The main character of humor , which is the name of a ridiculous, unusual, entertaining and satirical approach to social reality, is critical...
The main character of humor, which is the name of a ridiculous, unusual, entertaining and satirical approach to social reality, is critical. Humor, which is referred to as "humour" in Western culture, is evaluated with its social function, and while making people laugh, it includes questioning and even destruction. Traditions, customs, social systems and administrations, injustices created by governments are the subject of humor and the main object of criticism. For this reason, humor is one of the transformative praxis that sustains humanity's consciousness of being liberated, being a subject/male person, and its longing to be a possible/holistic human being.
Humor and humour, which can take a critical stance on Ancient Greek society, started first with the festivals of Dionysus and then with the comedies of Aristophanes, in the Middle Ages with clowns and carnivals, with Chaucer, the ancestor of modern humor, and with Boccaccio's Decameron, which heralded the Renaissance. Humor, which was treated in a refined form in Rabelais, Shakespeare and Cervantes in the Renaissance, in Moliere in the 17th century, and in authors such as Dickens, Shaw, Chekhov, Gogol and Wilde in the late 19th century, was accompanied by the tragic reality of humanity in the Surrealists, Beckett and Ionesco. It turned into dark and destructive humor in his works. Particularly in the 20th century, alienation/alienation caused by 'the inability to limit modernization' was the main point of criticism of humor (primarily black humor).
Turkish society had a different understanding of humor than "humour", which is the basic element of Western humor culture, due to the difference in its socio-economic formation, political and cultural structure. Anecdotes that have survived from oral tradition to the present point to a different sense of humor and knowledge. Bekri Mustafa and Bektaşi anecdotes, especially Nasreddin Hodja, express the people's cynical and angry attitude towards life. There were also works with humor elements in Divan Literature (Nef'î's and Şeyhî's works). However, it was not possible to see a certain critical world view in Divan poetry. The mental transformation that could change the relationship between humans and humans, and the sense of humor that questions humans and social reality, would develop with the 20th century. The social criticism that started with Ömer Seyfettin would evolve into a sense of political humor in the Marko Paşa magazine, known by names such as Sabahattin Ali, Aziz Nesin and Rıfat Ilgaz; With Gırgır magazine, the sense of social humor would become popular.
Human beings are creatures that can rebel against natural and social limitations. This is a Promethean characteristic of man. With the realization of this rebellion, man became "human" and changed the given reality - whether by nature or God - and created his own reality; By creating its own reality, that is, the human of today, it has also created the material conditions for the creation of a 'possible human'. Overcoming the concrete limitations within the universe and creating "counter-fate", in Andre Malraux's words, has become possible through the production of science, philosophy and art.
However, human beings are not a being that can only be defined as a subject. In particular, there is no 'human' as a universal and abstract essence independent of history (Cangızbay, 1987: 2). There is not a "Human" starting with a capital "I", but people who have social, historical and ontological differences from each other; These people differ in a historical and social structure in which they are prevented from being the subjects of their own destiny. Domination relations produced in the social structure impose hierarchy and obligations on people who are differentiated from each other. All these forms of relationship are not based on a universal rationality but on the balance of power in society (CW Mills as cited in Cangızbay, 1987: 10). For this reason, it is an epistemological necessity for every study on the social, including the study on humor, to take into account the social power balances.
Considering humor with its conceptual dimension brings with it some problems regarding the classification of definitions. Humor is used in many sources in a close sense with various concepts such as 'farce', 'ridiculous', 'ridiculous', 'funny', 'comedy', 'laughter', 'comedy'. In his work titled Taking Laughter Seriously, John Morreal discusses laughter in two different contexts as 'humorous' and 'non-humorous'; He emphasizes that it is not easy to agree on the definitions of laughter, even on basic points in laughter theories (Morreal, 1997: 5). In many ways, laughter and humor have meanings that are used interchangeably. While laughter is a physical release of the person as a controllable means of communication, humor is some changes in understanding and comprehension that occur in the person. Humor adds liveliness and has a stimulating effect. Whether it is laughter or humor, the dominant feature of both is that they are liberating and relieving tension. One goes beyond the limitations of real life; The pleasure resulting from this action is shared together. The act of laughing is unifying and cohesive. Bergson stated that laughing is an agreement, a complicity with other laughers. Laughing at any object with another person means reducing the limitations between you and that person and getting closer to that person. Laughter signifies a longing for universal integration where “I”s transform into “We”.
LAUGHING AND THE LOST HEAVEN ON EARTH
“It would be very interesting to write the history of laughter.” This quote from the 19th century Russian philosopher Herzen must have greatly influenced Barry Sanders, thinking that in a human adventure where "laughter has long since disappeared into the air" and "evidence has flown away", if one listens carefully, the joyful laughter "under the soil of history" can be heard. The Triumph of Laughter -He wrote Laughter as a Destructive History. In his book, Sanders says that throughout history, the most threatening laughter has been made by those on the margins of history or by those who remained nameless in history (Sanders, 2001: 9). Reviving the laughter of those who have been deprived of educational opportunities throughout history requires seeing things differently than they are presented to us. Sanders, St. He gives Exupery's The Little Prince as an example. In The Little Prince, the narrator draws a boa constrictor swallowing a huge elephant on a piece of paper. Every adult thinks that the picture of a boa constrictor swallowing an elephant that the narrator shows is a hat, and when the narrator tells them the real picture, they advise them to 'leave boa constrictors aside and focus on history, geography, arithmetic and grammar'. As the narrator's childhood passes, he now talks to adults about "bridge, golf, politics and ties, instead of boa constrictors, stars and virgin forests" (Exupery, 1969: 11). What The Little Prince shows us is this: as educated adults, we can see the invisible in the visible; We can only free ourselves from prejudices and expectations by using our imagination; In other words, it is possible by returning to our pure state and adopting the spirit of play (Sanders, 2001: 10). Not looking at objects from a single perspective and creating fictional and imaginary worlds about them is not just the child's soul's view of the world. It is also the area where humor or the aesthetic experience in general is nourished. Humor nourished by imagination enables objects to be seen in a new way, which actually cuts off interest in daily life, creates distance from reality, and therefore highlights the utopian quality of life. The absurdity of the world presented through consciousness is opposed by another absurdity, and a "tie" situation occurs between the object and the subject. The aim is to destroy the universe, which is imposed on us as the only true reality, through humor (Paz, 1990: 14). The destruction of the existing universe allows another universe to be established through dreams, which are actually the moments when humanity hears the call of the lost paradise on earth.
Sanders draws attention to the fresco of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Earthly Paradise in Florence, a 15th-century work by the Italian painter Masaccio. Masaccio froze Adam and Eve in front of the gate of heaven: he shows the archangel Raphael walking over them, pointing with his hand towards the world's path. Their post-paradise selves are unhappy, their actions shameful and clumsy. Adem closes his eyes in shame. Eve covers her private parts. Now the gate of heaven, "the threshold of loss of innocence", is far behind. There is 'shame' in the civilized world; There is 'etiquette'; There is a desire to shape all kinds of human naturalness and behavior. Sanders says that the feeling of "holistic freedom without rules" can only be realized in the act of laughing. Every act of laughter is hearing the "call of heaven on earth" again. Because only there (in the garden of paradise), in that ideal place where we can freely be ourselves, can we live our true nature (Sanders, 2001: 28, 29, 30).
