The Responsibility of Language in Comedy: A Reflection on Ricky Gervais’ Approach

In the nuanced world of comedy, navigating the fine line between humour and offence is both delicate and contentious. Ricky Gervais, with his recent show, has ignited a debate that challenges the boundaries of this precarious balance. He posits that, as a performer on stage, his language and rhetoric, channelled through a character, are exempt from criticism. This argument, though buttressed by the popularity and streaming success of his show, raises significant questions about the responsibility of public figures in their use of language.

Gervais suggests that his on-stage persona grants him a unique immunity from the normal rules of conversation, a stance that demands critical examination. The real-world impact of such a stance is profound and troubling. Consider the teenagers in their bedrooms, cutting themselves, suffering from the internalised impact of societal mockery. Think of those facing glass ceilings due to institutionalised racism. How do Gervais’ cheap laughs resonate with their lived experiences? Do these jokes in any way normalise damaging stereotypes and thoughts? Gervais needs to articulate how propagating such ideas, even humorously, is acceptable without contributing to the wider societal discourse that often marginalises and harms.

Benjamin Zephaniah’s poem White Comedy sharply illustrates how language can entrench and reinforce societal prejudices and racism. Through lines like “I waz whitemailed / By a white witch, / Wid white magic / An white lies”, Zephaniah exposes the deep impact that words have in perpetuating racial stereotypes and prejudices.

Yet, Gervais, in his endeavour to push boundaries and challenge ‘wokism’, appears to overlook a fundamental principle: the responsibility that accompanies a public platform. This brings to mind a popular adage from the Spiderman franchise: “With great power comes great responsibility.” This is a notion that Gervais seems to be shirking. The privilege and power of a public platform, especially one in the sphere of entertainment and comedy, come with an inherent responsibility to consider the impact of one’s words and actions.

In contrast, comedians like Stewart Lee and Daniel Sloss demonstrate how taboo subjects can be handled with real skill and sensitivity. Lee, known for his incisive and often provocative style, navigates controversial topics with a keen awareness of the societal context and the potential impact of his words. He skillfully balances satire and social commentary, often turning the mirror on himself and the audience, challenging preconceived notions and biases.

Similarly, Daniel Sloss delves into sensitive subjects with a blend of honesty and humour, addressing complex issues without resorting to cheap laughs or reinforcing harmful stereotypes. His approach exemplifies how comedy can be both edgy and thoughtful, provoking reflection and dialogue rather than merely seeking to shock or offend.

These examples highlight that addressing taboo subjects in comedy does not necessitate insensitivity or irresponsibility. Instead, it calls for a nuanced understanding of the subject matter, a respect for the audience, and a commitment to using humour as a tool for reflection and positive change.

His justification that the show’s popularity endorses its content is a precarious measure of its moral standing. Popularity does not inherently validate the ethics of the material. In “The Silence of the Lambs,” Clarice Starling challenges Hannibal Lecter to introspect, a metaphor fitting for Gervais. A comedian’s role is not just to mirror society, but also to reflect on themselves, scrutinising their own beliefs and privileges. By sidestepping this self-examination, Gervais misses an opportunity to engage constructively in the dialogue about language, power, and responsibility.

Arguing that such content is merely ‘lancing a boil’ or releasing societal tension overlooks the real harm and reinforcement of harmful stereotypes. The laughter and popularity a show garners do not absolve it from the potential to perpetuate injustice and unfairness.

In conclusion, comedy, while a space for challenging norms and provoking thought, should not be an unrestricted domain where anything is permissible without consequence. The English language, with its richness and diversity, offers myriad ways to be humorous and insightful without resorting to oppressive or harmful rhetoric. As stewards of language, comedians like Gervais have the opportunity to lead by example, using their platform to foster not just laughter, but understanding and respect. It’s about recognising the power of words and choosing to wield that power responsibly.