Tom Ryan explores the role of humour in sibling-hood and how it challenges the ‘joy deficit’ idea in learning disability studies research.
Analysing the Intimate: Learning Disabilities, Sibling-hood and Humour
Humour plays a central part in the experiences of siblings of people with learning disabilities, but analysing this raises a number of challenges and questions. Humour is understood as a core part of family life, with siblinghood often being characterised as a humorous, even if at times conflictual, relationship. It is also important to note the potentially troubling relationship between disability and humour to ensure research is not inadvertently contributing to this. Analysing humour between siblings therefore requires careful understanding of both the context of family humour but also recognition of the wider discussions around humour and disability. In the following, I address some of these challenges alongside the ‘joy deficit’ in disability studies, arguing that humour is one way of making joy a more central part of how we discuss learning disability.
The joy deficit in disability studies research
Stef Shuster and Laurel Westbrook (2022) refer to a ‘joy deficit’ in their discussions of experiences of transgender people, arguing that sociologists tend to focus on social harms and thus contribute to wider social understandings of marginalised experiences as inherently difficult. This creates a situation in which deficit understandings become the norm. A ‘lack of joy’ is also attributed to disability studies (Sunderland et al, 2009). Research on the experiences of siblings of people with learning disabilities has historically taken an individualised approach, often focusing on how the person with learning disabilities makes life more difficult for the rest of the family (See Meltzer and Kramer, 2016 for a comprehensive overview of the field). An example of this can be found in discussions of ‘glass children’, which refers to children who are overlooked on account of parents focusing solely on disabled siblings (Hanvey et al, 2022). Whilst these discussions do speak to some people’s experiences, they leave little room for stories of joy instead focussing solely on a deficit understanding of siblinghood. The lack of recognition of the wider implications of structural ableism within an austerity context means this approach can offer little in the way of supporting people with learning disabilities and their families.
Family sociology and sibling humour
Humour is often presented as a central part of family life, with its joyful elements meaning it is ‘highly appreciated and often preferred over other modes of communication” (Fiadotava, 2021, 16). The family stories we return to are often those people find funny and take joy in retelling (Everts, 2003).
Family sociology offers an understanding of being a sibling that is rooted in nuance and a recognition of the complexities of the relationship. Such nuanced understanding is missing from a lot of research around siblinghood and learning disabilities, which often focuses on the outcomes of non-disabled siblings (Meltzer and Kramer, 2016, Ryan, 2024). This can lead to a portrayal of siblings with learning disabilities framed through deficit, where there is not the opportunity to be annoying, conflictual, selfish siblings without it being interpreted in some way as a ‘lack’ or a ‘challenge’ for the non-disabled siblings to overcome (Ryan, 2024). The same applies in more positive moments. Through focusing on deficit, little recognition is given to people with learning disabilities as funny, loving, and caring siblings.
The nuance of siblinghood is particularly clear in humour. Alongside joyful family jokes, teasing is often understood as an expected part of a childhood with siblings. It has been argued that teasing constitutes a sign of closeness, without which jokes would not be teasing but instead insulting (Lampert and Ervin-Tripp, 2006). Whilst what constitutes insult is subjective, this points to an understanding of teasing that requires a level of closeness to pull off without the risk of upsetting those involved. These understandings highlight the need for nuance in approaching family humour and a recognition that what might not be appropriate in some contexts can be appropriate within close relationships, such as family.
Contextualising humour and who can be funny
It is essential to acknowledge the controversial relationship between disability and humour, with problematic jokes about disability commonplace socially and in the media. This context should be kept central as we ask questions about siblinghood and humour.
It is important to consider who is allowed to be funny. Hanna Bertilsdotter Rosqvist (2012) critiques the commonplace notion of autistic people as ‘humourless’, noting how humour is often presented as a ‘universal human quality’ and to be placed ‘outside’ of this perpetuates deficit understanding. We must of course be mindful of the essentialism of the notion of a ‘universal human quality’ as well as the material implications of being placed outside of what is considered ‘human’. Similarly, there is a tendency in research around humour and learning disabilities to raise questions about comprehension (Chadwick and Platt, 2018), the implication being that people with learning disabilities could not possibly be intentionally funny. In my interviews with siblings of people with learning disabilities, stories of siblings making jokes that were subversive and deliberate were commonplace, showing how questions of comprehension can be misplaced. Within the context of questions around comprehension and being ‘humourless’, discussing humour can work to counter deficit narratives around siblinghood and learning disabilities, and by extension contribute to ensuring the humanity of people with learning disabilities is recognised.
