martin. (1987) "The Stress-Moderating Effects of Weeping and Humor." Journal of Human Stress 13, no. 4: 159-64. Weiss, A. Personal communication, 1989. Ziv, A. (1979) "Sociometry of Humor: Objectifying the Subjective." Perceptual Motor Skills 49: 97-98.

Carolyn Miller

/

69

APPENDIX 1 1.

How would you rate your sense of humor in comparison to most other peopled? Better, average, or worse?

2.

Are there certain things you love to laugh at or certain things you refuse to laugh at? If so, what are they?

3.

Do you have any characteristics you object to being kidded about? If so, what are they?

4.

Do you know any jokes about your racial or ethnic group? If so, please tell me one of your favorites.

5.

Would you please write a funny epitaph for yourself on this tombstone? (Hand S the sketch.)

6.

And finally, as a test of your intelligence, I would like to see how long it takes you to solve this maze problem. You can try this practice maze first. Okay, now I'm going to time you. You start here and you have to end up there. Ready, go.

This page intentionally left blank

6 Since When Is Jewish Humor Not Anti-Semitic? Bernard Saper

Sam and Irving are facing the firing squad. The comes forward to place the blindfolds on them. Sam and proudly refuses, t e a r i n g the thing from his t u r n s to his friend a n d pleads: "Please, Sam, trouble!"

executioner disdainfully face. Irving don't m a k e

Is this joke funny? Would it be equally as funny if told by either a Jew or a Gentile? To either a Jew or a Gentile? With a Yiddish accent or without? In a context of joking or estranged relationships? In mixed company? Within a homogeneously intimate group? Is this joke antidote or fuel for anti-Semitism? It is not an easy matter to locate the line between acceptability and nonacceptability. We might say t h a t Jewish h u m o r is not antiSemitic if it is conveyed by Jews, to Jews, about Jews, and n e i t h e r explicitly asserts nor remotely implies disparagement of Jews as a group. It does appear to be anti-Semitic if it contains oversimplified and deprecating judgments and negative or inaccurate generalizations about Jews by non-Jews: and directly or indirectly furthers malignant stereotypes and/or leads to acts of intimidation, provocation, bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, or physical aggression. In reality, however, t h e distinctions are far more complicated and difficult to make, requiring a more careful, critical, and dispassionate evaluation of intention, purpose, and consequence, witting or unwitting. This evaluation is undertaken within a cognitive-behavioral framework as follows: First, the n a t u r e of anti-Semitism in the United States is briefly addressed. Second, the salient features of uniquely Jewish humor

72

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

are discussed, with attempts to distinguish it from other ethnic and disparagement types of humor. Third, a brief analysis is mounted of the relevant psychosocial effects or consequences of such humor. Last, an effort is made to provide a somewhat more considered and definitive answer to the questions: Under what conditions is such humor good or bad for the Jews? Under what conditions does it give aid, comfort, and fuel to the anti-Semites? And let us not forget t h a t for every generalization there are lots of exceptions and countergeneralizations.

ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE UNITED STATES A Neo-Nazi, who was desperately seeking to build up the dwindling ranks of his white Christian supremacist party, learned t h a t Hitler, contrary to history and popular belief, was still alive and, though very old, was well, strong, and living comfortably in the remote regions of the North Carolina m o u n t a i n s u n d e r t h e protection of the Ku Klux Klan. He obtained an audience with Hitler, and spent countless hours trying to persuade him to come out of hiding and resume his leadership of a glorious revitalized American Nazi Party. Hitler at first kept declining and demurring, but after a while gave in: "All right, I'll do it. But this time, no more Mr. Nice Guy!" Anti-Semitism in this country is uniquely American. It does not now, and probably never will, take the unabashedly virulent and heinous institutional or state-sponsored expression t h a t characterized it in the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, and the vicious, unremitting Middle East terrorism of today. Reviewing a number of excellent studies (Glock and Stark, 1966; Krefetz, 1985; Perlmutter and Perlmutter, 1982; Podhoretz, 1982; Poliakov, 1975; Silberman, 1985; Tobin, 1986), we find t h a t in the United States h a t r e d and hostility toward the Jews most often takes a secret, silent, or subtle form. It is seldom directly expressed in overt aggression or violence, although such incidents have occurred, as in the murder of Denver talk show host Alan Berg. Back in the p r e - and post-World War II years, anti-Semitism was flagrant. The Gulf Hotel on Miami Beach, for example, sent out postcards depicting sand and surf, captioned "Always a View, Never a Jew." This cannot happen nowadays, chiefly because it is patently unconstitutional, illegal, and simply not nice. Silberman (1985) has found t h a t both institutional and private incidents of anti-Semitism have declined in the United States, and t h a t persistent reports by Jews t h a t they continue in the noninstitutional sphere are probably due to a sort of chronic "hypersensitivity."

Bernard Saper /

73

On the other hand, Tobin (1986) h a s insisted t h a t while antiSemitism is "sometimes hidden," it is "always real." Citing d a t a obtained from telephone interviews of J e w i s h households in five cities, for the ostensible purpose of planning h u m a n services and locating Jewish community centers, he found t h a t "even discounting misinterpretation, oversensitivity or imagination, the data point to continued presence of anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior in the United States." Podhoretz h a s proposed general criteria for identifying antiSemitism: Historically anti-Semitism has taken the form of labeling certain vices and failings as specifically Jewish when whey are in fact common to all humanity: Jews are greedy, Jews are tricky, Jews are ambitious, J e w s are clannish — as though J e w s were uniquely or disproportionately guilty of all those sins. Correlatively, J e w s are condemned when they claim or exercise the r i g h t to do t h i n g s t h a t all other people are accorded a n unchallengeable right to do. Among the more familiar false and irrational attitudes t h a t anti-Semites harbor about Jews in general: Jews are conceited, arrogant and insolent. They are crafty, money-grabbing and power-oriented. They are stingy, sneaky and satanically anti-Muslim and anti-Christian. They are clannish, cowardly, communistic and capitalistic. They are loyal only to Israel, and are unpatriotic to the U.S.A. They have seized control of the Media, Industry, Higher Education, B a n k s , and Federal Government, particularly its Legislative Branch. They are wicked, evil, unethical and immoral. What else and what not! (1982, p. 21) These insidious beliefs are usually invoked to rationalize or justify the fear, loathing, rage and other hideous feelings and fantasies held by the likes of the Louis Farrakhans, Ku Klux Klanners, and Mr. and Ms. Bigots of this world. According to Glock and Stark, during the 1960s there even appeared to be a strong religious element in these negative beliefs and feelings: "Not only do the vast majority of C h r i s t i a n church members exhibit an affinity for anti-Semitic beliefs, b u t nearly half frankly admit to anti-Semitic feeling" (1966, p. 146). More recently Krefetz (1985) concluded t h a t anti-Semitism of the eighties seems "rooted less in religion or contempt and more in envy, jealously and fear" of Jewish affluence, and of the hidden power of "Jewish money." The P e r l m u t t e r s (1982) p r e s e n t evidence t h a t

74

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

organized anti-Semitism is minimal, its potency is inflated by the media, and it has been more or less replaced with a more devious and open anti-Zionist or anti-Israel bias. In a recent communication, N a t h a n P e r l m u t t e r , National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of Brai B'rith (ADL), indicated t h a t the Black Muslims, Ku Klux Klan, and some so-called scholars and Arab propagandists persistently deny the reality of the Holocaust and are avidly vocal. When these covert attitudes and feelings are translated and organized into overt action, the victims of course become most painfully conscious and profoundly affected by them. At their most extreme, these actions involve pogroms, terrorism, vandalism, violence, destruction, desecration, abduction, and assassination. The less physical and vicious end of this aggression continuum includes insults, vilifications, humiliations, slurs, and the making and spreading of defamatory rumors and myths. Arguably the least offensive form of anti-Semitic activity is the humorous remark or joke. To be sure, very few anti-Semites find a n y t h i n g mirthful or laughable in the highly derogatory and gravely earnest charges of people like General George S. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Carter, of Klansman Thomas Robb, and of Nation of Islam minister Louis F a r r a k h a n , who continually resurrects the infamous lies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in order to validate and inflame anti-Semitic s e n t i m e n t s and to trigger violence against Jews. They don't kid about their hate and malice. If they did, it might take the edge off the venom they spew. Of course, many thoughtful and concerned humanists deplore all types of ethnic, racial, or religious humor. Among the reasons they give, with some justification, are t h a t such humor slanders the target or b u t t of the joke, provides ammunition for the nefarious deeds of bigots, validates false belief systems, and p e r p e t u a t e s malicious stereotypes. In a word, they find ethnic h u m o r to be unredeemably destructive. When told in an atmosphere of hate, a joke about Jews produces a m a l i g n a n t l y l a u g h i n g - a t response, a n d m u s t be classified as benightedly anti-Semitic. Even when told by Jews about Jews, if it is self-disparaging it could be used by bigots and others to justify prejudice. On the other hand, when told in an atmosphere of affirmation, the same joke tends to produce a laughing-with response, and should be viewed as benign. The jokes cited herein may, in these terms, be interpreted either way. The essential point is t h a t not every jibe, joke, jocular namecalling, or word-play is an instance of disguised or outright hostility. While it is true t h a t defamatory ethnic or racial humor can fuel antagonistic beliefs and feelings, it is also true t h a t it can defuse or soften such antagonism. Humor may represent a sublimation, as it were, kindly sparing the victim from otherwise deadly violence and

Bernard Saper /

75

insufferable indignities. Moreover, as we shall see later, humor is a complex phenomenon, and it is risky to assume — chip on shoulder — t h a t every joke about a Jew is intended to perpetuate a mythology about presumed vices and failings and to ridicule or inflict h a r m . Needless to say, there is nothing intrinsic or universal about Jews as a group t h a t leads them to be offensively labeled, hated, oppressed, or persecuted. To repeat, because the Jewish joke, m e a n t to be told within the in-group, might furnish ammunition for the non-Jew to use against the Jew does not mean t h a t such humor should be totally abandoned. Mindess et al. found, from data obtained through the Antioch Humor Test, t h a t many people who enjoy hostile ethnic humor are not otherwise prejudiced against the groups being ridiculed. They may, of course, be insensitive or blissfully unaware t h a t w h a t they are laughing at h u r t s another person's feelings, but they themselves may explain their enjoyment by pointing out t h a t "it's only a joke." In other words, they say they are clearly aware of the fact that the story that makes them laugh is about fictional characters — comic-strip figures — t h a t everyone knows are not real. . . . The opposition [retorts that] those who laugh at ethnic put-downs are bigoted whether or not they admit it — or at the very least, their laughter supports a pernicious form of humor t h a t should ideally be suppressed. (1985, p. 65) JEWISH HUMOR Humor is generally defined as an emotional, mental, or aesthetic aspect of a thing, person, or event t h a t excites pleasant and joyous attitudes and feelings, and produces mirthful laughter, smiling, and similar observable responses of a m u s e m e n t . Analyzed from a cognitive-behavioral or social learning perspective, the fundamental components — which, as in all h u m a n behavior, a r e actually intertwining, interactional, and inseparable — can be tentatively sorted out and analyzed in terms of the acronym SORC. Functionally, this formulation proposes t h a t certain stimuli (S) whose properties are identified as funny will produce a response (R) which may be expressive (that is, doing or saying something witty) or reactive (that is, laughing at a joke). Intervening between the stimulus and t h e response are a complex set of mediating organismic (0) or i n t r a p e r s o n a l variables and personality t r a i t s , including t a s t e , preference, affect, mind-set, disposition or r e a d i n e s s to create, perceive, or interpret things or situations as funny. Finally, there is t h e consequence (C) or effect of this process. In conditioning terms, a learned response increases in strength or frequency if it is

76

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

followed by a positive consequence — that is, if it is positively reinforced. Also important is the context, social setting, or situation in which this process is played out. The context, which functions as a stimulus or as an enhancement of a stimulus, includes a climate of joyousness, a facilitative surround of other people laughing, a condition of playfulness or ludicrousness. As in the case of the joke about the two Jews facing the firing squad, these contextual factors may be operating even when the individual is besieged by underlying sorrow. Now, what is there about the stimulus that renders it not only funny, but also uniquely Jewish? The structure of the stimulus — whether it is in the form of a pun, joke, one-liner, shtick, or whatever — must contain incongruity, a sudden twist or juxtaposition of unexpected elements: "What does your wife make for dinner?" "Reservations." That's funny, but it's not necessarily Jewish. What will make it Jewish is the content, the reference to Jewish culture, ritual, ethnicity, and either secular or religious identity. "What does a Jewish wife make for dinner?" "Reservations." "Have you heard of that new Jewish wine?" (Whining) "I want a mink coat." The eminent Israeli cartoonist, Dosh (Gardosh, 1986), traced the "ugly Jew" stereotype as presented in graphic humor over the ages, and concluded that such cartoons, which became the focal point of nineteenth-century anti-Semitism, resurfaced in the Western press during and following Israel's Lebanon incursion. Art Spiegelman has been drawing a comic strip, "Maus," for a "graphix magazine" called Raw. The strip depicts its protagonists as mice and their adversaries as cats, representing, respectively, Jews and Nazis. He uses the mouse as a metaphor for the Jewish experience in Nazi Germany, following Franz Kafka, who once published a short story called "Josephine the Singer, or the Mouse Folk," which portrayed Jews as mice. The strip is less mindless, hilarious entertainment than serious satire. Can it have anti-Semitic repercussions? Possibly, anything can. But Spiegelman's motivations are evidently proSemitic. Gluck (1986) has compiled 130 slides of "vintage postcard cartoons" that caricature such negative stereotypes as the Jews' differences in

Bernard Saper /

77

dress, physical characteristics, business practices, and religious customs. The presentation, titled "Let's Laugh at the Yids," contains mostly American cards from the early twentieth-century wave of immigration, "ridiculing the long noses, beards and earlocks, talking hands, foreign dialects, circumcisions, pawnbrokers, arsonists and other dishonest businessmen. Even poverty is laughed at." Obviously, such humor is offensive. But does it reveal in every instance hatred toward the Jews? The Jewish joke becomes immediately indentifiable by the distinctive presentation of the stimulus: The little old lady at Miami Beach receives an obscene telephone call. She picks up the receiver: (with Yiddish accent) "Hello?" "What you are lady is (bleep)," says the crude voice. "What I'm gonna give you is (bleep, bleep). And you're gonna get a (bleep, bleep, bleep)." When she's satisfied that he's finished, she says: "How you like dat? All dis you got just from hello?" The same old lady is asked to fly to New York to attend a celebration of her son's winning Nobel Prize. "By the way, Ma," he says when he issues the invitation, "remember my name is no longer Izzy Manischevsky. I've changed it. It's now Peter Manis." The party at Peter Manis's has been a huge success, and is winding down. But his mother has not shown up! He becomes deeply concerned, calling around to the airline, the police, and relatives. Soon, he decides to go out and look for her himself. In the lobby of his East Side condominium he finds his mother sitting and crying. "What's the matter, Ma, why didn't you come up to my apartment?" "Because I forgot your name!" The IRS telephones the Temple, in order to verify a deduction that has been claimed on a return: "Do you know a Mr. Shapiro?" "We do." "Has he been a member for the past five years?" "He has." "Did he make a contribution of $15,000 last year?" "He will!" Certain Yiddish words and sounds seem to be intrinsically funny, and often produce mild knowing smiles if not big laughs, not just among Jews. Some that come easily to mind contain oy sounds: Oy vay. Oy gevaldt. Goy. And those with the ch and s h sounds: Chutzpah. Chazzerei. Kosher. Schnozzle. Schmaltz. Shpiel. Shtarker. Shtick. Schmuck. Schlemiel. Shikker. Meshuga. Shmatta. Shlep. Schnorrer. You don't have to know Yiddish to appreciate such appellations as maven, tref, mensch, zaftig, kibbitzer, yenta, and ganef. Many of these words have become more or less comic double entendre entrees into the language of chic, advertising, and show business.

78

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

J e w i s h comedians — Shecky Green, J o a n Rivers, Mel Brooks, H e n n y Youngman, Jackie Mason, and m a n y others — not infrequently insert Jewish buzz words and n a m e s t h a t bring i n s t a n t amusement. The late Myron Cohen's gentle, deadpan, a n d heavily accented delivery was j u s t as funny as the structure and content of his material. Some juxtapositions are so incongruous, ridiculous, and grossly irreverent t h a t you don't have to be J e w i s h to appreciate them. Witness the name of black actress Whoopi Goldberg. And the finely honed use of irony, a characteristic of much Jewish humor, as in the plaintive scolding by t h e elderly Hebrew schoolteacher to t h e obstreperous twelve-year-old, bar-mitzvah pupil: "That's how you talk to your Rabbi, button your fly?" These two examples might be considered offensive to many Jews, possibly in the same class as the Reverend Jesse Jackson's reference to New York City — t h a t big, ethnically varietal apple — as "Hymietown." But there might be a difference, a difference in intent. Some Jews are willing to accord Reverend Jackson the benefit of the doubt and not take offense, at least no more offense t h a n is taken to Archie B u n k e r ' s comedic references to J e w s as " s m a r t Hebe lawyers" and the like. In sum, then, the content of the stimulus is usually relevant to the Jewish experience, deals with Jew-Gentile relations, attacks pomposity and authority, shatters icons and stereotypes, and spotlights t h e battles of t h e generations and the sexes, as in t h e numerous J e w i s h American princess jokes. Jewish humor serves as a great equalizer. It ridicules the Jew's virtues as well as his vices. It is sardonic, derisive, and irreverent toward the Jew as well as the nonJew. It becomes anti-Semitic when it stresses only the Jew's faults, never his virtues; when it derogates the Jewish people as a people. Several excellent compilations of Jewish jokes are available (for example, Novak and Waldocks, 1981; Rosten, 1968, 1985; Spalding, 1969, 1976). None of t h e humorous examples presented in this chapter are original. All are begged, borrowed, or stolen from these and other sources. The few t h a t have been selected not only make a point — as good humor should — but also make me laugh. Naturally I believe I tell them better than their original sources. An aspect of stimulus content t h a t may be uniquely Jewish is the Jew's relationship with God. The designation of being the "chosen people" provides a source of great humor to the Jew (even as it infuriates the anti-Semite). Here are some typical images of the Jew as schlemiel, the awkward jerk, and the chutzpan, the impertinent egocentric (see Mindess, 1972). Cohen, devoutly committed to his God, is caught in the rising waters of a devastating flood. A rowboat comes by to rescue him;

Bernard Saper /

79

he refuses it because he waits for his God to save him. As the w a t e r s rise Cohen climbs higher and higher up his house, refusing each successive boat t h a t comes by. Finally, he drowns and goes to heaven. He complains bitterly to the Lord t h a t he was such a good Jew and yet the Lord had forsaken him. "How can you say that?" the Lord retorts. "I sent four boats for you!" Moscowitz kept up a private and ceaseless conversation with God, lamenting t h a t he was such a good Jew, an observant and faithful man, yet the rotten ones became rich and successful, while he remained poor and unsuccessful. "Why? Why?" he kept on asking. Finally God responded: "Because, Moscowitz, you're such an insufferable nudnik [nag]." Goldberg was a poor but good Jew all his life. Of late he began to pray t h a t before he died he would like to enjoy some measure of wealth and prosperity. God eventually granted his wish, since he was indeed a most pious, good, and humble man. As a result, Goldberg came into a small fortune, and he immediately began to live it up. He got himself a J a g u a r , moved into a swanky condominium, decked himself out in the most elegant clothes. One day, after having donned his most splendid h a t and suit and mink-lined coat, he was crossing the street to get to his J a g u a r , when he was hit by a speeding car. As he lay near death, waiting for an ambulance, he called to the heavens: "Why, oh why, Lord? After you granted me my every wish, why do you do this to me?" And out of the heavens, the Lord's voice boomed: "Goldberg? Is t h a t you Goldberg? I didn't recognize you!" Solomon, like Goldberg, kept praying and beseeching God to let him win the lottery. Every time somebody won he would plead: "Why not me, Lord? I'm so much more pious." And he would carry on in t h i s way for m o n t h s a n d y e a r s . Finally God responded: "Give me a break Solomon. Buy a ticket!"

INTERVENING PSYCHOSOCIAL VARIABLES It is easy to identify those components of the stimulus and its context t h a t generate amusement. It is not so easy to determine the psychic source, the mediating organismic ingredients, t h a t is, those i n t e r v e n i n g psychosocial variables within t h e individual which define some distinctive and durable trait, mind-set, or capacity to create and appreciate funny things — a trait we conveniently label "sense of humor." Humor t h a t belittles, demeans, or debases an individual or group has been studied extensively over the past fifty years under the rubric

80

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

of disparagement humor (La Fave, 1972, 1977; Nevo, 1985; Wolff, Smith, and Murray, 1934; Zillman, 1983). It focuses on the individual's disposition, which permits the perception of a stimulus as being funny or not. Wolff, Smith, and Murray (1934) found, not unexpectedly, t h a t jokes t h a t disparaged Jews were appreciated less by Jews t h a n by non-Jews. Similarly La Fave (1972) suggested t h a t positive or affectionate attitudes toward an ethnic group tend to render a joke about t h a t group funny; and t h a t negative sentiments tend to achieve the opposite. Zillmann p u t it t h u s : "To use La Fave's analogy — seeing the good guys stick it to the bad guys was deemed to produce merriment, the reverse not" (1983, p. 89). Without getting into the controversial propositions and nuances of Zillmann's theory of disparagement humor, we can agree with him t h a t the "enjoyment of witnessing disparagement is based on affective dispositions toward t h e parties involved. . . . These dispositions may be positive (for example, affection, admiration, love) or negative (for example, resentment, condemnation, hate), and they [can] vary in intensity" (p. 90). Thus, says Zillmann, humor thrives on the debasement of the resented. Does t h a t mean t h a t when Jews laugh at themselves they hate themselves? That when non-Jews laugh at J e w s they h a t e them? That gross, tasteless, sick, or gallows jokes, such as those generated about t h e space shuttle tragedy, the Ethiopian famine, a n d t h e nuclear power accident at Chernobyl reveal, respectively, a hatred of t h e a s t r o n a u t s , Ethiopians, and Russians? Do the "Polack" jokes reveal a hatred of the Polish people? Do the Woody Allen movies and stories — which are themselves magnificently hilarious depictions of Jews like Zelig and characters in many other films — indicate selfcontempt? Not necessarily. The J e w i s h sense of h u m o r h a s a n additional feature: t h e capacity to joke and laugh in the face of misfortune and despair. It seems to enable J e w s to poke fun, almost philosophically a n d academically, at the entire universe — their oppressors as well as themselves and their traditions, mores, and values. Izzy t h e gangster h a s been shot by the mob on a street in Brooklyn not far from the tenement where his mother lives and is waiting with dinner. Mortally wounded, he staggers, crawls, creeps up the three flights to his mother's a p a r t m e n t . As his mother opens the door, he cries: "Ma, ma, listen. I've been shot . . ." "Come, Izzy, you'll eat first and talk later." Freud viewed Jewish humor as essentially tendentious, t h a t is, the joke represents rebellious criticism directed by the Jew against himself or other Jews who share his Jewish characteristics. It picks up on their "real faults, as well as the connection between them and

Bernard Saper /

81

their good qualities. . . . I do not know whether there are any other i n s t a n c e s of a people m a k i n g fun to such a degree of its own character" (1963, pp. 111-12). According to psychoanalytic theory, this tendency toward selfdisparagement borders on a masochistic view of their circumstances (Bergler, 1956). Reik (1954, 1962) focused on the conflict between, on the one hand, the inferior status accorded to Jews in America, and, on the other, their tendency to take themselves seriously and see themselves as superior to their detractors. It seemed to him t h a t the Jewish joke represented restrained aggression (albeit not particularly cruel) turned inward as a way to gain mastery over a difficult situation. In a sense, such self-mocking and self-criticism serve as a defense mechanism. Whitfield h a s found t h a t Jewish humor is the humor of people who are hugely successful, yet still feel inferior, tainted, and outcast: "Indeed, in-group jokes have often consisted of riffs on the negative stereotypes about Jews, who could blunt the impact of anti-semitism by embellishing the faults and shames ascribed to them" (1986, p. 6). Ziv (1984) speaks of the Jew's ability to laugh through his tears. He probably has in mind the biblical comment (Proverbs 14:13): "Even in laughter the heart knows sadness." In the Yiddish vernacular it may be rendered er lacht mit yashikis. One message of self-disparaging humor to the enemy could . . . r u n something like this: "You don't have to a t t a c k me a n d damage my honor — 111 do it myself (and even better t h a n you!)" In addition, the enemy's laugh may discharge his hostility, so t h a t he does not use his weapon. It is better to look scared, miserly, and foolish, and to stay alive, t h a n it is to die. (Ziv, 1984, p. H I ) A study comparing the propensity of Jews and Arabs in Israel to t u r n themselves into the butt of humor concludes t h a t Jewish humor (at least in Israel) is not self-aimed (Nevo, 1985). While it is true t h a t t h e r e a r e cultural a n d s t a t u s differences between Israeli and American J e w s , the most notable being t h a t t h e former enjoy a majority status, it is probably also true t h a t self-mocking humor — or any kind of humor, for t h a t matter — is learned or conditioned in a context of positive reinforcement. If the joking behavior is positively reinforced, even vicariously, it will be strengthened, repeated, and intensified. Apparently, regardless of the i n t e r n a l psychosocial m e c h a n i s m s inferred by psychodynamics theorists, self-mocking humor is big with a lot of Jews simply because it produces positive reinforcement. Often t h e J e w i s h preference in humor t a k e s the form of an internal dialectic dialogue, a form of sophistic propositional (if-then)

82

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

reasoning. Such h u m o r seems to use point a n d counterpoint, democratically considering and reconciling the incongruous facets of the theme of a stimulus. Witness the Jew's delight in the chochem fun Chelm stories. Paradoxically, chochem can connote a sage, a gullible simpleton, or a bumbling smart aleck. Every subheading to the thirty-four chapters in A Treasure-Trove of American Jewish Humor (Spalding, 1976) suggests this sort of silly and ironic dialectic orientation. For example, Chapter 5: "Foxy G r a n d m a s and Feisty Grandpas — or: Honor thy grandparents. Had they not created your father and mother, you'd have been born an orphan." And Chapter 30: "Travails on Travel — or: How I became t h e first J e w i s h passenger on a commercial flight to the moon, and how they sent my luggage to Mars." The Jews of America, like the Jews of the Diaspora in general, developed their comic vision, their ironic bent, in effect because it helped them to find peaceful strategies for dealing with prejudice and persecution; to take the edge off tragedy; to maintain their dignity, integrity, equilibrium, and sanity; and to get along and get ahead. At the risk of redundancy, it should be emphasized again t h a t there is a unique tendency — cultural, religious, and ethnic — for the Jew to pick up on the terrible miseries of his life, as well as its absurdities, to m a k e jokes and laugh at them. He doesn't mind accepting and even enjoying himself as the butt, provided the joke is not generated or repeated by anti-Semites in a context of hate and anger. Among the traits t h a t have been stereotypically attributed to Jews, which most of us don't mind kidding ourselves about (but deeply r e s e n t when non-Jews do it to us), are stinginess, pretentiousness, craftiness, diminished sexiness, particularly in our women, preoccupation with food and dieting, penny-wisdom b u t poundfoolishness, and physical appearance. The in-group jokes about these t r a i t s are numerous and, as Dosh and Gluck have shown, are not infrequently used by anti-Semites to derogate Jews. Here are some examples of jokes on these stereotypes: Cohen is a courier for the CIA. He has been assigned to a highly secret mission to contact Abe Goldberg in order to obtain vital information on an a r m s deal between Syria and Libya. The password is: "The river runs as swift as the grass grows slow." He is sent to a building on East 74th Street, only to find t h a t there are six Abe Goldbergs living there. Unable to decide which one is his contact, he arbitrarily selects the first floor apartment. "The river r u n s as swift as the grass grows slow," Cohen announces to the m a n who opens the door. "Oh," responds the man. "You want Goldberg the spy. He lives on the third floor." Berkowitz the tycoon and his wife are getting ready to go out for dinner. Throughout t h e i r p r e p a r a t i o n she is indecisive,

Bernard Saper /

83

changing her mind and plying him with dilatory q u e s t i o n s : "Shall I wear the pearl necklace or diamond Tiara?" "Should I p u t on my mink stole or my ermine coat?" "Are we gonna take the Mercedes or the Cadillac?" Finally, in great agitation Berkowitz cries: "Look, if you're gonna keep this up, we're gonna be late for the early bird special!" A m a n arriving from Lebanon carrying two bags is checked at the U.S. Customs. He identifies himself as a mohl, a person who performs ritual circumcisions. He is asked to open the smaller of the two bags. It contains a few hundred dollars. He explains t h a t he is a fund raiser for Israel and h a d become desperate for donations. So he hit on this great ploy of accosting men in t h e public toilets with his surgical knife, demanding money or he'd circumcise them. "That's how I got the money in this little bag." "And what's in t h a t huge other bag?" "Well, you see, in Lebanon not too many people wanted to give." THE CONSEQUENCES The final component of our cognitive-behavioral conceptualization is the consequence (C) or effect. As noted, consequences generally act on the preceding humorous behavior that they follow. If they produce an increase in the strength or frequency of the response, they are positively reinforcing. What reinforces any behavior — humor, antiSemitic or whatever — is an individual matter. However, some consequences have universally powerful reinforcing properties. When the behavior results in need satisfaction, drive reduction, goal attainment, problem solution, or a pleasurable emotional state, we assume t h a t it is being positively reinforced. Most responses are generally reinforced by consequences t h a t include feeling good, proud, happy, or strong; getting attention, love, praise, honor, glory, or respect; and improving i n t e r p e r s o n a l relationships. Discussing t h e s e effects within a different theoretical framework, Ziv (1984) h a s classified humor according to its "functions." These involve the use of humor in aggression and the achievement of superiority; in sexual satisfaction; as a corrective in interpersonal relations; as a defense mechanism; and as a form of intellectual stimulation. The reinforcing consequences of specifically Jewish humor when used by Jews could include any of the following: 1. Assuming superiority, particularly in intelligence, wisdom, and virtue; besting of bigots and adversaries; psychologically beating the persecutors at their own game. 2. Cementing the bond with other Jews; fostering ethnic pride and strength.

