Ridicule is hard to answer and provokes its target into overreaction, which makes it an unusually effective tactic.
Rule five of Rules for Radicals, paraphrased. Alinsky argued that ridicule was almost impossible to counterattack, because a target who responded angrily only looked worse. Later movements took the same approach: the Serbian student movement Otpor used street satire against Slobodan Milošević in the late 1990s, and its organisers went on to teach the method elsewhere.
In practice
- A protest group stages a mock award ceremony for the city's slowest planning decision, and the council's angry reply circulates further than the stunt.
- A colleague who laughs off a pompous memo does more to end the practice than one who writes a formal objection.
- Possible explanations
- One explanation is that humour spreads, since people share what amuses them. Another is that ridicule forces a losing reply: silence concedes and anger confirms. A third is that it lowers onlookers' fear of the powerful.
- In its favour
- Consistent with the documented use of satire by nonviolent movements and with research showing that humour increases how far a message travels.
- Against it
- Ridicule can harden opponents and close off persuasion, and research on contempt suggests it damages the relationships later negotiation depends on. Critics regard it as cruel when aimed at individuals.
- Standing
- Compare the argument paradox.
- Subject
- Communication & Media
- Essay
- Rules for speaking, writing and disagreeing