Children's unsupervised playing acts remind them of free behavior in heaven, where there are no rules, regulations or laws. Imagination, humor and humor destroy the idea of sin in monotheistic religions and enable humanity to regain its lost innocence. In his Manifesto of Surrealism, Andre Breton talks about the longing for a place where "life and death, the real and the imaginary, the past and the future, the tellable and the ineffable, the sublime and the sublime are not perceived as opposites." In fact, this place is nothing but a lost paradise on earth.
LAUGHING: THE HELLY SIDE OF HUMAN NATURE
Charles Baudelaire says that the act of laughing is not in the heaven of happiness, that laughter is the child of pain, just like crying (Baudelaire, 1997: 5). According to him, the act of laughing is a cursed thing, descended from the devil. He says that something demonic, a "mischief", is involved in laughter, that the sensual part seduces the soul, seduces it, spoils its purity, and saves it from inactivity by saying, "Get up, react to everything you don't like, do everything you like" (Baudelaire, 1997: 8). . Laughter breaks down barriers, is rebellious, unyielding and can penetrate into the most intimate spaces. Throughout history, laughter, humor and comedy have kept humanity's awareness of being a subject and its longing to be a possible human being alive. Its liberating and tension-relieving aspect fostered the hopes of political freedom for large masses of people who were dispossessed and deprived of educational opportunities. Laughter, as a remnant of an age without rules and control, prevents the acceptance of the current world as it is, eliminates fear, and relieves the burden and pressure of existing life. Throughout history, those who hold the scepter of power have taken a stand against the act of laughing. Although history has always seemed a serious field, as Kundera said, it has always had an unknown humor. History has always given the voice of those in control through the documentation of educated upper-class male writers. However, with the act of laughter, the dispossessed “even if they could not participate in the writing of history, they could at least try to erase it” (Sanders, 2001: 45).
GOD DIONYSOS, HOMO RIDENS AND ANTIQUITY
“Comedy”, which is the historical origin of laughter and humor, was born from the Dionysus festivals in Ancient Greece. Dionysian events are ceremonies celebrating the 'Phallus', which represents fertility / reproduction / multiplication. According to Aristotle, comedy arises from the songs in these phallus ceremonies. The origin of the word comedy is 'komos' songs sung in entertainments in villages and cities. Dionysian events were in the form of unlimited carnival and public entertainment. These features also constituted the essential element of old comedy. In the Dionysus and Lenaea festivals held in Athens, comedy competitions began to be held alongside tragedy competitions, and the city's rulers were satirized in these competitions. Dionysus, the symbol of life, hope, enthusiasm and wine in Greek mythology, is a god beyond limits. It contains a universal ritual of fusion and unification. Dionysus festivals moved away from the 'I' and connected to the universal; It provided a kind of 'catharsis' function with elements such as celebration, festivity, wine, grapes, enthusiasm and sexuality. Dionysus man is a tragic being who laughs, plays, gets excited and sad. This person divides the universe he lives in into two: "everyday reality" and "Dionysian reality". In the Dionysian universe of reality, there is always a longing for the new and purification.
Aristophanes, one of the most important representatives of "Carnivalized Antiquity" and the great master of comedy that bears the characteristics of Dionysus festivals, discussed every political, social and artistic problem of society in his plays. He criticized the Greek ruling classes with his sharp tongue and subtle sense of humor in his plays, in which he gave the best examples of critical comedy. He especially made the effects of the Peloponnesian wars the subject of his plays. The important aspect of his plays advocating "peace" was that they put natural life against war and death, sanctified it, and glorified the victory of life over death. The inclusion of choir, song and dance elements on stage enabled the audience to integrate with the play and turn the play into a carnival entertainment. Comedy gained identity with artists such as Aristophanes, Lucian and Plautus and became an important part of the art of drama. The Ancient Tradition, which became the theater of physical life, would come to life again in the Renaissance.
Although the act of laughter is defined as “the metaphorical bridge between the earth of mortals and Mount Olympus” in Homer, it undergoes a transformation with the philosophy of “Carnivalized Antiquity” Socrates. Nietzsche, Socratic culture; He refers to it as "theoretical culture" and says that the first degeneration of tragedy was due to the influence of Euripides and the Socratic culture. Socrates makes beauty the criterion of reasonableness by saying "Whatever wants to be beautiful must be reasonable"; When this situation becomes an aesthetic principle, the Dionysian essence of tragedy and comedy is destroyed. The destruction of this essence means the dissolution of the chorus, which means that the audience cannot participate in the play and cannot become a part of the carnivalesque festival. As the Dionysian essence recedes, the "stage" comes to the fore; the precision of boundaries, formalism replaces the substantial/essential.
Although the act of laughing in the Ancient World was perceived as a metaphorical bridge between mortals and the earth with the gods in Olympus, Plato finds laughter harmful in terms of its public consequences. Plato draws attention to the power of laughter to disrupt the established order and to turn the ranks of power upside down (Sanders, 2001: 111). Citizens of the Polis must be able to control their passions. Sanity, a temperate state of mind are essential for citizens to attain Divine Goodness. In his work titled The State, he emphasizes that dangerous excess in laughter can lead to loss of control and damage the dignity of the Police. Citizens should not be plebeians. For this reason, they must control their pleasures through reason. The dignity, balanced life and measured spirit of the citizens are reflected in the dignity of the Police. Plato's aim is to reach the "Universal Mind" that organizes the Cosmos, which is the "reflection of ideas". Since he designed the Ideal State (Polis) as a mini Cosmos, he thinks that the rules of the "Universal Mind" can only be possible with "harmony" and "harmony". Since "harmony" and "harmony" are only possible with a reasonable, measured and dignified beauty, virtuous citizens should balance their laughter, pleasure and pain with reason. Since Plato considers the citizen and the state as a single whole, excessive laughter disrupts this integrity and causes the ideal society to deteriorate. Plato, like his teacher Socrates, advocates balancing the act of laughter with reason.
It is noticeable that theoretical studies on comedy in Antiquity are few. The biggest reason for this situation is that Aristotle gives very little space to comedy in his Poetics. There is even a rumor that Aristotle had another work written on this subject and that this work was lost over time. (Umberto Eco's novel The Name of the Rose contains a fictional philosophical thriller about Aristotle's rumored lost book 'Comedy'. The novel tells of a bigoted monk who devises a kind of intrigue against the farce that he fears will shake the foundations of the entire Church). In his work Poetics, Aristotle states that arts differ from each other in terms of subject, medium and style, and states that comedy is the genre that imitates worse than average ones. According to him, ridiculousness arises from a flaw or a deficiency. In addition, there are differences in terms of temperament and moral level between the writers of tragedy and comedy genres. (Şener, 1991: 43). According to Aristotle, tragic poets are dignified and noble and write praise poems. Comedy poets, on the other hand, are promiscuous and write mostly sarcastic poems. According to Aristotle, choosing comedy subjects from daily life is a noble and flawed situation. Therefore, the pleasure provided by comedy is inferior to the pleasure provided by tragedy. According to Aristotle, the act of laughter is too strong and unpredictable to be left uncontrolled. He wants to purify theater from Dionysian enthusiasm as an institutional solution to excessive, hurtful laughter under the influence of Socratic culture. His theater is based on only the chosen ones (well-educated, well-spoken) telling jokes; Since laughter requires education and refinement of taste, it advocates humor as an aristocratic ideal that remains within the "limits of decency" and does not disrupt the social structure (Sanders, 2001: 130). It should be emphasized that the influence of Socratic culture was felt in Aristotle's views. Just like his teacher Plato, Aristotle “holds the scepter of authority, not the phallus of comedy” (Sanders, 2001: 132).
It is not a coincidence that Nietzsche, who said, "We should consider every truth that is not accompanied by a laugh as fake," based his criticisms on Western culture on Socrates. Under the influence of Socratic culture, the act of laughing was seen as actions reflecting the behavior of flawed people in later ages; Earthly powers and 'sky representatives', holding the scepter of authority in their hands, have tried to prevent this action of man. However, with the carnivals of the Middle Ages, people overcame the limitations imposed on them and reconnected with the universal cohesion of the festivals in Ancient Greece. Carnival has brought reality to the dream of a golden age that humanity has created in its collective subconscious throughout history.
MEDIEVAL CARNIVALS, THE RENAISSANCE AND Laughter
La Boetie, who lived in 16th century France, discusses power and people's obedient/servile tendencies towards power in his book Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. According to Boetie, people are deprived of their subjectivity/reduced to a state of immaturity in the face of the power mechanism. (Boetie, 1995: 134). This situation inevitably leads to a discussion of the question of how people can sustain their lives against oppression, exploitation and oppression, what the areas of resistance created in daily life might be and the decisiveness of the act of laughter in these areas. The effort to reveal the hidden/covert resistances of daily life against the desire to submit to the hegemonic discourse or the relative contract called 'public scenario' actually shows that the act of laughter, that is, imitation, mockery, swearing, rudeness and obscene forms of discourse, are a set of responses given by the oppressed segments against social privileges. It includes the effort to reveal (Cantek, 1999: 17). The 'secret script' as opposed to the public script consists of behind-the-scenes conversations, gestures and practices that contradict and change the hegemony of the dominant discourse (Scott, 1995: 27). The act of laughing is the most important part of the secret scripts of the oppressed.
“Excessive laughter tempts the devil.” This was the understanding that dominated the Church in the West throughout the Middle Ages. The world and life will end at a certain time (doomsday); In eternity, man would laugh forever. Laughter was mocking heaven. He implied that heaven could be experienced here and now (Sanders, 2001: 155). The ideology of the Middle Ages contained the character of the feudal regime with its asceticism, gloomy fatalism, sin, punishment, suffering, oppressiveness and intimidation, and an air of intolerant one-sided seriousness (Bahktin, 2001: 93). Throughout the Middle Ages, Jesus was described as a dignified, serious and proud prophet. The church promised joyful laughter in eternity after a life full of pain, misery and poverty. For this reason, Religion and Jesus had to stand seriously. Excessive laughter would distract attention and cause chaos. This is why Jesus never laughed. His laughter meant that people were breaking away from God's word. Despite this, the medieval church allowed the "carnival of madmen" on holy holidays, in which the second nature of man, which was the opposite of the culture and ideology of all Christianity, existed freely at the physical level. Medieval people had two lives: the official life consisting of abstinence and fasting, and the carnival life with all kinds of possibilities... The existence of carnivals also indicated the existence of a new and completely different word other than the Christian word of God.
Mikhail Bakhtin, in his work titled Rabelais and His World, says that the most radical, most universal, most joyful laughter emerged from folk culture in the Renaissance and that this laughter was the expression of a new free and critical historical consciousness (Bakhtin, 2001: 93). Medieval laughter, which targets social privileges, "establishes its own world against the official world, its own church against the official church, its own state against the official state." “In medieval laughter, all hierarchical structures are inverted and absolute categories are eliminated. The clown becomes the king; The king is the clown... The place where this happens is the carnival squares. During Carnival, life is turned upside down; Time is turned back, all people are equalized. Carnivals highlight the utopian nature of life for a short period of time. Just like in the Dionysian rites, people leave the sullen/unsmiling/haughty/serious real life of the Middle Ages and experience "always", "here and now", "one and all" at a certain time. Carnivals are an area where the oppressed can resist the government and oppose the oppressive abstinent ethics of the Middle Ages. Hegemonic discourse loses its influence during the carnival and the resulting freedom opens the doors to a libertarian world. Because “carnival derives its power from humanity's hunger for utopia. It is a rebellion against everything determined; rules, regulations, hierarchies... ” In other words, carnival expresses people's hopes for a happier future, a more just social and economic order, and a new truth (Bakhtin, 2001: 101).
Bakhtin draws attention to the official and authoritarian aspect of medieval culture. The Middle Ages was a culture with elements of violence, prohibition, seriousness, limitation and always fear. It always included an element of intimidation and oppression. Carnivalesque laughter overcame fear, did not recognize limitations, and achieved its greatest victory over fear. It not only saved us from external censorship, it saved us primarily from great internal censorship. It saved people from fear that had been ingrained in people for thousands of years; This was the fear of the sacred, the prohibitions, the past and the power. (Bakthin, 2001: 110-114). He created his own truth against the truth created by worldly and extraterrestrial fear. This new truth changed man's consciousness and provided a new perspective on life. This new truth first formed the consciousness of the Renaissance, and then, with the philosophy of the Enlightenment and the destruction of the Bastille, the earth and the sky were separated from each other, proving humanity's universal coming of age. Worldly and extraterrestrial powers now had to find another source of legitimacy for themselves.
The act of laughter trivialized the sacred object, which had been the source of fear until then from a certain distance in the Middle Ages, broke the spell and illusion, and suspended the source of oppression. Laughing at what is respected allows the laugher to be free from what is a source of fear and to get rid of the oppressive burden of the past. The reproduction of the authority relationship is now interrupted. The greatest enemy of authority and the surest way to weaken it is laughter (Arendt, 1997: 51). Hannah Arendt says that the most important sign of authority is the unquestioning acceptance of those who must obey without the need for pressure. Authority stands with respect. Respect means being serious, measured, balanced and dignified. Ridiculing respect is a damage to the 'public script' of authority. Earthly and extraterrestrial powers have no sense of humour. Every act of laughter eventually creates disharmony. This disharmony is the disruption of the harmony and harmony of the divine cosmos. The effort to reach the "Universal Mind" that organizes the Cosmos in Plato's thought is interrupted with every laughter. “Voltaire's laughter is more destructive than Rousseau's crying.” (Herzen, cited in Bakhtin, 2001: 112).
The passage by AI Herzen, whom Bakhtin describes as "the person who expressed the most valuable thoughts about the function of laughter in the history of culture", is enlightening: "In ancient times, the people who watched Aristophanes' comedies burst out laughing in Olympus and on earth, together with Lucian." he would laugh. Humanity stopped laughing from the 4th century onwards; he only wept, and the mind was fettered with groans and wails of regret. It would be interesting to write the history of laughter. No one can laugh in a church, in a palace, on an official parade, in front of the head of the department, the police officer or the manager. The serf was deprived of the right to laugh in front of the landowner. Only equals can laugh. If the subordinate could laugh at the superior, that would be the end of respect. To force people to laugh at the Ox-Headed God means to degrade them from their sacred positions to the level of ordinary oxen.” (cited in Bakhtin, 2001: 112). However, it can be said that the Russian thinker Herzen did not touch upon the comic side of the Middle Ages, embodied in Bakhtin's carnival and Rabelais.