84

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

3. Demolishing defamatory stereotypes; defusing Gentile hate, revulsion, and aggression; getting even; mocking the enemy with cleverness, flair, and impugnity. 4. Releasing of pent-up fear, hate, fury; taking the edge off pain and suffering; sublimating unacceptable emotions; letting off steam; reducing frustration; resolving incongruity; solving problems. 5. Expiating guilt; blaming and deprecating self before others do; venting self-dissatisfaction. 6. Feeling good; being happy; enjoying; attaining a state that functions as a safety valve, nostrum, remedy, or panacea. In conclusion, since when is Jewish humor probably not antiSemitic? In a lot of instances, especially, I submit, when it: 1. Is told by Jews to Jews about Jews. 2. Stresses the virtues, intellectual prowess, goodness, and cleverness of the Jewish character and experience. 3. Is divested of malignant self-hatred. 4. Is characterized by penetrating, sharp, meaningful, instructive, allegorical, honey-coated barbs that are neither pernicious, vicious, prurient, nor virulent. 5. Expresses pride, nostalgia, affection, and affirmation of the Jewish tradition and experience. 6. Is recounted by Woody Allen, Neil Simon, S. J. Perelman, Milton Berle, Philip Roth, Mordecai Richler, Max Shulman, Carl Reiner, Allen Sherman, Isaac B. Singer, Sid Caesar, Joseph Heller, or any of the scores of other Jewish humorists, regardless of whether or not that humor is interpreted by the mavens — including rabbis, psychologists, psychia-trists, sociologists, psychoanalysts, and literary critics — is intended to deprecate, or results in the deprecation of, their own people. 7. Gives non-Jewish bigots no malicious delight from employing it as a weapon against Jewish targets. 8. Offers the Jew joy in besting his non-Jewish adversaries, overcoming his troubles, and poking fun at his own adversities. 9. Portrays the Jew basically as good, clever, positive, sympathetic, ethical, and moral, with only minor and laughable transgressions or peccadilloes. 10. Targets the vice and folly of the establishment (and not exclusively on Jews within that establishment). If bigots and haters use Jewish humor in order to defame Jews, intentionally or unintentionally, should we throw out the baby with

Bernard Saper

/

85

the bathwater? I'm not just asking. I'm telling: absolutely, positively, definitely no!

REFERENCES Bergler, E. (1956) Laughter and the Sense of Humor. New York: International Medical Books. Freud, S. (1963) Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton. Gardosh, K. (1986) "The Ugly Jew — A Classic Theme of Graphic Humor." Presented at the Second International Conference on Jewish Humor. New York, June. Glock, C. Y., and R. Stark. (1966) Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism. New York: Harper and Row. Gluck, S. L. (1986) "Let's Laugh at the Yids." Presented at the Second International Conference on Jewish Humor. New York, June. Krefetz, G. (1985) Jews and Money: The Myth and the Reality. New York: Ticknor and Fields. La Fave, L. (1972) "Humor Judgments as a Function of Reference Groups and Identification Classes." In The Psychology of Humor. Edited by J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee. New York: Academic Press. . (1977) "Ethnic Humour: From Paradox Towards Principles." In It's a Funny Thing, Humour. Edited by A. J. Chapman and H. C. Foot. Oxford: Pergamon. Mindess, H. (1972) The Chosen People? Los Angeles: Nash. Mindess, H., C. Miller, J. Turek, A. Bender, and S. Corbin. (1985) The Antioch Humor Test: Making Sense of Humor. New York: Avon Nevo, 0. (1985) "Does One Ever Really Laugh at One's Own Expense? The Case of Jew, and Arabs in Israel." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49, no. 3: 799-807. Novak, W., and M. Waldocks, eds. (1981) The Big Book of Jewish Humor. New York: Harper and Row. Perlmutter, N., and R. A. Perlmutter. (1982) The Real Anti-Semitism in America. New York: Arbor House. Podhoretz, N. (1982) "J'accuse." Commentary 74, September: 21-31. Poliakov, L. (1975) The History of Anti-Semitism. Vol. 3, From Voltaire to Wagner. New York: Vanguard Press. Reik, T. (1954) "Freud and Jewish Wit." Psychoanalysis 5: 13-28. . (1962) Jewish Wit. New York: Gamut Press. Rosten, L. (1968) The Joys of Yiddish. New York: McGraw-Hill. . (1985) Giant Book of Laughter. New York: Crown. Silberman, C. (1985) A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today. New York: Summit. Spalding, H. D., ed. (1969) Encyclopedia of Jewish Humor. New York: Jonathan David. . (1976) A Treasure-Trove of American Jewish Humor. New York: Jonathan David. Tobin, G. (1986) "Antisemitism: Sometimes Hidden, Always Real." Brandeis Review 5, 3: 20-24. Whitfield, S. J. (1986) "Humor in the House of Intellect." Brandeis Review 5, no. 3: 6-10. Wolff, H. A., C. E Smith, and H. A. Murray. (1934) "The Psychology of Humor: I.

86

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

A Study of Responses to Race-Disparagement Jokes." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 28:341-65. Zillmann, D. (1983) "Disparagement Humor." In Handbook of Humor Research, Vol. 1. Edited by J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee. New York: SpringerVerlag. Ziv, A. (1984) Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.

7 The Origins and Evolution of a Classic Jewish Joke Richard Raskin

Mrs. Markowitz was walking along the beach with her grandson when suddenly a wave came and washed the three-year-old boy out to sea. "Oh, Lord!" cried the woman. "If you'll j u s t bring t h a t boy back alive I'll do anything. I'll be the best person, I'll give to charity. I'll go to temple. Please, God! Send him back!" At t h a t moment, a wave washed the child back up on the sand, safe and sound. His grandmother looked at the boy and then up to the heavens. "Okay!" she exclaimed. "So where's his hat?" (Wilde, 1974, 70-71) In Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (1905), Freud drew a sharp distinction between self-critical jokes Jews tell about themselves and unflattering stories told about Jews by outsiders to the Jewish community. Freud described the latter as "for the most part brutal comic stories in which a joke is made unnecessary by the fact t h a t Jews are regarded by foreigners as comic figures." In their own jokes, Jews poke fun at certain of their characteristics, "but they know their real faults as well as the connection between t h e m and their good qualities. . . . Incidentally, I do not know whether there are many other instances of a people making fun to such a degree of its own character" (Freud, 1981, p. 157). Although a great deal of attention has been given to the issue of s e l f - d i s p a r a g e m e n t in J e w i s h humor, relatively little h a s been written about the differences between Jewish and anti-Semitic jokes. A recent article by Christie Davies (1986) does, however, deal with

88

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

these differences in a new and systematic m a n n e r , focusing on essential properties of both types of jokes, as well as on those of an intermediate category. Among the properties Davies sets in sharp relief are: (1) "switchability" versus cultural specificity — whether a given joke about Jews can be switched to a Scottish joke, for example, without being spoiled, or is so firmly anchored in traditions specific to Jewish culture t h a t no such substitution to another ethnic group with a reputation for thrift or shrewdness would be possible; and (2) the degree of positivity or negativity in the attitude expressed toward Jews. In this context, Davies defines a Jewish joke as one which is cult u r a l l y specific r a t h e r t h a n switchable, and is expressive of a generally favorable attitude toward Jews (though with some variation); an intermediate category is switchable and generally neutral; and anti-Semitic jokes are not switchable in the same sense and are expressive of a highly negative attitude. One property not mentioned by Davies and not yet discussed elsewhere in the l i t e r a t u r e on Jewish humor may help to shed further light on the differences between Jewish and other jokes. This property might be called interpretive margin, by which I mean a n openness to alternate ways of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the point of the joke, coupled with the possibility of simultaneously holding positive and negative attitudes toward the embodiment of Jewishness in t h e punch line. The following classic will help to illustrate this quality: A husband and wife have come to their rabbi to seek his advice on t h e i r m a r i t a l problems. The h u s b a n d tells about his wife's failings, going on about her narrow-mindedness and lack of imagination, and when he finishes, t h e rabbi says to him, "You're right!" Then it's the wife's t u r n to tell how impossible it is to live with her husband because of his stubbornness a n d insensitivity, and when she is finished with her complaints, the rabbi tells her, "You're right!" The rabbi's wife, who has overheard the entire discussion, pulls her husband aside and says to him: "Look. You told the husband he was right, and then you told the wife t h a t she was right. They can't both be right!" To which the rabbi replies to his wife: "You're right too!" 1 There are no fewer t h a n three ways in which we can understand the rabbi's violation of commonsense logic: (1) as a role-fiasco — a case of utter incompetence in the rabbi's grasp of the situation, as he bunglingly embroils himself in a growing tangle of contradictions; (2) as a clever tactical maneuver for sailing t h r o u g h conflictual s i t u a t i o n s without i n c u r r i n g anyone's hostility; a n d (3) as a n

Richard Raskin

/

89

exemplary expression of a higher sense of t r u t h , allowing for the possibility t h a t opposing points of view may both be valid. Few Jewish jokes offer an interpretive margin as wide as does the one j u s t cited. B u t m a n y of those jokes which have acquired the status of classics exhibit at least some degree of openness to alternate interpretive options and to a mixture of attitudes toward the comic figure. Conversely, anti-Semitic jokes offer no such margin. W h a t I propose in the present chapter is to single out for close study a classic Jewish joke with a remarkable history. It began as a mildly anti-Semitic anecdote in London in t h e 1820s. About a h u n d r e d years later, it surfaced again in a different guise — a transitional form — in which it began to circulate within the Jewish community in W e s t e r n Europe and l a t e r in t h e United S t a t e s . Finally, in the 1970s, a new American form of the joke was created, constituting a perfect expression of authentic Jewish humor. 2 In following t h e evolution of this joke — which in itself is something of a methodological innovation — I hope to show t h a t it is only in its final form t h a t (1) the story becomes culturally specific, and in ways t h a t greatly enrich the narrative; and (2) an interpretive margin is present, allowing for more t h a n one way of assessing the behaviors enacted in the joke, and for our holding both positive and negative attitudes toward each of the two principal players involved. THE ORIGINAL ANECDOTE In the following story, which appeared in a book of anecdotes published in London in 1822 (Anecdote Library, p. 340), the reader will recognize the rudiments of our classic Jewish joke: The Mosaic Mother On one of the nights when Mrs. Siddons first performed a t the Drury Lane, a Jew boy, in his eagerness to get to the first row in the shilling gallery, fell over into the pit, and was dangerously hurt. The managers of the theatre ordered the lad to be conveyed to a lodging, and he was attended by their own physician; b u t notwithstanding all their attention, he died, and was decently buried at the expense of the theatre. The mother came to the playhouse to t h a n k the managers, and they gave her his clothes and five guineas, for which she r e t u r n e d a curtsey, b u t with some hesitation added, they h a d forgotten to r e t u r n her the shilling which Abraham had paid for coming in. If we try to disengage from this story its implicit value system and its distribution of qualities to the players involved, we can observe t h a t the managers of the theater are presented to us as exemplary: they assume responsibility, though the accident was not their fault; they

90

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

provide medical care and subsequently a proper burial, apparently without hesitating to cover the expenses; and they are generous in their dealings with the mother, giving her five guineas, and without a mention of the expenses they had incurred. It is in contrast to these admirable qualities t h a t the mother's request for the shilling refund comes across as so outrageous, especially since — according to the premises of the joke — she shows no overt signs of grief and is apparently more indifferent to t h e loss of her child t h a n to the opportunity for getting an extra shilling out of the situation. This mercenary concern overrides and overshadows the original purpose of the visit, which was to thank the theater managers. The prescribed behavior from which she deviates would naturally involve unwavering expressions of gratitude toward the theater managers and of profound grief. The prescribed behaviors the mother fails to live up to, as well as those the theater managers more t h a n fulfill, are all ascribed a positive value here and are implicitly linked to being non-Jewish. Similarly the mother's ultimately ungrateful, unfeeling, and avaricious n a t u r e is linked to being Jewish (as is the child's reckless rushing to the first row in the shilling gallery, in order to get the most for his money). Keeping in mind this polarization of attributes into a positive cluster on the Gentile side and a negative one on the Jewish side, it is clear t h a t the circulation of this anecdote outside the Jewish comm u n i t y afforded the teller and h e a r e r (or writer and reader) an opportunity to share a feeling of amused superiority vis-a-vis Jewishness. Furthermore, three aspects of the story all contribute to its coming across, not as a joke, but almost as a factual account of a real incident: (1) its references to a specific t h e a t e r and a particular actress (Sara Siddons was immensely popular a n d h a d begun appearing at the Drury Lane in 1775); (2) its style of objective reporting, with no cues suggesting playful fabulation; and (3) the death of the child. 3 For all of these reasons, it is appropriate to see the anecdote's relationship to the negative stereotype it evokes as one of confirming and perpetuating t h a t stereotype. 4 Since the anecdote does not appear in the other English collections of the nineteenth century t h a t I have been able to consult, such as George Coleman's Circle of Anecdote and Wit (1821) and W. Carew Hazlitt's Jests, Old and New (1887), its circulation may have been r a t h e r limited. In any event, it a p p e a r s to have been virtually forgotten until surfacing again in a new form in the 1920s. THE RESCUER VARIANT A small boy of Jewish persuasion playing at the end of a pier fell off and was finally rescued with great difficulty by an intrepid swimmer.

Richard Raskin /

91

Half a n hour later, while leaving the pier, after resting from his exhaustive effort, the rescuer was touched on the shoulder by a man. "Are you the m a n vot saved my boy, Ikey's life?" he asked. "Yes," said the still breathless hero. "Veil," said the indignant father, "vere's his cap?" (The Best Jewish Stories, 1925, pp. 63-64). In this second phase in the evolution of the story, with its new seaside setting, the child's plunge into the orchestra pit h a s been replaced by his falling into the water; the t h e a t e r m a n a g e r s have given way to a rescuer who succeeds in saving the child from drowning, exhausting himself in the process; and t h e mother's outrageously inappropriate request for the shilling refund h a s become the father's even more outrageous reproach to the rescuer for not having recovered the drowning child's hat. The various attributes are distributed in much the same way as in the original anecdote: a positive cluster is implicitly identified as nonJ e w i s h and includes the rescuer's heroic exploit as well as t h e gratitude and relief the situation calls for (and both we and the rescuer are led to expect); a negative cluster, tagged as Jewish, consists in the father's ungrateful, unfeeling, and penny-pinching nature. Consequently, the image of the Jew is no more flattering here t h a n in the anecdote of 1822. Only now the story comes across unmistakably as a joke, because of such changes as the survival of the child, the elimination of all trappings of objective reporting, and the inclusion of a dialogue in which the father's lines are tagged as comical by virtue of his accent, even before the punch line is sprung. There is no reason to believe t h a t this new variant is of Jewish origin. It seems unlikely t h a t the person who transcribed the joke as it appeared in the 1925 anthology was Jewish, since no Jewish jokester would have written "a small boy of Jewish persuasion," j u s t as the euphemistic "Mosaic" and overly blunt "Jew boy" in the original anecdote are types of ethnic tagging English Jews would hardly use. This v a r i a n t of the joke subsequently appeared in at least eight anthologies published in France, t h e United Kingdom, and t h e United States. It is interesting to note t h a t in only three of the eight cases is the ungrateful p a r e n t presented as J e w i s h (Szyk, 1927, Lettslaff, 1937, and Eliezer, 1985). In two other instances (Hershfield, 1959, and Negre, 1973) no ethnicity is evoked. And in t h e t h r e e remaining collections, the parent is identified as either a Scotsman (Junior, 1927, and Hershfield, 1938) or an Irish woman (Rosten, 1985). It is in this form, as published by Junior (1927) and Lettslaff (1937) t h a t Davies cites the joke (p. 83) as an example of his intermediate

92

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

category, exhibiting a high degree of switchability. I fully agree with him, and would only add t h a t in the form of this second variant, the story is not yet a Jewish joke (despite its inclusion in several Jewish anthologies), and can best be described as transitional in a historical perspective. THE MIRACLE OR CONTRACTUAL VARIANT With the final transformation of the story — in print for the first time in Larry Wilde's version of 1974, provided at the opening of the chapter — the behaviors enacted in the joke are fully embedded in and expressive of Jewish culture, both in the qualities ascribed to the mother-figure and in the relationship to God t h a t is evoked in the story. After looking at these behaviors, we can u n d e r t a k e a more interpretive examination of the joke and consider w h a t might be called the story's manifest and latent meanings. The J e w i s h n e s s of t h e [GrandJMother-Figure When the child is swept out to sea, the grandmother desperately addresses God, in the belief — which t u r n s out to be justified — t h a t God controls the very forces of nature t h a t had carried the child away and can therefore also restore him again. She proposes a contractual a r r a n g e m e n t with God, a quid pro quo according to which she promises to become "the best person," "to give to charity" and "go to temple," in exchange for God's deliverance of the child. This promise implies, among other things, t h a t (1) the grandmother does not at present give to charity, go to temple, and so on; (2) t h a t God would be pleased by such a change in h e r life and might consider t h a t promised a m e n d m e n t of her ways to be a sufficient reason for rescuing her grandson; and (3) t h a t at least in the grandmother's view of the order of the universe, there is a causal relationship between one's behavior and the disasters or salvation sent by God. All of this can be related to beliefs t h a t prevailed in the E a s t European shtetl, where it was reportedly common to regard n a t u r a l catastrophes as well as pogroms as acts of God brought on by the people's failure to live up to their religious duties — j u s t as, according to the Bible, God had sent the Flood and had also destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as a punishment for sinfulness. The following account is cited in an excellent book on life in the shtetl: "Whenever there was an epidemic in the shtetl they used to blame it on the people's sins. They tried to find the guilty ones and would expose them to the public. The Rov would pin up leaflets wherever people could see them saying t h a t the reason

Richard Raskin /

93

our children are dying is because t h e people are not pious enough: they don't go to shul; they don't keep kosher too well; and because t h e women don't go to t h e mikva. . . . Another method for getting rid of an epidemic, was to get two orphans if possible and marry them off on the cemetery. This was done as a mitzva for God to show Him the good deeds the people are doing and by pleasing Him thus He would call back the plague." In this sense pogroms are treated also as acts of God. (Zborowski and Herzog, 1952, p. 224) If a child's life was endangered by illness, the shtetl mother might deal with t h a t as a matter between her and God. The mother of a gravely ill child in Sholom Aleichem's tale, "The Little Pot" (1901) does j u s t that: " 'Dear God,' I pleaded with the Eternal One, 'do you want to punish me? Punish me in any way you like, but don't take my child from me.' And God heard me, He granted my wish, the boy became well again" (Sholom Aleichem, 1949, p. 186). The mother's resources in such situations were viewed as potent: The shtetl mother, toiling constantly for her family, is an eternal fountain of sacrifice, lamentation, and renewed effort. When misfortune strikes she cries out with tears and with protests, but her efforts never flag. Parental love is also expressed in worrying. . . . The intensity of one's worry shows the extent of identification, another proof of love. "Oh, it should have happened to me!" cries the mother whose child has h u r t himself. "It should be to me and not to you!" and she wrings her hands — "breaks her fingers" — over his scratched face. Even before anything happens, a good mother worries about it and there is magic in her worry. It not only proves her love but it may keep the misfortune away. (Zborowski and Herzog, 1952, p. 294) While this power belongs to the East European component of the J e w i s h mother-figure in the joke, a very different and equally awesome power embodied by t h a t figure can be related to her American component. This can best be illustrated by t h e most famous of all the Jewish American Mother jokes, which began to circulate in the early 1960s: A mother gives her son two shirts as a present. Eager to show his appreciation, he wears one of them the next time he sees her. She takes one look at it and says: "What's the matter? The other one you don't like?" The mother in this story engages in a brilliant tactical maneuver designed to engender feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and failure in her

94

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

offspring. This isn't necessarily deliberate or even conscious on her part; it is w h a t she is programmed to do. An encounter with her is essentially a series of moves in a game t h a t only she can win: no one can please her, and the greater the effort to do j u s t that, t h e more certain the failure will be. Returning now to the final variant of our joke, we can see t h a t t h e g r a n d m o t h e r in t h a t story combines t h e magical power and passionate concern of the shtetl mother-she does in fact get God to produce a miracle — with the tactical supremacy of t h e J e w i s h American Mother, since no one can satisfy her; not even God producing a miracle in compliance with h e r despera t e prayer. She defines God's performance of t h i s miracle as flawed, and in the process releases herself from h e r side of the bargain. In the previous variant, nothing positive was identified with Jewishness, and the Jewish parent was seen as less concerned with the saving of a life t h a n with the loss of an object worth a few pennies. In t h e miracle variant, however, the grandmother is fiercely concerned with the saving of her grandson's life, and it is she who successfully maneuvers God into bringing t h a t about. Her subsequent complaint about the missing h a t is of course expressive of a lack of gratitude; but here it can be understood as a function of either stereotypic avarice or of an entirely different stereotype: t h a t of a J e w i s h mother no one — not even God — can satisfy, especially where her child is concerned. The J e w i s h n e s s of the Relationship t o God Evoked i n t h e Punch Line Unlike Christian conceptions of the relationship between m a n and God, the Jewish cultural tradition includes a current in which m a n is viewed as fully entitled to make demands upon — and even find fault with — God. For example, a number of Hasidic stories deal with injustice in the world as a failure on God's p a r t to live up to His contractual responsibilities to man. One such tale involves a humble tailor who strikes a bargain with God on Yom Kippur: After Yom Kippur the Berditchever called over a tailor and asked him to relate his argument with God on the day before. The tailor said: "I declared to God: You wish me to repent of my sins, b u t I have committed only minor offenses; I have kept left-over cloth, or I may have eaten in a non-kosher home, where I worked, without washing my hands. "But Thou, O Lord, has committed grievous sins: Thou h a s t a k e n away babies from their mothers and mothers from their

Richard Raskin /

95

babies. Let us be quits: mayest Thou forgive me, and I will forgive Thee." Said the Berditchever: "Why did you let God off so easily? You might have forced him to redeem all of Israel." (Newman, 1963, p. 57) At times, t h i s outlook led to its u l t i m a t e consequence: the convening of a Din Torah, or rabbinical court, in order to place God on trial for the unmerited suffering of His subjects. Such trials were held during the Holocaust. Elie Wiesel, who was present a t one of them while imprisoned in a concentration camp, wrote: "Inside the kingdom of night, I witnessed a strange tribunal. Three rabbis — all erudite and pious men — decided one winter evening to indict God for allowing his children to be massacred" (Wiesel, 1979, "The Scene"). Another commentator, Eliezer Berkowitz, told of a Din Torah in the ghetto of Lodz in 1943, after Jews had been sent to a concentration camp: "Even those who were willing to grant t h a t what had befallen them was punishment for their sins argued with God over the fate of young children. . . . It is the very reality of the relationship, the intimacy between the partners of the covenant, t h a t not only allows but, at times, requires the Jew to contend with the divine T h o u ' " (Berkowitz, 1979, pp. 127-28). In defining God's performance as not quite good enough, the grandmother in our joke embodies an attitude toward God t h a t is at once and the same time both totally inappropriate, considering the fact t h a t the child has been saved, and yet expressive of a kind of chutzpah t h a t h a s a tremendous appeal a n d is deeply rooted in Jewish tradition, going back at least as far as the biblical account of Abraham arguing with God over the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 18: 23-33). Manifest and Latent Meanings On the surface, the grandmother's statement in the punch line is outrageously ungrateful. She h a s engaged God in a contractual agreement, and when he delivers the child safe and sound, thereby fulfilling His p a r t of the bargain, she finds fault with the rescue because of a totally insignificant detail. The miracle God produces in compliance with her prayer isn't good enough for her: she is not satisfied. Our immediate reaction to the punch line is to find her behavior ludicrous and deplorable in its deviance from the expression of gratitude we were naturally led to expect and which the situation calls for. Her treatment of God is as unfair as the mother's treatment of her son in the joke about the shirts. In this context, we place

96

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

ourselves on the side of God, who is seen as responsive to a desperate prayer and whose deliverance of a child goes unappreciated by a woman for whom even He is no match. However, there is another side to this picture if we consider some of the implications with respect to God's role in the events depicted. If God could replace the little boy on the beach in response to the grandmother's promises, t h e n it is logical to assume t h a t He could have prevented the three-year-old's being swept out to sea in the first place. That God should have allowed such a thing to happen is what is most outrageous in the framework of this story — far more outrageous t h a n the grandmother's complaint. In fact, considering w h a t God had permitted to happen, the grandmother can be seen as letting Him off easy when she complains about the missing hat! Naturally, all of this remains beneath the surface of the joke. But it is nonetheless present and constitutes an undercurrent which in some sense balances and completes the more obvious meaning of the story and invests it with resonances of a tragic nature, linking it — however remotely — to situations in which the desperate prayers of Jewish mothers remained unanswered. CONCLUSION: FROM ANTI-SEMITIC ANECDOTE TO JEWISH JOKE In its original and transitional European forms of the 1820s and 1920s respectively, the story we have studied h a s t h e following properties: (1) it assigns positive values, such as generosity and heroism, to the Gentiles in the story and negative values — ingratitude, coldness, avarice — to the principal embodiment of Jewishness; (2) none of the flavor or content specific to Jewish cultural life is drawn into the story, hence there is a high degree of what Christie Davies calls switchability in the intermediate form of the joke, where the ungrateful parent can just as well be called "McGregor" as speak with a Jewish accent; and (3) the story can be understood in one and only one way. After its final transformation in the United States in the 1970s, when the story becomes a genuinely Jewish joke, its characteristics are entirely different. For one thing, p a t t e r n s specific to J e w i s h culture are drawn upon, including E a s t European and American components of the Jewish mother-figure, as well as the Jewishness of daring to reprimand God. Furthermore, we have considerable interpretive margin, coupled with the distribution of positive and negative attributes to each of the two principal actors in the story, the grandmother and God. Is the grandmother's complaint about the missing h a t to be understood as a function of a penny-pinching nature (as in the earlier variants of the joke) or as a display of tactical supremacy in maneuvering God into a

Richard Raskin

/

97

losing position, while at the same time releasing herself from a b u r d e n s o m e promise? How can we refrain from a d m i r i n g h e r resourcefulness in bringing about the rescue of her child, or from deploring her ingratitude? H e r complaint is outrageous, yet its c h u t z p a h h a s a n irresistible charm. Should we a d m i r e God's responsiveness to a grandmother's prayer and His rescue of a child, or find it scandalous t h a t He allowed the boy to be swept out to sea in the first place? And as if this extraordinary interpretive l a t i t u d e were not enough, the joke in is definitive form also exhibits a blend of comic elan a n d tragic undertones, the relief and lightheartedness of its conclusion serving to dispel the distressing resonances set in motion in the part of the story t h a t depicts the loss of a child. Neither the original anecdote nor the transitional rescuer variant is particularly memorable. There is no spark of life in either of them. Yet on the basis of this drab, raw material a t h a n d , portraying Jewishness from outside the ethnic community, an inspired jokester hit upon t h e idea of staging an encounter between an ultimate Jewish mother-figure and God. In designing this Jewish equivalent of an Olympian confrontation and making a promise and contractual a r r a n g e m e n t central features of the n a r r a t i v e , t h e anonymous jokester brought the story to life within the culture it depicts. In the process, what had begun as a flat and mildly anti-Semitic caricature became one of t h e richest and most meaningful expressions of Jewish humor we have today.

NOTES 1. The history and interpretive properties of this joke will be discussed in a forthcoming book entitled Life is Like a Glass of Tea: Studies of Classic Jewish Jokes. (Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1992 and Philadelphia/ Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1992.) The present article is adapted from this chapter in that book. 2. In attempting to trace the history of this and about fifty other classic Jewish jokes, I systematically sifted through all of the anthologies of Jewish humor I could consult at specialized or university libraries in the United States, France, Denmark, Britain, and Israel. The anthologies consulted were written in English, German, French, Yiddish, Danish, Spanish, and Italian, and cover the period extending from 1812 to the present. In all, fifteen versions of the joke studied here were collected, one of them (Lettslaff, 1937) graciously supplied by Christie Davies. The reader will find all fifteen versions in the publication history that follows the references. 3. On the remote possibility that an actual incident was the basis for this anecdote, I consulted histories and records of the Drury Lane and even contacted the theater's present administration. Naturally, not a shred of evidence could be found. I mention this to illustrate the point that even someone who should know better could mistake this anecdote for a possibly factual account.

98

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

4. In all fairness to the editors of the book in which the anecdote appeared, it should be noted that in another section of the Anecdote Library, the editors deplored the religious hatred to which the Jews in England had been subjected, stating that "the cruelties and oppressions occasioned by this prejudice is one of the darkest stains on our national character" (Persecution of the Jews in England, p. 649).

REFERENCES Anecdote Library. (1822) London: Whittaker. Berkowitz, E. (1979) With God in Hell: Judaism in the Ghettos and Concentration Camps. London: Sanhedrin Press. The Best Jewish Stories. (1925) London: Grant Richards. Davies, C. (1986). "Jewish Jokes, Anti-Semitic Jokes, and Hebredonian Jokes." In Jewish Humor. Edited by A. Ziv. Tel Aviv: Papyrus. Dines, M. (1986) The Jewish Joke Book. London: Futura. Eliezer, B. (1985) More of the World's Best Jewish Jokes. London: Angus and Robertson. Freud, S. (1981) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. Harmondsworth: Penguin (1905). Hershfield, H. (1938) Now I'll Tell One. New York: Greenberg. . (1959) Laugh Louder, Live Longer. New York: Grayson. Junior, A. (1927) Canny Tales fae Aberdeen. Dundee: Valentine. Koplev, K. (1988) Guds Udvalgte. J0disk vid fra Moses til Woody Allen [God's Chosen: Jewish Wit from Moses to Woody Allen]. Copenhagen: Haase. Lanigan, S. (1990) A Minister, a Rabbi, and a Priest. New York: St. Martin's Press. Lettslaff, I. (1937) Jokes, Jokes, Jokes. London: Universal Publications. Negre, H. (1973) Dictionnaire des histoires droles [Dictionary of Funny Stories]. Paris: Fayard. Newman, L. (1963) The Hasidic Anthology. New York: Schocken (1934). Novak, W., and M. Waldoks, eds. (1981) The Big Book of Jewish Humor. New York: Harper and Row. Rosten, L. (1985) Giant Book of Laughter. New York: Crown. Sholom Aleichem. (1949) Tevye's Daughters. New York: Crown. Szyk, A. (1927) Le Juif qui rit [The Jew Who Laughs]. 2nd series. Paris: Albin Michel. Wiesel, E. (1979) The Trial of God. New York: Random House. Wilde, L. (1974) The Official Jewish Joke Book. New York: Pinnacle. Zborowski, M., and H. Herzog. (1952) Life Is with People: The Jewish Little-Town of Eastern Europe. New York: International Universities Press.

Richard Raskin

/

99

PUBLICATION HISTORY Refund Variant (1822) Anecdote Library. London: Whittaker, p. 340.

