Why we should listen to comedians

I have just read an article by Victoria Coren here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/06/jim-davidson-arrest-standup-comedy
She comments on the arrest of Jim Davidson and his resulting withdrawal from Celebrity Big Brother, and laments it: the context is that years ago there were two types of comedian: the old school such as Davidson who we knew were racist, sexist etc and the new young things who traded on being the opposite: she opines that everyone under 45 liked the latter, while over 45's preferred the former.

Nowadays, she says - apart from the fact that most of those under 45's are no longer in that age bracket (me included,sadly) - things are not so simple and cut and dried. No longer can we accept Eddie Izzard's comedy credentials only on the basis that he is an executive transvestite (his description). And Coren argues that bringing back the Jim Davidsons of this world redraws the boundaries between the goodies (no, not Tim Brooke-Taylor et al) and the baddies. But one paragraph keys into something I was thinking about yesterday and strikes a familiar chord, especially in the light of comedians turning inward on themselves and criticising each others' choice of target and material:

"Our era's spirit of disapproval has triggered a widespread blandness and terror of challenging consensus, in everything from mainstream political discourse to the ordinary workplace, which makes the comedian or jester's traditional duty to shock and shake up more vital than ever. Haranguing them for shocking in the wrong way might be a luxury we can't afford."

Amen, Ms Coren - it is indeed the comedian's duty to shock and shake up. But how many nowadays do? Most are more mainstream than the daily dose of soap opera and even less in touch with the topical issues to be debated: their stock in trade is still relatiosnhips with the wife, mother, children - delete as applicable according to age of comedian.

So when a few months ago the Daily Mail was - not unexpectedly - aghast that the politicians were speaking to comedians about important social issues and listening to their views, and claimed it was appalling that we had to descend to listening to Hugh Grant and Russell Brand telling us what to think about phone hacking and drug taking, I could not be other than amused. Quite apart from the fact that Hugh's phone was hacked and Russell has experienced drug abuse both from having been an addict himself and working with drug charities, their comments made far more sense than anything any politician had said on the subjects throughout the discussions.

Of course we should ask people who have direct experience of an issue what their viewpoint is, and listen to an ex-drug addict when he explains that the law is totally irrelevant to a drug addict: his one thought when he wakes is how he is going to score, not whether he is breaking the law by doing so. And since the addict, as opposed to the casual user, is almost certain to be using drugs to escape from other problems and issues in his life, let's support him and see if we can dael with the issues and then he might be able to lead his life sober.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

And a comedian - at least, an intelligent one - should have something challenging to contribute because if he (or she) can find something funny and entertaining to say on stage about life, it should mean s/he looks at life in a slightly different way from most people, and can take an objective standpoint, which are crucial abilities for anyone who wishes to address a problem in society.

And unlike politicians, comedians are free spirits: they are not linked (or bound) to any political party or shade of thought - a few, Mr Izzard and Kenny Everett come to mind - do publicly espouse party politics in some form, but most are devoutly apolitical and will happily lampoon all political creed and beliefs. So a comedian can say exactly what he thinks, without the chief whip - er - whipping them into line.

Which is precisely why some comedians are feared - and therefore targeted - by the media. Let's tell everyone how stupid this person is so no one bothers to listen to him. Let's print and draw attention to the odd ridiculous, or even unkind, thing he says, or the one person he has offended, and no one will bother to listen to the thoughtful, insightful and challenging things he has to say. And let's only listen to one or two words - or perhaps a phrase or sentence - and then take them out of context and use them against him.

You can understand why most comedians take the easy - and cowardly - way out and deliver bland jokes about the mother/daughter/local takeaway.

But that just makes me admire even more those who risk being vilified in the media for challenging our views, to shock and shake us up.