We find traces of the new truth created by the carnival spirit of the Middle Ages in the thoughts of Rabelais in 16th century France. According to Chateaubriand, just as Shakespeare created English Literature, Rabelais created French Literature. Rabelais, who had a worldview that contradicted the fasting/abstinent Christian morality of the Middle Ages, glorified nature, life and humanity; He brought carnival, entertainment and humor to literature, which was the occupation of the nobles. In the French Renaissance, folk humor was raised to the level of high literature for the first time thanks to him. Renaissance laughter, folk humor culture and plebeian forms of oral expression nourished literature with Boccaccio, Rabelais, Cervantes and Shakespeare. The Renaissance understanding of laughter had a philosophical meaning, the dimension of laughter was universal; It was one of the fundamental forms of truth about the world as a whole, about history and man, and expressed the most radical interests, hopes and thoughts of the people. Precisely because of its connection with truth and knowledge, this laughter purified people's consciousness from false seriousness and dogmatism (Bakhtin, 2001: 87 and 157). In his work Gargantua, Rabelais advocates that human acts, known as privileges of the ruling classes, should be equally distributed to the public and that life should be perceived as a source of pleasurable happiness. It highlights the passion for life (this life/this world) as opposed to Christian asceticism. The formula "Do what you want" constitutes the essence of Rabelais's understanding. This makes Rabelais one of the most passionate defenders of humanist thought.
Rabelais is a man of a new world. Because a new truth emerges while laughing and in a joyful mood. A different individual; This is the truth of a libertarian and responsible individual. In his book Gargantua, the hero of the novel wants first of all to abolish clocks and for everyone to work whenever they want in the monastery he will establish. “The greatest stupidity in the world is to arrange one's life according to the sound of a bell, rather than according to one's common sense and reason.” Rabelais's perspective is reminiscent of Walter Benjamin's work on the Philosophy of History. During the July Revolution, revolutionary masses in many neighborhoods of Paris opened fire on clock towers simultaneously and unaware of each other, which is a conscious intervention in "time". In these moments, time brings with it a new calendar (Benjamin, 1995: 47). The repeatability of history is broken and history becomes a meaning produced as a result of praxis. The overwhelming weight and pressure of the clocks disappear. This is actually nothing but the expression of the utopian spirit and historical, free consciousness expressed in Rabelais.
Milan Kundera, in his book The Art of the Novel, says that humorous thought, not theoretical thought, dominated the historical emergence of the novel, and that Rabelais wrote his first great European novel after hearing "The Laugh of God". Literary scholars agree on this: the magic of language lies in wordplay, jokes, humor and humour. Literature was born from cheerful, obscene, witty conversations, in short, from the act of humor and laughter. Already in the 14th century, the English writer Chaucer saw in the Canterbury Tales that the “physicality of the joke” could be transformed into a “verbal joke” and gave them a new form in writing by taking their witty verbal forms (Sanders, 2001: 196). With Chaucer, the inseparability of language and humour, narrative and joke, play and language, laughter and literature was revealed. In ancient times, carnivalesque fiction was influenced by the humorous structure of the language. Although narrative and humor fell away from each other under the influence of Socratic culture, the spirit of humor nourished narrative and literature again with carnivals and the Renaissance. With Cervantes' Don Quixote, carnivalesque fiction discovered that in life there are “relative contradictory truths rather than a single truth.” The Renaissance Laughter reunited elite high literature and academia with grotesque folk humor, which had been one in antiquity but later diverged.
In the 18th century, the scope of laughter narrowed and its philosophical and universal meaning disappeared; It is seen that the paths of grotesque folk humor and elite literature diverge. What was the reason for this? Bakhtin says that this is because, with the 17th century, a new absolute monarchy order was formed, in which Descartes' rational philosophy and the aesthetics of classicism constituted the components of a new culture (Bakhtin, 2001: 121). Of course, as Marx stated, these concepts were presented as universal truth by the historically rising bourgeois class. With enlightenment, reason will become the criterion of everything; folk humor, popular laughter, grotesque exaggeration and glorification would begin to lose their former importance.
THE Jester: A CRITICAL FORM OF DISCOURSE
Like his contemporary Rabelais, Shakespeare, who lived in the 16th century and dealt with the diversity of life woven with the contradictions and oppositions of the transition period in a universal realistic style in his works, addresses the clown against the king in the play "King Lear":
“Crazy people have never gone out of fashion / Every day the minds of the smarter ones slip away / They never knew how to use their heads / They chose to be ridiculous in everything they did.”
In an age where values are reversed and people and rulers lose their conscience and common sense, there is only one person in the palace who knows himself, has a conscience, and knows what to do, and that is the king's clown.
The clown tries to call King Lear, who has done injustice to his only daughter who loves him, to be conscientious and common sense, using an ironic and satirical language. King Lear will reach the basic truth in the play only in the position of a "naked, two-legged animal", stripped of all social clothes and privileges. Shakespeare, a universal realistic artist-thinker who approached the era of events critically with his mastery in reflecting reality, of course knew the social meaning of the clown very well. He reveals in his play Twelfth Night that the clown is not as stupid as he thinks: “This man is smart enough to play the role of a clown; Because you have to be very smart to be successful in this profession.” A clown is a wise person who expresses the truth through irony and parables.
The Renaissance clown had a feature that unveils the truth about power: “Look, mother! The Renaissance clown was the social equivalent of the expression "King Naked". The truth was speaking in clown garb. The clown can ridicule his master, the traditions of the age, the sacred institutions, beliefs and values with the subtlety, depth and shocking power of his jokes; He revealed the things that others wanted to say but kept to themselves due to the existing rules, and made everyone feel at ease (Belge, 1997: 209-210).
This was the social meaning of the Renaissance jester. He could ask questions that no one else dared to ask, and direct social criticism towards administrators. Clowns were beings who sacrificed themselves to some extent with their clever wit, subtle sense of humor, and sharp-tongued sarcasm. There was always the possibility of being flogged for criticizing the rulers. In the play King Lear, when Lear's clown tells the truth, the king's daughters; When he lies, he is whipped by the king. This was the social price of being the interpreter of truth: being ridiculed and flogged... Only in this way could the absurdity and tragic position of King Lear's actions be shown.
Murat Belge points out a fundamental difference between the Renaissance clown and the Ottoman sycophant. In the institution of flattery organized within the guild in the Ottoman Empire, the subject of laughter is completely "outside" of those laughing, and people laugh at what happens to someone else. However, clowns make people laugh at themselves, and this actually feeds criticism. The reason for this quality of the institution of flattery is based on the fact that the power structure in the East limits laughter to certain areas (Belge, 1997: 211). Nowadays, "TV/boulevard comedies, revues, etc., which are shaped as the production of today's entertainment industry, where the humor is non-critical, devoid of wordplay, the characters presented to the audience to laugh are selected from the oppressed segments of the society." practices reproduce the cultural understanding of the system as the continuation of the tradition of the "institution of sycophancy" (Oskay, 1982: 302-303).