THE MOSAIC MOTHER On one of the nights when Mrs. Siddons first performed at Drury Lane, a Jew boy, in his eagerness to get to the first row in the shilling gallery, fell over into the pit, and was dangerously hurt. The managers of the theatre ordered the lad to be conveyed to a lodging, and he was attended by their own physician; but notwithstanding all their attention, he died, and was decently buried at the expense of the theatre. The mother came to the playhouse to thank the managers, and they gave her his clothes and five guineas, for which she returned a curtsey, but with some hesitation added, they had forgotten to return her the shilling which Abraham had paid for coming in.

Rescuer Variant (1925) The Best Jewish Stories. London: Grant Richards, pp. 63-64.

Arthur Szyk (1927) Lejuifqui rit [The Jew Who Laughs]. Paris: Albin Michel, p. 211.

A small boy of Jewish persuasion playing at the end of a pier fell off and was finally rescued with great difficulty by an intrepid swimmer. Half an hour later, while leaving the pier, after resting from his exhaustive effort, the rescuer was touched on the shoulder by a man. "Are you the man vot saved my boy Ikey's life?" he asked. "Yes," said the still breathless hero. "Veil," said the indignant father, "vere's his cap?" HELP FOR THE DROWNING [translation] The father. — Are you the one who pulled the child out of the water? The fisherman. — Yes, sir. The father (sternly, to his son). — What about your hat?

100

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Allan Junior (1927) Canny Tales fae Aberdeen. Dundee: Valentine, p. 17.

There was great excitement on Deeside. A boy had fallen in the river and had been rescued just in time by a passerby. When things had calmed down a bit the hero was approached by the boy's father and questioned: 'Are you the man that saved my laddie?' 'Yes.' 'Whaur's his bonnet?'

Ike'nsmile Lettslaff (1937) Jokes, Jokes, Jokes. London: Universal Publications, pp. 48-49.

THANKS A Jewish lad was playing on the end of Southend pier and fell into the water. A well-known local swimmer jumped in and rescued the youngster after an exhausting time. About an hour afterwards the swimmer, fully rested, left the pier. Outside he was tapped on the arm by an excited old Jew, who asked him: "Are you the man vot saved Mo's life?" "Yes," said the surprised swimmer. "Veil, vere's his cap?"

Harry Hershfield (1938) Now I'll Tell One. New York: Greenberg, p. 121.

McGregor took little Sandy out for a walk. Crossing a bridge near the park, the boy broke away for a moment and fell into the deep lagoon below. McGregor put up a great cry for help. Into the water dived an attendant and, after a hard struggle against the current, brought the boy safely to shore. The now exhausted hero simply waved nonchalantly to McGregor and said, "Well, there's your boy." "Yes," answered the father, "But where's his hat?"

Harry Hershfield (1959) Laugh Louder, Live Longer. New York: Gray son, p. 84.

"Help save my little son!" cried the panicky mother. Into the swirling water jumped a passerby. After a dangerous struggle, the brave one brought the youngster ashore—as the hero started to collapse from his efforts, the mother tapped him on the shoulder. "I hate to bother you—but where's his hat?"

Richard Raskin

Herv^ Negre (1973) Dictionnaire des histoires droles [Dictionary of Funny Stories]. Paris: Fayard, vol. 1, p. 131.

Leo Rosten (1985) Giant Book of Laughter. New York: Crown, p. 289.

/

101

[translation] A kid who is dripping with water and snivelling goes over to his father: — Daddy! I fell into the river! — What? says the father. And who pulled you out? — A nice gentleman dove into the water with all his clothes on and carried me back onto the river bank. — Is that so? And where is this gentleman? — He's over there on the shore, drying himself off. The father rushes over to the rescuer who is still shivering and says to him: — Are you the one who pulled my boy out of the water? — Yes, says the man. But you know, it was only natural! — Is that so? You find that natural? And his cap, what have you done with it? INGRATITUDE The Padriac Hannegans of Sydney, Australia, were taking a holiday at the sea near Wollongong. Mrs. Hannegan was playing in the water with her little son, Carson. Suddenly, an unexpected, powerful wave rolled in, knocked the boy down, and, roaring back, scooped the child up and carried him out to sea. "Carson! My boy!" screamed Mrs. Hannegan. "Help! Help!" People leaped to their feet. Several waded into the water. But all stood frozen, for they could not see the lad who was being sucked out to sea. "Help! My boy! Drowning!" shrieked Mrs. Hannegan. From his high tower, a lifeguard leaped down to the sand, hurled his torpedo-buoy ahead in the direction he had seen the boy being carried, and with powerful strokes swam out, reached the lad, slung him across the orange torpedo, and propelled both onto a huge wave that carried all three back to shore. Mrs. Hannegan smothered her son, who was coughing, but definitely alive, in her arms. The lifeguard beamed. "Fit as a fiddle, he is, mum." Mrs. Hannegan noticed something, drew herself up, and, with considerable indignation, declared: "He—was— wearing—a—hat! . . ."

102

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Ben Eliezer (1985) More of the World's Best Jewish Jokes. London: Angus & Robertson, p. 52.

Little Moishe goes skating on the lake while his mother stands by, watching over him. Suddenly, through a crack in the thin ice, little Moishe vanishes. "Oy vey!" shrieks his mother, "mine Moishe! In front of my very eyes." Eventually a policeman comes, strips naked and dives into the icy water. Again and again, blue from the cold, he dives in and eventually finds Moishe. The policeman manages to revive him, wraps him in his own clothes and rushes him to the hospital where little Moishe eventually recovers. Moishe's mother goes up to the policeman afterwards and says, "So? Where's his hat? He had a hat!"

Miracle or Contractual Variant Larry Wilde (1974) The Official Jewish Joke Book. New York: Pinnacle, pp . 7071.

Mrs. Markowitz was walking along the beach with her grandson when suddenly a wave came and washed the three-year-old boy out to sea. "Oh, Lord!" cried the woman. "If you'll just bring that boy back alive I'll do anything. I'll be the best person, I'll give to charity. I'll go to temple. Please, God! Send him back!" At that moment, a wave washed the child back up on the sand, safe and sound. His grandmother looked at the boy and then up to the heavens. "Okay!" she exclaimed. "So where's his hat?"

William Novak & Moshe Waldoks (1981) The Big Book of Jewish Humor. New York: Harper & Row, p. 225.

It was a hot day at Jones Beach. Bessie Cohen was there with her three-year-old grandson; she has bought him a cute little sailor suit with a hat, and she watched with delight as he played with his toys at the edge of the water. Suddenly a giant wave swept onto the shore and before Bessie could even move, the boy was swept out into the cold Atlantic. Bessie was frantic. "I know I've never been religious," she screamed to the heavens. "But I implore You to save the boy! I'll never ask anything of you again!" The boy disappeared from view, and Bessie was beside herself. He went under a second time, and Bessie began to wail. As he went under for the third time, she screamed mightily, appealing God to save the boy's life.

Richard Raskin

/

103

Her final supplication was answered, as the sea suddenly threw the child onto the shore. He was badly shaken but clearly alive. Bessie picked him up and put him down gently on a blanket, far from the water. After looking him over, she turned her face toward the heavens, and complained loudly, "He had a hatl" Michael Dines (1986) The Jewish Joke Book. London: Futura, p. 11.

Kjeld Koplev (1988) Guds udvalgte. J0disk vid fra Moses til Woody Allen [God's Chosen: Jewish Wit from Moses to Woody Allen]. Copenhagen: Haase, p. 13.

Suds Lanigan (1990) A Minister, a Rabbi and a Priest. New York: St. Martin's Press, pp. 17-18.

Grandmother takes her young grandson to the beach and watches him as he paddles. Suddenly a giant wave hurls the boy out to sea. The grandmother starts wailing to God and another huge wave washes him back on to dry land. The grandmother raises a clenched fist and shouts to God. "He had a hat!" [translation] Sarah was sitting with her child at the shore of the Red Sea. A gigantic wave washed in over her and swept the child away. — What have I done to you, Sarah cried out to heaven where she thought her God must be. — Nothing, right? I have fulfilled my obligations, performed all the rituals, attended every religious service, lived according to the laws in the Talmud and Torah. Why are you taking my child from me? A moment passed as Sarah continued her denunciation, and then a new wave cast the child right back into her arms again. Sarah sat there looking at her first-born, now lying safe and sound in her lap. She turned her face toward God again. — And the hat. What happened to it. The child was wearing a hat, wasn't he?

A grandmother was sitting on the beach in Miami sunning herself and watching her two-year-old grandson play in the wet sand. Suddenly a huge wave rolled in, washing over everything. When the grandmother recovered from her shock, she looked down at the water's edge. "My grandson is gone!" she shrieked, and started running to the water. Despite the help of the lifeguards and others, the child could not be found.

104

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

The grandmother began beating her breast and wailing. Pounding the sand, she looked up at heaven and cried, "Oh, Lord, I've never asked you for anything in my life. I've been a good woman. Please, please, just return my grandson and I'll be eternally grateful. With that, a cloud suddenly formed in the sky and a giant hand reached down from it and deposited her grandson next to her, safe and sound. Clasping her hands together the woman looked up. "He had a hat."

II MEN AND WOMEN IN JEWISH HUMOR

This page intentionally left blank

8 Love among the Stereotypes, or Why Woody's Women Leave Richard Freadman

"Quasimodo, I want a divorce." Allen, 1976

In Annie Hall Woody Allen surrogate Alvy Singer meets his first wife while he is waiting to take the stage for a comedy routine. Responding to a question from Alvy, Allison Portchnik tells him t h a t she is doing a Ph.D. on political commitment in twentieth-century literature. The following exchange occurs: Alvy:

Allison:

Y-y-you like New York Left-Wing Liberal Intellectual Central P a r k West Brandeis University . . . uh, the Socialist Summer Camps and the . . . the father with Ben S h a h n drawings, right? And you really, you know, strike-oriented kind of — uh, stop me before I make a complete imbecile of myself. No, t h a t was wonderful. I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype. (Allen, 1982, p. 20)

Woody watchers, listeners, and readers will recognize a recurrent theme here in the reference to stereotypes; but of course the preoccupation is by no means restricted to Allen's work. On the contrary, all humor, and especially ethnic and minority humor, obviously concerns itself with cultural stereotyping; with the way in which stereotypes like Jew, Gentile, man, woman, white, black reflect and impact upon the condition of various cultural constituencies. Though the operation of such stereotypes is often socially injurious, and indeed frequently pernicious and destructive, it is important not to be

108

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

too sweeping in characterizing w h a t is in fact a highly complex social phenomenon. In particular, it is essential to see t h a t stereotyping also performs certain functions t h a t are useful, and indeed indispensable. Let us at the outset, then, distinguish between w h a t might be termed the positive and the negative functions of stereotyping. This in t u r n will help to clarify the role t h a t humor, in this instance Woody Allen's humor, plays in respect of such stereotyping. The positive function of stereotypes resides in the fact t h a t they help us to negotiate the otherwise unmanageable and disorienting plurality of experience. As Walter Lippmann p u t s it in one of the earliest discussions of this phenomenon, stereotypes constitute a kind of perceptual short-cut for understanding the "booming, buzzing confusion of the outer world": "In the great booming, buzzing confusion of the outer world, we pick out what our culture already h a s defined for us, and we tend to perceive t h a t which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture." (Lippmann, 1922, p. 31). It is not hard to see latent in Lippmann's memorable encapsulation the negative function of stereotyping. Etymologically, the word s solid, stereotype (from the Greek type) pertains to the notion of fixity and has a long historical association with printing. It carries, then, strong connotations of mechanical repetition, of things done unvariably and inflexibly to pattern. Transposed to habits of perception, this gives us Lippmann's notion of a particular mode of perception t h a t is as it were automatic, preordained "by our culture." The problems inherent here are highlighted in a more recent and standard definition: Stereotyping consists of classifying all new experiences, a n d especially persons, using symbols learned in the past. These symbols consist of significant cues for classification. Important in this list of cues are race, ethnic background, socioeconomic s t a t u s , and others. Persons and situations are infinitely more complex t h a n these simple cues will admit. (Zaleznik a n d Moment, 1964, p. 35) Because it by definition serves as a short-cut response to the confounding multiplicity of experience, stereotyping cannot acknowledge or accommodate the stubborn complexities of life, be it of persons or situations. Stereotyping is, then, of its n a t u r e unoriginal, uninquisitive, and unresponsive to the particular instance — be it person or situation — confronting the perceiver. Herein lies its negative function and its frightening potential for destructive social effect. Traditionally humor has dealt with stereotyping in a number of ways. Some humor has made fun of, and generated fun from, the a b s u r d simplifications involved in stereotyping's reduction a n d

Richard Freadman /

109

denial of the true complexities of experience. Some, while still amusing in its way, has been more sober in emphasis: it has grasped the tragic implications of stereotyping's negative function. In particular, it has drawn attention to the fact t h a t stereotyping is complicit in the dynamics of social power; t h a t its caricaturing of certain social groups, especially of those in subordinate social positions, serves to reinforce both the subordinate positions themselves and the social mythologies t h a t rationalize such acts of social subordination. This sort of h u m o r r e m i n d s u s t h a t t h e stereotype a s s i s t s in t h e maintenance of asymmetrical power relations. Such humor can also register the pain of the losers in the game of stereotypification — their humiliation, their anger, and their incomprehension. B u t it can also express their need for comprehension and can provide one way of coming to u n d e r s t a n d the forces of prejudice and derisive simplification t h a t bedevil their lives. To say this is to insist — as I would want to do — t h a t in respect of stereotyping or indeed any other issue, humor is not (on any adequately qualified definition of the term) restricted to the production of hilarity, mirth, or uncomplicated amusement. In its more sophisticated forms humor is often a mode of exploration, a profoundly heuristic activity which may probe both the laughable and lamentable dimensions of life, and the ways in which these dimensions may in fact interact in a given instance. Beyond this, humor may remind us t h a t , as I have argued, a phenomenon like stereotyping is not merely laughable or lamentable, but also in some respects laudable: a social necessity. Thus sophisticated humor treatments of stereotyping may see it in its negative function as comic, tragic, or both; b u t also, in its positive function, as socially beneficial. In the case of Woody Allen, this heuristic capacity h a s been strongly and increasingly apparent from the early slapstick mode of Take the Money and Run (1969) to the intricate sociopsychological drama of Hannah and Her Sisters (1986). Indeed, it is the exploratory resourcefulness of Allen's humor t h a t in p a r t distinguishes it from more conventional work and which renders his creative engagement with issues like stereotyping so revealing. The purpose of this chapter is to consider one aspect of Allen's enquiry into stereotyping work within man-woman relationships. Since much h a s already been written about such relationships in general in Woody Allen's films, I stereotype (from the Greekpropose to concentrate on the women's point of view, and, in particular, on the point of view of those women who choose to leave the "Woody" character with whom they have been "in love." I shall primarily consider Nancy in Bananas (1971), Linda in Play It Again, Sam (1972), Annie in Annie Hall (1977), and Jill and Tracy in Manhattan (1979). The Woody character of course changes from movie to movie; yet it h a s always drawn on a comic persona whose qualities reflect an

110

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

artistic preoccupation with t h e interrelations among attraction, need, and rejection. Indeed, t h a t image — surely the most potent since Chaplin — of the shambling, disconsolate, and emotionally deprived little guy in tacky dress and obsolete glasses is all about the ambiguities of appeal and subsequent disaffection. If the man's a u r a of painful vulnerability and enchanting idiosyncrasy h a s a certain sexual magnetism, these same features seem to harbor a kind of built-in affective obsolescence which virtually g u a r a n t e e s t h a t , having "loved" him, the Beloved will ultimately become restless for precisely what "Woody" lacks: virility, confidence, good humor, and a certain prepossessing swagger of conventionality. Hence Woody's nightmare vision, in a live routine, of a giant birthday cake containing a nude lady who jumps out, h u r t s him, and jumps back in again; likewise, his advice to the audience t h a t Parker Brothers have bought the memoirs of his love life and are going to "make it into a game" (Allen, 1976). Yet to put it this way is to suggest t h a t the Woody persona is entirely predicated on the culpable conventionality of women; and this is misleading. In fact, what the movies generally do is to provide a series of relational contexts within which t h e operation of conventionality, and in particular the negative function of stereotypes and stereotyping, can be psychologically and dramatically explored. Though the resultant reflection upon women is sometimes negative, it is by no means always or even usually so. That the women emerge with credit is in p a r t the function of a particular relational context within which most of these liaisons take place; this is the context of love between shiksa and Jew, often shiksa and schlemiel. Allen's movies, and especially the later ones, chart with marvelous subtlety the ambiguities of male feeling and motivation t h a t are involved in such relationships.1 We see the schlemiel desiring the shiksa for a variety of reasons, many of them having to do with her being culturally Other. This Otherness — or difference — may be appealing because it promises release from Jewish stereotypes of woman, be they maternal or matrimonial; or because it symbolizes assimilation in m a i n s t r e a m American culture; or even, as S a m Girgus has argued, because it represents a kind of "conquest" of the dominant culture t h a t has kept the Jew at the margins (Girgus, 1989, p. 10). But we also see the conflicts t h a t come with a love born of the need for release, assimilation, or conquest: the man is often alienated by the very ulteriority of his love, resentful of precisely those culturally accredited characteristics t h a t constitute the Otherness of the Beloved, and so torn by conflicting and inauthentic impulses t h a t he will unconsciously destroy the very love t h a t he so compulsively desires. Much of this is of course very familiar in contemporary American Jewish writing and film. But such cultural notoriety may be of limited consolation to those on the receiving end of such Jewish

Richard Freadman

/

111

romantic complication. Let it therefore be said t h a t in Woody Allen's films the really destructive effects of ethnic-romantic stereotyping are ascribed more often to men t h a n to women. Two further general points about stereotyping seem to emerge from these movies. One is t h a t though stereotyping is by definition markedly homogeneous in its operations, it nevertheless infiltrates and shapes relationships at a variety of levels, in varying degrees, and in ways t h a t differ significantly from one relationship to the next. This is to say t h a t Allen's representation of cultural formulae is less formulaic t h a n the formulae themselves. Finally, the movies seem to claim t h a t art can as it were place the power of stereotypification at our disposal and help us to put it to constructive uses. But more of this anon. Bananas provides an early treatment of love among the stereotypes. One of Allen's least portentous movies, Bananas makes little attempt at analytic seriousness. Instead, it relies on a surreal humor of mishap and simplemindedness in order to underscore the absurd and insidious negative effects of stereotyping. The Woody figure here is Fielding Mellish, a Chaplinesque nonentity whose vocation is the testing of hairbrained inventions designed to promote superefficiency in the workplace, and whose prowess with women about matches t h a t of the parodic Kierkegaardian hero of "The Allen Notebooks" who asks in deepest existentialist anguish: "Should I marry W?" and replies: "Not if she won't tell me the other letters in her name" (Allen, 1972, p. 8). If ever there were a m a n born not to lead, it is Mellish. Yet, from the moment t h a t he meets his Beloved, Nancy — she knocks at his door requesting a signature on a petition in support of insurgent forces in San Marcos, a South American b a n a n a republic — the notion of leadership, and the stereotypical expectations t h a t go with it, becomes uppermost in his life. (Maurice Yacower notes a related preoccupation with leadership in Manhattan, where Isaac Davis's inapt nickname "Ike" suggests t h a t "an old Hebrew could become an icon of Gentile leadership" [Yacower, 1979, p. 197].) Nancy is portrayed as a kind of saintly and self-effacing shiksa innocent who is nevertheless afflicted with a political and sexual head for heights. A fantastically inept and (from her point of view) unimpassioned initial sexual encounter with Fielding suggests that, adore her as he may, he is not going to measure up. She tells him t h a t she w a n t s to end the relationship, t h a t something is missing in it for her. He is crushed and demands an explanation. The first of h e r supinely sophomorish responses is t h a t he is "immature." "How immature?" he asks: Nancy: Emotionally, sexually, and intellectually. Fielding: Yes, but in what other ways? (Allen, 1971) The extreme comprehensiveness of this proclamation of disinterest doesn't tell us anything too profound about the protagonists, or

112

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

indeed about stereotyping and its murderous encroachments upon intimacy. The fact is t h a t both Nancy and Fielding are such profoundly arrested embodiments of the conventional t h a t probing cultural or psychological analysis is out of the question. His idea of a woman is as serenely imbecilic as is her idea of a man, and it is entirely fitting that he should eventually win her affection by a series of inept and inadvertent schlemiel-like acts of heroism in the banana republic of h e r solicitations, and t h a t Howard Cosell, culturally delegated aficionado of Gentile athleticism, should preside, microphone in hand, over their wedding night. If Nancy leaves because Fielding is insufficiently a "man" and a leader, and r e t u r n s because he manages to redress these stereotypical insufficiencies, the situation between Allan Felix and Linda Christie in Play It Again, Sam is r a t h e r more complicated. It is also r a t h e r more "serious," though still not portentously so. Linda, a daffy and needy shiksa neurotic played by Diane Keaton, is married to a driven, egotistical, and inattentive WASP businessman. As his name suggests, Dick is very much a man. Dick neglects Linda, and Linda looks to Allan, whose "Jewish" personality traits — high anxiety, low self-esteem — and general inconsequentiality m i r r o r h e r own. Unbeknownst to Dick, they become lovers; b u t upon seeing his distress at finding t h a t Linda h a s a lover (he doesn't know t h a t it is Allan), they agree to part, Linda having decided for reasons not entirely clear to herself t h a t she prefers Dick anyway. With high tragic seriousness she r e a s s u r e s the crestfallen Allan t h a t she doesn't regret what has happened between them because "what it's done for me is to reaffirm — my feelings for Dick" (Allen, 1977, p. 181). The story, of course, is developed through a sustained parallel with Casablanca, even down to a tearful tarmac separation scene at the end. The Bogart presence portends a far more explicit and specific preoccupation with stereotyping, and a more nuanced humor mode, than is evident in Bananas. Throughout Play It Again, Sam, Allan is depicted as an example of a male Jewish mind riven by societally engendered divisions. On the one hand, he is the stock Woody character: depressed, vulnerable, disheveled, fantastically maladroit with women, ambivalently committed to WASP values. Indeed, his wife Nancy has recently left him with a declaration of dissatisfaction only marginally less devastating t h a n t h a t of the Nancy in Bananas. Why, Allan asks, is it no use discussing the marriage breakdown any further? Nancy responds: I don't know. I can't stand the marriage. I don't find you any fun; I feel you suffocate me; I don't feel any rapport with you and I don't dig you physically. Oh for God's sake, Allan, don't take it personal. (Allen, 1977, p. 31)

Richard Freadman

/

113

P e r h a p s not surprisingly, Allan does take it somewhat "personal" and is left feeling fearful and insecure. He tells Linda t h a t "it's p a r t of my sickness; I — have a tendency to reject before I get rejected" (Allen, 1977, p. 118). On the other hand, however, and in reaction to these feelings of inadequacy, there is an Allan who is a Bogart of the imagination: he is fascinated by Bogart, transfixed by Casablanca, and subject to the constant exhortations of a Bogart alter ego who is visible only to him. What this presence propounds is the code of stereotypical masculinity: drink hard, play hard, t r e a t the "dames" mean and, at the end, do the right thing by your male friends (in this case Dick) — even if it means dishing the dame. The discrepancy Allan experiences between schlemielism and cinematic self-idealization is both debilitating and absurd, not least because the Bogart myth is essentially about being one's (non-Jewish) self.2 Nancy reacts to the debilitation, charging t h a t he, a film critic, is "one of life's great watchers" (Allen, 1977, p. 34) and incapable of masculine selfassertion. Her concept of m a n is as stereotyped as Bogart's, and with her Allan hasn't got a hope. But Linda is different. She already has h e r m a n b u t is discovering discrepancies of a different kind, discrepancies between a masculine ideal and her own real emotional needs. The l a t t e r are m e t not by Dick, b u t by Allan, whose more volatile and "feminine" sensibility resembles her own. Here, then, is an area of ambivalence that is absent in Bananas. While Fielding and Nancy both have minds t h a t are entirely constituted by convention, and which consequently negotiate others only in terms of stereotypes, Linda and Allan experience a tension between stereotypification and subjective need. If this tension t h r e a t e n s to debilitate both of them, its eventual outcome for Linda is constructive, albeit somewhat absurdly so. What the hapless Allan does is to compel her to choose between competing stereotypes: between the neurotic Jewish pseudo-intellectual on one hand, and the seemingly invulnerable WASP entrepreneur on the other. This choice in t u r n compels in h e r some degree of productive self-consciousness and a heightened awareness of what each of the stereotypes entails. It also encourages her to consider how far Allan and Dick in fact conform to the stereotypical categories in which she locates them; and this ultimately produces the recognition that danger lurks in our habitual reduction of individuals to the pigeonholes of preconception. In their negative function, stereotypes mislead; we m u s t beware of short-cuts and read individuals in the light of an assumption t h a t they are to a significant degree particular. This is the essence of Linda's comic coming to consciousness, a coming to consciousness which is, ironically enough, in p a r t facilitated by stereotyping's positive function; for it is those initial pigeonholes t h a t permit Linda to categorize the men in her life and then to see t h a t the categories understate the complexities of the individuals involved. Thus she is able with a kind

114

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

of ironic transvaluation to see latent in Dick some of the male sensitivities to which her relationship with Allan has introduced her. In a Pygmalion-like twist t h a t is to recur in Woody's work, Allan h a s helped Linda to achieve a stage of m a t u r a t i o n t h a t signals his own emotional dispensability. If the irony involved is funny, it is also a t a n o t h e r level both p o i g n a n t a n d c u l t u r a l l y pointed: symbolically and sadly, the volatile J e w has enriched the Gentile world to a point where it no longer needs him. Linda leaves and returns to Dick. The Pygmalion theme resurfaces in Annie Hall, where Alvy Singer m e e t s Annie, a would-be singer from Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, and sets about helping her to become the kind of person he can love. He encourages her to take classes at Columbia; he even pays for her analysis. Both steps, however, backfire: Annie forms a r e l a t i o n s h i p with one of her l e c t u r e r s , and h e r analysis both precipitates new dissatisfactions with Alvy and helps provide the necessary confidence for her to eventually leave him in pursuit of a singing career in California. But the greatest ironies issue from Alvy's mind. At the beginning of the movie he tells us t h a t the "key joke" in respect of his relationships with women is the one attributed to Groucho Marx (Alvy thinks it may originate with Freud) in which Groucho says, "I would never w a n n a belong to any club t h a t would have someone like me for a member" (Allen, 1982, p. 4). With reference to Annie, the point is t h a t if her privately endowed program of self-improvement were to work, it could only be fatal to the relationship. Such are Alvy's subterr a n e a n levels of self-esteem t h a t he could not possibly love someone who, however cultivated and self-aware, was so lacking in discrimination as to love him. So Annie is in a no-win situation: she's insufficiently lovable as she is; but, even if she develops herself, Alvy's Jewish auto-antipathy will inevitably wreck the relationship. A further irony h a s to do not so much with Alvy's valuation of himself as with the tremendous ambivalence of his attraction to his shiksa mate. In encouraging her to attend lectures and u n d e r t a k e analysis he is expressing, however unconsciously, his hostility to Gentile culture: in order to love her he apparently needs to take on some of his "Jewish" characteristics. Yet his attraction to her resides in large part in her not being Jewish, in the Otherness t h a t seems to offer exemption from his past and access to the WASP world. This compulsion to r e n d e r J e w i s h t h e woman whose Gentile s t a t u s constitutes much of her appeal also guarantees t h a t the relationship m u s t fail. Ultimately, of course, Annie becomes a singer not in name b u t in vocation: her career as a singer helps her to gain autonomy from Alvy and the Jewish world of which his name is emblematic. She has "taken on" enough to enable her to relinquish t h a t which is inessential to her Gentile self.

Richard Freadman

/

115

The club joke of course alerts us to the presence of stereotyping as a central concern of the film. Clubs are, par excellence, the symbols and expressions of the process of social sifting by stereotype. We have seen t h a t one of the many ironies of the movie is t h a t though, as a Jew, Alvy is a victim (and indeed a thoroughly suspicious one) of such sifting, he himself compulsively compels others into conformity with ethnic stereotypes; a further irony is t h a t in his role as m a n Alvy subjects Annie to the gender-based equivalent of j u s t this process. The person she is supposed to become after analysis and higher education is itself a stereotype: t h a t of t h e impossibly psychically integrated, erotically charismatic female intellectual. Early on, she is too naive to see that she cannot and ought not aspire to become this figment of Alvy's conventional imagination. But gradually the recognition dawns; indeed, here is a movie in which a word like "recognition" takes on an aptness it couldn't have in respect of Allen's earlier films. In Annie Hall there is sufficient psychological complexity ascribed to the main characters to permit an engagement with the problem of stereotyping t h a t is profound as well as funny, t h a t sees relational stereotyping as at once positive in its precipitation of intimacy, as amusing in the maladroitness of mutual appeal, and as pathetically negative in its potentially stultifying effects on lover and Beloved alike. It is in part just this mix of wit and profundity, of various registers of humor, t h a t marks it as one of the great movies of recent decades. The profundity lies partly in a poignant recognition about "love" and the logic of cultural difference. Annie Hall is suffused with the romance, the sexual fizz, and the fascination of love between shiksa and Jew. When in the early days the relationship is hot, it is energized by a set of counterpointing culturally engendered attributes: Annie's zany sociability a g a i n s t Alvy's morose introspection; Annie's optimism against Alvy's fixation upon the Holocaust and persecution; Annie's WASPish lack of intellectual curiosity against Alvy's restless, questing J e w i s h intellectuality. And so on. B u t though these differences initially energize t h e relationship, the movie's claim seems to be t h a t difference is ultimately inimical to intimacy: intimacy will founder either on the need (as in Alvy) to diffuse difference and align the Other with a stereotype of Self, or on the energies of growth, which will destabilize the equilibrium of differentially produced m u t u a l attraction. In respect of such growth t h e film inverts the reconciliatory formula of t h e screwball comedies of the thirties and forties upon which it draws so heavily. Among Allen's movies, this one is typical in ascribing such progress not to the Woody character, b u t to the Beloved. Alvy really doesn't change; it is Annie who becomes the person who has to leave. And it is Annie's name t h a t furnishes the title for the movie.

