Jesting through the snow
Or rather, the fire, flooding and all round madness we're amidst
I often think about how best to bring my love of comedy into the ‘workplace’. Over time this has evolved into a more serious exploration of how we might bring back the Jester.
Before opening up such dialogue, you might like to watch the below:
As you can see, Jester’s are pretty bad ass. They’ve played important roles across continents and contexts for millennia. The safety net within which satire and other forms of humour could meet those with power, call attention to hypocrisy and other issues, and enable ‘leaders’ to see logical fallacies, feels like an overwhelmingly obvious sociocultural norm. It feels like something we ‘ought’ to have.
But today, amidst the total ecosystem of all global crises and the common underlying dynamics that generate catastrophic and existential risks (i.e. the metacrisis), we are missing the Jester.
Let me give you an example that might harden the point.
The latest COP recently ended. This was the 28th instalment. I cannot do all activities, potential outcomes, conversations or patterns justice. Such a comprehensive analysis, within it’s broader historical context, is so far beyond the scope of this article it feels silly for me to even be saying this. But, caveats are important. So here you go.
Anyways, one of the things that basically blew up the internet was the COP28 President, Sultan Al Jaber, claiming there was “no science” to indicate that phasing out fossil fuels was necessary to keep global heating below 1.5 degrees celcius.
You know what’s crazy? I agree.
WTF!
Why?
Because it looks like we’re already there. Thanks Berkeley for confirming what to me, and many others, has seemed likely for quite some time.
Now, Earth System Science is complex AF. I’m not an Earth System Scientist. I work with folks in this transdiscipline (and support many projects in these areas). But I, like you, likely have to epistemically defer on many of these technical details. Getting into how I build confidence in the direction and strength of ‘evidence’ is a different story. So as above, consider this a relevant caveat.
But this wasn’t the Sultan’s point. The Sultan was not suggesting we may have already breached the 1.5 degree limit, that we actually need some hardcore carbon removal, that we need to find ways to meaningfully adapt, that we need to act ambitiously now, yet take the long term view (I could go on). He was suggesting something different. Something that, given the preponderance of scientific evidence, seems utterly ridiculous.
So what are his motivations? Does he want COP28 to truly be successful? Does he want to see a world where all people genuinely thrive, within the physical limits of earth systems?
No.
He’s one of the primary beneficiaries of fossil fuels.
His extrinsic (I can’t say anything about the intrinsic here) motivation seems obvious. He wants to continue benefitting from the extraction, production and consumption of fossil fuels.
Enter the Jester.
Imagine the Sultan has just made this unfounded claim. The room is shocked. The media starts to blow up. But, the Jester keeps her cool. She starts circling the room. She chuckles a little. She starts playing with the point.
“Sultan, maybe you’re right.”
Silence.
Oh shit, where is this going…?
“Maybe the data we’ve seen from Berkeley and other organisations is all bull shit.”
The Sultan isn’t pleased, but remains somewhat poised.
“Maybe every bit of evidence we have gathered, gone over again and again with a fine tooth comb, systematically critiqued and matched to real world observations is wrong."
He looks slightly more pleased than expected.
“Or maybe your head is way too far up your own ass!”
Mic drop.
After a brief awkward silence, the room begins laughing.
He’s pissed.
Remember, this is a world where Jesting in formal contexts such as this is a norm. It’s part of how we engage in dialogue. It’s part of how we sense make. It’s part of how we keep power in check.
“Here’s what I reckon. I reckon you’re primary incentive is to continue extracting, producing and incentivising the consumption of fossil fuels. I reckon this is clouding your capacity to see clearly. I reckon you need to get out of your own way and actually consider what it might be like to be one of the many millions of current victims of planetary instability…”
He knows this is part of the process, but holy crap it makes him uncomfortable.
Then the invitation.
“Come journey with me. Take my hand as we explore what is, what might be, and how we can work together to make better happen.”
The jester has kicked off the jesting process. She has opened up the very real possibility that the Sultan’s point of view is overwhelmingly skewed as a result of what extrinsically motivates him (remember that the story of separation basically tells us that the purpose of life itself is to be wealthy and powerful. I’ve written about that before, so will skip over this crucial context for now). She has invited the Sultan into a different processing context, one where he might get a little closer to seeing, feeling and touching the reality of those impacted by his ideology.
Feels a little hard to imagine, right?
Speak truth to power. Have power actually respect the process. Have the process yield deeper deliberation and discourse of the highest integrity…
But guess what?
The ideology the Sultan is protecting is just a story. It was something people imagined, expressed, and eventually made part of our ‘reality’.
Because of this, we are not powerless. We have the capacity to re-story, re-connect and re-envisage a world where people live healthy and dignified lives, whilst also respecting biophysical limits (unlike the stories we create, articulate and reinforce, there are hard limits here. This isn’t some political game with political targets. This is real real).
It’s my belief that the process of jesting - especially in these formal, high stakes, typically high BS contexts - can help us more deeply engage, more clearly see and more coherently act to bring about a preferable future.
What do you think? Can you imagine this (not the rushed content I briefly allude to above, but the ‘spirit’ of what I’m suggesting) becoming part of how we engage in formal settings? Can you imagine this playing a role in our workplaces? Can you imagine us holding the difficulty and tension with lightness? Can you imagine us playing with the terrifying? Can you imagine us laughing together?
I can.
With love as always.