MODERN COSTUMES AND CLOWNS
While we can connect the origins of clowns and clowns in today's sense to the Renaissance clown institution mentioned before, we find them in improvisation, comedy and folk theater called "Commedia dell'Arte", which emerged in 16th century Italy. In “Commedia dell'Arte” it is a part of carnival life and a theater of physical life. Dario Fo's theater can be considered as the most important representative of this theater whose aim is to humiliate the government. Of course, Buster Keaton, the Marx brothers and Charlie Chaplin, who are associated with pantomime, vaudeville and silent cinema, originating from Commedia, should be mentioned as the great clowns and buffoons of our time.
However, Dario Fo theater stands out with its crazy attitude, which is the representative of the medieval clowns today, satirizing the ruling powers with irony and satire, and opening the public's eyes to injustice. While his plays contain criticism as well as comedy, they are never finished texts. Current events are incorporated into the text. Although the action of the clown in the Middle Ages was limited to the walls of the palace, Fo made his criticisms of established values and morals not in a closed space, but in squares and areas. He finds elements of resistance against the government in daily life. Madness, madness and laughter combine with criticism and are used as a weapon of freedom against power. His theater is a contemporary clown theatre. He creates theater for the oppressed, those left on the edge of life, the excluded, as well as the people on the street against the government.
TURKISH HUMOR AND CRITICISM (THE EXAMPLE OF MARKOPAŞA AND GIRGIR)
It is obvious that the socio-economic formation and political structure of the Ottoman society differed from Western societies. Ottoman property relations being the source of the sultan's central sovereignty (miri state property); the fief system prevents the formation of the aristocratic class; Many reasons, such as the lack of capital accumulation and the emergence of a new class with capital as a result, and the fact that the class struggle took place at a different level than the West, led to the existence of a different cultural life style in the Ottoman Empire from the West. Rather than an individualistic worldview, a collective worldview, which could be traced back to nomadic Turkish traditions and was shaped by the influence of Islamic Law, was dominant.
The different ideas of state structure and the difference in the understanding of the power apparatus of the Ottoman (or Eastern) society made a clear distinction between the things that could be laughed at in society and the things that could not be laughed at, and by tabooing the absolute power itself, it placed the power in the category of "those that cannot be laughed at" (Belge, 1997: 211). For this reason, comedy in the Ottoman Empire did not criticize the whole of social life. Not the dominant ethics as a whole; It brought limited, measured and digested criticism (Oskay, 2001). Ünsal Oskay says that the biggest reason for this is AH Tanpınar's assessment that in the Ottoman Society, "no one was a subject except the leading sultan/everyone was a servant" (Oskay, 2001).
Before modernization, Ottoman humor developed within guild organizations and within the sect and lodge organizations that shaped Ottoman cultural life. The "cultural pluralism of the Ottoman society and the state's non-interference in the internal life of the communities" (M. Belge) enabled Ottoman humor and Meddah and Karagöz representations, which staged the religious, cultural and social diversity of the Empire, to be made freely. Meddah and Karagöz performances brought the "Ottoman cultural kaleidoscope" to the stage as sources of imitation, parody, crude jokes, and a comedy with a Rabelaisian imagination, where the distinct characteristics of the different communities of the Empire came to the fore: the arrogant Greek, the merchant Jew, the proud Albanian, etc. (Georgeon, 2000: 85). Ottoman humor, which is a verbal humor, was based on dualities in the representations of Meddah and Karagöz, in parallel with the disconnection in Ottoman cultural life (between the elite part of the society and the rest). Karagöz and Hacivat and Kavuklu and Pişekâr were representatives of two different cultures. While Karagöz was the representative of the people and their culture, Hacivat was drawing the portrait of an intellectual who had guild education and knew manners, order and literature. In fact, Hacivat was a type of person who flattered the government, appeared arrogant, secretly calculating, and opportunistic pedant.
The humor tension of Karagöz representation was based on the conflict of these two types. Karagöz representations served a similar function to the clown institution in the West. In addition to being a mirror reflecting the thoughts of the people and the events of the period, it also expressed the moral, political and social concerns that the society did not dare to express. (Nicolas, 2000: 67). As Ottoman modernization gained effectiveness in the 19th century, in addition to references to current events, ridicule, jokes and political satire began to be made against the government and its officials. However, this humor does not directly target figures such as pasha and vizier, who symbolize religious and military power; These personalities are not shown with these identities on stage (Nicolas, 2000: 67). The main reason for this is that in the East, the existence of the state is perceived as a condition for the existence of society, and therefore the legitimacy limits of laughter, irony and ridicule against the government are determined within a framework in advance. For example, it is obvious that even Karagöz, whose satirical power seems unlimited, respects the family institution and some moral values. (Fenoglio, Georgeon, 2000: 14) However, in Eastern societies where prohibitions are many and taboos are permanent, humor is a way of conveying a complaint or discomfort. Because there is no condition for it to be transferred in any other form.
“Who, what, and with whom should one laugh? Answering these questions is a way to get to the heart of a society's collective mindsets and social structures.” Taking Jacques Le Goff's assessment into account, Georgeon stated that Ottoman laughter provided communication between different generations, social categories, ethnic and religious groups; He says that the most laughable subject was the mockery of the representatives of the European states that turned the Ottoman Empire into a 'semi-colony' in the 19th century, reversing the balance of power at that moment (Georgeon, 2000: 80-86). Just like in medieval carnivals, the world is turned upside down in this case; Europe, which seemed strong, was being ridiculed. Innovations caused by modernization were also among the main topics of humor. The points where modernity clashes with tradition, the disruptions and ignorance caused by the use of modern tools and equipment are among the main topics of the humor press even today.
The first years of the Ottoman humor press (1870-1877) coincide with a transformation in Ottoman humor. This is a more critical, more cynical and destructive laugh against the results of modernization and state policies. (For example, the Diyogen magazine published by Teodor Kasap in 1870 was a pioneering humor magazine in this respect.) This sense of humor, which distanced itself from the government and gave more space to irony and satire, would be banned by the Ottoman government, and this ban would last until 1908.
Following the 1908 Young Turk Revolution and the enthusiasm felt after the declaration of Hürriyet, many humor magazines began to be published. However, humor magazines started to appear at a time when the Ottoman dynasty and Ottoman cultural values began to decline. Ottoman critical humor was created in a colonial context (it was clear that the Ottoman state had been made semi-colonial by European imperialism in the fields of education, communication, transportation, economy and culture) and in a context where it was uncertain whether the empire would survive or die (Brummet, 2000: 138). After 1908, Ottoman humor took part in a relatively free and uncertain dynamic in which there was no censorship in a short period of time. Ottoman humor's determination of foreign domination and Western imperialism as the "main theme" led to limited inward criticism (satirizing the Sultan, the Parliament, and society). (Brummet, 2000: 139)
During this period, Ottoman humor magazines turned Karagöz into a caricature image and highlighted his oppositional side in caricatures. As mentioned before, Karagöz was a part of a collective joke that eliminated class and cultural differences. Ottoman humorists tried to alleviate the concerns of the chaotic world created by modernization with the Karagöz symbol (Brummet, 2000: 140). Karagöz was perceived as a symbol of resistance against European imperialism. However, Ottoman humor traditions began to decline. After the declaration of the Second Constitutional Monarchy, the Karagöz guild in Kasımpaşa will close itself. In the face of the chaotic environment of modernization, Hacivat remained as ineffective, passive and ignorant as Karagöz. The impossibility of various ethnic groups dancing brotherly in the Karagöz curtain to come together as a result of nationalist movements, wars and bloody fights was one of the reasons for the decline of this tradition (Öngören, 1998: 65). Karagöz, who bridged the divisions in society within the Ottoman humor tradition, had now begun to decline.