116

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

W h a t in fact happens is t h a t education and analysis equip her with the necessary self-knowledge to see t h a t Alvy's expectations are deeply conventional, and t h a t in fundamental ways she does not square with t h e stereotype he h a s in mind. This recognition is reflected in their divergent attitudes to one of the movie's, and indeed one of Woody's, central preoccupations: the notion of "fun." Amid all the high critical seriousness t h a t h a s recently been directed at Woody Allen's work, the importance of fun in his view of things has tended to be overlooked. But it h a s always been an i m p o r t a n t concern for him and is another salient feature of the screwball comic tradition with which he works. We recall t h a t in Play It Again, Sam Nancy complains to Allan, "I don't find you any fun"; and in Annie Hall the same complaint is made. W h a t Nancy and Annie are objecting to is the condition t h a t Woody — the "real" Woody — has only half jokingly identified in himself as anhedonia: t h e disease of those who can't have fun. In fact, the film was originally to have been titled Anhedonia (Johnstone, 1978), and it is of course central to the Woody persona t h a t we associate this disorder with his being a particular kind of urban, northeastern intellectual Jew: a m a n burdened by the horror of recent historical recollection, disoriented by the perennially peripheral social position of t h e Diaspora J e w , overwhelmed by the m a g n i t u d e of his cultural inheritance, and baffled by the universal inscrutability t h a t confronts the secular Jew who is bereft of religious explanation or consolation. Like Bellow, Roth, and other Jewish artists, Woody Allen h a s of course exploited the comic possibilities of this figure brilliantly. He h a s also tapped its psychological complexities with increasing acuteness and penetration. And w h a t he has in effect shown us is what Annie comes to discover about Alvy: t h a t for all his fascinating oddity and all his intellectual fecundity, he is trapped in an image of himself t h a t is itself ultimately stereotypical. His creativity, his anxieties, his drives, his obsession with sex — all are in significant measure attributes appropriated from a conventionally determined idea of a certain kind of a person, a person who is at home neither in any of the traditional worlds of Judaism nor in the Gentile culture in which he finds himself. This is the stereotype of w h a t Yacower (1979) calls "the Jewish u r b a n misfit." Even as it exploits its comic possibilities, Woody Allen's work reveals this stereotype to be a maladaptive strategy, a mode of neurotic self-conceptualization characteristic of a certain kind of i n d e t e r m i n a t e cultural s t a t u s . In this sense, Alvy is an alienated man, and Annie comes to realize t h a t for her to meet what he mistakenly takes to be his needs she too m u s t be alienated from herself, a kind of self-relinquishing object of derivative fantasy. This she is unwilling to do, and the focus of her refusal is her insistence on a life rich in w h a t Alvy's lacks: fun. The movie symbolically

Richard Freadman

/

117

figures fun as a Californian emotion, with lugubriousness being correspondingly equated with New York City. Thus it is t h a t Annie's accusatory metaphor — "your life is New York City" — is uttered in a sun-drenched roadside vegetarian cafe in California where she h a s taken up a life as a singer and a relationship with an entertainment identity, Tony Lacy. The same cafe provides the setting for her insistence t h a t having fun constitutes a more significant kind of progress t h a n Alvy's blueprint for her personal development The movie's attitude to this triumph of Californian niceness over the existential torment of New York is profoundly ambivalent. On the one hand, it depicts the Californian crew as a herd of vacuous, partygoing pseuds decked out in cream and white clothes who are as lacking in nuance as the sun they bask under. And we learn at the end t h a t Annie eventually t u r n s her back on this confected culture and r e t u r n s to the metaphysical stringencies of New York City. On the other hand, the film does acknowledge t h a t California offers Annie t h e chance to realize and express something t h a t is fundamental to her personality: a vivacity and a capacity to live without gratuitous complication t h a t are quite beyond Alvy. Significantly, this endorsement of the redemptive power of fun is repeated in Hannah and Her Sisters when Mickey Sachs, having almost committed suicide, is mystically disburdened by his umpteenth viewing of Duck Soup. In Annie's case, she in effect trades one stereotype — Alvy/New York/gloom — for another — Tony/California/fun, b u t the more important point is t h a t the transition from one to the other involves an act of choice in the direction of self-realization. In this sense, Annie Hall suggests that stereotyping is not all negative; that in its positive function it can provoke passion; it can also, as in the case of Linda, provoke growth — so long as one learns to master, manipulate, and to some extent transcend the conventionality t h a t has shaped one and the individuals with whom one is involved. An i m p o r t a n t aspect of Annie's hard-won awareness concerns her sexuality. Having got off to a hot start with Alvy, she finds herself increasingly unable to respond to his unrelenting erotic demands. The implication here is t h a t the alienating impact of his divided personality upon hers is emotionally and so sexually inhibiting; and indeed this is one of the problems t h a t concerns her most when she leaves Alvy. This notion of a specifically psychosexual motive for separation t a k e s on a much sharper intensity in the next of the movies to deal comprehensively with stereotypification and rejection, Manhattan. Here, of course, the Woody character, Isaac Davis, has suffered the ultimate affront to Bogart-style masculinity: his second wife, Jill (another non-Jew), has left him for another woman. The film's treatment of this situation is tantalizingly oblique. We don't actually see the breakup of the marriage. Nor do we learn much about Jill. Rather, we are given one piercing insight into her

118

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

feelings and a great deal of postseparation exposure to Isaac's sexual and relational attitudes; and from these we are able to speculatively reconstruct the disintegration of the marriage. Jill's feelings are recorded in the book she publishes about the b r e a k u p and her subsequent lesbian relationship. Her declaration of independence is every bit as unflattering as those of Nancy and Annie, albeit a good deal more sophisticated. It is also brutally explicit about his "Jewish" temperament and his sexist attitudes. Her stunning indictment is not entirely corroborated by the rather harmless and gentle Isaac figure we see after the marriage; indeed, there is perhaps something unpleasantly unsympathetic about the film's implication t h a t Jill is a kind of ravishing but avenging dyke, humiliating the exhusband who had, after all, merely succumbed to h e r sexual allurements. Nevertheless, one of her charges, t h a t of misanthropic chauvinism, is born out. The misanthropy is evident in his sneering asides about women (he jokes t h a t he's written a book about his mother called The Castrating Zionist), and the chauvinism is a p p a r e n t in his manipulative and patronizing a t t i t u d e toward Tracy, the seventeen-year-old non-Jewish schoolgirl with whom he is having an affair. The Tracy relationship takes the familiar Pygmalion turn: Isaac helps her to become more sophisticated and, having met another woman (Mary), he urges the girl to take up an offer to study drama in London. Mary (played by Diane Keaton) is another incarnation in Woody's movies of the sexually alluring WASP woman. A graduate of Radcliffe and a cultural journalist from Philadelphia, she at first activates Isaac's anger at the WASP world she seems to represent. Indeed, her pretentious pronouncements about the arts so incense him t h a t from a temporary position of self-appointed cultural centrality he ascribes to her the status of optimal cultural outsiderdom. He fumes to Tracy t h a t Mary pronounces "Van Goch . . . like an Arab" (Allen, 1982, p. 196). Presently, however, he begins to respond to her as Allan does to Linda and Alvy to Annie: he discerns in Mary a combination of congenial complexity and exhilarating vitality. As in Play It Again, Sam, the relationship founders when the shiksa r e t u r n s to the prepossessing WASP t h a t the Woody character can never be — in this instance Mary prefers the emblematically named Yale. Isaac responds by appealing unsuccessfully — a n d hypocritically — to Tracy to stay, citing reasons t h a t exactly reverse the ones he had earlier given for her going. Tracy leaves for London, though with the intention of returning to him. She urges Isaac to t r u s t her, arguing t h a t "not everybody gets corrupted" (Allen, 1982, p. 271). Manhattan seems to me in some respects an enlightened film, yet in others an unsatisfactory one. It is true t h a t the familiar schlemiel humor strategies are sometimes used to ironize Isaac's sexual and

Richard Freadman

/

119

ethnic attitudes, and t h a t in Tracy the movie tries to symbolize a new generation t h a t will be unencumbered by such biases and insecurities. (In this instance, indeed, it is the younger woman who seems to learn and develop; unlike Linda and Annie, Mary seems to change very little.) Tracy's parting appeal for t r u s t is no doubt m e a n t to suggest t h a t in h e r Isaac h a s found an innocence t h a t is commensurate with his sentimental attachment to Gershwin, black and white movies, and earlier incarnations of New York City. This equation of an idealized past with an etherealized future is itself sentimental, j u s t the kind of sentimentality, in fact, for which the would-be writer Isaac reproves himself at the beginning of the movie. Such sentimentality strikes one as rather an evasion of the issues of gender, ethnic, and generational stereotyping with which the movie is earlier concerned. Indeed, the movie seems ultimately to collapse the distinction between the positive and negative functions of stereotyping and to repose in the sovereignty of received social categories. H u m o r here is both muted a n d oriented to t h e m a i n t e n a n c e of existing myths and forms of social relatedness. In Manhattan a powerful nostalgic and aestheticizing impulse takes the edge off Allen's customary sociological and psychological incisiveness. Thus does the very mode of the movie — black and white, the night skyline serenaded by Gershwin — perhaps reflect a disinclination to deal squarely with issues it brings to our attention. Woody Allen would no doubt say, as he has often done, t h a t such serious square dealing is not what he's about. There is material in this claim for further examination. I conclude this chapter by noting a point I have not so far discussed. It is surely no accident that, with the exception of Mellish, the "Woody" figures in these stories are all artists or pseudo-artists: Allan is a movie critic; Alvy is writing a play about his relationship with Annie; and Isaac too is a writer who h a s quit his job in the media in order to write a novel about his personal life. The significance of this p a t t e r n of the creative m a n in love surely lies in the fact t h a t Woody Allen seeks to show not just the manifold power t h a t stereotypification has over individuals, but also the power such individuals can assume if they learn to resist and t r a n s c e n d t h e negative t y r a n n y of the stereotype, be it sexual, religious, ethnic, or other, and to harness its positive sense-making potentialities. What Allen's artist figures do is depict a m a n in the process of attempting to transform his own conditioning into art, and of thereby trying to understand and master t h a t conditioning. And this, as I have suggested, is what Woody himself does through his humor. But w h a t of his women? The most sanguine irony of all is perhaps t h a t he invests them with the capacity to recognize, resist, and partially transcend the very conditioning to which so much of his work, comic and otherwise, addresses its enquiring and admonishing energies.

120

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Woody's women may leave, b u t the a t t e m p t to imagine a love beyond the stereotypes goes on. NOTES My thanks to Avner Ziv for helpful comments on aspects of earlier drafts of this chapter. 1. Woody Allen has recalled: "In my environment where I grew up I was at an early age attracted to a certain type of woman, sexually . . . it was what you'd call a Jules Feiffer type of girl, the kind that appear in his cartoons with long hair, kind of black-clothed, leather purse-carrying, silver earrings — almost a parody of women today." Quoted in Lax, 1975, p. 36. 2. Maurice Yacower notes this feature of the myth (1979, p. 53), but sees it as productive of increased self-possession in Allan.

REFERENCES Allen, W. (1971) Bananas. United Artists . (1972) Without Feathers. New York: Ballantine. . (1976) The Night-Club Years, 1964-1968. United Artists 9968. . (1977) Woody Allen's Play It Again, Sam. Edited by Richard J. Anobile. New York: Grosset. . (1. (1982) Four Films of Woody Allen: Annie Hall, Interiors, Manhattan,982) Four Films of Woody Allen: Annie Hall, Interiors, Manhattan, Stardust Memories. New York: Random House. Girgus, S. (1989) "Philip Roth and Woody Allen: Freudian Poetics and the Humor of the Repressed." Paper presented at the Third International Conference of Jewish Humor, Tel Aviv. Johnstone, I. (1978) "Anhedonia and Annie Hall" The Listener 99: 603-4. Lax, E. (1975) Woody Allen and Comedy. New York: Charterhouse. Lippmann, W. (1922) Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan. Yacover, M. (1979) Loser Take All: The Comic Art of Woody Allen. New York: Frederick Ungar. Zaleznik, A., and D. Moment. (1964) The Dynamics of Interpersonal Behavior. New York: Wiley.

9 Philip Roth and Woody Allen: Freud and the Humor of the Repressed Sam B. Girgus

Woody Allen and Philip Roth have much in common. Both have established public identities as Jews. Their works humorously interlace ethnic differences and relationships, sexuality, and moral and social themes. Both tend to focus sexual and ethnic tensions on the figure of the Gentile woman, such as Annie Hall, thereby implying an unhappy pattern of escaping the boundaries of ethnic identity and determination as embodied in Jewish women only to find alienation and insecurity in the arms of a shikse. While these similarities are important in comparing Roth and Allen, the same themes can be found in t h e works of m a n y other J e w i s h writers a n d a r t i s t s . However, the grounding of these p a t t e r n s of thought, feeling, and sensibility in Freud makes the relationship between Roth and Allen especially interesting. The bond with Freud not only bridges the works of Roth and Allen, it also adds depth and intensity to the works themselves. For Roth and Allen, literary and cinematic expression involves the structuring of a creative tension between the conscious and unconscious. Thus, both Roth and Allen consistently refer to and use Freud and psychoanalysis in their works. At first, their self-conscious consideration of Freud and psychoanalysis might seem to immunize Roth's writings and Allen's films from the invasion of further p s y c h o analytical interpretation by privileging their insights and m a k i n g them superior to such analysis. However, in the marriage of humor and psychoanalysis in their works neither p a r t n e r gets t h e final word. Each challenges the other's assumptions, so the humor subverts the absolute authority of psychoanalysis, while psychoanalysis exposes the potential of a hidden dimension of secret meaning

122

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

to humor. Thus, their use of psychoanalysis invites further analysis and interpretation and compels the reader and viewer to be skeptical of surface meaning. Moreover, such skepticism also complicates our appreciation for the way humor operates in their works as a means for structuring latent meaning. An exploration of Allen's and Roth's use of Freud should help explain how the unconscious and humor relate to the other themes and subjects t h a t characterize and define their work, such as ethnicity, sexuality, and gender. Accordingly, a Freudian aesthetic of humorous indirect representation operates in the work of Roth and Allen to suggest unconscious ambivalent elements of psychic and social reality. Humor based upon a Freudian delineation of the unconscious structures their aggression and defensiveness regarding sexual and ethnic identity. In Roth and Allen women exist upon a sea of latent anxiety as targets of fear, aggression, and hostility; but women also serve as vehicles for learning, growth, and humanization. Ironically, in the absence of the humor of the indirect representation of the unconscious, the repressed tends to overcome and dominate their work. In other words, both need humor as understood by Freud to express the full range and depth of their complex feelings and ideas. In many ways, Roth's Portnoy's Complaint anticipates Woody Allen's major films, especially the so-called b r e a k t h r o u g h movie, Annie Hall. Although there is only one whining narrative voice in the novel, Portnoy's, the silence of psychoanalysis in the form of Dr. Spielvogel frames the novel. Having Spielvogel as Portnoy's audience places his discourse in a special context and colors its meaning. Similarly, it is no accident t h a t Woody Allen begins Annie Hall with a reference to a joke by Freud in Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, ends it with another joke involving a psychiatrist and a patient, and in between includes innumerable allusions to and jokes about psychoanalysis. While these references indicate the pervasiveness of Freud in Allen's work, another joke provides an example of how humor and the unconscious relate and operate in the film. Alvy Singer and his friend Rob are walking down a M a n h a t t a n street. Before actually seeing him, we hear Alvy Singer rendering a Portnoyish whine about a presumed anti-Semitic remark. He says, "I distinctly heard it. He muttered under his breath, 'Jew'" (Allen, 1982, p. 9). Rob, of course, doubts Alvy and calls him "a total paranoid." "Wh— How am I a paran—? Well, I pick up on those kind o' things. You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC so I said . . . uh, 'Did you eat yet or what?' and Tom Christie said, 'No, didchoo?' Not, did you, didchoo eat? Jew? No, not did you eat, but jew eat? Jew. You get it? Jew eat?" (pp. 9-10). The joke is funny in part because it casts doubt on all the participants. While the overly sensitive and highly imaginative Alvy dramatizes unconscious anxieties with his comment, Rob's resistance reveals his own tendency to avoid

SamB. Giigus /

123

u n p l e a s a n t n e s s . Also, this joke demonstrates how Allen handles such a painful and controversial subject as anti-Semitism by both presenting and disarming it through humor. Throughout the film, Allen suggests t h e reality of dimensions of anti-Semitism. The indirection of the joke softens the pain b u t heightens the reality of anti-Semitism by appearing to distance it from everyone except Alvy, while in fact the joke's very ambiguity ensnares the other characters, the author, a n d t h e audience. The event described in t h e joke emanates from Alvy's deep-seated fears, but touches everyone else as well. The joke comes in the midst of a tide of Freudian references t h a t suggests seething currents of unconscious drives and doubts. Rob's comment regarding Alvy's paranoia follows the opening joke about F r e u d . It m a k e s perfect sense t h a t Roth a n d Allen would be fascinated by Freud since their humor so clearly reflects Freud's insights into the relationship between jokes and the unconscious. Jokes are like dreams, according to Freud, because they overcome the inhibitions t h a t prevent disagreeable elements from entering consciousness. Moreover, jokes are structured by the same mechanisms t h a t explain the operations of dreams. These mechanisms include condensation, which compares to the way metaphors relate different symbols and images; displacement, which operates like metonymy in associating one t e r m for another one connected to it; a n d indirect r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , which suggests m e a n i n g t h r o u g h symbolic interpretation. Freud writes: We found t h a t the characteristics and effects of jokes are linked with certain forms of expression or technical methods, among which the most striking are condensation, displacement and indirect representation. . . . Does not this agreement suggest the conclusion t h a t the joke-work and dream-work must, at least in some essential respect, be identical? . . . Of t h e psychical processes in jokes the p a r t t h a t is hidden from us is precisely what happens during the formation of a joke in the first person. Shall we not yield to the temptation to construct t h a t process on the analogy of the formation of a dream? (1963, p. 165) Allen happily yields to precisely such a temptation in Annie Hall when Annie relates to Alvy how she described a d r e a m to her psychoanalyst. "In-in . . . Alvy, in my d r e a m F r a n k S i n a t r a is holding his pillow across my face and I can't breathe" (1982, p. 61). Alvy associates her own singing with the dream and represses the obvious m e a n i n g . However, Annie's psychoanalyst a l r e a d y h a d hinted at the t r u t h : "She said, your name was Alvy Singer" (p. 62). The shared processes of dream and joke merge beautifully as Annie reveals one more aspect of her dream t h a t also illustrates Freud's

124

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

idea of dreams as visual representations of words or ideas: "Because in the dream . . . I break Sinatra's glasses" (p. 62). Alvy no longer can resist the meaning: "Sinatra had gl— You never said Sinatra had glasses. So w h a t t a you saying t h a t I-I'm suffocating you?" (p. 62). Even as Alvy confronts the truth, it is avoided and repressed with a joke t h a t follows about Annie's implied desire to castrate the Singer in the dream. Allen's dramatization of the mechanisms of psychoanalysis t h a t connect t h e unconscious, repression, and sexuality r e p r e s e n t s a phase beyond Roth's initial interest in these subjects. For Roth, especially in his earlier work such as Portnoy's Complaint, the great challenge derives from the expression of the latent and raw contents of the unconscious. Even though Portnoy complains t h a t he comes from a family where "they wear the old unconscious on t h e i r sleeves!" (Roth, 1969, p. 97), it is clear t h a t Portnoy primarily exposes on his sleeve the need for an extraordinary effort of analysis and interpretation, one t h a t may be made even more complicated by the potential deception involved in such emotional exhibitionism. Elsewhere, Roth describes his novel as a l a n d m a r k in t h e battle for sexual liberation and artistic freedom. Roth uses the terminology of warfare and t r i u m p h a n t victory in a long battle to describe his accomplishment: I sometimes think of my generation of men as the first wave of d e t e r m i n e d D-Day i n v a d e r s , over whose bloody, wounded carcasses the flower children subsequently stepped ashore to advance t r i u m p h a n t l y toward t h a t libidinous P a r i s we h a d dreamed of liberating as we inched inland on our bellies firing into the dark. "Daddy," the youngsters ask, "What did you do in t h e war?" I humbly submit they could do worse t h a n r e a d Portnoy's Complaint to find out. (1975, p. 108) Accordingly, it is hard to imagine the t r i u m p h a n t popular reception of Woody Allen's movies without the success of Roth's initial assault and landing. This is especially true of Annie Hall, a movie regarded as a major advance in Allen's career, but also one t h a t was p a r t of an aesthetic and style t h a t Roth helped to initiate. At the core of this aesthetic and style are the drives, anxieties, and fears t h a t are related to sexuality, identity, and ethnicity. For Roth's Portnoy this poetics of the unconscious achieves its most exuberant expression when it is directed toward shikses. Portnoy's words and m a n n e r as he unravels before Dr. Spielvogel convey the depths of his neurotic anxieties about sex and ethnic identity. On the surface, Roth seems to suggest pure desire for the untouchable and the unknown: "But shikses, ah, the shikses are something else again. Between the smell of damp sawdust and wet wool in the overheated boathouse,

Sam B. Giigus /

125

and t h e sight of their fresh cold blond hair spilling out of their kerchiefs and caps, I am ecstatic. . . . How do they get so gorgeous, so healthy, so blond?" (pp. 144-45). However, beneath this surface adoration resides the intensity of ambivalence toward these beautiful Gentile creatures and toward himself. W h a t we get from Roth is not a voice straight from the unconscious t h a t goes directly to the ear and mind of the reader. Instead, we find a significant detour through the unconscious t h a t raises all kinds of questions about the character, situation, and condition of Portnoy. If fact, we see t h a t this would-be Jewish lover is also a potential killer. "My contempt for what they believe in is more t h a n neutralized by my adoration of the way they look, the way they move and laugh and speak — the lives they m u s t lead behind those goyische curtains" (p. 145). The barely repressed arrogance, anger, and violence of these words open new chasms of moral and emotional darkness. Mockery and denial mingle to make Portnoy the exact kind of threat shikse mothers warn their daughters about. The vision of the shikse as the embodiment of the American dream elevates Portnoy's ambivalence to the level of a national neurosis. While this language reveals the ambivalence of unconscious drives and motives, it also reveals how exaggeration, parody, and ridicule dissemble the pain of rejection and ethnic uncertainty. Thus, Portnoy's joke about "the real McCoy" (p. 131), his n a m e for any shikse who can hypothetically fulfill his sexual fantasies, just barely disguises the personal and cultural desperation b e n e a t h the joke. Similarly, his silly attempts to pass himself off as a Gentile are about as effective as Huck's disguises as a girl. The histrionics of both confirm their insecurity and lack of identity. In a particularly ridiculous but extremely funny example of his wish to be somebody else, especially somebody not Jewish, he tells a girl t h a t he is Alton C. Peterson but wonders "what I'll say when she asks about the middle of my face and what happened to it (old hockey injury? Fell off my horse while playing polo after church one Sunday morning — too many sausages for breakfast, ha ha ha!)" (p. 164). As though answering a secret wish to deny his own disguises and reveal his real identity, he becomes so distracted t h a t he goes "hurtling forward onto the frost bitten ground, chipping one front tooth and s m a s h i n g the bony protrusion a t the top of my tibia" (p. 164). Elsewhere, I have compared Portnoy in this scene to Gatsby (Girgus, 1988, p. 131) because he possesses a similar intensity of passion in his wish to be someone else and to be good enough for "this perfect, perfect-stranger, who is as smooth and shiny and cool as custard, [and who] will kiss me — raising up one shapely calf behind her — and my nose and my name will have become as nothing" (p. 151). Portnoy's external relations with women are controlled by this internal arena of psychological and unconscious turmoil and chaos.

126

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

The skaters shape a pattern of sexual relationships to which all of Portnoy's shikses conform. One relationship involves Sarah Abbot Maulsby, whom Portnoy labels "The Pilgrim" as a sign of his disrespect for her and her marked Yankee appearance and elitist background. With Maulsby, female sexuality, cultural identity, and national history become perversely confused and connected in Portnoy's imagination. For Portnoy sexual triumph with a shikse equates with cultural conquest, so t h a t the metaphor of t h e virgin land becomes a literal description of his feelings about the sexual act. Another relationship between Portnoy a n d Kay Campbell, a shikse dubbed "Pumpkin" because of "her pigmentation and the size of her can" (p. 216), anticipates all the psychological and cultural ambiguities of the famous "Grammy Hall" scene in Annie Hall. Like Portnoy, who was invited home from Antioch for Thanksgiving dinner, Alvy Singer is brought home during E a s t e r to meet Annie Hall's family. For both Portnoy and Alvy these scenes of Gentile domesticity have the impact of true culture shock. What appear to be relatively uneventful, even boring, social gatherings really are the emotional and psychological equivalent of a religious war in which there are no hostages. Roth writes: "Till September I had never been farther west t h a n Lake Hopatcong in New Jersey — now I am off to loway! And with a blondie! Of the Christian religion!" (p. 219). P a r t of the excitement of this venture into what for Portnoy is alien territory derives from his sense of rebellion against his own family. "Who is more stunned by this desertion, my family or me? What daring!" (pp. 219-20). Portnoy's visit to the Campbells perfectly predicts Alvy's reaction to t h e tasteful surroundings, polite conversation, and reserved lifestyle t h a t characterize Annie Hall's family. Roth writes: "The white clapboard house in which The Pumpkin had grown up might have been the Taj Mahal for the emotions it released in me. Balboa, maybe, knows what I felt upon first glimpsing the swing tied up to the ceiling of the front porch. She was raised in this house" (p. 220). He doesn't u n d e r s t a n d the language when he is described as "a weekend guest" and "a friend from school" and tries so hard to be loved t h a t he is "polite even to the furniture!" (p. 220). Listening to the Campbells, Portnoy hears a foreign language as they address each other with absolute courtesy. Of course, on both emotional and dramatic levels, Alvy Singer has remarkably similar experiences at Annie Hall's home. The description of the home, the meal, and the conversation, (Allen, 1982, pp. 54, 55) all seem designed to make Alvy feel alien as a Jew and an individual, a self-image graphically depicted by the way he imagines Grammy Hall, "a classic Jew hater" (p. 56). In the midst of this comedy of contrasts, Allen once again introduces psychoanalysis, as though to remind the reader of the true psychological precariousness

SamB. Giigus /

127

of the situation. Mom Hall says, "Ann tells us t h a t you've been seeing a psychiatrist for fifteen years." Alvy, after "setting down his glass a n d coughing," responds, "Yes, I'm m a k i n g excellent progress. Pretty soon when I lie down on his couch, I won't have to wear the lobster bib" (p. 55). Alvy's line indicates both his vulnerability and his residual defiance and strength in the form of self-mockery. However, the use of psychoanalysis once again drives home the point of indirection and uncertainty. For in the midst of Alvy's sense of detachment and alienation in this scene, the greater alienation and sickness hide within the family itself in Annie's brother Duane. Obviously, for Allen just as for Roth, the joke is as much on the goyim as it is on the Jews. Duane's death-wish fantasy of an auto collision (p. 57) describes a dangerous pathology at the center of the putative ail-American family. The genteel d e t a c h m e n t of Annie's family contrasts radically with the vital reality of Alvy's own family, who seem to regard dinner as an opportunity to engage in a battle of words, egos, and illnesses t h a t compete for everyone's attention and sympathy. While the Singers clearly would fail both Grammy and Mom Hall's standards for etiquette and proper dinner decorum, the Hall family flunks Alvy's understanding of Freud's reality principle and his own relevance ratio. Allen suggests t h a t contemporary life demands something foreign to the Hall's way of life. Duane demonstrates how out of touch this all-American family has become. The implication is t h a t they need Alvy for lessons in spontaneity and emotional intensity at least as much as Alvy needs them to feel fully accepted in American society and life. Visually, one scene in the movie effectively dramatizes the forces within and around Alvy. As they drive to the airport, Annie sits smiling bemusedly but happily between Alvy, whose facial expression conveys the utter desperation and anguish he so clearly feels, and Duane, who drives with intense concentration. Obviously, death, insanity, and chaos are at the wheel while Annie seems oblivious to the situation and Alvy feels helplessly trapped. The scene dramatizes Alvy's and Annie's secret recognition t h a t they ultimately lack the maturity and stability for a permanent relationship. They are moving ever closer to the inexorable end of their affair. At t h a t point, both will be able to hope for the possibility of rebirth only through love and intimacy with someone else. When this breakup finally occurs, Alvy evidences the same kind of ambivalence toward women and love t h a t characterizes Portnoy. For both Portnoy and Alvy, questions of ethnic identity a n d cultural antagonism are external manifestations of internal psychological crisis. For Roth and Allen the energy behind shikse jokes exposes the deep connection among sexuality, the unconscious, and cultural adaptation. Their works could be used to dramatize Freud's ideas about love and culture, especially Freud's essay "The Most Prevalent

128

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Form of Degradation in Erotic Life," which provides a title for one of the chapters of Portnoy (Rieff, 1963). The Freud essay, an elaboration on the earlier seminal studies of Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1975), delineates the psychological tendency to idealize the love object at the cost of sexual expression. For Freud the dichotomy between the idealized object and the denigrated impulse tends to separate love and sexuality. The separation, in turn, inspires such problems as impotence and frigidity. Of course, t h e unresolved Oedipal crises of Roth's a n d Allen's c h a r a c t e r s epitomize t h e pathological situations and conditions t h a t Freud describes. For Portnoy the intensity of the relationship with Mary J a n e Reed, or "The Monkey," causes an ineluctable crisis t h a t must be faced; for Alvy Singer it is Annie who ultimately compels him to confront his own ambivalences about women, love, sexuality, and cultural identity. In Portnoy, Mary Jane's awesome and inspiring sexual passion and capacity not only fulfill Portnoy's fantasies b u t even introduce him to a new intensity of feeling in which love and sexuality come together, an experience t h a t really undermines and terrifies him. Pretending to be newlyweds and using an assumed name, the couple goes on a driving tour through New England, stopping at lovely inns and hotels where they experience a special love and feeling for each other. This new authenticity extends to the point of forcing Portnoy to recognize her humanity. The intimacy and power of their love seem miraculous to Portnoy in t h a t they also lead him to believe in her intelligence. After teaching her about William Butler Yeats's "Leda and the Swan," he touches her intimately and says, "Sweetheart! You understood the poem!" (p. 194). Interestingly, Alvy's moment of ultimate crisis with Annie also focuses upon her intelligence and sexuality. Alvy misses in Annie the abandonment and passion t h a t Portnoy found in Mary and t h a t Alvy thinks he needs. We can imagine Alvy complaining t h a t Mary J a n e Reed, unlike Annie, never required marijuana to desire a n d enjoy sex with Portnoy (Allen, 1982, pp. 50-51). This is so in spite of the fact t h a t at one point Alvy calls Annie "unbelievably sexy" and adds t h a t "you're polymorphously perverse" and "exceptional in bed because you got — you get pleasure in every part of your body when I touch you" (p. 47). Nevertheless, Alvy's way of loving means t h a t the sexual basis of their relationship will require him to question Annie's value and legitimacy. In consort with an ethnic and cultural ambience of aggression and defensiveness, the psychological separation of sex and love helps to end their relationship. This combination of cultural forces exacerbates the tendency, as we have discussed it in Freudian terms, to deprecate the sexual and to consider anyone associated with it as corrupt. While Alvy yearns and whines so blatantly and so much for love, for him sex and affection actually seem to negate the

Sam B. Giigus /

129

possibility of permanence. In a sort of cartoon play within the film, Allen isolates this "problem" in his life. Again, humor dramatizes the power of unconscious forces. Alvy's voice-over says: "You know, even as a kid I always went for the wrong women. I think that's my problem. When my mother took me to see Snow White, everyone fell in love with Snow White. I immediately fell for the Wicked Queen" (p. 64). Like Portnoy, Alvy must punish himself for the freedom and love he desired. More important, he strikes out at Annie, who cultivates t h a t love, by challenging her intelligence and humanity. Thus, at Alvy's insistence, Annie advances her formal education and begins new relationships a t college t h a t t h r e a t e n Alvy and arouse his jealousy. While Portnoy's problems propel him toward impotence and a future of hearing himself whine to a usually silent analyst, there is a special poignancy in Alvy's dilemma. This special quality comes from several factors. In spite of Alvy's acute a w a r e n e s s of his problem and his knowledge of psychoanalysis, he remains incapable of finding happiness. Moreover, Allen's film conveys a genuine sense of the pleasure and joy t h a t Alvy and Annie attain during the initial phases of their love b u t cannot sustain. Their sense of authentic happiness and companionship in such scenes as the lobster fiasco (pp. 22-24), the various visits to Alvy's past (pp. 73-75), and the battle of the spider (pp. 67-68) suggest genuine pleasure and affection. And yet, in the end, Alvy caves in to the forces within him t h a t preach inferiority, failure, and inadequacy as he loses Annie to the Tony Lacey character. He also loses her to forces he despises — California, bad music, superficial people and conversation, false values. His loss is more t h a n his own. It is beyond personal. A culture of real humor and pleasure as opposed to canned laughter, of thinking and sensitive people as opposed to the merely "mellow" (p. 79), of intensity as opposed to the artificial and impressionistic also loses. Throughout the film, Allen seems to be teasing with the unconscious, playing with it and drawing it out, so to speak, for laughs, as in the case of Annie's slip of the tongue when Alvy catches her wondering if psychoanalysis will "change my wife" when she means "change my life" (p. 62). In the end, however, the unconscious wins, as always, leaving Alvy an outsider and bystander, watching Annie ally herself to the popular singer. In the play t h a t Alvy writes about his failed relationship with Annie, the actor resembling Alvy asks the Annie surrogate: "You're a thinking person. How can you choose this lifestyle?" (p. 102). The film proffers one partial answer by suggesting t h a t m a n y of our "choices" belong to the realm of the unconscious beyond the control of rational thought. Accordingly, the film travels full circle back to the opening joke based on Freud and jokes and the unconscious. With all the latent aggression, violence, and fear in Alvy, the target and the victim of the greatest put-downs

130

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

r e m a i n s Alvy himself. Like Portnoy, Alvy succumbs to t h e unconscious enemy within t h a t questions his worth, challenges his membership in any group of significance, and ridicules his right to have and feel love. In spite of the complex ambivalences and conflicts t h a t surround Roth's and Allen's female characters, these women provide t h e m with growth, learning, and new life. Annie and Mary J a n e force Alvy and Portnoy to face themselves and to grow. The women themselves, however, are even better pupils of how to live, leaving their male mentors behind in a morass of confused emotions. The women come closer to achieving a sense of peace and selfhood t h a n the men. Moreover, even though Annie and Mary J a n e educate Alvy and Portnoy on love and life, and instruct t h e m in how to allow themselves to enjoy existence, identity and real accomplishment remain beyond the reach of these men. Even with the help of Annie and Mary J a n e , it remains problematic if Alvy and Portnoy ever achieve what Freud considered to be the most any of us can hope for: the transformation of "hysterical misery into common unhappiness" (Breuer and Freud, 1955, p. 305).

