Rethinking Humour

Robin Williams in 'Good Will Hunting'

This post is to reflect on the relationship between humour and me in helping conversations. 

On reflection, I used to hold a slightly negative view on producing humour in helping conversations.  It is a kind of cheat — a way to avoid the real work, or to collude with the clients, or even to entertain them for the ‘5’ rating.  Humour, I believed, was what you used when you do not want to face something important. Looking back, that belief probably reflected my own discomfort rather than anything inherent about humour itself.

Two incidents in the last decade started to make me see humour differently. 

First, during the lockdown in COVID, I personally experienced how humour successfully helped me and others withstand stressful or even helpless situation.  See my post ‘Appreciating Defence’.

Second, a few years ago I was in a group supervision with a supervisor of very unique style.   Very much informed by system-psychodynamics, she often brought in potentially discomforting hypotheses on our group unconscious processing.  We indeed felt uncomfortable at times in realizing how we went off-task unconsciously.  Yet, we were never overwhelmed and in fact we often took in the hypotheses with laughter.  She demonstrated a particular way of raising serious stuff in a humorous way. It tactfully calmed our potential defence without diluting the insight.   (In fact, it is one of the reasons why I have asked her to be my own coaching supervisor since then.)

My relationship with humour started to change.  Humour — carefully attuned, relational, respectful — can bring more depth rather than less.  It can open space. It can soften shame. It can help clients (and teams) approach difficult truths without feeling exposed or blamed.

Humour does not necessarily replace the work.   It creates more room for it.

From “This Might Be Avoidance” to “This Might Be a Doorway”

Helping conversations often come with an unspoken weight. The expectations, the anxieties, the sense of being observed or judged — can make the room heavy.  Receiving psychotherapy in particular often comes with the notion of ‘I need to be fixed’.   A touch of lightness can shift the entire dynamic. Not silliness. Not flippancy. Just enough playfulness to remind BOTH of us that we are human.   Humour, in this sense, is not entertainment.   It is a relational stance and it signals safety. 

It can sometimes ‘de-pathologize’ the client.  I once had a client who was trapped with the sense of failure after being heavily criticised by his boss.   After acknowledging his challenging situation, I shared with him a line I recently read online – ‘In life, one cannot avoid being fed with shit sometimes.  Just do not chew for too long’.  He laughed and seemingly started to get unstuck.  We moved to reflect on the learning from the boss’ feedback.

Humour as an Equaliser

In helping conversation, both practitioner and client can fall into the ‘expert vs patient’ roles - the one to fix and the one with the problem to be fixed.   Or the ‘first order position’ as described in the systemic family psychotherapy field.   Humour can also help rebalance power, especially when practitioners can use themselves as subject of humour.   It shifts the frame from “expert vs patient” to ‘two humans exploring something together’, which is supposed to be the case in coaching and a more desirable position for some occasions in therapy.

What This Looks Like

These are small ways I now weave humour into conversations:

Light exaggeration

• “You like movies. If the relationship with your boss in the last few years is a movie, what title would you give it?’

Playful personification

• “If that inner voice has a name, what would it be?”

Catching the ‘Here and Now’

• Client: “I’m terrible with boundaries.”

  
  

  Me: “You’ve just set one — by declaring it.”

Robin Williams’ Style

However, it is not just about words, but also other factors like tone, pace, timing and body language.  And it is highly contextual and thus requires practitioners’ high level of situation awareness.  There must be resources or even courses on how to become more humorous.   For me, I find that a gentle fun-seeking smile always help.   And having in my mind a role model also helps. 

The late actor - Robin Williams - is the first one coming to my mind.  For example, the therapist character (Sean Maguire) he played in the movie ‘Good Will Hunting’ had a particular kind of humour.  He was animated, witty, playful, provocative but also empathetic.  

I cannot help pause here and ask myself - Being ‘provocative’ and ‘empathetic’ seem to be very different, if not opposite, qualities.  Can they really co-exist?   I think so if the intervention comes from the place of care.   In fact, it is George Kohlrieser’s idea of ‘Care to Dare’.   See my previous post ‘Care first, then dare’.  

For me, Robin Williams represents a stance, rather than a script to imitate. Overall, to improve my humour, I find it useful to reflect on the questions ‘How would Robin Williams intervene in this situation?  What would he say and how he may look like?’

Banter

Such Robin Williams’ style is the particular type of humour I want to do more of in helping conversation.   The closest English word I have encountered is ‘to banter’.  By the Oxford dictionary, the word means:

‘Playfully teasing remarks exchanged with another person or group‘

… among many other verbs relating to humour which I do not intent to have:

- Mock – To tease or laugh at in a contemptuous matter

- Kid – To playfully tease or deceive someone

- Joke – To say things to cause amusement

- Tease – To make fun of or playfully annoy someone

The closest Chinese word for banter would be 調侃which means friendly teasing.  On the other hand, what I would avoid is 取笑(to make fun of), 揶揄(to tease with sarcasm), 逗 (to amuse).

Raising Awareness

I find bantering fits well with the systems-psychodynamics approach.  It can help name defence mechanisms with a lower chance of activating defensiveness.   Let me examine this idea with an incident which I encountered many years ago.  I was coaching an intact team which led a global hospitality brand in China.   The pre-event 1:1 interviews already pointed to a pattern of scapegoating the CFO as THE one who blocked the business from growing.

The following described a moment in the workshop

CEO said: “We’re stalled again because the CFO hasn’t delivered the model.”

COO echoed: “Yes, this keeps happening.”

(CFO looks uneasy.)

Me: “I’d like to pause. I’m noticing that responsibility for the delay is being placed on one person.  Before we continue, I want to check whether this is accurate or whether we might be seeing a group pattern — a concentration of frustration onto a single member.”

CEO reluctantly said: “Okay, let’s look at the wider picture.”

The inquiry could become more gentle if I could have incorporated bantering:

Me with a mischievous smile: “I’m going to offer a tiny, light observation.   It sounds like we’ve unofficially promoted the CFO to Chief Officer of All Delays. Quite a job description.”  (Hopefully the room would soften.)

Before we print the business cards… is it possible the team has handed one person the ‘blame cape’ so the rest of us feel more certain?   It happens all the time in groups under pressure. Shall we check if this delay might actually be shared?”

Both approaches bring out the hypothesis but the banter likely leads to better acceptance.

In a way, such Robin Williams’ style of enquiry is further to the metaphor of Dorothy (in Wizard of Oz) as discussed in the previous post.  Thinking of Sherlock (Robert Downey), Dorothy and Sean (Robin Williams) as metaphorical systems-psychodynamics-informed practitioners who try to discover the unconscious processing.  Sherlock shows off, Dorothy accompanies and Sean banters.

Conclusion and Caution

Writing this blog post crystallises my evolving relationship with humour.   It definitely worths for me to put more conscious effort in ‘deploying’ this approach.  After all, I am often experienced as too serious and uptight at work.  Bringing my humour which exists more in my personal life can make me more resourceful.  

Yet, words of caution for myself and my reader.   Like all other types of interventions, we need to be reflexive about whether we banter to serve ourselves (e.g. to be liked by the clients) or to serve the clients’ need.   In addition, humour tends to be a risky intervention as there is often only a fine line between being perceived as humorous or offensive.   Got to use it after establishing ood working alliance and / or start with self-depreciating humour.

What is your take on humour in helping conversations?