The Short Answer

So, Jack here. I’ve been bogged down in writing a PhD. And my progress has been slowed by health concerns and the usual life stuff, but it’s not far away from written. Maybe another three months, if I can survive financially that is!

And I just wanted to be clear what that PhD is. Two short points below.

To start, it’s Political Science. It’s not the usual space that comedy studies sit in, being theatre, communications, literary and cultural studies and the like.

The fabulous 3CR reported the tagline of my research project as "You Can't Laugh at That" (which is okay) but it provoked some trolls sending me silly "are you policing what people can joke about" questions.  Trolls are funny.  I'm more than capable of defending my position after four years of brain-exploding research and tbh... kinda looking forward to it, but not until the thesis is published.  

I wanted you all to know what my research position is:

1. My PhD thesis is about three months from finished, but as it's not comedy or theatre studies, but political science I am more interested in how power structures of governance, media influence and policy intersect with the arts.  I do look at a form of comedy, that of overidentification satire - comedy that is close to reality or lived experience, but not to critique anyone's comedy, but to look at how that work is important to cultural democracy*. 

2. This research examines the politics of protecting artistic and comedic expression from excessive government scrutiny in the future.  It does so by discussing the power of comedy (particularly when it discusses lived experience) as political expression. 

If you haven't seen this - I wrote this (before I was Jack): The policing of Australian satire: why defamation is still no joke, despite recent law changes (theconversation.com)

Regardless of my personal views about any comedian and their work, it doesn’t change the discussion about defamation risk in this article.  That’s how Political Science rolls.

If you haven’t seen it already, my PhD supervisor Lauren Rosewarne has been chatting to the Herald Sun about this.

And I’ll leave you with her words because after all my research and as a person, I have to say I agree with this sentiment:

“You might have loved Michael Jackson’s music growing up, it might be of intrinsic value to your memories of your childhood or adolescence,” Rosewarne says. “Therefore, being told you can’t listen to that music anymore, even just feeling like there’s something shameful about it, you may see that as personally insulting your memories.” There is no right or wrong approach, she adds. And consumers have every right to change their minds.

“There’s probably no ethical consumption under capitalism,” she adds. “But if you truly want escapism through art, if you just want to relax to music or a film, you’re probably better off not deep diving into the artist. But if you’re someone who wants to be politically informed and make choices to only patronise artists that are in line with your values, you do have to do some research – keeping in mind, any story generally has more than one side to it.”

You have a choice and you should have a choice. You can continue to read books or listen to comedy by anyone or you can choose not to. Sure the algorithm brings you things. But even then, you can also choose to seek out new things and new creators, now more than ever. There it is, the short answer right there.

*My first chapter of my draft thesis uses this definition…”Cultural democracy is defined as not only giving voice to different perspectives but to centering those voices as a democratic expression of art beyond a way to justify how cultural institutions are funded (Juncker & Baller 2016)”. Reference: Juncker, B., & Balling, G. (2016). The Value of Art and Culture in Everyday Life: Towards an Expressive Cultural Democracy. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 46(5), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2016.1225618Jun