REFERENCES Allen, W. (1982) Four Films of Woody Allen. New York: Random House. Breuer, J. and S. Freud. (1955) Studies on Hysteria. London: Hogarth. Freud, S. (1963) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton. . (1975) Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. New York: Harper. Girgus, S. B. (1988) "Philip Roth and the American Unconscious." In Reading Philip Roth. Edited by A. Z. Milbaue and D. G. Watson. London: Macmillan. Rieff, P., ed. (1963) Freud: Sexuality and the Psychology of Love. New York: Collier. Roth, P. (1969) Portnoy's Complaint. New York: Random House. . (1975) Reading Myself and Others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

10 From Eve to the Jewish American Princess: The Comic Representation of Women in Jewish Literature Judith Stora-Sandor

W e s t e r n culture emerged from two principal founding models: ancient Greece and the biblical world. They also provided the literary models t h a t have been the source of inspiration for Western literature. Although the values of their represented world and the way in which this representation was made are different, both of t h e s e literatures focus on the same major and universal themes. Love is one of them. An i m p o r t a n t p a r t of Western l i t e r a t u r e h a s been devoted to untangling, clarifying, commenting on, and analyzing the love relationships between the sexes. The first observation to be made concerns the authors of these works: they were men. The female characters represented in t h e works in question are creations of the male imagination. Even if it is not possible to deny the influence of real models from daily life, these models, becoming the subjects of literary creations, were t r a n s formed, molded by the creator's individual inspiration. Yet, despite the diversity of these representations, over the centuries a certain uniformity may be observed. This uniformity is nowhere more striking t h a n in comic literature. That the persistence of comic types, male as well as female, is a law of the genre has often been demonstrated. T h a t unconscious factors underlie this persistence has also been suggested by certain authors (Jekels, 1926; Grotjahn, 1957; Mauron, 1964). Therefore, before entering into a description of the traditional female types of comic literature, I will examine the dominant traits of the female characters t h a t appear in these first literary works. Subsequently, I will examine the unconscious motivation of the men who produced these creations.

132

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

In both the Greek and Jewish visions of the world, woman is a trap. It is thus that she appears in the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer and in Genesis. In the work of the Greek poet, female seduction, however dangerous it may be, is not without its charm and pleasure. But this beauty is so dangerous t h a t it may lead to death. The origin of the Trojan War, which cost countless h u m a n lives and years of misery, was the beauty of Helen. And yet this was an event concerning but a part of the known world. In Genesis the destiny of the whole of h u m a n i t y is decided by the mere gesture of a woman. The Bible only hints at the real nature of this act, but it affirms t h a t woman is easy to seduce. In the Haggadah, rabbinic literary commentaries, her sin is explicitly of a sexual order (Rubenstein , 1968). Everyone knows t h e consequences, not l e a s t among t h e m being h u m a n mortality. Four centuries after Homer, the great tragedians no longer sing of female charm or grace. Woman is "above all womb, belly and genitals and is completely a slave to n a t u r a l necessities" (Nancy, 1983, p. 74). Woman's unbridled and constant sexual desire is a form of murderous insanity. As for rabbinic J u d a i s m , which from Talmudic times (the first centuries of Christianity) has ruled the lives of practicing Jews, it considers female attraction a t h r e a t for man. Thus, in addition to the separation of the sexes in the synagogue, modesty is demanded of women, and men are subject to a host of prohibitions. It is, for example, immoral for a m a n to listen to a woman's song, to look at her hair, or to walk behind her in the street. Female sexuality is recognized as legitimate only within the framework of marriage. This conception of marriage is different from t h a t of Athenian society, which regarded it not only as a necessary evil, b u t as a dangerous institution wherein m a n is exposed to t h e domination of women and where both his fortune and his life may be placed in jeopardy (Nancy, 1983). Ideal state among the J e w s , necessary evil for t h e Greeks, marriage m u s t be the locus of man's domination of woman. The danger t h a t female sexuality represents m u s t be dominated; the power resulting from it m u s t be tamed. A being endowed with such power, at once pernicious and inevitably necessary, poses an insoluble problem for the h u m a n mind in its never-ending search to resolve contradictions. Christianity believed it had found the solution by splitting woman in two: Divine Mother and innocent Virgin on the one h a n d , a g e n t of evil a n d d a u g h t e r of Eve on t h e other. Desexualized, woman is all goodness and understanding, and when locked away in a convent she is not particularly troublesome to the male conscience. The trouble is, of course, t h a t most women do not withdraw from the world, but continue to exist in daily life. If a young virgin is not terribly frightening, once she has become woman a n d wife (the two necessarily coinciding), all her sexual powers,

Judith Stora-Sandor

/

133

including reproduction, do inspire fear. But society h a s always maintained t h a t m a n m u s t dominate woman, t h a t law is such as he decrees it. Male supremacy was declared in ancient Greece as well as in Rome, and the Bible was perfectly explicit on the subject: "thy longing shall be to thy husband, and he shall have dominion over thee," God said to woman after the sin (Genesis 3:16). But the spirit of this admonition is contradicted by the very same Scriptures, for it is also written t h a t the greatest misfortune t h a t can befall a m a n is to have a shrewish (Proverbs 21:9, 19; 55:24; 27:15) or adulterous (Proverbs 6:24-26; 30:20; Hosea 2:47) wife. The representation of woman in antiquity and in the Bible is dominated by hostility if not fear. Woman's sexuality is pernicious because it is amplified by a n a t u r a l eroticism and an irresistible talent for seduction. Inferior to man, woman is supposed to submit to his law. She, unfortunately, does nothing of the kind, contesting man's authority and the restrictions t h a t he would like to impose upon her. Whence cometh this power t h a t so nimbly reverses the roles society has taken such pains to elaborate? There is only one period in life when a h u m a n being is entirely dominated by a single, unique person: infancy, ruled over by an authority at once loved and hated, the mother. Here we are at the h e a r t of the unconscious bases of the male imagination, source of female figures for the long centuries during which men alone took up the pen. In this respect, comic l i t e r a t u r e , with its schematic intrigues and stereotypical characters, is particularly revelatory of a common source of unconscious inspiration. Its female characters are modeled on the maternal image. The all-powerful mother is born again in the t r a i t s of the shrew, one of the most common female characters of the comic genre. The shrew's infant origin is easy enough to recognize. All shrews have a propensity to reduce men to a state of infantile regression. Much like its d i s t a n t model, the infant's mother, the shrew is a powerful obstacle in man's pursuit of pleasure, whether sexual or merely diversionary. The adulterous wife, seductive and insatiable, also relates back to the mother who, as object of the first unsatisfied desires, preferred the father to the son. The shrew and the adulterous wife, often combined, are the most frequent, typical female characters found in comic l i t e r a t u r e . It should be added, of course, t h a t woman also has a number of other defects — gossiping, coquetry, extravagance, and eavesdropping to name a few — but these are secondary to the two basic traits t h a t t h r e a t e n man: the will to dominate and the inclination to b e t r a y . But how did these conflicts, experienced in a tragic mode, become sources of the comic? It is by laughter t h a t m a n defends himself against the fear t h a t female nature inspires. The repressed motherdirected impulses of the hostile and obscene mind are released by

134

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

laughter and satisfied thanks to the temporary removal of inhibitions (Freud, 1905/1960). T h a t marriage was, for centuries, a favorite subject of comic authors substantiates my hypothesis concerning the infantile origin of the genre. Indeed, the bonds of marriage are those t h a t most faithfully reproduce the child's state of dependence on the mother. Nevertheless, the unconscious factors, however determining they m a y be, are subject to modification in their literary expression according to the dominant cultural p a t t e r n s of any given period or civilization. The status of the family, on which the status of woman depends, is crucial in the comic representation of the latter. Marriage is one of the institutions constituting the center of Jewish life. It is not simply recommended, but is a sacred obligation for all. "To live singly is as serious as committing a murder," says the Talmud (Yebemoth 63 b). For woman, both her status and her material existence depend on it. As for divorce, if the husband alone takes the initiative, the wife has the right to refuse. It is n a t u r a l for women to be avid defenders of marriage and to use all their powers to assure its stability. In two well-known medieval satires, The Gift of Judah — Women's Foe by Ibn Shabbetai (thirteenth century) and Women's Friend by J e d a i a h ben Abraham Bedersi (fourteenth century), the bitter struggle of enraged women to defend marriage and prevent unjustified divorce is the central theme. Characteristically, these women may be assimilated to the shrew; functionally, however, they represent character types related to the Jewish context. As representatives of the Law t h a t men want to oppose, these women are, quite naturally, victorious. The stories, fables, and proverbs that appear in the Haggadah and the Midrash as well as those t h a t were current in medieval Spain, come primarily, though with slight modifications, from a common Oriental stock. The Orient must be understood in its widest sense, including India as well as the Mediterranean basin. One of the traits of this literature is its fundamentally misogynist character. The eavesdropping, gossiping, shrewish wife appears in all these medieval works. Jewish literature simply reproduces here the usual patterns. On the other hand, in opposition to medieval French fabliaux and farces, for example, the adulterous wife does not appear even in secular Jewish literature. We can only assume, as in the case of ancient Rome, t h a t this reflects the importance given to preserving family life intact. In J u d a i s m , where female adultery is severely punished, this subject could hardly be joked about. An analogous situation may be found in n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y American literat u r e where female adultery is brought up only in a tragic context (Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter, 1850). In Southern Europe, after the Golden Age of Spain, Jewish literature, whether Provengale or Italian, was not particularly innovative

Judith Stora-Sandor

/

135

as far as humor was concerned. In fact, secular literature, until the beginning of the Haskalah, continued to ridicule women for the same defects found in the Bible. We must look to Yiddish literature to discover what is specifically Jewish in the comic portrayal of women. We find few original works at the beginnings of Yiddish-language Jewish literature, whether in Germany or in Eastern Europe. Jewish literature borrowed from the surrounding European literature, where chivalric romances and epic and courtly love poems predominate, b u t introduced therein elements t h a t corresponded to Jewish morality. Ghetto dwellers, however, were much more attracted to the genres familiar since biblical or Talmudic times: stories, parables, proverbs, and legends. Their didactic purpose suited the religious spirit of the community. Thus, alongside the stories from ancient sources appear those produced in the ghetto, and they are told and retold with pleasure. An abundant variety of funny stories of popular origin was produced; in the ghettos of Eastern Europe, they began to be printed in collections from the seventeenth century on. In these stories, as in the "Jewish stories" properly so called t h a t have come down to us in the twentieth century, the comic image of women has evolved b u t little since the Middle Ages. The shrewish wife still has the main role, her dominant traits being "frigidity, stupidity and greed," as Esther Fuchs points out (1986, p. 114). Frigidity is, without doubt, a "new defect." Though its origin is not easy to identify, it is certainly a persistent trait, and it is found again a century later in American l i t e r a t u r e as one of the constants in descriptions of the Jewish American princess. The puritanism of ghetto life m u s t have something to do with it, as well as the absence of a concept of passionate love. It would seem, however, much closer to an ethico-religious interdict t h a n to a description of reality. For love, like adultery, was certainly not absent from Jewish life, both being part of the life of all h u m a n groups. The strict rabbinical moral code, however, in contrast to the Bible, weighed heavily on literary representation, as h a s often been the case in periods subject to rigid religious constraints. It may also be assumed t h a t the material problems and the difficult conditions of life in the shtetl favored humor t h a t expressed these constraints. Thus, the numerous stories of the shadchen developed where the young girl is merely the object of a commercial exchange, the overall goal being to get the best bargain. The only new figure subjected to humorous t r e a t m e n t is the Yiddishe Mome whose invasive attentions weighed heavily on the infant. But the tone is well-meaning, and we are a far cry from the castrating Jewish mother of contemporary American authors. What we have just said for the tales and stories t h a t make up shtetl literature until the middle of the nineteenth century also holds true for the period t h a t witnessed the birth of the first great Yiddish authors, Mendele Mocher Seforim, Yitzchok Leybush Peretz, and

136

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Sholom Aleichem. As for the Hebrew-language Haskalah literature, it was directed particularly at satirizing ghetto life and was too preoccupied with a t t a c k i n g the backward mores of men overly submissive to rabbinical rule, above all in the Hasidic milieu. Bring the Jews out of the Middle Ages and t u r n them into European citizens was the watchword, for men as well as for women. The condition of women was, without a doubt, merely an epiphenomenon in the eyes of the Haskalah satirists. During this period, a greater and greater number of women had access to education. It was also a period during which men of letters in France, Britain, and the United States unleashed their tirades against the bluestockings. In E a s t e r n Europe, young Jewish women, in ever greater n u m b e r s , attended universities and participated in public life, a phenomenon observed with benevolence by the partisans of progress as a positive element in the evolution of mores. Women were the objective allies of men in the struggle for the renewal of Jewish life, and men did not feel threatened by their intellectual ambitions. Moreover, few women actively participated in literary life. Before crossing the Atlantic in the wake of E a s t e r n European Jewish immigrants, we should examine the Jewish literature of the various European countries as written in the languages of those countries. With respect to our subject, it is not so much the change of language t h a t modified this literature, b u t r a t h e r an opening up toward the outside world, an abandonment of the symbolic walls of the ghetto. Indeed, for Jews halfway between assimilation and allegiance to the faith, Jews t h a t elsewhere I have called "the intermediary Jews" (Stora-Sandor, 1984), the problem of seduction arises. We are dealing, of course, with the capacity to seduce the Other, which, for those aspiring to recognition from this different world, represents a proof of success. As once again we are speaking of male authors, the amorous conquest of the foreigner, the non-Jewess, is equivalent to a real triumph, considerably more self-enhancing t h a n the acquisition of a fortune or literary fame. While the "beautiful Jewess" was, for centuries, treated as a symbolic figure of seduction in Western literature, the lure of modern Jezebels and Delilahs for the Jew was dealt with ironically by writers like Heinrich Heine, Israel Zangwill, or Isaac Babel. American Jewish literature takes up all the stereotypes described until this point and adds others as well. In the creation of its female characters, it succeeds remarkably in allying two misogynies, Jewish and American. It should be said from the start t h a t this alliance h a s produced some irresistibly comic effects. This is perhaps one of the reasons for the success of this literature in the Western world. The most important and most recent creation of a female comic type is the Jewish mother. In several respects she represents an original creation in the portrait gallery of female comic characters.

Judith Stora-Sandor

/

137

The comic representation of the mother is generally well disguised in literature to avoid the guilt feelings entailed by such aggression. If in medieval fabliaux and farces, the shrew and the seductive wife appear at times united in a single character, their maternal function is never evoked. They are wives and wives only. Jewish American a u t h o r s , particularly Philip Roth, depicted for t h e first time in literary history a comically formidable mother who is both shrew and seducer and whose seduction is directed at her very own son. To u n d e r s t a n d the process t h a t turned the playful caricature of the Yiddishe Mome into the invading monster of the Jewish mother, we must follow the Jewish women of the Eastern European shtetl to the America of the 1960s, a period during which third-generation immigrants achieved literary fame. Their evolution is described in detail in works devoted to the Jewish woman in the United States (Baum, Hyman, and Michel, 1976; Koltun, 1976), and the authors insist upon t h e change in image and role t h a t American society imposed on the Jewish family, particularly on women. Shtetl wives often had to take responsibility for their families' material survival and t h u s developed "strong personalities and sharp business skills" (Koltun, 1976, p. 273), traits at odds with the ideal of the American wife as it emerged among the middle class from World War II on. This ideal wife not only had to be self-effacing to assure her husband's social and professional promotion, but also a "lady," sophisticated and seductive. As a mother, she had to sacrifice herself for the well-being of her children, but she was in no way to t h w a r t their independence. The logical counterpart of this image of woman is the ideal American male, a virile and dominating power ruling over the family. It is unlikely t h a t this ideal reflected the reality within the American family, b u t t h a t is beyond the scope of this book. On the other hand, it does seem likely t h a t third-generation writers did believe in this ideal, and the comic representation of the Jewish family stands in opposition, trait for trait, to this idyllic image. The father is weak and almost invisible, the mother is dominating and all-powerful, while the son assumes the ambiguous role of glorious victim. Victim of his mother's solicitude, he is also the only object of her attentions, her only love, the center of her life. And the sorely tried sons in Bruce Jay Friedman's A Mother's Kisses (1964) and in Philip Roth's Portnoy's Complaint (1969) seem to cry out throughout the novels, "It's me, it's me alone that she loves." This seducing shrew is a unique case in the history of the comic representation of women. Whereas in t h e adultery comedy, the Oedipal triangle is reconstituted among the h u s b a n d , t h e wife, and h e r lover, as substitutes, respectively for the father, the mother, and the son, with the consummated act of incest sufficiently disguised so as not to

awaken feelings of guilt, in the present case the phantasy lies in the

negation of love between the parents, and this to the son's advantage

138

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

though, obviously, the act of incest remains unconsummated. This fact underlines the extreme infantilism of the phantasy, which corresponds clearly to the analysis of the schlemiel character described by Goldman (1967) as "boy-man" and by Fiedler (1971, p. 66) as an "overgrown boyscout." Father-son rivalry is cast aside (the father is weak and unloved), and the dual mother-son relation suggests a preOedipal psychic state. This portrait, however, contains another element: the shiksa. We have already seen the social significance, for the Jew coming out of the ghetto, of the beautiful foreigner. In the family comedy here under discussion, this social significance is still present, b u t other factors also intervene. The internal, Oedipal prohibition echoes an external prohibition, exogamy. This prohibition is stated by the mother; she, not the father, is the representative of the Law, and her role thus corresponds closely to the American comic tradition which, since the nineteenth century, has presented woman as the upholder of traditional values (Habegger, 1982). This Law t h a t woman defends is, of course, marriage. And here we are again, after several centuries, at the h e a r t of Jewish life, where the founding of a family is a sacred obligation. And, as in the Middle Ages, men feel driven, one could even say persecuted, into respecting t h a t commandment. The J e w i s h American princess (JAP), a thoroughly original creation in the annals of the comic representation of woman, shares with the Jewish mother the propensity to promote matrimony. But, as opposed to her mother, this third-generation Jewish woman, born in America, is preoccupied only with her own interests. Here in a few lines is the portrait of this character as sketched in The Jewish Woman in America: "The princess inherited the mother's chutzpah, her energy, her lack of deference; but while the Mother focuses her attention on her children, the daughter is portrayed as concentrating on her future husband — someone whom she, too, can dominate and m a n i p u l a t e , and who will provide her access to t h e m a t e r i a l possessions she is said to covet" (Baum, Hyman, and Michel, 1976, p. 251). The JAP is entirely oriented toward success — not her own, but t h a t of her future husband. It should be pointed out t h a t the success in question is material and t h a t it will later serve her own interests. We have come a long way from the women of the shtetl who were prepared to support their families so t h a t their husbands could devote themselves to the study of sacred texts. This contrast suggests t h a t w h a t writers attribute to the Jewish spirit is, in fact, due to the American social ethic, which, amplifying the bourgeois ethic, was grounded on social ascent, inseparable from material success. And as usual, it is easy to find scapegoats who, by projection, are invested with t h e unflattering qualities. Through the comic, this act is accomplished without guilt.

Judith Stora-Sandor

/

139

And women writers? Do they modify the comic image of women as one might expect? Only in part. In the context of a male-dominated literary life, women writers have a tendency to reproduce the same comic stereotypes as their male colleagues. This is even more obvious in the case of female stereotypes. There are numerous reasons for this "lack of originality": let me mention only t h e difficulty of externalizing aggressivity when acceptance by a small group is at issue. Now, creating humor is not an innocent activity; it is generally at the expense of something or someone. And when starting out, it is best to follow the beaten track. Thus, the Jewish mother with her obsessional desires to m a r r y off her daughters was a subject t h a t female novelists took up. In this respect, two novels as different from one another as Gail Parent's Sheila Levine Is Dead and Living in New York (1972) and Erica Jong's Fear of Flying (1973) do have certain similarities. On the other hand, the JAP does not exist in female comic literature. Though these third-generation female writers continue to consider themselves victims of the second generation, they do not see themselves as dominating, self-centered J e w i s h American princesses preoccupied with satisfying their appetite for wealth. On the contrary, while for men the JAP represents "the trap of domesticity" (Baum, Hyman, and Michel, 1976, p. 253), women writers present their female characters as victims of this same domesticity and as threatened by domestication. Aided by the context t h a t the feminist movement of the 1970s created, a whole series of novels emerged dealing with the misfortunes befalling young women or young wives as a result of a society t h a t imposes on them roles t h a t they cannot or do not want to assume. The schlemiel changes sex, and these female schlemiels, through hundreds and hundreds of pages, pour out their pathetico-comic complaints. The opposition between the sexless Jewish wife and the nonJewess, overflowing with sexuality, appears in the works of Cynthia Ozick. In her case, this opposition results from a basic antagonism between J u d a i s m and polytheism. The non-Jewish woman is associated with the polytheist world, and her insatiable sexuality contains a destructive force. In two of her stories, "Puttermesser: Her Work History, H e r Ancestry, H e r Afterlife" a n d " P u t t e r m e s s e r a n d Xanthippe" (Ozick, 1983), Ozick portrays a ridiculous, scholarly old maid, Puttermesser, who, like Rabbi Loew of Prague, succeeds in creating a female golem, Xanthippe. She is the stereotype of the lascivious woman, and she is on the point of leading the city of New York to its destruction when Puttemesser finally succeeds in getting her to disappear. While the character of Xanthippe does echo Greek literature, which portrayed woman's sexual power as a trap, Puttermesser represents a new stereotype t h a t appears here for the first time in Jewish literature: the bluestocking old maid. The stereotype of the scholarly woman, often an old maid, appeared in Western

140

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

literature as early as the seventeenth century; she is generally portrayed as thoroughly ridiculous. Ozick's heroine, however, reflects another tradition within the Greek vision of woman: the sophe, the formidable intellectual to be avoided like the plague (Nancy, 1983). Thus, it is a woman who rediscovers the oldest tradition of the comic representation of woman, even if, in the case of Ozick, the context might be more accurately described as fantastico-grotesque rather than comic, in the strict sense of the term. What conclusions can be drawn from this study? The permanence of comic types bears witness to the existence of an unconscious element that contributes to their creation. We have seen what the modification of stereotypes owes to the particularities of the Jewish tradition and to the successive changes in Jewish life over the ages and from one country to another. The old masculine laugh is now joined by a more recent, feminine laugh, but the riddles and unconscious phantasies that give life to it remain to be decoded. Who laughs at what? How? Why? These are questions that, since Plato and Aristotle, have continued to intrigue those who have taken the trouble to ask them. The answers given have not revealed the secret of laughter. And there is nothing particularly surprising in that. Comic characters merely echo eternal types in the human comedy. Fortunately, this comedy will continue to provide abundant material for articles, books, and even our lives.

REFERENCES Baum, C , P. Hyman, and S. Michel. (1976) The Jewish Woman in America. New York: Dial Press. Fiedler, L. A. (1971) To the Gentiles. New York: Stein and Day. Freud, S. (1960) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton (1905). Friedman, B. J. (1964) A Mother's Kisses. New York: Simon and Schuster. Fuchs, E. (1986) "Humor and Sexism: The Case of the Jewish Joke." In Jewish Humor. Edited by A. Ziv. Tel Aviv: Papyrus. Goldman, A. (1967) "Boy-man, Schlemiel: The Jewish Element in American Humor." In Explorations. Edited by M. Mindlin. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Grotjahn, M. (1957) Beyond Laughter: Humor and the Subconscious. New York: McGraw-Hill. Haebegger, A. (1982) Gender, Fantasy, and Realism in American Literature. New York: Columbia University Press. Ibn Shabbetai, Judah ben Isaac ha-Levi. (1543) Minhath Yehudah. Sone ha-Nashim [The Gift of Judah. Women's Foe]. Constantinople. Jedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi (ha-Penini). (1884) Ohev Nashim [Women's Friend]. Berlin. Jekels, L. (1926) "Zur Psychologie der Komodie" [On the Psychology of Comedy]. Imago 12: 328-35. Jong, E. (1973) Fear of Flying. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Judith Stora-Sandor

/

141

Koltun, E. (1976) The Jewish Woman: New Perspectives. New York: Schocken Books. Mauron, C. (1964) Psychocritique du genre comique [Psychocriticism of Comedy]. Paris: Jose Corti. Nancy, C. (1983) "Euripide et le parti des femmes" [Euripides and the Party of Women]. In La Femme dans la societe antique [Woman in Classic Society]. Edited by E. Levy. Strasbourg: Actes des colloques. Ozick, C. (1983) "Puttermesser: Her Work History, Her Ancestry, Her Afterlife" and "Puttermesser and Xantippe." In Levitation. Edited by C. Ozick. Penguin Books. Parent, G. (1972) Sheila Levine is Dead and Living in New York. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Roth, P. (1969) Portnoy's Complaint. New York: Random House. Rubenstein, R. L. (1968) The Religious Imagination. L'imagination Religieuse 1971, Paris: Gallimard. Stora-Sandor, J. (1984) UHumor juif dans la litterature de Job a Woody Allen [Jewish Humor in Literature from Job to Woody Allen]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

This page intentionally left blank

11 The Transactional Implications of the Jewish Marriage Jokes Anat Zajdman

THE OBJECTIVE, THE INNOVATION, AND T H E LIMITATIONS O F THIS WORK A joke may be defined as a text whose primary aim is to arouse laughter. Yet, besides its immediate humorous effect, a joke provides information and messages on cognitive, affective, and social levels. This is especially true of the Jewish folk joke in the Diaspora at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. Zhao says: Jokes can be regarded as representing a unique way in which language is utilized to m a k e known a n d alive w h a t e v e r h u m a n s have found and felt. In specific terms, through jokes, need, desire, mood or any individual tendencies can be released. In this way, jokes are seen to be capable of revealing those personal feelings or sentiments of their tellers in the form of expressive information. (1988, p. 292) It is the aim of this study to uncover some of the hidden messages of the Jewish joke, applying a communication model of analysis. The sample of jokes analyzed is of modest size, t h u s the conclusions are necessarily tentative. In order to obtain more solidly based conclusions it would be necessary to extend considerably the size of the sample to be analyzed. The importance of this particular study, then, lies not in the certainty of the immediate results b u t in the application of a new approach to joke a n a l y s i s derived from sociolinguistics.

