The use of humour in diplomatic tweets: The affiliative potential of ridicule

Published date01 September 2021
DOI10.1177/0010836720975458
Date01 September 2021
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720975458
Cooperation and Conflict
2021, Vol. 56(3) 309 –327
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836720975458
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
The use of humour in
diplomatic tweets: The
affiliative potential of ridicule
Akos Kopper
Abstract
Today diplomacy increasingly relies on tweets. Yet, as tweets only allow for 280 characters,
statements must be brief and impactful, which encourages the use of humour in conveying
one’s message. This article scrutinizes irony and ridicule in diplomatic interactions. Even though
these forms of humour may antagonize parties and even turn issues into a security concern, this
article points out that they also have an affiliative aspect and could play a conflict-mediating role.
Because humour, especially irony, is easy to misunderstand (especially in cross-cultural settings),
many warn against using them in diplomatic exchanges. Nevertheless, I will argue that they are
ideal for expressing multi-layered messages, enabling the speaker to rely on what is often called
‘constructive ambiguity’, which is often useful in diplomatic conduct. Two case studies illustrate
the argument. The first focuses on cartoons ridiculing President Wilson in the early 20th century
for his reluctance to commit the US to join WWI (suggesting that cartoons of the time might
be predecessors of today’s tweets), and the second on tweets published by the British Embassy
in London apropos of the Skripal case (offering an example how humorous tweets can convey
multi-layered, complex messages).
Keywords
Affiliative irony, cartoons, constructive ambiguity, diplomacy, humour, ridicule, tweets
Introduction
The aim of this article is to explore the role of humour in international relations, particu-
larly in diplomatic practices. More precisely, it will look at how tweets (and their prede-
cessors, i.e. cartoons) relying on a special category of humour – ridicule – can make
diplomatic interventions.
Being able to laugh is a special quality of humans, and some go as far as calling man a
laughing animal (Billig, 2005: 7). Although humour can help build bridges – as a shared
Corresponding author:
Akos Kopper. ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, 1117 Budapest, Pázmány Péter stny. 1/A, Hungary.
Email: akoskopper@gmail.com
975458CAC0010.1177/0010836720975458Cooperation and ConflictKopper
research-article2020
Article
310 Cooperation and Conflict 56(3)
laugh may overcome previous misgivings between people – humour is highly culture and
context specific, and may be offensive. As Dodds reminds us, not all people appreciate
humour in the same way (Dodds, 2010: 119), or as Pickering and Lockyer put it, humour
is ‘volatile’: what is funny at one time could be taken as offensive on another occasion
(Pickering and Lockyer, 2005: 9). This offence may be intentional, but it might also origi-
nate in a misunderstanding, which may be because either party grasps incorrectly how the
other understood the intervention. Still, ridicule and sarcasm are a special type of humour.
While they build on irony – which can be defined as a humorous, often sardonic interven-
tion often expressing a message by exaggeration or saying the exact opposite of what they
actually mean – ridicule and sarcasm tend to be aggressive, which is not necessarily so in
the case of irony.1 They frequently involve mockery, which makes them particularly prone
to offend.2 Yet sarcasm is not ridicule. What further differentiates ridicule from sarcasm is
that the latter is not only an exchange between two actors bantering among themselves
(something that diplomats and statesmen do as much as anybody else), but it is always in
front of an audience witnessing the situation and the other’s embarrassment.3 From this, it
may be concluded that ridicule is highly inappropriate in diplomatic interactions.
Nevertheless, in this article I am asking whether ridicule in tweets and political cartoons
can have its merits that makes it appropriate in some diplomatic interventions by not
antagonizing parties but bringing them closer together.
Although humour is increasingly studied by International Relations (IR) scholars (see
among others: Dodds and Kirby, 2013; Kuusisto, 2009; Nissen and Tsinovoi, 2018;
Ridanpää, 2009; Särmä, 2015; Waller, 2007), little has been written about the role of ridi-
cule.4 To my knowledge, there are three exceptions. First, Waller argues that ridicule is
an underappreciated weapon that should be used more frequently for fighting one’s ene-
mies, for example, terrorists (Waller, 2007: 109). Second, a recent article by Nissen and
Tsinovo makes insightful connections between humour and misrecognition. Still, their
case study of Israel confirms the offensive power of ridicule, because once the short
videos they discuss reached foreign others, they alienated them, and in their words
‘added fuel to the fire’ (Nissen and Tsinovoi, 2018: 19). The third is Ridanpää’s article
focusing on the problem of the freedom of speech and self-censorship in Finland apropos
of cartoons ridiculing Muslims and Finnish politics. His argument is important for us, as
he suggests that the destructive and affiliative capacities of humour are frequently inter-
twined (Ridanpää, 2009: 746).
The objective of this article is to scrutinize the affiliative capacities of humour. I will
argue first that, counterintuitively, even though arrogance and aggression are character-
istic of ridicule, at times ridicule can form bonds and may play a conciliatory role.
Second, I will point out that although humour (including ridicule) is easy to misunder-
stand (especially in cross-cultural settings), its inherent ambiguity offers the speaker the
opportunity to express multi-layered messages – to combine, for example, threats with
teasing and friendly ribbing – and thereby rely on what is frequently called ‘constructive
ambiguity’, the merits of which have already been highlighted for diplomatic conduct.
The article proceeds in the following steps. After a section on humour and ridicule in
diplomacy, it will discuss the problem of brevity (the inherent problems of interventions
characteristic both of tweets and jokes); next, a short discussion of the conciliatory
capacity of humour will follow. Subsequently, two case studies will analyse the role of

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT