Anthology #2
Studies in Censorship
Close readings by
Ryan Richards
Renata Christen
John Bean
Evelyn Crawford
Doug Adams
Chris Franz
Chris Odegard
Chris Kwiat
Brooke Berndston
Lenny Bruce Was a Nigger
Ryan Richards
Studies in Censorship
Brian Mooney
February 23, 2007
Lenny Bruce had no problem pointing out the societal ills of his time with use of the most explicit language. In the 1950's, when racism was still widely accepted, he saw problems with how the population was treating racial issues, even those fighting for racial equality. He questioned religious beliefs and pointed to fundamental contradictions of religious organizations, such as the tension between Christians and Jews. Bruce directly challenged the government during a time when it still questioned the average person's ability to handle sexual material.
Many believe that Bruce used explicit language to get his point across more effectively, and that he raised awareness of the contradictions and wrongs of society. Many ask if his profanity should have been embraced by a society that needed to learn a few things, or if it was wrong and unnecessary for Bruce to be so shocking. These questions have been debated for almost half a century now and still remain pertinent questions in our society. These questions, however, are not the most important questions to be asking. Regardless of whether or not Bruce effectively pointed out hypocrisy and promoted general consciousness in the society, one must question the sincerity of Bruce's words and of Bruce's audience. Bruce's comedy made him money. Bruce's audience provided that money because they wanted to laugh and enjoy themselves. If these issues that Bruce spoke of were so important and had such great social value, why would they be the source of enjoyment and laughter for an audience who supposedly cared so much about them? Would Bruce himself make light of such issues if he truly felt they were so disgusting and harmful? Were his acts self-serving and was he looking towards personal wealth as the ends for means which seem justifiable? These are the questions to be asking of Lenny Bruce, what he said and what he stood for.
Let's first examine the way in which Bruce presented his critique of society and all its contradictions and wrongdoings. He had to present it in such a way that reached out to a lot of people to be effective on a larger social level. His use of comedy and especially his use of vulgarity were effective methods in gaining a large audience. We mustn't forget, however, another important consequence of gaining a large audience: Bruce was able to make a lot of money from gaining such a large audience, which makes me question the sincerity of what Bruce said. Bruce used his "Dirty Lenny" title as an extremely effective way to gain publicity and make money. Lenny himself was pretty straightforward with this method, as he told Studs Terkel in an interview, "'sick' is just a commercial thing." This was his job and he had no problem using vulgar words to raise his income.
Although Bruce was money hungry, we cannot reduce him to be a filthy comedian who was only in it for the money. Bruce recognized many important flaws and wrongs in a society that pretended to be flawless. There is no doubt that he felt a need to explore these flaws and present them to an ignorant America. Bruce criticized the use of the word "nigger" in one of his most famous routines that starts with, "Are there any niggers here tonight?" He continues to use and abuse the term and other racial slurs such as kike, spic and honky. Interestingly enough, the audience only starts laughing when he "sees a nigger couple there, between those two niggers are three kikes." They may laugh at kike because of his delivery and the way he introduces the word, but the audience seems to be taking nigger seriously, either because it's a serious issue or because they think it's a term used casually to describe a black person in the 50's, as they were looked down upon. Kike seems to be more socially acceptable and not a serious word. He concludes this routine by saying that if nigger was used as commonly as any other word, if the President were to introduce the "niggers of his cabinet", it would mean as much as "I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God" (which makes a point about the validity of our oath). The important point Bruce makes in his routine is that all these words are meaningless in and of themselves, so nigger is equal to any other slang. What he overlooks is the social impact of words. Without recognizing this impact as something we need to understand to change how we use words, he may get his audience to use these terms casually and view them as any other words, but he loses any social impact.
The social impact of nigger is still extremely evident today. I used the word in the title of this paper to illustrate the effect it still has. I'm being hypocritical by calling Bruce a nigger, but that is my intent. I don't actually think Bruce was a nigger (nor do I think that that word should be used to describe anyone- hopefully that comes across in this paper), just as Bruce didn't intend to mean anything racist by using the word nigger except that it becomes racist when people decide it's racist. He understands "nigger" as a loaded term that must be desensitized by overuse. The problem with this is that interpretation must be accounted for. My title could have meant a number of things, and could have had a number of significances. These different meanings may be much different then what this phrase could have meant in the 50's, but the meaning of a word changes because of a societies understanding of that word. We first had to reform our view of racial diversity before words mean something else. Words provide a way to express one's thoughts. Thoughts come first, then we form the words that enable us to express our thoughts. Bruce saw this process in reverse, where meaning comes only after words have been uttered. However, context and intent are much more important . Everyone in the world could be using "nigger" as any other word, in a non-derogatory way, but one will always be able to express the same racial views as a loaded "nigger" would allow them to do. Bruce failed to realize that words reflect the consciousness of individuals and of society, that consciousness doesn't in fact reflect the meaning of words.
A backward understanding of the relationship between words and meaning questions the art form of comedy all together. Is comedy an appropriate form of expression to raise awareness and elevate social consciousness?
Comedy itself is a form of art that intends on making people laugh. When we feel good, we laugh and when we laugh, we feel good. We are to use this expression in most every situation. In situations of happiness and joy the laugh affirms what we are doing and adds to the joy. In situations of great despair, a laugh may offer optimism and balance a deep pain. It may allow people to feel more at ease in a serious situation. A laugh provides many benefits in just about every situation.