144

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

WHICH JOKES ARE AUTHENTICALLY JEWISH? Noy (1962) defines the Jewish joke in terms of features relating to form, content, and context: "The Jewish joke is a n amusing tale told by Jews and only to Jews from generation to generation" (my translation). Noy uses the Aarne-Thompson Motif Index of Folk-Literature to differentiate specifically Jewish jokes from those of universal scope by m e a n s of their content. Jewish jokes often include allusions to Jewish sources such as Holy Scripture, the Talmud, and the postTalmudic codes. The world described in the joke reflects a distinctive Jewish milieu. The Jewish joke observes the unity of space and time. The form of these jokes, says Noy, consists of a core t h a t takes the form of a discourse, creating a static situation within the joke. The conversation in the joke consists of questions and answers, and the punch line usually comes in the form of an answer to a question. The distinctive characteristics of the Jewish joke are of two kinds: 1. Content features: a. It makes use of the Jewish ethos. b. It alludes to m a t t e r s t h a t are part of the everyday common knowledge and experience of Jews. 2. Form features: a. It makes use of Jewish speech mannerisms. b. The grammatical form used is always direct speech; the dialogues are presented through the characters, not related by the narrator. 1 From the above-mentioned features we may also infer t h a t the n a r r a t o r of the Jewish jokes, so popular in the East European Diaspora at the end of the nineteenth century and up to World War II, pretends t h a t he is speaking of a true event t h a t he himself saw and overheard. The use of this device has, I believe, a particular psychological impact on the audience. The hearer or reader of the joke can easily find his way in a world already well known to him, can feel close to the characters, and can look for an object of identification. In addition to the intellectual exercise t h a t comprehension of the joke requires, he can also find himself emotionally involved with it. If it is t r u e t h a t the Jewish joke pretends to document living interactions among people, then it is reasonable to analyze the text of such jokes by means of ethnographic sociolinguistic methods. Let us take as an example Jewish jokes about women. THE HYPOTHESIS The traditional Jewish marriage was, as an institution, a strictly defined s t r u c t u r e of essentially social character r a t h e r t h a n a

Anat Zajdman

/

145

personal union of two individuals characterized by intense emotional involvement. Feldman (1968) says of Jewish marriage t h a t it is "a mitzva, a religious duty" (p. 21); he notes the "obligatory character of marital relations" (p. 60) and the "duty of procreation" (p. 46). If Freud's (1905/1960) theory t h a t humor involves the expression of inhibited impulses indirectly t h r o u g h jokes is correct, t h e n the obligatory act of marriage, which regulates personal relationships, should evoke humorous reactions of an aggressive character directed toward all the p a r t i e s concerned — wives, h u s b a n d s , p a r e n t s , matchmakers, and so on. Nonetheless, the humor found in marriage jokes may also fulfill a social function and thus in itself constitutes a social institution. METHOD Sample The jokes were selected from a Polish book by a Jewish author, Horacy Safrin, Przy Szabasowych Swiecach, [Lighting the Sabbath Candles: Jewish Humor, 1963], which includes 490 Jewish jokes on different subjects. Safrin's collection was based on three main types of sources: 1. His own experience in folklore research among the Galician Jews during the thirty years preceding World War II. 2. Landmann Salcia, Der Judische Witze (Walter-Verlay, Switzerland, 1960), a collection of Jewish jokes. 3. Literary and press sources: a. E. Olsvanger's "Rozshinkes mit m a n d l e n " [Raisins a n d Migdals]. b. The Encyclopaedia of Polish Humor and Satire (1914). c. The Yiddish journal Folks-sztyme, which was published in Poland before World War II. His sources are likely to provide jokes t h a t meet the criteria for authentic Jewish folk jokes laid down by Noy (1962). Noy checked collections of Jewish jokes by A. Droyanov (1957) and Olsvanger according to the Aarne-Thompson Motif Index and found t h a t more t h a n 85 percent of the jokes from both collections are uniquely Jewish. A comparison of Safrin's book with Droyanov reveals a very close resemblance. Moreover, up to 80 percent of the jokes found in Safrin also appear in Droyanov's collection. This means t h a t we can accept Safrin's statement t h a t his jokes are genuinely Jewish, since there is additional evidence t h a t these jokes meet the rigorous requirements of Noy's definition. It is worthwhile devoting some attention to different versions of the same joke (for example, Droyanov [1957] in Hebrew, Safrin [1963]

146

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

in Polish, and Rosten [1968] in English), but it is beyond the scope of the present work to do more t h a n note differences between t h e m which p r e s u m a b l y arise to some extent from t h e process of translation. Characteristic depictions of women are to be found in only 22 percent of the 490 jokes in Safrin's book. Indeed, there are entire chapters where there is no mention of women whatsoever, such as the chapter on t h e a r m y and soldiers. In some of t h e chapters women only participate in the jokes to a very small extent or in a very perplexed way, as in the chapters on the court or on relationships and conflicts between Jews and Gentiles. The chapters where the presence of women is of central importance are those dealing with personal involvements, notably m a r r i a g e and/or matchmaking. These are the jokes analyzed below. Instrument and Procedure As mentioned above, a Jewish joke may be treated as if it is an a u t h e n t i c reported discourse, and as such, it can be analyzed in terms of an ethnographic model of analysis of acts of communication (Hymes, 1977). A joke, according to Hymes, is a speech act t h a t is regarded as an independent unit. Here, however, the Jewish joke is separated into its narrative segments, and each is treated as "a speech event," to use Hymes's term. Hymes's model outlines the following elements of the speech event: the message form; the message content; setting; scene; participants; ends; key; channel; genre; and rules of speaking. The following questions concerning t h e J e w i s h joke m a y be derived from this model: 1. Where and when does the joke situation occur (what are the setting and the scene)? 2. W h a t are t h e p r o m i n e n t and characteristic features of t h e participants? 3. Who or what is the focus of the aggression in the joke? This question can be divided into two parts, according to the way in which the aggression is expressed: a. Who or what is attacked by the humorous culmination of the joke, t h a t is, against whom is the punch line directed? b. Who or what is attacked in the joke by explicit or implicit s t a t e m e n t s t h a t are not necessarily p a r t of the directly humorous elements of the joke? 4. What are the dynamics of the h u m a n relationships depicted in the joke? 5. How aware is the character in the joke who delivers w h a t we recognize as the punch line t h a t he is "creating humor"? This will be analyzed in terms of gains and losses to this character. The

Anat Zajdman

/

147

trade-off model of Berne (1964) will be employed here. Berne says: "The goal of each member of the aggregation is to obtain as many satisfactions as possible from his t r a n s a c t i o n s w i t h other members. The more accessible he is, the more satisfaction he can obtain" (p. 19). RESULTS All t h e jokes in Safrin's book listed u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g s of "Marriage" or "Matchmaking" have been analyzed, making a total of thirty-one jokes. All of these jokes have the same fixed literary structure. First, the narrator tells us the essential information about the scene, the setting, and the characters. Then comes the dialogue: short, pointed questions and answers. The last line, which may take an affirmative or an interrogative form, is the punch line of the joke and is said by one of the characters within the joke. This structure is strictly observed in all b u t one of the jokes. Four of t h e jokes (13 percent) do not start with a narrator's prelude, and the joke takes the form of a dialogue between two undefined voices. (In Droyanov's version this device is not found. He prefers to begin: "A wise m a n asked , . . ," t h u s introducing an anonymous person characterized by a single attribute.) The undefined speakers stand, in fact, for the narrator, who asks his audience a question, pretends to wait for an answer, and then himself responds to his own question (for example, joke 1 in the Appendix). The Narrator The n a r r a t o r in Jewish jokes is always omniscient. In 40 percent of the studied cases the n a r r a t o r is neutral and does not take sides or express his opinion. He p r e s e n t s objective information concerning t h e scene a n d setting, a n d a brief s u m m a r y of t h e participants' characteristics. His description is m e a n t to direct the h e a r e r / r e a d e r of t h e joke to t h e a p p r o p r i a t e stereotype in a n economical way. In a further 40 percent of the jokes, where there may be a danger t h a t the hearer/reader would not get the message by himself or may be confused for a moment, the n a r r a t o r provides r a t h e r stronger directions to these jokes' recipients. The narrator indicates the set of norms relevant to each particular joke; he hints to us who the bad guys and the good guys of the joke are. In a final 20 percent of the jokes there is an "interfering" narrator. For example, in joke 2 in the Appendix the n a r r a t o r describes and defines t h e groom-to-be as "romantic." An analysis of the text, though, shows t h a t the groom expresses very unromantic attitudes, t h a t is, the narrator is being ironic. The use of irony in this way is the

148

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

only case in which the narrator pulls the reader's leg in the analyzed Jewish jokes. Otherwise all the humorous pitfalls in the joke are t r a p s set by the characters within the joke, those around whose dialogue the joke is constructed. At t h e beginning of the joke the n a r r a t o r p r e s e n t s t h e location where the dialogue takes place: home, synagogue, club, and so on: A home, whether the house of the married couple, of the bride, of the groom, of the matchmaker, is the most popular setting. It is interesting to note t h a t the home of the prospective bride appears three times as often as the home of the prospective groom. Outside the privacy of home, b u t nonetheless indoors (a banquet, a coffee house, a club, a synagogue). Out of doors (on the street, out in the countryside, etc.). Not explicitly mentioned (yet it is implied t h a t the setting is familiar to the participants).

45.0% 13.0% 19.0% 22.5%

The characters are presented by their first n a m e s , which are distinctly J e w i s h . Sometimes a fictitious family n a m e is also mentioned. This feature is much more characteristic of the jokes in the book by Safrin t h a n of those in the Droyanov collection. A possible reason for this is t h a t Safrin's book, being written in Polish, is intended for a broader audience, not all of whom would have been familiar with the Jewish milieu; the more frequent use of Jewish family names by Safrin reinforces the Jewish flavor of the jokes for potential non-Jewish r e a d e r s . The characters are referred to as follows: 56 percent of the jokes use first names; 31 percent of the jokes have characters who are defined by their social role (a son of a rich man, a Jew); and 13 percent of t h e jokes are compressed into a " q u e s t i o n answer" pattern, where the characters are not mentioned. The Dialogue In 74 percent of the jokes studied the discourse is conducted by two people. In 13 percent there are more t h a n two participants. In 13 percent there is only the relating n a r r a t o r (the compressed pattern). The conversation of the characters relates to people r a t h e r t h a n to objects; indeed, this is the case in 71 percent of the jokes studied. The principle of "two on the stage," characteristic of the folklore tales, is thus observed here. The active speakers in the jokes are as follows:

Anat Zajdman

Men Prospective groom 2 Husband Professional m a t c h m a k e r Friend (of the man) Others: Neighbors Women Wife Prospective bride 2 Parents of the bride

/

149

39% 32% 32% 14% 7% 29% 14% 18%

The discourse is conducted mainly by men. There are many jokes in which the woman does not appear at all. In others both a m a n and a woman are present. There are no jokes where only women participate. It is worthwhile noting t h a t the married women appear as active talkers twice as often as unmarried ones. Passive participants in the jokes who are merely the objects of a conversation are as follows: The prospective bride "Other men" in the life of a woman The prospective groom The prospective bride's parents Wife of one of the participants "The other woman" Neighbors

36% 21% 11% 11% 7% 4% 4%

Here we can see t h a t the order is reversed. It is the woman who is much more talked about t h a n the man. If a m a n is "talked about," it is through the woman's stream of consciousness, which reveals her friend, her ex-husband, and so on. The Punch Line Who utters the punch line? Mostly it is the man. In 23 percent of the cases it is the professional matchmaker. (This figure is based on an examination of two chapters, "Marriage" and "Matchmaker." In the case of the "Matchmaker" chapter alone, the matchmaker utters the punch line in 82 percent of the cases.) The prospective groom The husband The father of the bride Woman Another m a n Narrator

23% 19% 10% 10% 3% 13%

150

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

The one who utters the punch line belongs to one of three "tradeoff categories, depending on the "gains" and "losses" incurred: 1. The simpleton, whose ineptitude becomes revealed through the punch line (for example, joke 3 in the Appendix). [Awareness of the humor of the self (-); other gains (-)] 2. Indifferent from the humor point of view [Awareness of the humor of the self (-); other gains (+) or: Awareness of the humor of the self (+); other gains (+)] In this case, the "other gains" in the joke are more significant from the point of view of the character within the joke t h a n the humorous effect. Therefore the question whether he is aware of his own humor is irrelevant. In other words, the matchmaker who proves his capability as a successful professional within the joke is not subject to analysis of his awareness to the humor created by his utterance. 3. "Humorist," aware of his own humor (cf. Palmer, 1988, semantic elements of comic narrative). [Awareness of the humor of the self (+); other gains (-)] The simpleton can be found in five jokes, as follows: in one the woman is the simpleton; once it is the father of the bride; and three times it is the matchmaker. In eighteen jokes (58 percent) the carrier of the punch line gains. These gains may be classified as follows: Sexual gains Financial gains Emotional gains Existential gains

22% 22% (for example, joke 2 and joke 5 in the Appendix) 22% (for example, joke 6 in the Appendix) 34%

In four cases (13 percent of all the analyzed jokes, and 36 percent of the matchmaker jokes) the matchmaker — the humorist — loses a bargain as a result of his humorous attitude (for example, joke 4 in the Appendix). Both the simpleton and the humorist suffer losses in a material sense. Listeners and readers laugh a t the punch line whether it is uttered by the simpleton or by the humorist. How can we tell which is which? The distinction between t h e m may be made by m e a n s of text analysis. Sometimes the n a r r a t o r gives us a hint so as to direct us to regard a particular speaking character as a humorist, for example by saying: "The matchmaker smiled and responded." If the n a r r a t o r is reliable, then we can define the "smiling matchmaker" as

Anat Zajdman

/

151

humorist. F u r t h e r assistance can be drawn from the syntax of the sentence. The simpleton's punch line may be said in the form of a lapsus lingua, using a grammatically incomplete sentence, ending in three ellipsis points, whereas the final riposte of the humorist is rhetorically elaborated. Still another way to differentiate between the conscious user of humor and the innocent one is to check out the earlier moves of the one delivering the punch line. In joke 4, for instance, we can observe a pitfall prepared by the matchmaker for t h e young m a n ; the m a t c h m a k e r sets up for himself a scene in which he can produce his punch line, which is a typical piece of humorous behavior. Foci of Aggression Jokes p r e s e n t humor, quite often in an aggressive way a n d through the punch line. Yet, in addition to this "central" aggression, further derogatory descriptions can be found within the joke. The distribution of the victims attacked in the joke by means other t h a n the punch line is as follows: The The The The

woman institution of marriage prospective groom prospective bride's parents

74% 10% 6% 6%

The Stereotypes of Women and Men Given the divergent qualities attached to women in the Jewish jokes, it makes sense to cite clusters of qualities t h a t go together, r a t h e r t h a n merely listing an inventory. "The romantic woman" is usually associated with terms such as "dumb" or "rich." "The beautiful woman" tends to be depicted as deceitful, adulterous. "The ill-tempered woman" is shown as aggressive, sulky, annoying. As to virtues, the rich women are also described as well brought up and of respectful parentage; in most of the cases they are also beautiful. But they usually have a hidden vice t h a t far outweighs their virtues, such as depravity or madness (for example, joke 4 in the Appendix). The m a n is usually characterized by one central positive trait, though there are a few examples where he also is denigrated. The man in the joke may be practical, enthusiastic, diligent, or decent, or a lover of n a t u r e . If he is rich, t h e same clusters of t r a i t s are

152

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

assigned to him as in the case of the women: rich, of high parentage, educated. When the m a n in the joke is portrayed negatively, he can be jealous, selfish, or suspicious. As in the case of the woman, albeit to a much lesser degree, his appearance has also been mentioned; he may be "handsome and young" or "poor and ugly." The Marriage Metaphor In most of the jokes there is an explicit or implicit s t a t e m e n t concerning the institution of marriage, which is always extremely derogatory. The popular similes of marriage depict it as "a burial," "a prison" (20 percent), "a disaster," or "a bargain" (42 percent). DISCUSSION One of the most prominent qualities of the Jewish joke is its existential relevance, which is i n t e r p r e t e d h e r e as a claim for authenticity. This relevance is expressed through external features, such as being strongly connected with the Jewish "here and now," being static, and being placed in a familiar period and environment. The joke presents an abundance of characters who play fixed roles deeply rooted in the Jewish milieu and who are mentioned by their proper names. Specifically Jewish contexts, such as a synagogue or the r i t u a l bath, are mentioned usually as a m a t t e r of fact. The dialogue reflects characteristic Jewish rhetoric, for example, the trick of answering a question with another question. The omniscient n a r r a t o r seems not to belong to the fictitious world in which the dialogue takes place; rather, he situates himself in the role of a guide for the reader/hearer. These qualities adequately reflect the Jewish worldview, where everything and everybody have their fixed and proper place and role. The institution of marriage is violently attacked in these Jewish jokes, and so are the participating characters: the groom, the father, the matchmaker, but most of all the woman. This may imply t h a t she is the one most keenly involved in pushing the issue. An interesting point is the close association between the institution of m a r r i a g e and mercantile transactions, which a p p e a r s in 42 percent of the jokes analyzed. Money is mentioned in 45 percent of t h e cases, though not necessarily the same ones. The m u n d a n e character of marriage takes precedence over all the other more romantic aspects. Indeed, the humor of the jokes is often based on a breaking of t h e romantic convention (for example, joke 2 in the Appendix). The placing together of three disparate aspects of life — the personal, the legal, and the commercial — together with the construction of bridges between them is what makes the matchmaker so ready a source of humor. His task is to solve personal psychological issues, and yet at the same time to carry out business in terms of

Anat Zajdman

/

153

buying and selling. To accomplish such a complex and potentially contradictory task requires a great deal of humor, and this is presumably why 82 percent of matchmakers are the ones who deliver the punch line. Moreover, in one-third of the cases we find the matchmaker-humorist, who gives precedence to humor over the bargain. We are let contemplating the unexpected order of his priorities. The female stereotype in these Jewish jokes is especially interesting. Two antithetical clusters of stereotypes appear: the modest, quiet, beautiful bride on the one hand, and the quarrelsome, illtempered, shrewish, and petty wife on the other. Davies (1977, 1985) has pointed out the phenomenon of stereotypes that change over time, but this is not the case here, for in the Jewish joke two opposite stereotypes exist simultaneously. This peculiar circumstance requires attention and comment, especially since both stereotypes may well relate to the very same woman, with the shy bride suddenly turning into an insolent wife. There are three possible interpretations. First, it may be that the young bride pretends to be what she is not in order to make a good catch and match. After the marriage takes place, she no longer needs to disguise what she is really like, and her true character is revealed. This kind of interpretation has led some feminists to regard these Jewish jokes as highly sexist. Another interpretation is that the young bride really was endowed with all the virtues mentioned, but after the wedding her character changed due to the sorrows of life; it is well established that the daily life of the average Jewish wife in the Diaspora was far from being a garden of roses. This interpretation may arouse empathy and even some sense of guilt on the part of the hearer, which is a Jewish message in itself! A third possibility emerges from a thorough analysis of the text. It is significant that the Jewish woman in the joke never appears as a person in her own right; she always belongs to somebody. She is always depicted as somebody's wife or as somebody else's daughter. As a bride, she belongs to her parents (or, more precisely, to her father); as a wife, to her husband. As a daughter she is demure, young, and pretty. As a wife she is loud and plain. The implication here is that the daughter seen through the eyes of her father is remarkably different from the wife seen through the eyes of her husband. An additional characteristic of the woman in the joke is that she is more passive than the man; she appears much less often as an active speaker, and this is even more true of the unmarried woman relative to the married one. This may be linked to our earlier interpretation of the jokes, according to which the institution of marriage makes the woman less "womanlike" in the traditional sense.

154

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Moreover, she and her private life serve as objects of conversation, which has a deprecating air about it. When she delivers the punch line, she is the simpleton, never the humorist. This finding fits the belief, popular until quite recently, t h a t women are devoid of any sense of humor whatsoever (Sheppard, 1986). It is important to examine carefully exactly what kind of humor is directed against women in the Jewish joke. It may be agreed t h a t she is the object of some form of aggression (Fuchs, 1986). Fuchs believes t h a t the female characters in aggressive humor are the victims of their sons, prospective grooms, husbands, and so on. Fuchs regards women as directly comparable with ethnic minorities against whom humor is directed. It seems to me t h a t this issue calls for more finesse of a p p r o a c h r e g a r d i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l a n d i n t e r g r o u p relationships. In his book Personality and Sense of Humor (1984), Ziv has suggested t h a t there can be three different types of hierarchical relations between "the oppressor" and "the oppressed" in a humorous context. 1. The oppressor s t a n d s higher t h a n t h e oppressed; t h e oppressed is inferior, wretched, an out-and-out victim. (Fuchs places humor against women in the Jewish joke exclusively in this category.) 2. The oppressor is equal to the oppressed. 3. The oppressor stands lower t h a n the oppressed. In all three categories, the aim of the oppressor is to achieve a feeling of superiority over the oppressed, a brief moment of Hobbesian "glory." In order to find out accurately what the woman's position within aggressive humor is, it is essential to detect the key forces at work in the joke. There are two possibilities. In the first type, these forces are defined from the very beginning and are reinforced as the joke proceeds; in the second type, a certain set of forces is presented at the beginning but becomes altered in the course of the joke narrative. The second possibility is far more common t h a n the first. As an example, the acting forces of joke 2 in the Appendix may be delineated as follows: At the beginning the bride asserts her hope to associate with her groom-to-be, whom she believes is different from and the opposite of her other suitors. We can represent this diagrammatically as follows: [The b r i d e < =

>the g r o o m ] = Legend:<

[[

>other candidates sympathetic relations < || hostile relations

Anat Zajdman

/

155

At t h e end of t h e joke the prospective groom places himself in the same category as other candidates, and in opposition to the bride: The groom tHE GROOM

other suitors

the bride

This pattern, in which at the end of the joke the woman is left all by herself in opposition to all her "oppressors" (either as a result of reinforcement of t h e initial situation or as a result of m a r k e d change), is to be found in 55 percent of the jokes. The oppressors are men — the prospective groom, t h e husband, sometimes even the father — who in some sense associates with a friend, a neighbor, or a m a t c h m a k e r a g a i n s t t h e "oppressed," who is a w o m a n — a prospective bride or a wife. However, this creates an important and paradoxical question: If the woman is a mere inferior and wretched victim, why do the men have to assemble a coalition against her? Why is one m a n on his own not powerful enough? W h a t is the significance of this solidarity of men against an isolated woman? I am inclined to conclude t h a t t h e image of t h e woman in t h e jokes is not in fact t h a t of a helpless, hapless victim. The woman seems r a t h e r to be seen as a powerful t h r e a t which calls for masculine u n i t y against her. Psychologically speaking, hers is the "strong sex" (cf. Ziv, 1984). The aggressive h u m o r in these jokes is not directed downward in the pecking order, b u t upward toward t h e covertly powerful woman, who m a y be t a k e n as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e whole m a t r i a r c h i c a l society. The hidden message of t h e m a r r i a g e jokes in the J e w i s h community may well be t h a t m a r r i a g e is a n i n s t i t u t i o n m a n i p u l a t e d by women. The last issue to be treated here is the different psychological functions one can find within the Jewish joke. Ziv points out five principal functions to be found in humor: the aggressive, the sexual, t h e social, t h e defensive, and the intellectual. As t h e characters attacked in the Jewish joke (told by J e w s to Jews) are usually of Jewish origin, it means t h a t in the wide sense these jokes contain self-derogatory humor by definition. We shall try now to find out what other functions are to be found within particular Jewish jokes, noting the dynamics of the interactive forces among the participants. This is best demonstrated by taking particular cases, for example, any joke in which the law of "two on the stage" is observed (for example, joke 6 in the Appendix). At the beginning of the joke the groom expresses his aversion to association with a woman: groom

II

> bride

(1)

156

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Then the matchmaker is introduced, whose function is to persuade the prospective groom to become a real groom. The forces may be depicted as follows: [Matchmaker <

=>bride]

II

> groom

(2)

while the socially approved aim is to arrive at the following end position: [Groom < = = > bride]

optional II => matchmaker

(3)

(The hostile attitude toward the matchmaker after the marriage is not mandatory, but optional, and the matchmaker can, as a matter of fact, simply disappear. But perhaps there m u s t be somebody to be blamed in the future. The m a t c h m a k e r is very apt for this role, preceded only by the mother-in-law.) However, the expected outcome expressed in equation 3 fails to materialize, and new forces are revealed: [Groom <

—=> matchmaker]

||

—> woman

(4)

The woman in the fourth equation is the matchmaker's wife, but it is clear t h a t she stands for all wives, and in particular for the brides whom the prospective groom is resisting. This appears to be an uncomplicated sexist joke. It includes aggression toward a woman; she is called a derogatory name; the trait laughed at is a "typically female" vice, jabbering. Seemingly, her position in the joke is no better t h a n t h a t of a member of an ethnic minority in racial jokes, as Fuchs (1986) claims. However, the situation is fundamentally different. At the core of the ethnic joke we find xenophobia, a repelling force t h a t separates the members of two groups and places them further apart, whereas at the basis of the sexist joke is Eros, a force of attraction. From this point of view, the aggression in the ethnic joke is unanimous, whereas sexist humor contains a necessary duality: repelling aggression on the one hand, and attracting sexuality on the other. There already exists an ambivalence in the basic situation of the jokes. But the Jewish joke adds another component, already mentioned. The woman does not belong to herself in t h e joke; she is someone else's property; "the daughter of . . ." or "the wife of." In most cases she "belongs" to the "oppressor" in the joke. Therefore, in attacking her, he attacks an extension of himself. His aggression turns out after all to be a facet of self-directed humor. Ambivalence can also be found in t h e relations between the m a t c h m a k e r and the groom in this particular type of joke. The

Anat Zajdman

/

157

m a t c h m a k e r is supposed to socialize t h e groom by m e a n s of m a r r i a g e , inducing him to m a r r y in the proper way ("the social i n t r a - g r o u p function") but by the end of the joke he finds himself taking sides with the groom against a common enemy, the woman ("social inter-group function") (Ziv, 1984). Figure 1 shows the organization of acting forces in the Jewish joke and their impact on the different functions of humor. The overall result is potentially confusing. The hearer of the joke m u s t be very careful as to which character in the joke he identifies with. The only way to survive is by means of intellectual acrobatics, being able and willing rapidly to redefine the situation ("the intellectual function of humor"). This can be clearly seen in the case of jokes about marital infidelity. As shown earlier, the institution of marriage in the Jewish joke has also become redefined in terms of bargaining and finance as against t e r m s of romanticism and personal relations. This device enables the involved party to m a i n t a i n emotional distance and to examine the issue rationally ("the defensive function"). Ziv (1984) says t h a t jokes can fulfill one or more functions. As shown in Figure 1, one single joke can have many functions and can fulfill m a n y h u m a n needs. In this way it may have a therapeutic effect. The J e w i s h joke coveys t h e comprehensive, subtle, and complex Jewish view of life in an economical way, and this may explain its longevity and popularity in the Jewish community. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH It will be worth extending the scope of this analysis by applying the sociolinguistic model on a much larger scale so as to test the hypotheses advanced here. The same model can be applied not just to jokes dealing with marriage but to all jokes with a similar structure involving h u m a n interaction.

FIGURE 1 The Organization of Acting Forces in the Jewish Joke and Their Impact on the Different Functions of Humor

Anat Zajdman

/

159

NOTES I thank Christie Davies for his help in editing this chapter. 1. The narrator here is meant in the literary sense of a character within the fictitious world who relates the story to the reader. 2. The terms prospective groom or prospective bride apply here both to the engaged couple and to prospective candidates for marriage, even if there is no wedding.

REFERENCES Berne, E. (1964) Games People Play. New York: Grove Press. Davies, C. (1977) "The Changing Stereotype of the Welsh in English Jokes." In It's a Funny Thing, Humour. Edited by A. J. Chapman and H. C. Foot. New York: Pergamon. . (1985) "Ethnic Jokes and Social Change: The Case of the Welsh. Immigrants and Minorities 4: 25-32. Droyanov, A. (1957) A Book of Wit and Jokes. 3 vols. Tel Aviv: Dvir (in Hebrew). Feldman, D. M. (1968) Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law. New York: Schocken Books. Freud, S. (1960) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton (1905). Fuchs, E. (1986) "Are Jewish Jokes Sexist?" In Jewish Humor. Edited by A. Ziv. Tel Aviv: Papyrus. Hobbes, T. (1650) Leviathan. London: Grooke. Hymes, D. (1977) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. London: Tavistock. Noy, D. (1962) "Are There Jewish Folk-Jokes?" Mahanaim 17: 48-56 (in Hebrew). Palmer, J. (1988) "Theory of Comic Narrative: Semantic and Pragmatic Elements." Humor 1, no. 2: 111-26. Rosten, L. (1968) The Joys of Yiddish. New York: McGraw-Hill. Safrin, H. (1963) Przy Szabasowych swiecach [Lighting the Sabbath Candles: Jewish Humor], lodz: Wydawnictwo lodzkie. Sheppard, A. (1986) "From Kate Sanborne to Feminist Psychology: The Social Context of Women's Humor 1885-1985." Psychology of Women Quarterly 10, no. 2: 155-69. Zhao, Y. (1988) "The Information-Conveying Aspect of Jokes." Humor 1, no. 3: 279-93. Ziv, A. (1984) Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.

APPENDIX The following jokes appear in Safrin's collection. The version cited here of jokes 1, 3, 4, and 6 is taken from Rosten (1968). Jokes 2 and 5 are freely translated by the author. 1 Q: "Why did Adam and Eve live so long?" A: "Because their lives were not shortened by 'machetunim'" [in-laws].