The real decline of Ottoman humor occurred during the Republic period. This was a turning point in the history of laughter in Turkey. Ottoman humor was a Rabelaisian type of humor. Karagöz's imagery is often compared to that of Rabelais's Gargantua. But the Turkish Revolution was serious, rational, and had an aim to catch up with "contemporary civilization". For this reason, he was suspicious of the subversive power of comedy and laughter, because what the revolution achieved could not be mocked. (Georgeon, 2000: 97)
The staging of the diversity of the empire, which left its mark on Ottoman comedy, was based on building a bridge between religious-ethnic divisions, even if they existed. The establishment of a new nation state after dramatic events and wars eliminated the material infrastructure of this joke. With the collapse of the empire, a tradition-bound, collective, public folk humor faded away; Instead, an attempt was made to replace it with another understanding of laughter that was individual-based, critically distant, "civilized" and "secularized" (Georgeon, 2000: 98). Akbaba magazine continued its existence throughout the Republican period as the representative of this new understanding of humor. European comedy had experienced a similar evolution from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Bakhtin explains that the reason for this is that in the age of Enlightenment, reasoning reason became the criterion of everything; He says that this abstract and non-dialectical rationalism is far from theoretically grasping the universal quality and nature of laughter (Bakhtin, 2001: 138).
After the humor magazine Aydede, which maintained a publication line against the War of Independence and against the Ankara government, was closed at the end of the war, Akbaba humor magazine started to be published with the same staff, format and structure. Akbaba, which continued its publication life intermittently until 1978, became a magazine that shaped the understanding of humor in the Republican period. The populism of "civilized" and "secular", well-educated, urban-dwelling, upper-class intellectuals who speak several foreign languages leaves its mark on the magazine. Throughout its broadcasting period, it always adopts a policy close to the government. (In the thirties, he was in favor of the Free Party; in the forties, he was a Populist Party; in the fifties, he was a Democrat and on May 27, he was a Populist.) With the 1925 "Takrir-i Sükûn" law, like all Republican humor, Akbaba also assumed an official identity as a sense of humor. Many humorists compare Akbaba magazine's sense of humor with that of old Eastern European humor magazines. "Whinings" in favor of the continuity of the real system/reproducing the system constitute the publishing policy of Akbaba magazine.
Cemal Nadir, who published his first cartoon album Amcabey, became one of the prominent names of Republican humor. Amcabey, with his hat, jacket and trousers, is a social reaction given by the father of the family, who affirms modernization (choosing to be a type of modernity) and to the disruptions in the establishment of the institutions of modernization. Along with Cemal Nadir, who is defined as the founder of the Republic caricature, tradesmen, civil servants, retirees, housewives, merchants, etc. All types of society have become caricatures. (Öngören, 1431) Oğuz Aral explains the importance of Cemal Nadir for Turkish Humor as follows:
“Instead of drawing non-existent human types, Cemal Nadir caricatured people on the street. Along with their lines, the problems of these people also entered the cartoon. Cemal Nadir is the first person to take the cartoon out of the hall and onto the streets. ”
It is difficult to say that there was a written humor tradition outside Istanbul in the 1930s. The policies of creating a new unity of language, culture and history left their mark on the Turkey of the Thirties. The dominant ideology in this period was to base the cultural roots of Anatolian Civilizations on Turkishness and to produce a History thesis based on this. For this purpose, the Turkish History Institution was established in 1931, the Turkish Language Association in 1932, and the Faculty of Language History and Geography in 1936. It cannot be said that the 1930s were productive for Turkish Humor. Humor discourse moves further and further away from the country's problems. Topics such as beach entertainment, Turkish style and Turkish style are covered. However, with the end of the Second World War, Turkey will be introduced to a new sense of critical and political humor.
MARKOPASA AND THE POLITICAL FURIOUS
There were no political jokes during the Republic period until Markopaşa. Until Markopasha, the Republican governments did not put significant pressure on humor writers, newspapers and magazines. (Nesin, 1973) Aziz Nesin revealed the distinctive difference of Markopaşa in this way and said that Markopaşa was the pioneer in humor of the struggle of the people against the ruling classes along with the difficulties and pressures created by the Second War of Sharing. With Markopaşa, the world (especially Turkey) was no longer based on a single truth. The relative truths of humor were now challenging the single truth imposed on people. The order of the social scene was disrupted by humour. The first real opposition against the political power was taking place with Markopaşa.
The political climate of the 1940s was determined by the ideology of nationalism. The ideology of nationalism became concrete in the form of two political scenarios that fed from the same source but conflicted with each other: On the one hand, patriotic/populist movements, and on the other hand, racist/Turanist movements. Markopaşa was voicing the realities of the country and fighting against the Turanists by drawing the left thought to the line of patriotism/populism (Cantek, 2001: 21). Legal obstacles were one of the main reasons why the left movement established its own discourse based on the "populist" discourse. The famous articles 141 and 142 of the Turkish Penal Code prevented the free production of left-wing discourse for a long time. The failure to translate classical works that would nourish the leftist discourse until the 1960s caused the leftist movement to establish its own discourse on the dominant political themes of the official ideology. Ahmet Oktay states that left-wing literature aims to fulfill its political function through the themes of the official ideology and says that themes such as "populism" are "a means of voicing the class problem of art", which leftist writers cannot say openly (as cited in Cantek, 2001: 21). Considering that the title of the first issue of the newspaper was "Independence", we can say that themes such as Populism, Nationalism, National Independence, Anti-Imperialism enabled the left opposition to establish itself in the "Witch's Cauldron" of the '40s.
The idea of the emergence of Markopaşa magazine began with the destruction of Tan newspaper and Görüşler magazine. Turkey, which tried to open the door to the Multi-Party order in 1945, did not foresee the left wing in this new order. The printing houses of the Tan newspaper and the Görükler magazine, which were described as incompatible with the "character of the nation", were demolished in a fake street demonstration in December 1945. The printing houses that print progressive newspapers are destroyed by a group of university students under the management of the CHP Youth Branch. Within a few months, the Left Kemalist group within the CHP will be liquidated, leftist parties will be closed, their leaders will be arrested, and leftist faculty members will be suspended from the university (Eroğul, 1990: 115). Within a year, the Istanbul Martial Law Command will close down left-leaning newspapers and magazines such as Union, Ses, Gün, Yığın, Dost. There is no longer any room for the left in the new order.
