Description
Humour has a long history as a form of resistance by citizens against states. From authoritarian to democratic states, publics have used humour to speak hard truths, ridicule ideology, and resist censorship, propaganda, and repression. This paper explores how states, rather than publics, use humour to resist seemingly more powerful states, contest dominant images and narratives, and mobilize publics. I argue that with social media, states are increasingly and – strategically – using humour as an asymmetrical tool of influence and public diplomacy.
I make two principal arguments. First, I formulate the concept of strategic humour – the use of humour by state and proxy actors to promote narratives that advance state interests through wider outreach and/or persuasion. This study focuses on contested events, which involve competing narratives from various actors, uncertainty around responsibility or outcomes, and controversy around an actor’s image or international reputation. Strategic humour frames contested events to the advantage of a particular actor, maximizes the appeal and outreach of the message, and makes use of digital media environments. The paper formulates key characteristics of strategic humour, questioning its actors, purpose, audiences, and effects.
Second, I argue that the rapid increase in the use of humorous content to explain foreign policy issues to publics stimulates the emergence of a post-truth public diplomacy, reliant on outreach and popularity mechanisms, fictitious representations, emotive messaging, and exploitation of uncertainty. I demonstrate how strategic humor pursues outreach first and persuasion second.
To make these arguments, this paper reviews a range of cases of strategic humour produced by multiple states and proxy actors: from Israel and the US, to Russia and Ukraine. Additionally, the study involves data from multiple focus groups on strategic humor reception among target audiences, conducted in relation to Russia’s use of foreign policy pranks to narrate foreign policy issues to publics. The paper offers insight into how strategic humour is used as a public diplomacy tool to advance state interests, deflect criticism, legitimate policy, and challenge the narratives of others. Additionally, I question the persuasive potential and limitations of strategic humour as a tool of foreign policy narration.