160

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

2 A rich young lady who is dancing with a romantic young m a n complains to him: — I am sure t h a t all my suitors are only interested in my dowry, not in me. How much I w a n t to find somebody interested in me . . . The romantic youngster asks enthusiastically: — Really? How big is your dowry? 3 An ebullient shadchen (matchmaker) brought his young male prospect to the home of a potential bride. When they started homeward, the shadchen said: "Well, was I exaggerating? Isn't t h a t a doll of a girl? And can you imagine w h a t a dowry s h e l l bring you! Did you see t h e furnishings in t h a t house? The fine hangings? T h a t collection of fine silver?!" "But the father seemed awfully eager . . ." said the young m a n uneasily. "She has a dozen suitors!" "The mother kept pushing, hinting . . ." "She likes you!" "For all I know, they even borrowed all t h a t silver j u s t to impress me!" "Borrowed it?" cried t h e shadchen. "Who would lend a nickel to such kabtzonim [paupers]?" 4 I n a c e r t a i n town t h e r e was a grievous s h o r t a g e of marriageable young men. One of them, ugly b u t conceited, came to t h e shadchen and said, "I am considering getting m a r r i e d . B u t I w a r n you — I'll accept n o t h i n g b u t a remarkable shiddach [marital match]!" The shadchen studied the young m a n sourly, then said, "I have j u s t the girl for you. Her father is rich and she is beautiful, well-educated, charming . . ." "Wait a minute," said the young m a n suspiciously. "Why isn't such a girl married?" The shadchen raised his hand. "You w a n t to know why such a girl would accept someone who is not — excuse me — the most attractive young m a n in the world? I will be perfectly frank. The beautiful, educated charming girl has an affliction: once a year she goes crazy." "She goes crazy?" "But t h a t need not disturb you. She does not cause any trouble. She just goes a little meshugge [nuts] — for only one

Anat Zajdman

/

day. Then she's as charming and normal as ever for another year!" "That's not so bad," said the young man, "if she's as rich and beautiful as you say. Let's go see her." "Not now," said the shadchen. "Your shiddach m u s t wait." "Until when?" "Until the day she goes out of her mind." 5 The prospective groom has been told t h a t his bride-to-be is sick. He is advised by his friend to send her flowers. The young m a n goes to a flower boutique and says: — I would like to send some flowers to my sick fiancee. The florist says: — We have some very beautiful roses, ten kopeks each. The young m a n is very taken aback: — Ten kopeks? T h a t sick, she isn't. 6 For m o n t h s the rabbi had been urging t h e young m a n to become a chassen, to marry. And for months t h e energetic s h a d c h e n h a d been b r i n g i n g t h e y o u n g m a n n a m e s , photographs, offers, dowries, of nubile maidens. All to no avail, it seemed. "No, t h a n k s , " said the young m a n firmly. "I'm not interested. I just don't want to get married!" "What? A Jewish lad? Not marry?" "Certainly. I'm young. I'm free, I'm happy; why in the world do I need a wife?" "Why do you need a wife?" echoed t h e s h a d c h e n incredulously. "My boy, you don't know! Let me tell you what a woman's love can mean, what a heaven on earth is connubial bliss. Take an old m a n like me, even. I am blessed with a wife, an angel, may she live to be a hundred and twenty! My home life is, every moment, a blessing. J u s t visualize it: I get u p in the morning, my darling Rivkele has a wonderful breakfast ready for me. My clothes are laid out each day, clean, neat, not a button missing. I go off to work carrying the lunch she prepared for me with her own hands: a roast chicken, fine kugel [noodle pudding], mouth-watering cakes. When I come home, my Rivkele is waiting for me at the door. She takes my things, takes off my shoes, puts on my slippers, sits me in my favorite chair, gives me a shnaps [glass of spirits], diverts me by telling me what she did all day. She talks, I listen, the house is w a r m and cozy — a heaven, a heaven. And my Rivkele talks, and talks and talks until — I tell you, t h a t yenta [old gasbag] is going to drive me right out of my mind!"

161

This page intentionally left blank

Ill HUMOR IN THE PROMISED LAND

This page intentionally left blank

12 Jewish Humor in the Service of an Israeli Political Leader: The Case of Levi Eshkol Ofra Nevo

Over the last four years I have collected 550 humorous stories told by my father, Levi Eshkol, who was the third prime minister of Israel. Levi Eshkol had a long political career before becoming prime minister and was famous throughout the country for his rich sense of humor. Eshkol grew up in Russia, where he went to school at a cheder, spoke Yiddish with his parents, and was imbued with Jewish culture at home. He left home to study in Vilna, where he joined the Zionist movement. He came to Israel at the beginning of this century. His special brand of wit consisted in applying Jewish humor to the circumstances of Israeli political life. I collected Levi Eshkol's humorous stories through interviews and by examining archives, newspapers, and books. It was not my original intention to treat the material in a scientific way. However, being a researcher of humor for more than fifteen years, I could not help but continually ask myself certain questions: Why did Eshkol use humor? What benefits did he obtain from it? What were the effects of his humor on both himself and the social and political situation? In seeking explanations of the functions of humor in the literature, I have found that the functions of humor are stressed in each theory in accordance with its basic concepts, level of analysis, and specific domain of interest. Some conceptualizations regard human nature as being driven by sex, aggression, or power (the motivational view). In others, man's purpose is conceived of in more intellectual terms as consisting in a search for meaning and solutions (the cognitive view). A third theoretical view emphasizes the goals of the individual in society (the social

166

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

view). Different functions of h u m o r emerge from each of these views. It is not surprising, therefore, to find t h a t the functions of h u m o r can be grouped according to t h e t h r e e m a i n theoretical approaches: motivational, cognitive, and social (McGhee, 1979; Ziv, 1981). The theoretical a r g u m e n t s concerning the functions of h u m o r vary according to the level of the unit being analyzed. Some theories deal with functions of humor in respect of the individual himself (for example, Freud, 1905/1960, 1925/1959; Kuhlman, 1984; Mindess, 1971; Ziv, 1984). Others examine the functions of humor in the context of small and large groups, among nations, and in society at large (for example, Bergson, 1912; Martineau, 1972; Ziv, 1984). Finally, a number of researchers have focused on one domain, such as therapy, education, or politics. Most of the literature about humor in politics deals with humor about politicians and politics, rather than with the humor produced by politicians. Some of the existing analyses of the functions of humor rely on anthologies of jokes (for example, GalNoor a n d Lukes, 1987) and not on humor produced in specific situations. In this chapter I consider the effects of humor used by a politician. I prefer not to use the term function because of its teleological connotations. To my mind a discussion of the effects of humor should be based on considerations of the situation in which t h e h u m o r was produced; the personality of the teller of a joke or the producer of h u m o r should be t a k e n into account, as well as t h a t of t h e participants in the situation. I have had the r a r e opportunity of observing the effects of humor from all these points of view, having known Levi Eshkol the m a n well, having met with some of the participants, and having moreover studied the political situation involved. The analysis of the 550 instances of Eshkol's humor revealed eleven humorous effects produced by a politician with a fully developed sense of humor. These effects of humor will be presented a n d a r e not m u t u a l l y exclusive. A humorous story or r e m a r k can simultaneously r e s u l t in various effects. However, for t h e purposes of exposition, they will be presented separately here. In accordance with the t h r e e principal theoretical approaches to h u m o r research (motivational, social, and cognitive), the effects of humor can be divided into three primary groupings: coping with motivations and emotions by the leader himself; coping with social relations; and solving cognitive problems. The presentation of t h e effects created by Eshkol's humor will be followed by a discussion of general questions concerning the use of h u m o r by politicians and the specific Jewish qualities in the humor of Levi Eshkol.

OfiaNevo /

167

HUMOR AS A MECHANISM FOR COPING WITH MOTIVATIONS AND EMOTIONS Denial (Minimization of Pain, Desensitization) Modern psychology is preoccupied with "making the unconscious conscious." However, some psychologists (for example, Breznitz, 1983) point to the importance of denial in coping with stress. A person cannot always handle all information. To function properly one sometimes h a s to ignore both cognitive and emotional information. This can be done effectively with humor. Freud (1905/1960, 1925/1959) emphasized the cathartic function of humor. Others have done the same by focusing on the relief obtained by humor (Keith-Spiegel, 1972) or the freedom and liberation t h a t results from the use of humor (Mindess, 1971). The basic level of analysis of Freud is t h a t of the intrapsychic world of the individual. It was he who originated the idea of humor as a constructive defense mechanism. In other words, humor may help the politician to withstand the pressures of political life by minimizing pain and denying disruptive emotions. When Eshkol was Finance Minister there was a serious crisis in his party. It was the first time t h a t the veterans of the party were in open opposition to Ben-Gurion, who was the founder of both the party and the state. Ben-Gurion accused Eshkol and two other members of tearing the party apart. In response, one of them turned pale and the other fainted, while Eshkol said: "If three people are blamed, then my part is only one-third, so it's not so bad." 1 Eshkol used humor to minimize the accusations against him by the eminent leader so t h a t he could deal constructively with the situation. He neither struck back nor fainted, but denied the accusation humorously. This kind of h u m o r offers a good example of the defensive function of humor as suggested by Ziv (1984). Repairing a Loss (One-upmanship, Overcoming Disadvantage) In political life the politician is often exposed to insults, attacks by critics, and other minor embarrassments. Politics is a struggle for power. Through humor, a politician can overcome such hurdles and take control of the situation. Humor can t u r n frustration into hope and disadvantage into advantage. This specific function of humor is directly related to superiority theories t h a t t r e a t humor as a way of gaining the advantage (for example, Hobbes, 1651; Zillmann and Cantor, 1976):

168

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Eshkol lost half of his fourth finger. When one of his colleagues asked him about this, he explained t h a t it happened to him as a result of an accident when he was a child. Then he added: "You can't imagine how helpful this little half-finger was for the education of the children on my kibbutz. The kindergarten teacher used to invite me to the kindergarten and say to the kids: Do you know why Eshkol lost half of this finger? Because he used to suck this finger when he was young. So this was my contribution to the education of the children of Degania." This effect of humor, although similar to the preceding, differs in t h a t the producer of humor changes the situation for the better. For not only is pain minimized, but the producer of humor also becomes stronger as a consequence. Another example of Eshkol's ability to t u r n disadvantage into advantage is illustrated in the following story: During Eshkol's visit to the United States, President Lyndon Johnson gave a party in his honor. Johnson asked Mrs. Eshkol to dance. The Israeli ambassador told Eshkol that, according to custom, he himself was now required to ask Lady Bird (Johnson's wife) for a dance. Eshkol replied, "My dear ambassador, I don't dance" [mein teierer ambassador, ich tanz nicht]. He then turned to his assistant, Shimon Peres: "Young man [yungerman], please ask Lady Bird for a dance. You're always arguing t h a t the younger generation should be given more of a chance. So here's your chance." In this example he connected two problems: the immediate problem of who was to dance with Lady Bird and an old problem concerning the younger generation in his party. Instead of being embarrassed, he used the occasion to practice one-upmanship, thereby obtaining the advantage in the situation. Expression of Aggression (Sublimation) Humor is known to function as a safety valve t h a t allows instincts such as those of aggression and sex to be expressed in a socially legitimate way (Freud, 1905/1960). Aggression is to be found everywhere in politics. A politician must keep his own in check to prevent hostilities from escalating and to achieve greater support for himself. Humor may thus result in fewer conflicts and controversies: To a member of the Knesset [Israel's parliament] who repeatedly attacked the government, Eshkol said: "It is said t h a t a man cannot be wrong 100 percent of the time, but you really are making a great effort."

OfraNevo /

169

This function is also found in nicknames t h a t politicians have for one another. For example, Abba Eban, who was foreign minister in Eshkol's government, was called by him the gelerenter n a r (which m e a n s "the educated fool" in Yiddish). E b a n was by far the most educated member of the government b u t was lacking in everyday political know-how. M e n a c h e m Begin obtained t h e n i c k n a m e "Dzigan," after the famous Israeli Yiddish comedian. By calling him this name, Eshkol delivered the message t h a t he did not consider Begin to be a great politician, but appreciated his theatrical talents. It is i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t although sexual expression is regarded as being among humor's principal functions (for example, Ziv, 1984), I have found very few instances of it in Eshkol's humor. HUMOR AS A COPING MECHANISM IN SOCIETY The main arena of humor is t h a t of society. Humor is created for people, by people, and about people. What follows is a consideration of the effects of Eshkol's humor in his dealings with others. Attention Getting As m a n y politicians know, a joke can be a good opening for a speech. In our modern communications-oriented society, there are people who make their living by writing jokes for politicians. Humor can wake up a n inattentive audience; a humorous r e m a r k in the middle of negotiations can do the same. Eshkol was a master of using humor in this way. In going over the protocols of his meetings I was astonished to see how he timed his humor so as to guide the discussion in the desired direction (see Nevo, 1989, pp. 120-22). Avoidance of External Demands A very common use of humor by politicians is to avoid answering a question or revealing information: Once, when Eshkol was being pressed for information by a group of reporters, he replied by telling t h e m the following J e w i s h joke: You probably heard about the Mitnagged [an opponent of Hasidism] who once drove out to a Hasidic rabbi to spend the Sabbath with him. When he returned to his friends they were anxious to know everything t h a t happened while he was staying with the Hasidim. The Mitnagged described in detail all the events t h a t took place from Friday night to the third meal on the Sabbath day and said: "I was sitting with the old Hasidim practically like one of them and for a whole hour all of us just sat there and listened to the Rabbi while he kept silent."

170

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

A more prosaic answer was given by Eshkol to reporters who had been pressing him for an answer concerning a secret military m a t t e r . Instead of responding with the usual "No comment," he replied, "Thank you for your kind concern," and said no more. Reducing Tension (Being at Ease, or Creating a Warm Atmosphere) On any social occasion the initiator of humor invites others to amuse themselves in order to relax tensions. When Eshkol wanted to create a warm atmosphere, he would say, "Let us speak frankly as when a m a n talks to another man's wife" (a play of words on the well-known Jewish idiom, Let us speak frankly as a m a n talks to his friend). Or, to cut short a long-winded speaker, he would say, "Don't s t a r t from Abraham Avinu [Abraham the patriarch]." Creation of Cohesion (Confirmation of Group Values) An expression of values held in common and the reinforcement of a specific cultural background and language are achieved by humor t h a t is understood principally by group members and not by outsiders. This kind of humor confirms the status of a leader of a group and contributes to the group's cohesion (see, for example, Shultz's analysis of Abraham Lincoln's humor, 1977). Eshkol often used traditional Jewish sayings and applied them to the situation in modern Israel. As a leader belonging to the first generation of modern Israel, Eshkol combined the political events of young Israel and the established tradition of Jewish humor. This quality in Eshkol is brought out, by way of contrast, in a story about the first native-born prime minister of Israel, Itzhak Rabin: When Itzhak Rabin was preparing for his visit to the United States, Rabbi Porush addressed him on behalf of the religious party and told him that in going abroad he would represent all Jews, and so he should use quotations from Jewish sources. Rabin agreed and asked Porush to prepare a list of such quotations. After Rabin returned from his visit, Porush met him and asked whether he used the quotations t h a t had been supplied. Rabin answered, "To tell you the truth, I didn't know where to use them." Eshkol h a d no such problem. He was familiar with J e w i s h tradition and knew how to incorporate it into the new life of modernday Israel:

OfiaNevo

/

171

When Eshkol was asked about the future of Israel's relations with the Arabs, he answered with a variation on a biblical verse: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge" (Jer. 31:39). He then added: "It all depends on the children's teeth." (What an existential variation!) Everybody in Israel is familiar with verses such as this from the Old Testament, and when Eshkol referred to it he was affirming the common cultural heritage of the group of which he was a member. Many of the examples of Eshkol's humor I have collected contain references to the common culture of the Jewish people. Some in Israel are concerned that this kind of humor, having its roots in the Jewish tradition, may be disappearing (for example, Ziv, 1986). Minimizing Social Distance Through humor a leader or any other authority can minimize the social distance between himself and his followers. He can show that he, too, is human: When Eshkol became prime minister, the head of the nation's security told him: "Now you are prime minister, my men will have to guard you day and night. I know you are a widower, and you might want to visit some ladies. I can promise you that my men will not talk." To this Eshkol replied: "On the contrary, let them talk!" The best-known characteristic of Jewish humor is the tendency of Jews to make fun of themselves and to direct the aggression of humor inward. Although I have argued elsewhere (Nevo and Greenfield, 1985; Nevo, 1990) that this ability is not necessarily Jewish, Eshkol's humor contains many instances of which he is himself the butt. SOLVING COGNITIVE PROBLEMS Clarification and Explanation of Ideas (Change of Perspective) Humorous stories can explain ideas or clarify concepts. Through jokes, metaphors, or a retelling of past events, a leader can throw light on a subject or emphasize a new point. This relates to the educational potential of humor (Zillmann and Bryant, 1983; Ziv, 1984). While serving as minister of finance, Eshkol introduced a regulation giving financial advantages to some economic sectors; at the same time citrus farmers were not receiving

172

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

such advantages. The farmers came to Eshkol to complain. He told them that this reminded him of a poor Jew who had five sons, none of whom were very strong. They all needed cod-liver oil, but he had enough money for only two doses. Had he divided two doses among all five sons, it would have helped none of them. What was he to do, then? So he gave the cod-liver oil to his weakest sons. "When you are weaker," Eshkol added, "you will get more money." By using the metaphor of a poor but good father, Eshkol succeeded in getting across his main idea. This use of humor is found today among therapists (Kuhlman, 1984). Exposure of Unpopular Truths Closely related to the effect in the foregoing is that of exposing the truth to someone who ignores it. This use of humor was explained in a wonderful fashion by the Maggid (preacher) of Dubno when he was asked about his use of fables. The Maggid answered with a parable in which the fable is compared to a beautiful dress which covers the naked truth, thereby attracting people to it instead of repelling them (Heineman, 1967). Humor covers certain truths in the same way, enabling the listener to approach them without fear: A group of farmers from the Negev in southern Israel came to complain about the damages caused by a drought. Eshkol asked them where the drought was. "What do you mean?" they asked. "Why, in the Negev, of course." To which Eshkol replied: "Oh, I am relieved! For a moment I thought it was in the U.S." This story is often repeated now in order to point up the unpopular truth of Israel's economic dependence on the United States. Another story was retold recently at a meeting on the issue of five-day work week. One of the participants recalled that when this subject was raised with Eshkol, he replied: "Let's not exaggerate. Let's start with one day that people work." With this response he successfully pointed out that Israel's economic problems were also related to inadequate productivity. Creation of New Solutions Research has shown that humor can lead to creative solutions to problems (Ziv, 1983). By using humor a leader can help a group to see new alternatives:

OftaNevo /

173

In government discussions, after hearing arguments in favor of proposed solutions at a cabinet meeting Eshkol often used to quote a Yiddish idiom: Eins fun die beide drei ["Third time lucky"], which m e a n t t h a t the two solutions which were so far p u t forward were unsatisfactory, and t h a t a third solution which was better would have to be found. Another way of looking at humor and creativity is to regard it as deriving from the ability to see similarity between two distinct processes. As has been suggested by Koestler (1965), the process of creation is characterized by bisociation: making a connection between two ideas t h a t were previously unconnected. Bisociation is a common element in humor, art, and scientific discovery. Such bisociation occurs in the following story exemplifying creativity: At the beginning of the War of Independence in 1948, Israeli leaders were desperately looking for money to finance the war effort. It was a well-known fact t h a t the J N F (Jewish National Fund) had a lot of money at its disposal, but this money was legally tied up so t h a t it could only be used for buying land in Israel. While this problem was being discussed, Eshkol came up with a brilliant idea: "Let's make a contract with the J N F . Well sell them in advance all the land t h a t will be captured in the war, and they will pay us for it now." The fear and uncertainty of those days has to be recalled in order to appreciate the absurdity of such an idea. Yet this is exactly how the money required to prosecute the war was actually acquired. This cognitive use of humor by politicians is connected to a conception of humor as a modern mechanism for coping with stress. Dixon (1980) r e g a r d s h u m o r a s a cognitive skill t h a t encourages openness, flexibility, and creativity. DISCUSSION The eleven uses of humor in the political life of Levi Eshkol discussed in this chapter (denial, repairing loss, expressing aggression, a t t e n t i o n getting, avoiding external d e m a n d s , reducing tension, group cohesion, minimizing social distance, clarifying ideas, exposing t r u t h , and creating solutions) are not new, and have been accounted for by various theories. Here I have demonstrated the manifold uses of humor in the hands of a politician for whom it was a potent skill, since one instance of humor can lead to several positive effects simultaneously. While Eshkol was prime minister, two p a m p h l e t s of jokes about him and his government were published. When asked

174

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

about what he thought of the jokes, Eshkol answered, "I could have thought up much better jokes!" This story — probably one of t h e reasons I s t a r t e d to collect examples of Eshkol's h u m o r — also shows how a v a r i e t y of humorous effects are created. First Eshkol denies the frustration he feels; t h e n he gains control of the situation and is one u p on the jokesters. He implies t h a t those who published the pamphlets about h i m a r e not very good a t m a k i n g up jokes (the expression of aggression). When this is done in a social situation, he gets the public's attention and creates a warm atmosphere, thereby reducing tension. By laughing at himself he makes himself more h u m a n and accessible as a leader. If humor is so valuable, then, why is it not used more often by politicians? One explanation h a s perhaps to do with t h e contrast between humor and the seriousness of politics. It may be t h a t many politicians are too dogmatic and inflexible to be humorous. In other words, t h e i r sense of h u m o r is undeveloped. Another possible explanation is t h a t humor involves risk-taking. The humorist takes m a n y risks: the a t t e m p t at humor may not work, or he may be regarded as not being sufficiently serious and become a target of derision, and in consequence be perceived as weak. Eshkol was a very liberal and flexible person who sought to achieve his goals through compromise, persuasion, and consensus. But he was also venturesome and ready to try new things. "His sense of humor was not j u s t an additional facet to his personality but was central to his character and to his democratic and humanistic political views." Another question to be considered in this regard is whether the uses of humor presented here are specific to Jewish humor. They are, on the contrary, universal. The potential of humor in politics is related to the nature of h u m a n beings and to their emotional, social, and cognitive needs. There are also other classifications of t h e functions of humor (for example, Martineau, 1972; Ziv, 1984), and even classifications of political humor (Shutz, 1977; Gal-Noor and Lukes, 1987). It can be hypothesized t h a t different politicians use humor for different purposes and in different ways. Think of Lincoln in comparison to Churchill. Eshkol tended to use humor more for cognitive and social reasons t h a n for expressing aggression. He used his humor principally to repair losses and produced many self-directed humorous r e m a r k s and stories. His is a clear example of Jewish political humor less because of its specific effects t h a n for its great reliance on Jewish culture and language. Eshkol's humor contains all the elements necessary for it to be regarded as Jewish (Nevo and Greenfield, 1985). The heroes of his stories are J e w s with Jewish names, the roles they play are specifically Jewish, they belong to J e w i s h subgroups, and their

OftaNevo

/

175

places of residence are Jewish. Finally, to understand the humor, one has to be familiar with Jewish culture and language. As I have argued elsewhere (Nevo, 1990), these elements determine the perception of jokes as being Jewish. Other researchers (for example, Reik, 1962) might consider the self-directed elements in Eshkol's humor and his use of humor for educational purposes to be an indication of Jewishness. The uniqueness of Eshkol's humor arises from the rare combination of traditional Jewish wisdom applied to the everyday political events of the new Israel. This kind of humor is gradually disappearing from the political life of the country. NOTE 1. All the stories quoted in this chapter are taken from Humor of Eshkol (Tel Aviv: Edanim, 1989; in Hebrew).

REFERENCES Bergson, H. (1912) An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. New York: Macmillan. Breznitz, S. ed. (1983) The Denial of Stress. New York: International Universities Press. Dixon, N. F. (1980) "Humor: A Cognitive Alternative to Stress?" in Stress and Anxiety, Vol. 7. Edited by I. G. Sarason and C. D. Spielberger. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere. Freud, S. (1960) Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: Norton (1905). . (1959). Humor. In Selected Essays, Vol. 5. New York: Basic Books (1925). Gal-Noor, I., and S. Lukes (1987) No Laughing Matter: A Collection of Political Jokes. Tel Aviv: Am Oved (in Hebrew). Heineman, B. (1967) The Maggid of Dubno and His Parables. New York: Feldheim. Hobbes, T. (1968) Leviathan. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books (1651). Keith-Spiegel, P. (1972) "Early Conception of Humor: Varieties and Issues." In The Psychology of Humor. Edited by J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee. New York: Academic Press. Koestler, A. (1965) The Act of Creation. London: Hutchinson. Kuhlman, T. (1984) Humor and Psychotherapy. Homewood, 111.: Dow Jones Irwin. Martineau, W. (1972) "A Model of the Social Functions of Humor." In The Psychology of Humor. Edited by J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee. New York: Academic Press. McGhee, P. E. (1979) Humor: Its Origin and Development. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Mindess, H. (1971) Laughter and Liberation. Los Angeles: Nash. Nevo, 0. (1989) The Humor of Eshkol. Tel Aviv: Edanim (in Hebrew). . (1990) "What's in a Jewish Joke: An Empirical Study of What Determines the Perception of Jokes as Jewish." Humor (4) 2: 251-60. Nevo, O., and N. Greenfield (1985) "Jewish Elements and Israeli Elements in Jokes Told by Religious and Non-religious Children in Israel." Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies 2: 55-62.

176

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

Reik, T. (1962) Jewish Wit. New York: Gamut Press. Rosenberg, B., and G. Shapiro (1958) "Marginality and Jewish Humor." Midstream 4: 70-90. Shutz, C. R. (1977) Political Humor: From Aristophanes to Sam Ervin. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Zillmann, D., and J. Bryant (1983) "Uses and Effects of Humor in Educational Ventures." In Handbook of Humor Research, Vol. 2. Edited by J. H. Goldstein and P. E. McGhee. New York: Springer-Verlag. Ziv, A. (1981) The Psychology of Humor. Tel Aviv: Ktavim. . (1983) "The Influence of Humorous Atmosphere on Divergent Thinking." Contemporary Educational Psychology 8: 413-21. . (1984) Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer. . (1986) "Psychosocial Aspects of Jewish Humor in Israel and the Diaspora." In Jewish Humor. Edited by A. Ziv. Tel Aviv: Papyrus.

13 The Development of Humor in Israeli Children's Literature in the Twentieth Century Miri Baruch

The Jews often claim to be the first in every field: the first to believe in one God, to be chosen by God, to receive The Book, a n d to write children's l i t e r a t u r e . The first children's poem known in J e w i s h history is "Had Gadyah" (Hurliman, 1976). It first appeared in p r i n t in t h e Prague Haggadah in 1590, as a cumulative memory game. However, it was one of its kind; the next known example of Jewish children's literature is t h a t of the German author Joachim Kampe (1746-1818), who was t h e first to write l i t e r a t u r e especially for children. Children's l i t e r a t u r e differs from adult literature in t h a t it is based mainly on the child's developmental level. The reader's age, knowledge of language, and life experience a r e t a k e n into consideration, so t h a t texts aimed a t different age groups or different cultures m a y differ greatly. Furthermore, children's l i t e r a t u r e reflects contemporary trends in the concept of children and childhood. While such l i t e r a t u r e initially intended to be e d u c a t i o n a l a n d didactic, changes in norms can be seen today, reflecting changes in psychologists' and teachers' attitudes toward children's needs a n d understanding.

STAGE ONE: TURN OF THE CENTURY TO 1930 Early Hebrew children's l i t e r a t u r e , like children's l i t e r a t u r e elsewhere throughout the world, served an educational purpose. For many years humor was considered harmful and frivolous; therefore children's l i t e r a t u r e , which was moralistic a n d idealistic, h a d no humor. Hebrew books for children t h a t appeared in Russia or Poland

178

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

were always serious, especially those for children who studied in the cheder (perhaps because Hebrew was considered a holy language). Perhaps another reason for the absence of humor was the belief of psychologists at the time t h a t children were incapable of understanding humor. Later, psychologists began to stress the importance of humor in child development. Only then did humorous texts for children begin to appear. The humor in these texts varied in accordance with the age group for which they were intended. For example, a twoyear-old understands peek-a-boo and topsy-turvy humor, while a fiveyear-old is old enough to enjoy slapstick and humor of exaggeration. By the age of fifteen, the child can appreciate all kinds of humor (Kappes, 1966). The first humorous book in Hebrew was published in prestate Palestine with the rebirth of the Hebrew language. Even at this stage, the use of humor in children's literature was restricted. The first humorous book for children, Entertainment for School Children (1892), was written by two teachers, David Yudelevich and Yehuda Gur, members of the first Aliya (Ofek, 1979). Although it was not studied in schools, the book was presented as a prize to children who excelled in reading (it was awarded to those who finished five anthologies). Most of the stories in this book, as well as in A Children's Eden (1896) by Yisrael Haim Tevyor, were adapted and translated from European folktales. The Jewish flavor was added by using Hebrew names such as Haimke or Shlomo, in place of Boris and Vaska. This development was followed by the appearance of another type of humor in children's literature. This was Jewish humor, represented by stories t h a t either interpreted or built upon the Bible stories t h a t the children studied in the cheder. This category includes, for instance, the story of Heram, king of Tyre who was offended because King Solomon sent him a young messenger who didn't have a beard yet. H e r a m considered this a sign of disrespect on the p a r t of King Solomon. In response to the complaint, the messenger replied t h a t had King Solomon known that the king of Tyre equated wisdom with the length of the beard, he would have sent him a goat. At this stage, two types of humor can be identified. The first, translated humor, is based on universally humorous situations, with the Jewishness created by the use of language and by changing the n a m e s of the characters. The second kind of humor is real Jewish humor, where the story and its content are based on Jewish sources. It should be pointed out that humorous Hebrew dialogue did not exist in the early texts, because the Hebrew language was still in its preliminary state of emergence as a living language. In the early twentieth century there was a strong emphasis on the psychological development of children. Kornel Chukovskii (1926) discusses the importance of humor to children's development. As a

MiriBaruch

/

179

result of this attitude, humorous books for children were written with the intention of strengthening the child's ego. These included upsidedown or topsy-turvy humor, nonsense, slapstick, and the like, which have no national t r a i t s beyond the language in which t h e book is written. As the psychological and educational benefits of these works were considered universal, Chukovskii's a n d M a r s h a k ' s books, which were written in Russia for Russian children, served the same purpose for Israeli children when t r a n s l a t e d into Hebrew. These works were i n t e n d e d for specific age groups, corresponding to specific psychological and didactic aims. STAGE TWO: 1 9 3 0 - 1 9 7 0 Original Hebrew humorous children's literature began to appear in Israel in the 1930s. One of its main aims was to teach the Hebrew language to the children who were read to, as well as to the adults reading to them. This early Israeli literature contains elements of derision of the stereotypical sentimental, whining Diaspora Jew. Avraham Shlonsky (1960) claimed t h a t children's literature should teach the adult colloquial Hebrew or children's slang. At the same time, t h e children would l e a r n a "higher-level" l a n g u a g e from religious literature such as the Mishna or Talmud. The humor in the original Hebrew books published in this period is essentially verbal, t h a t is, a humor of fabricated etymologies, metaphors, broken allusions, and the like. The psychological reasoning underlying the use of this type of humor is based on J e a n Piaget's theories of children's language acquisition. The central didactic purpose of the authors however, was to transform Hebrew into a living spoken language, rich at both high and low levels, with both curses and colloquialisms. One example t h a t reflects this motive is the humorous etymology of words r e s t r i c t e d to t h e Hebrew l a n g u a g e , ignoring foreign influences. For instance, in Shlonsky's book, Tali and I in the Land of Why, Tali asks Avram why a heat wave is called hamsin. Ignoring the Arabic root of the word which means "fifty," Shlonsky gives it a humorous Hebrew etymology, as the combination of two Hebrew words: ham (heat) and sin (China). Another example from the same author is the derivation of the word kangaru (kangaroo). The story goes t h a t once there were kengurus and logurus, b u t since ken (yes) was nice and lo (no) wasn't, the lo-garus became ken-garus, too. In her book Mar Guzmai Habaday [The Exaggerator], Leah Goldberg uses another complex form of verbal humor, the literal use of m e t a p h o r s . For instance, Mr. Guzmai eats so much t h a t he actually bursts, and the doctor has to stitch his belly. Both children and adults find this funny, and at the same time learn to use the metaphor "he ate until he burst."