After the Tan newspaper was destroyed, many newspaper employees who became unemployed gathered around Markopaşa magazine. The first issue was published in November 1946. Sabahattin Ali is the owner and publications director of the newspaper, and Aziz Nesin is responsible for the administration and editorial duties. Rıfat Ilgaz will join the staff as of February 1947. Markopaşa's discourse radically affects the existing sense of humor. His oppositional attitude, challenging, open, provocative humorous style and destructive polemics would affect the political environment of the period, and as a result, the term "roots outside" would be mentioned for the first time in our political literature for Markopaşa (Cantek, 2000: 45-54). In response to Cemil Sait Barlas, who used this term in the Parliament, Sabahattin Ali's "Shame" and Aziz Nesin's "Match Water for the Root of Your Ball" were published in December 1946. In response to Markopaşa's destructive criticism, the political power will increase its policies of oppression and violence against the magazine to such an extent that this situation will give Markopaşa a mythological meaning. It will be reborn from its own ashes every time, like a Phoenix. It is as if Markopaşa is Hektor, the son of Mother Earth. They injure him, they knock him down, but each time Mother Earth brings him back to his feet. When the seller could not be found, Markopaşa sold it from hand to hand on the streets. When a printing press cannot be found, it is written on a typewriter and copied by mimeograph. Lawsuits, trials, imprisonment and fines are proof of how dangerous political farce is seen for the authority. Many lawsuits are filed against him based on both the Societies Law and the Press Law. Sabahattin Ali and Aziz Nesin were arrested many times. In April 1947, under the Markopaşa logo, there is the phrase "It comes out when its authors are not under surveillance or in prison." Pressure is put on the printing house owners to prevent the newspaper from being printed. Sometimes it is printed in the Tan printing house, sometimes in the Berksoy printing house. In April 1947, a duplicating machine was purchased and the newspaper was sold in two pages, stitched together with staples. The name of the printing house where the newspaper is printed is "Gutenberg Printing House". The magazine, which was closed in April 1947 based on the Press Law, was published under the name Merhumpaşa in May 1947. Meanwhile, Sabahattin Ali is in prison. When Sabahattin Ali came out of prison, he started dating under the name Malumpaşa in September 1947. After Markopaşa was acquitted in his previous cases, it started to appear again in October 1947, but had to stop because the publication was in the possession of Orhan Erkip (who was suspected of being a police agent). Although Ali Baba and Geveze magazines continued their opposition to Markopaşa, they did not last long.
In October 1948, Markopaşa started broadcasting again. This is the third term of Markopaşa. (The first period is the period of Sabahattin Ali; the second period is the period of Orhan Erkip, who is suspected.) There is no Sabahattin Ali in this period. Editor-in-Chief Aziz Nesin; Rıfat Ilgaz is the owner and editor-in-chief of the newspaper. Meanwhile, in 1949, the Council of Ministers made decisions to ban the distribution and confiscate some issues of Markopaşa, as they found them "contrary to foreign policy" (Cantek, 2000: 170). Although he adopted a careful and moderate sense of humor during this period, Markopaşa was closed again in 1949 due to an article by Aziz Nesin. In 1949, the exact same newspaper, Hür Markopaşa, was published; The owner and editor-in-chief is Orhan Erkip. It will close after a single number appears. Although Yedi Seks Pasha, published by Rıfat Ilgaz and Aziz Nesin, and Bizim Pasha, published by Aziz Nesin in the same year, tried to continue the Markopaşa tradition, they did not last long. In 1950, the Markopaşa movement would end. Although the Democratic Party government reduced the government's control over the press with the Press Law of 1950, there was no change in the government's attitude towards humor magazines and newspapers.
Until Markopaşa, no other government had been the target of such open satirical arrows. Although the press organs of the period reached a maximum sales figure of 4 thousand, Markopaşa's circulation figure reached up to 80 thousand. Markopaşa humor movement marks the first real opposition against the political power in Turkey. (Öngören, 1438) He voiced the opposition discourse against the single-party government. By coming to the fore the language used on the streets, suppressed, and not tolerated by the government (folk sayings, folk songs, jokes, slang, etc.), the fact that humor is not just a means of entertainment, but a form of satire and struggle against the government, has gained importance (Cantek, 2000: 186). . Poems satirizing current political issues were written in aruz and syllabary. Aziz Nesin also says, "Markopaşa brought a humor and satire innovation that was unknown until then" and draws attention to the fact that the sense of humor until Markopaşa was either entertainment-oriented or close to power, as in the example of Akbaba. Despite its destructive and critical character, Markopaşa does not reject the central-public space; not in search of an alternative or counterculture; It lies at a point between the past it idealizes and the vision of the future it wants to reconstruct. (Cantek, 2000: 187) Markopaşa takes into account unrealized potentials such as justice, morality and human rights in the public sphere. Defending the people against the government; Creating an opposition front for the benefit of the public was the main goal of Markopaşa humor. Although Markopaşa broke away from the traditional sense of humor and constituted a turning point for Turkish critical humor, he could not create a school for later generations. Another humor magazine, Gırgır, would create this generation and school.
GIRGIR AND THE HUMOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
Turkey in the 1960s was governed by an economic policy dominated by planned industrialization, supported by the industrial bourgeoisie and intellectual-bureaucrat segments, carried out with protectionist measures. While the Turkish economy was aiming for import substitution industrialization, it was noticeable that there was a stagnation in humor movements. The country's transition to an industrial society and the fact that the groups directing economic policies began to shift from intellectuals-bureaucrats to the capital classes changed the nature of the humor press. Since 1908, the discourse of written humor coincided with the discourse of the educated and educated bureaucrats and middle-class civil servants. By the 1960s, rapid industrialization and urbanization had caused population rates to rise in urban areas. Populist economic policies and the developmental model brought large readerships to the press. With modernization, the newspaper/press reader profile was changing rapidly.
Reading newspapers was no longer a practice of educated and educated people. Large-scale urbanization and the emergence of large and uneducated masses as new newspaper readers affected the publishing policies of humor magazines, which always targeted educated people, and caused a periodic stagnation in humor. Another important reason for the periodic stagnation in humor in the 1960s was the atmosphere of "national unity" created by the 27 May Movement (Öngören, 1441). This atmosphere played a negative role in the uncontrolled and disruptive nature of the humour. The hegemonic and public scenario created by the understanding of "national unity and solidarity" neutralized the destructive and disruptive structure of humor. During this period, many humor and humor magazines began to close down. Newspapers pushed humor and caricature to the background. But no matter what, "secret scenarios", a form of resistance against the dominant scenario, continued. Gırgır magazine, which became a new humor movement in the 1970s, would become an important school for Turkish Humor.
Gırgır magazine emerged at a time when the contradictions of import substitution industrialization were manifesting themselves and the optimism of the 1960s was beginning to diminish. Industrialization led to increased contradictions between social classes. It was difficult for people coming from rural areas to settle in urban areas, so half-employed, half-urban groups settled in slum areas (Keyder, 1990: 321). Ferit Öngören said that these masses, who could not establish a dialogue with the city, established an alternative Istanbul life and that the contradictions and conflicts between rural, town and urban lives constituted the main source of humor in the 1970s (Öngören, 1998: 103). The humor of the neighborhood was born from here. Gırgır started broadcasting in 1972. By reducing text, emphasizing visuals and spreading it throughout the magazine, Gırgır destroyed the previous humor tradition (especially the Akbaba tradition) and added a new dimension of humor. Şevket Yalaz, one of the Gırgır cartoonists, will describe this change as follows:
“Gırgır destroyed the formality and stability of Akbaba. He reduced the text and increased the picture. The entry of young illustrators into the painting gave a movement to the painting. The new generation adapted to the new magazine. Over time, Gırgır's position began to differ. "It started to appeal to certain segments, workers and intellectuals." (Yalaz-cited in Cantek, 1994: 209)
Gırgır's illustrator staff consisted of Oğuz Aral, Tekin Aral, Ferit Öngören, Oğuz Alplaçin and Mim Sleepless. The circulation of the magazine in 1975 reached 500 thousand, making it the humor magazine with the third highest sales figure in the world. (Other humor magazines were Mad magazine from the USA and Krokodil magazine from Russia.) The ideology and politics debates of the 1970s were reflected in Gırgır magazine. He adopted a humor policy targeting the collaborator state-supported bourgeoisie with its anti-imperialist content. The left adopted a Kemalist, nationalist, populist and patriotic ideological discourse. Gırgır's language, which dealt with worker and student problems, was close to slang, natural people on the street, and everyday language. Gırgır was the humor of the neighborhood. Their heroes were some of us who came from the neighborhood. Daily life, political issues, people in everyone's memory, football, TV, cinema, music, anything current was made the subject of humor. Gırgır made the humor of the “little man”. The little man, mentioned in Nazım's poem "You are like a scorpion, brother"; He was the character of Orhan Kemal's stories: "who lives his life with his own daily troubles, worries and hopes, behaves with an almost religious resignation, with the philosophy of one bite and one cardigan, and sometimes can be satisfied with his life, submissive, melancholic to a certain extent", male, poor, alert, They were middle-intelligent characters (Cantek, 1994: 214). In the corporatist and solidarity-oriented subconscious of Kemalism, the neighborhood was a classless, integrated, unprivileged place. The popular folk discourse of a common “We” left its mark on Gırgır through the neighbourhood.
Neighbourhood; It was a shelter/area of resistance against the chaotic consequences of capitalist modernization. Crowds who were not urbanized were struggling to live each day with minimal shocks and to reach tomorrow safely. Gırgır eased the shocks experienced by the crowds in the transition to a new world of modernization, encouraged them collectively and gave them confidence. For this reason, Gırgır, as if he had established a "School", enabled humorists from all walks of life, from every province, whose number reached thousands, to reflect the humor taste and appreciation of the masses to the magazine. The “New Years” section established a relationship with the masses; Intensive mail exchange, cartoons and humor flow were achieved between the magazine and its readers (Öngören, 1998: 118). Gırgır was the first humor magazine whose writers and cartoonists consisted of its own readers. This broke the stagnant humor embodied in Vulture and brought movement and dynamism to the humor. Undoubtedly, the offset technique replacing clichés and bullets in the press ensured that the emphasis in Gırgır was on lines and caricatures rather than writings, which was one of the reasons why large masses turned to Gırgır. It should be noted that the most important element that brings dynamism to Gırgır (especially in the professional sense) is the separation of joke tellers and illustrators, and in this way, jokes and topics to be covered are developed jointly, and a drawing integrity emerges from this (Öngören, 1998: 119).
In Turkey after 1980, the abandonment of the strategy based on import substitution and the adoption of sectoral preferences and neo-liberal economic policies supported by big capital, embodied in the January 24 decisions, led to the centralization and concentration of capital; Sectors such as banking, business and finance came to the fore and caused the formation of a new middle class and a new urban culture. It was inevitable that this change would be reflected in humor. There was a new global city; There were new people living in this city and of course there would be new forms of humor. With the dissolution of the neighborhood, the humor of the new city dealt with the collapse of the "We" feeling, the new middle classes putting a distance between themselves and Gırgır's "little man", and the values of the youth who adopted the new urban identity in his cartoons. The popularity of new business areas (banking, economics, business, etc.) led to the emulation of liberal life and values in social life. Of course, humor was also affected by these. Although the post-80s and especially the '90s gave the impression that the criticality of humor was damaged, the global big city also gave birth to new, alternative, destructive, radical and hopeless examples of black humor.
Is it possible to say that Turkish humor constitutes the unity of Modern Turkey and the Turkish Nation, which has been discussed extensively since Ziya Gökalp? It's really hard to say this. Humor is not constructionist in nature; It has a deconstructive quality. As mentioned above, humor gives a grotesque meaning by mixing the real with the imaginary. Since it involves judging everything in the existing world, all kinds of "unity" tensions, values and norms for the reconstruction of society will be met with criticism by humor. It would be appropriate for the purpose of the article to respond to the debates about the unity of the Turkish Nation with Orhan Pamuk's subtle wit:
“Today, it is not the unity of language, culture or history that ensures the unity of Turkey. I added Aygaz union, Spor Toto union, Kelebek Mobilya union, [Turkcell union, Telsim union. AA] etc. etc.”
THERE WAS LAUGHTER IN THE BEGINNING
According to the 3rd century BC Egyptian papyrus, the universe was created by laughter. The Egyptian God would drive away chaos with his laughter and replace it with a universe full of joy:
“When God laughed, seven gods were born to rule the world... When he burst into laughter, there was light... When he burst into laughter a second time, waters were formed; At his seventh laugh the soul was born.” (cited in Sanders, 2001: 17).
Apparently the Egyptian God was not as dignified as the God of the Jews. We know that God almost never laughed in the Old Testament. It is almost devoid of solemn, serious, cheerful laughter. There is nothing funny about a being who knows everything and has infinite power. The God of the Jews knows everything in the past, present and future. However, for the Egyptian God and for us, life is full of surprises. At any moment, a discrepancy, a difference that surprises us, may arise. We never know what will happen next moment. A disharmony can arise at any time that can fill us with joy and enthusiasm.
Humor and laughter have been areas of freedom created by human imagination throughout history. Because Laughter has always shown the world in a different way. Indeed, governments and people without a sense of humor believe that what is defined as right is quite clear and obvious and that all people should think the same. It is clear that laughter, which is an "underground movement and the voice of those who cannot be heard", disrupts these divine plans. The government cannot use laughter for its own purposes either, because, as Bakhtin said, throughout history laughter “has never been a tool to suppress and blind people; It has always remained a weapon of freedom.”
Surrealism, one of the most important modernist movements, shows us that everything must be destroyed before charting a new path and that laughter is the most important weapon used to break the yoke of hypocrisy (Duplessis, 1991: 24). According to the surrealists, humor is not only destructive. It posits a universe where everything is new. In this universe, the mind is disconnected from conventional perception and experiences the surprise of the unexpected. The mind enables the introverted unconscious "I" to emerge carefree and thus reach another reality, the superreality (Duplessis, 1991: 25-27). This is actually the emergence of a new Aesthetic and a new Poetic Absolute.
In Praise of Madness, Erasmus says that the only thing that provides us with everything we value in life is not reason but madness. Couldn't it be what Erasmus talked about that motivated Don Quixote, Gargantua and Captain Ahab? The description of those who are eager to laugh as "crazy" and "crazy" confirms this to us. Laughter, a form of "madness", dreams and makes us dream of the life we live being rebuilt from scratch with each spring (Oskay, 2001). Humor tells us about new and libertarian utopias. It opens its doors (even though it is not the utopia of black humor). A person who laughs gets rid of the burden of the past; Making a mockery of the narrow-mindedness of the government becomes a heartening experience for ordinary people. Laughter is revealing the unusual. What is unusual means preventing pragmatic, "rational", rigid reasoning thought from instrumentalizing our universe of reality. Nietzsche also says that the only thing that can take people beyond traditional morality and liberate them absolutely and definitively is unchained, deforming laughter.
No comments