In the late ‘80s I was campaigning against human rights abuse. Around 1989 I was shown a document by a researcher that was very sensitive at the time. It documented the abuses meted out by the UK security services in and had been leaked by an official with inside knowledge and first hand experience. Most of the document detailed physical and psychological abuse that nobody could deny should be described as torture. Suspects were brutally beaten but left without bruising, frozen near to the point of death, isolated and threatened horrifically.
The content of document was horrific but what really caught my attention was a section that described techniques that went beyond the physical and psychological techniques of cruelty.
One section described how the as the years had progressed the interrogatees had become increasingly sophisticated in their resistance to interrogation, allegedly due to training they had received in the Middle East. Techniques had been learnt from meditation that cushioned them from everything happening around them and to them. That cushion was found very difficult if not impossible to pierce. Interrogators were finding physical force, threats, isolation and other proven methods to be progressively less effective. The secret services began to consult even wider about how to crack this meditation cushion around their suspects.
One of the weapons they found was humour – jokes. They learnt that they might be able to crack through all the defences if they just find the joke that their victim just could not resist. They learnt that even in the ultimate hostile environment of the interrogation cell they might find the joke to break down the defences. Once the laughter came they were able to lever open the crack and break the suspect’s resolve.
I was fascinated at the time by this brief anecdote in a document that was generally intended as a record of physical and psychological torture. One of my points of interest at the time was how this demonstrated a far greater and confident display of power than the physical force or psychological cruelty used by other, perhaps less sophisticated, interrogators. The infliction of torture is usually a demonstration of power and status as well as an exercise in obtaining information. By using the instinct for laughter the interrogators were manipulating rather than simply extracting and foregoing the temptation to ‘teach a lesson’.
Under the circumstances of saving lives from the acts of a terrorist this seemed more efficient and pragmatic. But it also made me consider the impact on the interrogatee of this manipulation and how in the long term he or she may have preferred to heal the wounds of torture rather than have the confusion of having broken under the pressure of laughter.
These sophisticated interrogators were searching for methods that took them inside emotions and instinctive reactions and to play with the complexity of the mind. The fact that it was also unlikely to make them fall foul of international standards was incidental.
Of equal interest to me, and particularly as a maker of theatre, was the potential this story had for an investigation of humour. Why do we sometimes laugh at a joke that had a subject matter that would otherwise repel us? Why do we laugh at all, at anything? Why do most comedians see the need to find the edge of what is regarded as ‘decent’ and then push their comedy just that little bit further. Even the normally conservative late Ronnie Barker felt the need to tell a controversial 9/11 joke during his swansong TV programme.
This document revealed the calculated use of comedy as a weapon by the state, but the potential power relation between the comedian and audience is apparent in any performance. This potential is demonstrated by the urge for audience heckling that can disturb the relationship and shift the power to the attention seeking audience member.