180

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

This verbal humor is more sophisticated than that of the comic situations typically used in the earlier period; it is related to the revival of the Hebrew language and the desire to acquaint the new generation with the emerging language. STAGE THREE: THE 1970s AND 1980s The 1970s brought about a drastic change in the conceptual world of the Israeli. The 1967 Six Day War and the ensuing euphoria led to an overconfident worldview on the one hand, and soul-searching and harsh self-criticism on the other, aimed at changes in Israeli existence. For many centuries, the Jewish people had been a suffering minority, dispersed throughout the world and subject to foreign rulers. Suddenly they became the conquerors and rulers of other people. The subsequent improvement in economic conditions, the occupation of the territories, and the influx of cheap Arab labor altered attitudes toward work, money, and humanistic values. The Zionistic ideals of the 1940s of equality, work, love of the land, and self-sacrifice for the common good were replaced by materialism and hedonism. The changes in humor in children's literature are linked to these social, psychological, and economic developments. The humor of the 1970s and 1980s can be characterized by five main features: 1. The literary language is not meant to enrich the child's language. It is no longer a high-level style, and very often uses slang or colloquial terms. In fact, the humorous effect is often the result of a discrepancy between a high and low stylistic level. 2. The most prevalent kind of humor is that of anti-idolization, making fun of famous figures and outdated ideals. Much humor is directed at oneself. However, this is no longer the sad Jewish humor of the Diaspora, but the humor of the absent minded, disorganized person who accepts his shortcomings and does not feel the need to apologize for them. An example is the story of a proud father who walks with his son in Jerusalem and tells him how, in his youth, he worked as a bricklayer. He points at a building that he helped build. The son, confused, looks at his father and asks, "Dad did you used to be an Arab?" (This is a cynical reference to the contemporary norm that buildings are constructed by Arab labor, with Jewish involvement in construction restricted to contracting and speculation.) 3. The humor in children's books today is much more sophisticated than in the past. The author assumes that the child has been exposed to a wide range of information,

MiriBaruch

/

181

mainly through television, which was introduced in Israel in 1970 (Postman, 1982). 4. There are many kinds of humor — verbal and situational of various forms — in every text. The text t h u s becomes m a r k e t a b l e to a much larger audience, including both children and their parents (who have the money to buy the books). 5. Most books are not educational or didactic. At most they educate the parents. For instance: Even if I were fat as a hippo / And could not get through the door / G r a n d m a would still keep saying: / Why don't you eat some more? (Atlas, 1977). Most of t h e contemporary children's a u t h o r s were born a n d raised in Israel; they do not carry the burden of the Diaspora (Ziv, 1986). They grew up as native Israelis in their own country; their parents speak a correct and fluent Hebrew, and it is n a t u r a l to them to use it in their writing. Thus the language in their work is the natural spoken idiomatic Hebrew. The language spoken in the street and this written language are almost identical. The h u m o r o u s elements have no underlying educational or moralistic motive; they are amusing for their own sake. Since the author is not trying to make a "statement," it is possible to make fun of teachers, parents, and other authority figures. In comparison to the children's l i t e r a t u r e of previous generations, contemporary humor h a s almost totally lost its J e w i s h or Israeli distinction. Almost all the texts can be translated, and the h u m o r can be understood anywhere once the p u n s h a v e been adapted. Hebrew children's literature h a s become universal. The Israeli uniqueness of the 1940s and 1950s h a s almost completely disappeared. An example of such universal humor is the following story: Once upon a time there was a girl named Mona Lisa. When she was small, she was j u s t Mona, but since she was always cheerful (aliza in Hebrew), she was called Mona Aliza, and for short Mona Lisa. She lived in a little old house in Italy. Her p a r e n t s loved her very much b u t were worried about her because she was always laughing. If she broke something, she would laugh, and her laughter would tinkle more t h a n the breaking glass. If her father hit his finger instead of the nail he was trying to drive into the wall, she would laugh. If she fell in the snow and rolled over, she would roll with laughter. Her parents tried to make her stop laughing. They told her frightening tales about Little Red Riding Hood who was swallowed by the terrible wolf, but Mona just laughed. They

182

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

took her to the Leaning Tower of Pisa, which frightened everyone, because they were afraid it could fall any minute, and she continued laughing. The neighbors were afraid t h a t no one would want to marry her if she was always laughing; maybe something was wrong with her mouth? They sent her to the dentist to have a filling and she laughed. One day a young m a n named Giocondo came to visit. His name seemed very funny to Mona Lisa. The young m a n looked at her and joined in her laughter. They laughed and laughed and fell in love (in earnest, not in jest). They married, and during the wedding ceremony even the priest laughed. Even the mother, who usually cried at weddings, laughed. In Italy, Mona Lisa and Giocondo met the famous painter, Leonardo. His paintings made Mona Lisa laugh. But Giocondo was serious; he wanted Leonardo to paint his beautiful wife. Leonardo said to Mona Lisa, "you are very beautiful. I will gladly paint you, but only if you stop laughing." Mona Lisa agreed, after Giocondo's many entreaties. She sat in front of the painter. She crossed her arms so t h a t she could pinch herself in the stomach whenever she felt the urge to laugh. She really made a effort, but at one point she didn't pinch herself h a r d enough, and the r e s u l t was t h e little crooked smile on her face, which can be seen in the portrait. The picture of laughing Mona Lisa is seen in many homes all over the world, whereas all the serious people have been long forgotten. (Taharlev, 1978) Humor such as this, based on knowledge and understanding of paintings and the history of art, clever humor t h a t uses metaphors common to many languages (such as rolling in the snow) literally, and a universal appeal t h a t is not necessarily Israeli, is characteristic of Israeli children's literature since the 1970s. The assumption of knowledge and information among children is also characteristic of these times. No writer prior to the age of television would assume t h a t a seven-year-old would know who Leonardo da Vinci was or recognize the Mona Lisa. Lack of knowledge precludes the ability to u n d e r s t a n d the humor, which is created by disrupting the known and accepted. CONCLUSIONS In the process of examining the humor in J e w i s h and Israeli children's l i t e r a t u r e since the beginning of the century, t h r e e m a i n categories of humor emerge, each based on different information:

Miri Baruch /

183

1. General humor is not bound to any specific locality or time. This humor is acceptable in any society, and hence also in Hebrew l i t e r a t u r e . Its " J e w i s h n e s s " is incorp o r a t e d merely in its being t r a n s l a t e d into H e b r e w and in the J e w i s h names given to t h e m a i n characters. Slapstick, snowball humor, and the like belong to this category. 2. Jewish humor is based on Jewish texts, especially the Bible. References are also made to elements of traditional Jewish life, such as the mikve (ritual baths), the yeshiva (center of religious learning), t h e synagogue, and other institutions t h a t typify Jewish society of the small towns of t h e Diaspora. Verbal h u m o r and situational h u m o r relate to the atmosphere and reality of Jewish life. 3. Israeli humor is part of the life of Israelis living in the Land of Israel. It is expressed in Hebrew and incorporates the values accepted in the society at the time in which it was written. At the beginning of the century, we find the former two categories of humor, t h a t is, mostly translated humor together with a little Jewish humor, much of which was also t r a n s l a t e d from Yiddish. From the 1930s until the last two decades, the humor in children's literature was mainly Israeli humor, although initially this was also mixed with some Jewish humor (as in plays on words in biblical sentences). The humorous passages were actually intended mainly for the adults reading the texts to children. Since the 1970s, Israeli h u m o r h a s been disappearing. In its place, universal, general humor h a s reappeared, with evidence of a trend to neutralize the Jewishness and Israeliness, together with a tendency to t r a n s l a t e these humorous books into various languages. At the same time, various new tendencies have emerged: Israeli society h a s become partially religious (rediscovery of religion and a yearning for religion are on the rise). In the last decade, dozens of humorous books for children based on comical folktales of the shtetl have appeared, in addition to the books of general humor. These include The Wise Men of Chelm and Hersch Ostropoler. It is quite clear t h a t these texts are not understandable to a nonreligious child who is unfamiliar with the way of life in t h e Diaspora. The educational system h a s contributed to an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of these texts, which are p a r t of the school curriculum. Thus the humorous elements may be explained to the child, enabling him to understand and appreciate the religious Jewish way of life. To what extent these tendencies will continue, and what effect these texts have on the children, only time will tell.

184

/

SEMITES AND STEREOTYPES

REFERENCES Atlas, Y. (1977) It's Me. New York: Adama Press. Chukovskii, K. (1985) From Two to Five. Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Hapoalim (in Hebrew). Hurliman, B. (1976) Three Centuries of Children's Books in Europe. London: Oxford University Press. Kappes K. H. (1966) "Children's Responses to Humor." In A Critical Approach to Children's Literature. Edited by S. I. Fenwich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ofek, U. (1979) Hebrew Children's Literature: The Beginning. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University and the Porter Institute (in Hebrew). Postman, N. (1982) The Disappearance of Childhood. Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Hapoalim (in Hebrew). Shlonsky, A. (1960) Eshel Bookbag. Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Hapoalim (in Hebrew). Taharlev, Y. (1978) Little Mona Lisa. Tel Aviv: Am Oved (in Hebrew). Ziv, A., ed. (1986) Jewish Humor. Tel Aviv: Papyrus.

Selected Bibliography Books in English about Jewish Humor Altman, S. (1971) The Comic Image of the Jew: Exploration of a Pop Culture Phenomenon. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Berger, P. (1975) The Last Laugh: The World of Stand Up Comics. New York: Ballantine Books. Bermant, C. (1986) What's the Joke: A Study of Jewish Humor Through the Ages. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Chotzner, J. (1905) Hebrew Humor and Other Essays. London: Luzac and Co. Cohen, B. C , ed. (1987) Jewish Wry: Essays in Jewish Humor. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Glanz, R. (1973) The Jew in Early American Wit and Graphic Humor. New York: KTAV Publishing House. Harap, L. (1987) Dramatic Encounters: The Jewish Presence in Twentieth-Century American Drama, Poetry and Humor and the Black-Jewish Literary Relationship. New York: Greenwood Press. Harris, D. A., and I. Rabinovich. (1988) The Jokes of Oppression: The Humor of Soviet Jews. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson. Mindess, H. (1972) The Chosen People? A Testament Both Old and New, to the Therapeutic Power of Jewish Wit and Humor. Los Angeles: Nash. Oring, E. (1981) Israeli Humor: The Content and the Structure of the Chizbat of the Palmach. Albany: State University of New York Press. . (1984) The Jokes of Sigmund Freud: A Study in Humor and Jewish Identity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pinsker, D. (1971) The Shlemiel as Metaphor: Studies in the Yiddish and American Jewish Novel. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. . (1975) The Comedy That "Hoist": An Essay on the Fiction of Philip Roth. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

186

/

Selected Bibliography

Prawer, L. (1983) Heine's Jewish Comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reik, T. (1962) Jewish Wit. New York: Gamut Press. Samuel, M. (1973) The World of Sholom Aleichem. New York: Schocken Books. Wisse, R. (1971) The Schlemiel as Modern Hero. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ziv, A., ed. (1986) Jewish Humor. Tel Aviv: Papyrus.

Name Index Abraham the patriarch, 17, 95,170 Abramovich, Sholom Jacob. See Mendele Mocher Seforim Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The, 10 Aeneid, 10 Allen, Woody, 80, 84,107-20,121-30 Annie Hall, 107, 109,114-17,122-24,126 Appleseed, Johnny, 9 Aristotle, 51, 140 Babel, Isaac, 136 Bananas, 109, 111, 112,113 Barth, John, 4, 5, 7 Barthelme, Donald, 4 Begin, Menachem, 169 Bellow, Saul, 5, 7,116 Ben-Gurion, David, 167 Berg, Alen, 72 Bergson, Henri, 48, 51 Berle, Milton, 84 Bialik, Haim Nahman, 25 Bogart, Humphrey, 112,113, 117 Brooks, Mel, 78 Brown, George S., 74 Bunyan, Paul, 9 Burroughs, William, 5, 7 Caesar, Sid, 84 Camus, Albert, 4 Carter, Jimmy, 74 Casablanca, 112,113

Chaplin, Charlie, 5, 110, 111 Chase, Richard, 8 Christ, 52 Christian, 19,33, 35,52, 72, 73,94,126 Christians, 34, 36, 39, 40,132 Chukovskii, Kornei, 179 Churchill, Winston, 174 Cohen, Myron, 78 Cooper, James Fenimore, 10 Day After, The, 56 Dante Alighieri, 16 Delilah, 136 Dickens, Charles, 20 Divine Comedy, 16 Donleavy, J. P., 7 Duck Soup, 117 Durkheim, Emil, 49 Eban, Abba, 169 Ecclesiastes, 16 Eshkol, Levi, 165-75 Eve, 131,132 Farrakhan, Louis, 73, 74 Fiedler, Leslie, 8 Fitzgerald, F. Scott, 10 Freud, Sigmund, 48-50, 114, 121-30 Friedman, Bruce Jay, 3, 7, 137 Gershwin, George, 119 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, 20

188

/

Name Index

Gold, Herb, 7 Goldberg, Leah, 179 Goldberg, Whoopi, 78 Goldwater, Barry, 33 Green, Shecky, 78 Guide for the Modern Perplexed, 14 Hannah and Her Sisters, 109, 117 Hawkes, John, 7 Heine, Heinrich, 21, 136 Helen of Troy, 132 Heller, Joseph, 4, 5, 7, 84 Hemingway, Ernest, 10 Henry, John, 9 Hersch Ostropoler, 183 Hitler, Adolf, 72 Homer, 132 Iliad, 10,132 Jackson, Jesse, 78 Jezebel, 136 Job, 16 Johnson, Lady Bird, 168 Johnson, Lyndon B., 18, 33 Kafka, Franz, 76 Keaton, Diane, 112 Kennedy, John F., 33 Kesey, Ken, 7 Kierkegaard, S., 25, 111 Kliban, B., 55 Koch, Kenneth, 4 Krochmal, Nachman, 14 Landmann, Salzia, 145 Lear, Norman, 51 Leonardo da Vinci, 182 Levinsohn, Isaac Baer, 14 Lincoln, Abraham, 174 Ludwig, Jack, 4 MagidofDubno, 172 Mailer, Norman, 10 Malamud, Bernard, 4, 5, 7 Manhattan, 109, 111, 117,118,119 Marshak, Samuel Y., 179 Marx, Groucho, 114 Mason, Jackie, 78 Melville, Herman, 10, 56 Menahem-Mendl, 16, 17 Mendele Mocher Seforim (Sholom

Jacob Abramovich), 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 135 Mendelssohn, Moses, 14 Messiah, 24 Mona Lisa, 182 Motl, Son of Peysi the Cantor, 16 Odyssey, 10, 132 Olsvanger, Immanuel, 145 Perelman, S. J., 84 Peres, Shimon, 168 Peretz, Yitzhok Leybush, 19, 20, 135 Piaget, Jean, 179 Plato, 140 Play It Again, Sam, 109,112,116, 118 Portnoy's Complaint, 122, 124, 128, 137 Porush, Rabbi Menahem, 170 Purdy, James, 5, 7 Pynchon, Thomas, 4, 5, 7 Rabin, Itzhak, 170 Rabinovich, Solomon (Sholom Aleichem), 13-26, 136 Reagan, Ronald, 51 Reiner, Carl, 84 Richler, Mordecai, 84 Rivers, Joan, 78 Robb, Thomas, 74 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 34 Roth, Philip, 5, 7, 84, 116, 121^30, 137 Sartre, Jean, 4 Sherman, Allen, 84 Sholom Aleichem (Solomon Rabinovich), 13-26, 136 Shulman, Max, 84 Simon, Neil, 84 Singer, Isaac B., 84 Smith, Al, 33 Smolenskin, Peretz, 14 Snow White, 8, 129 Song of Songs, 16 Sothern, Terry, 7 Spiegelman, Art, 76 Stempenyu, 22 Stevenson, Adlai, 33 Take the Money and Run, 109 Tevye the Dairyman, 16, 17 Tevyor, Yisrael Haim, 178

Name Index Twain, Mark, 10

Wise Men of Chelm, The, 82, 183

Vonnegut, Kurt, 7

Youngman, Henny, 78

Wiesel, Eli, 56, 95

Zangwill, Israel, 136

/

189

This page intentionally left blank

Subject Index absurd, the, 3,4, 8,47,60, 111, 173 accommodation, 5, 6, 7, 11-12 aggression, 30, 31,41, 71, 72, 74, 81,83, 84, 122,128,129,137,145,146,151-52, 154,155,156,165,168,171,173,174. See also hostility Ahavat Yisrael, 19 America, 3,4, 5, 7-12,17, 31, 32, 36, 41, 51,67, 72,75, 81,82,89,91,93, 96,110, 127,134,135-38,170; culture of, 32, 110; humorists of, 5, 7, 51; humor of, 51; jokes of, 31; life in, 127; literature of, 3, 4, 7-12,134,135 anti-Semitism, 24, 37, 39^12, 47, 51, 52, 71-85,87,88,89,96,97,122,123 anxiety, 20, 49, 63, 64, 65, 66,112,116,122, 124 attention getting, 64, 83,169,173,174 avoidance, 169-70 badkhonim, 22 Bible, 13,16,17,65,92,132,133,135,144, 171,177,178,183 biblical writing, 13, 17, 20, 22, 81, 95, 131, 171,183 bisociation, 173 bittul Torah, 13, 23 blacks, 30, 63,64, 66, 67, 78,107 bluestockings, 136 brides, 148,149,153,155,156 Cheder, 165,178

Chelm, 23, 82 children's literature, 177-83 chosen people, 19, 34, 60, 78,177 cognitive view, 165, 166, 171-74 cohesion, 170,173 communication, 143, 146, 169 context, 41,42,48,49,54,55,65, 71, 76,82, 110,134,140,143,144,152,154,166 convention, 7, 63, 110, 112,116,152 creativity, 22,109,116,119,121,173 daughter, &-9, 125, 132,138, 139, 153, 156 daughter-in-law, 8, 9 defense mechanism, 81, 83, 122, 167 denial, 11,49,109,125,167,173,174 Diaspora, 82,116,143,144,153, 179,180, 181,183 divine comedy, 15 Enlightenment. See Haskalah ethnicity, 33, 38, 61-67, 76, 91,122,124 folkjoke,22,40, 143 folktale, 9,17, 23, 40,144,178 fool, 4, 5,6,10-12, 23, 31, 81,82,169 fun, 81,87,108,116,117,171,180,181 funny, 7, 30,42, 51, 60, 65, 66, 71, 76, 77, 78,80,114,115,125,179 gender, 8,62,64, 65, 66,115,119,122 Gentile, 19, 34, 3 9 ^ 1 , 60, 71, 78, 84,90,96, 107, 111, 112,114,116,121,124-26,

192

/

Subject Index

146,148; vs. Jew, 41, 59-67, 71, 78, 80; language and culture, 116 God, 5,13-16,19,21,25,26,34,36,52, 78, 79, 92-97,133,177 grandmother, 8, 92, 94-97 Haggadah, 132,134, 177 Hakafot, 21 Hasidism, 13,17,19,20,22, 94,136,169 Haskalah, 13, 14,22,135,136 Hebrew, 13,14,22, 78,136,145,177-83 Holocaust, 16,18,51, 52, 72, 74,95,115 hostility, 30, 36,41,47, 50,51, 54, 60, 72, 74,75,81,88,114,122,133,156,168. See also aggression humor, 3-5, 7,8,11,13-18,20,22, 23, 26, 29-43,47-56, 59-61, 63-67, 71-85, 87, 89, 97,107-11,115,118,119,121-23, 127,129,135,143,145,146,148,1a50, 151,153-58,165-75,177-83; affirmative, 26, 74; aggressive, 31; Sholom Aleichem of, 13, 15-18, 20, 26; black, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11; children's literature in, 177-83; compassionate, 23; function of, 51, 56,59,63,67,83,108,157-38,165-75; gallows, 3, 8, 47-55, 80; in-group, 48, 51,54, 75, 81,82,166,170; Jewish, 13, 14,15,29-43, 71-S5, 89, 97,165-75, 178, 183 {see also jokes, Jewish); and liberation, 47-55, 167; and morality, 56,60; out-group, 48, 51, 52, 54,60,166, 170; self-derogatory, 29-43, 60, 74, 81,87,127,155,156,174,175,180; sense of, 16, 29-43,55, 59-67, 79, 80, 154,165,166,174 humorist, 5, 7,25, 59, 78, 84,150-51,153, 154,169,174 interpretive margin (or latitude), 88-89, 96-97 irony, 23,41,48, 65,82,114,115,118,119, 122,147 Israel, 19,26,30, 74, 81,165,169,170,171, 173,175,177-83 Jewish American princess, 78, 131, 135, 138,139; culture, 13,18,19,94,165, 174; humor, (see humor, Jewish); jokes, (see jokes, Jewish); life, 17, 21,22,23, 96,134-36,138,152,183; literature, 13, 20, 22,134-36; marriage, 143-58; mother, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97,135-39; people, 13,14,19,21,

22, 24-26, 35, 78, 171; religion, 13-15; tradition, 95, 170,171 jokes, 6,11,18, 22-42,47-55, 61, 64, 66, 71, 72,74, 75,77, 78,80-82,87-98,116, 118,122,123,125,127,129,143-58, 166,169,171,173,174; butt of, 6,30,31, 32, 33,42, 74,171; ethnic, 30-33, 54, 72; Jewish, 11, 22,29,33,41,47-55, 87-98, 143-58, 169 (see also humor, Jewish); self-deprecatory, 29^12; telling of, 18, 26, 30, 36,42 Judaism, 13,14,19,36,116,132,134, 139 Kabtzansk, 23 Kasrilevka, 18, 23 laughter, 8,14,15,17,18,20,21,22,23,26, 30,31,42,49,50,51,52,55,60,61,63, 65,74, 76,77,80,81,82,84,129,133, 134,143,174,181,182; affirmative, 15,17,18,23; at someone, 30, 76, 77, 174; function of, 17-18; through tears, 14,18,22, 81 loss, 90,97,109,129,146,150,167,173,174 maggidim, 22 marriage, 9,24, 88,110,112,117,118,121, 132,134,138,139,143-58 maskilim, 19 matchmaker, 135, 145-58 method: ethnographic, 32, 144, 146; sociolinguistic, 143, 144, 157; sociometric, 160-61, 163 Midrash, 13, 134 mikve(a), 93, 99, 152, 183 minorities, 29, 30, 36, 39, 40, 50, 51, 74, 75, 80,82,83,88,91,97,107,108, 111, 115, 119,121,125,127,128,154,156,158; and humor, 50, 51, 74, 75,107; and jokes, (see jokes, ethnic); stereotype of, 115 Mishna, 179 mitzva(h), 93, 145 monotheism, 13 mother, 8, 82,92,93,94,96, 97,125,129, 132,133,134,138 mother-in-law, 156 motivational view, 165-66 naif, 10 narrative, 4, 6, 50, 53, 89, 97,122,144,146, 147-48,149,150,152,154 Nazi, 49,50,53, 72, 76

Subject Index otherness, 110,114,115,136 picaro, 10 politics, 14,42, 47,49-51, 111, 165-75 power, 165,167 Prophets, 14 Proverbs, 20, 81 psychoanalysis, 81, 84, 114,115, 121-27, 129 punch line, 47,88, 91, 94,95,144,146,147, 149-51,153,154 Purim, 22 Purim-shpielers, 22

/

193

Simchat Torah, 21 Six Day War, 180 social view, 156-66 step-mother, 8,18 stereotypes, 16,32, 51, 71, 74, 76, 78,81, 82, 84,90,94,107-20,133,136,139,140, 147,151,153,179 stress, 60, 63, 65-66,167,173 sublimation, 74, 84, 168 superiority, 19, 30, 31, 36,42,60, 81,83,90, 154,167 switchability, 88, 92, 96 synagogue, 21, 25,132,148,152,183

relationships, 78, 83, 90, 92,94,95,109, 110, 111, 114,115,117,118,119,123, 126,127,128,129,145,146,154,158 repression, 19,122,124,133 resistance, 49-54 ritual bath, 93,99,152,183 Russia, 14,17,20,23,24, 80,177,179

Talmud, 13,17,22,132,134,135,144,179 tension, 9,30,113,121,170,173,174 Torah, 15, 25 truth, 89,172,173

sabbath, 24,25,169 satire, 8,14,22,23,51,136 schlemiel, 4,5,6,11,78,110,112,113,118, 138,139 schlimazl, 4, 5, 6, 11 screwball comedies, 115 sex, 78,83,124,128,131,132,139,165,168 sexist, 118,153,156 sexuality, 9,10, 51, 111, 115,117,118,119, 121,122,124-26,128,132,133,139, 150,155,156,169 shadchen, 135, 145-58 shiksa (shikse), 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 118,121,124,125,126,127,138 shrew, 133,134,135,137,153 shtetl, 3,4,5,6,11,17,19,23, 92,93,94, 135,137,138,183

WASP, 5,31,112,113,114,115,118 wife, 8,76,88,132-35,137,139,145,149, 153,155,156,168 Wissenschaft des Judentums (Science of Judaism), 14 woman, 8,9, 82,107-20,121,122,125,129, 130-40, 144-57. See also specific women's roles World War II, 4, 7, 53, 72,137,144,145

victim, 10,49, 50,52,59, 74,115,137,139, 151,154,155. See also jokes, butt of

yeshiva, 22,183 Yiddish, 14,17,18,19,20,22,25, 71, 77, 81, 135,165,169,173,183; literature, 19, 20,22 Yiddishe Mome. See mother Zion(ism), 14, 74, 118, 165, 180

This page intentionally left blank

About the Editors and Contributors Miri B a r u c h lectures in the School of University in J e r u s a l e m . Her research literature and Hebrew children's poetry. the changing values reflected in modern ture.

Education of t h e Hebrew specialties are children's She is currently studying Hebrew children's litera-

J a y B o y e r teaches American literature at Arizona State University. Professor Boyer's writing h a s appeared in such m a g a z i n e s a n d journals as The Nation, Newsweek, and the Paris Review, as well as in monograph (Richard Brautigan), and book form (As Far Away as China). Christie D a v i e s is Professor of Sociology and Head of the Department of Sociology at the University of Reading, Reading, England. He is the author of Ethnic Humor Around the World: A Comparative Analysis and of many articles about the sociology of humor, and has edited two joke books including Welsh Jokes, SL book of ethnic jokes reflecting his own heritage. R i c h a r d F r e a d m a n is Professor in t h e D e p a r t m e n t of English a t La Trobe U n i v e r s i t y in A u s t r a l i a . He is t h e a u t h o r of Literature, Criticism and the Universities: Eliot, James and the Fictional Self; On Literary Theory and Philosophy: A CrossDisciplinary Encounter (forthcoming, with Lloyd Reinhardt); and Re-thinking Theory: A Critique of Contemporary Literary Theory and an Alternative Account (forthcoming, with Seumas Miller).

196

/

About the Editors and Contributors

S a m B. Girgus is Professor of English and American Studies and Director of American Studies at Vanderbilt University. His most recent book is Desire and the Political Unconscious in American Literature. He also has written The New Covenant: Jewish Writers and the American Idea and The Law of the Heart: Individualism and the Modern Self in American Literature. His forthcoming book, The Films of Woody Allen, is scheduled to be part of the Cambridge Film Classics series of Cambridge University Press. He h a s held a Rockefeller H u m a n i t i e s Fellowship, authored m a n y articles a n d reviews, and edited The American Self: Myth, Ideology and Popular Culture. E m a n u e l S. G o l d s m i t h is Professor of Yiddish L a n g u a g e a n d L i t e r a t u r e at Queens College of the City University of New York. He is the author of Modern Yiddish Culture: The Story of the Yiddish Language Movement and J Love Yiddish: A Mini-Course in Yiddish Based on Thirty-Two Gems of Poetry, Folksong, and Humor. Paul Lewis, the author of Comic Effects: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Humor in Literature, is Associate Professor of English at Boston College. A member of the editorial board of Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, Lewis writes and lectures on American humor, Jewish humor, humor and values, and humor in popular culture. C a r o l y n Miller is a clinical and experimental psychologist on the graduate faculty of Antioch University, Los Angeles. She h a s been involved in research on humor since 1982 and coauthored The involved in research on humor since 1982 and coauthored The Ofra N e v o is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Haifa, Israel. She h a s done studies on several aspects of h u m o r including t h e humor of Israeli J e w s and Arabs; the concept of self-aimed h u m o r ; t h e u s e of h u m o r by d e n t i s t s , career counselors, and psychologists; and humor and pain tolerance. R a p h a e l P a t a i has taught at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Columbia and Princeton universities in the United States. He has been advising editor of the Judaism Encyclopedia Americana since 1959. He is the author of Jewish Folklore (1983); The Seed of Abraham: Jews and Arabs in Contact and Conflict (1986); Herzl Year Book (editor, 1958-1971), and Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel (editor, 1971).

About the Editors and Contributors

/

197

R i c h a r d R a s k i n teaches in both the French and Art departments at Aarhus University. His publications include books on French cinema and painting. He has recently completed a book tracing the history of a n u m b e r of classic Jewish jokes and charting their interpretive properties. B e r n a r d S a p e r is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University. He h a s served on t h e editorial b o a r d s of several professional scientific journals, and is presently associated with the Psychiatric Quarterly. In the past decade his lecturing and research focus has been on humor, particularly on its use in helping, healing, and promoting interpersonal and intergroup harmony. J u d i t h S t o r a - S a n d o r teaches Comparative L i t e r a t u r e at P a r i s University. She is the author of Jewish Humor in Literature from Job to Woody Allen. Anat Zajdman has been doing educational research at the University of Haifa in Israel for the l a s t fifteen years. Her research focuses mainly on the educational aspects of the use of humor in schools and on the implications of its use in interpersonal communication. A v n e r Ziv is Professor of Educational Psychology a t Tel Aviv University. The a u t h o r of eighteen books t r a n s l a t e d into six languages, he h a s written on humor in education and is the author of The Psychology of Humor (1981) and Humor and Personality (1984), and editor of National Styles of Humor (Greenwood Press, 1988).