Lenny Bruce used comedy in a satirical way, that is, to make criticisms. His criticism came in forms of irony, humor and exaggeration. The purpose of satire is to use these forms to elevate social consciousness, to raise awareness. This adds depth to what's being addressed. Bruce used satire to show how the obscenity law– anything that appeals to the prurient interest– is absurd: "That's why strippers get arrested for being obscene. They come out and do a horny dance, the viewer gets horny and rapes somebody who didn't see the show. That's why we have the law." He made a situation in which the blame is being put on someone who shouldn't rationally be blamed. Points such as this one are extremely important for greater social and political change, but he can't seem to get the audience to truly understand the severity of these flaws. If I'm listening to him speak, however, I'm having a great time laughing the night away in an elitist bliss. Do I leave wanting to change the wrongs of society and have a positive influence on the people enabling these wrongs? It's doubtful, but I might. Am I able to after having laughed and scoffed at them for a few hours? Even more doubtful.
I liken the satire of Bruce to another form of criticism. Say someone is vehemently opposed to pornography. He may show pornography to a large audience and point out all the silly things that people could then laugh at so that they may see the ridiculousness of it. He is still exploiting the problem, just as Bruce exploits the problems he explores, and he offers no sympathy for these problems. How would anyone change if you just laughed at her and criticized her ruthlessly? You'd feel better, she'd feel worse. Such criticism is violent and offensive and rather than created a stronger whole it creates a weaker split. Criticism must be constructive and the one criticizing must understand the people he criticizes so as to be effective.
Bruce is also like someone who opposes drinking alcohol, yet they go to a party and have the best time by watching all the drunk people act silly and irresponsible. He uses his victims of criticism as a source of enjoyment. His audience leaves the hall feeling happy and satisfied. The same thing happens when he uses "nigger" and other racial slurs. He forgets about a deep history of discrimination and hate and what these people and their family had to endure. It's easy for him to take this social impact out of the equation and treat these words just as any other words, but ultimately he uses the victims history to make light of it and get people happy enough to give him plenty of money.
Bruce is very open about his need for such destruction and despair. He once said "all my humor is based on destruction and despair. If the whole world were tranquil, I'd be standing in the breadline, right in back of J. Edgar Hoover." He was exploiting these issues and ultimately living off of these issues. He wants these issues to continue so that he is able to continue his criticisms of these issues. Bruce's comedy reflects his insincere concerns of the problems of a society. He was able to recognize many disgusting flaws but was unable to take them seriously and have a positive affect on them, setting his desires aside. Bruce had a great mind to understand many of the problems of the 50's and 60's, but ultimately wasn't able to put aside his agenda and his money-making act to enlighten society.
Renata Christen Christen 1
3/2/07
Professor Mooney
Censorship
Dadaism and Insanity in Howl
Allen Ginsberg’s Howl critically examines American society’s views on insanity. Howl is, for many, a defining symbol of Beat Culture and represents a shift that took place in
social understanding during the mid-fifties. By analyzing insanity and the activist art form Dadaism in Howl, I will reveal the dangers in a prescribed American “way of life,” and show how Ginsberg’s poem challenges the collective American determinism in maintaining a subservient status quo.
Drawing from William Blake’s poetry, Ginsberg shows throughout Howl how he embodies America, and that his poetic work embodies the creative awareness of societal ills and joys. Ginsberg writes about the truth he experiences in American society, so that those who only see one side of America - the side representing pristine government authority - can take advantage of a different view. In the forward for Howl, William Carlos Williams says to, “Hold back the edges of your gowns, Ladies, we are going through hell”[1]In one way, we’re shown the American ideal of untouched femininity in woman’s apparel. But, through Howl, America’s desired passivity for its women will be forced to experience the “hells” of actual reality. The symbolic duality of a feigned “proper society” and hellish realities of urban living prepare us for Ginsberg’s poem. Howl is representative of Ginsberg’s life as an American citizen, and his unique experiences help expose people to the many issues surrounding insanity - the insane cannot be categorized by who fits a societal “norm” and who does not.
There is a particular “way of life” in America that is heavily guarded and revered. In
America, insanity is a taboo subject, rarely discussed in polite society and not linked to
Christen 2
America’s desired “way of life.” Ginsberg and his mother were both institutionalized (he passes reference to his mother’s institutionalization in Howl stating, “Holy my mother in the insane asylum!”[2]) which says something about the American life he experienced as an outcast from society. Ginsberg’s experience helped him question how people are treated when they don’t fit in with societal norms: people are exiled and sent to rehab when they become addicted to drugs or have mental imbalances. People with severe depression or melancholy can receive electro-shock therapy for mental correction, or prescribed drugs to help “normalize” their behavior. The American obsession with normalized and perfected reality is what Ginsberg’s Howl sets out to damage, if not destroy.
Ginsberg’s ironic quip about someone throwing, “potato salad at CCNY lecturers on Dadaism”[3] describes Ginsberg’s purpose in writing Howl and analyzes one misconstrued aspect of insanity. Dadaism, or Dada, is an art movement that rejects traditional culture and attempts to destroy it.[4] The thrust of Ginsberg’s poetry, similar to the Dada, is to oppose social norms and disintegrate tradition’s stagnant hold on society. Ginsberg’s insertion of Dadaist expression into Howl - throwing the potato salad at a lecturer on Dadaism - explicitly reveals the hypocrisy of government institutions like City College of New York (CCNY). The individual who is living Dadaism by throwing potato salad is subjected to a correctional institution, whereas the academic lecturer, a worker of the American government, is left unscathed. It’s easy to generalize that someone is insane because he or she throws potato salad at a lecturer. However, the inherently rebellious actions undertaken by activist art (throwing potato salad at lecturers of Dadaism - an art form about anti-establishment) is censored and deemed “insane” by rigid governmental