For Reid Stoughton and Smith (2006, 631) there is a distinction between ‘disabling humour’ and ‘disability humour’; ‘disabling humour’ is humour that is ‘denigrating’ and punches down; ‘disability humour’ ‘centres disability or is offered by disabled persons.’ This distinction offers an understanding of how we could joke about disability in unproblematic ways and raises questions around whether siblings could be included in the definition of ‘disability humour’. When read alongside family sociology and the almost inevitable humour that comes with growing up together, there is a question about whether siblinghood offers a space where humour considered offensive or controversial in wider society can take on a different meaning as ‘teasing’ between close siblings. There is not a simple answer to this, but ideas around ‘disability by association’ (Burke, 2010; Scavarda, 2023) that point to family members experiencing the impacts of ableism, even if not first hand, offer a reading that might enable some acceptance of siblings joking about their lived experiences.
Using humour to address the joy deficit
Humour is one avenue through which the joy deficit can be addressed as humorous stories allow for joy to be made central in research around learning disabilities, particularly when considering the prevalence of perceptions of certain groups as humourless and therefore less human. Through a joyful lens we see further the importance of research that addresses and unpacks humour in traditionally taboo spaces. As I mentioned at the beginning, humour and teasing can be viewed as a sign of closeness. This is captured wonderfully in Manni Coe’s reflections in the book Brother.Do.You.Love.Me.:
‘Growing up with Reuben has taught me not to take life too seriously. From an early age, he learned to be teased by three older brothers with giggles and grace as we layered nicknames on him: Ruebs, Booba, Boobs, Boobaliscous, The Ruebenator, Rueber Booba, Bond Reuben Bond, 0021, the list goes on. But we have never, ever crossed the line. We’ve always laughed with Rueben. And I believe we have a licence to be that way, because anything else feels contrived. Do you know brothers that don’t tease each other? Why behave differently unless you want someone to feel different?’ (Coe and Coe, 2023: 111)
This extract captures the joy and care that goes into sibling humour and recognises humour as an avenue for inclusion. For Coe it would be wrong not to tease Reuben as teasing forms a central part of being a sibling in their family.
Concluding thoughts: Humour as a counter to deficit understandings
Humour is one way to challenge the joy deficit in siblinghood and learning disability research. Humour can be inclusive, loving, joyous and fun, offering a chance to push back against dominant deficit understandings of being a sibling and to place joy as a central part of these experiences. Disability researcher Gareth Thomas (2022, 2), reflecting on interviews with parents, argues they ‘revolt against dominant conceptions of parenting a disabled child as a source of despair, fear, and no future’. Humour offers an avenue to build on this from a sibling perspective and to further revolt against narratives about the ‘lack’ or absence of humour. This is not to say joy should take precedence over more difficult emotions, however the ups and downs of family life should be approached more openly and holistically, to ensure individualised deficit narratives do not remain unchallenged.
About the author
Tom is a PhD student based in the School of Education at the University of Sheffield. His work explores experiences of siblings of people with learning disabilities, with a focus on counter-narratives that challenge commonplace pathological understandings of disability and siblinghood.
References
Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H. (2012) ‘The politics of joking: narratives of humour and joking among adults with Asperger’s syndrome’, Disability & society, 27(2), pp. 235–247. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.644933.
Burke, P. (2010) ‘Brothers and Sisters of Disabled Children: The Experience of Disability by Association’, The British journal of social work, 40(6), pp. 1681–1699. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcp088.
Chadwick, D. D. and Platt, T. (2018) ‘Investigating humor in social interaction in people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of the literature’, Frontiers in psychology, 9, pp. 1745–1745. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01745.
Coe, M. and Coe, R., (2024) Brother. Do. You. Love. Me., Margate: Greystone Books
Everts, E. (2003) ‘Identifying a particular family humor style: A sociolinguistic discourse analysis’, Humor (Berlin, Germany), 16(4), pp. 369–412. doi:10.1515/humr.2003.021.
Fiadotava, A. (2021) ‘“If we don’t quarrel, we joke”: Emic perspectives on Belarusian families’ humorous folklore’, Humor (Berlin, Germany), 34(1), pp. 1–20. doi:10.1515/humor-2019-0052.
Hanvey, I., Malovic, A. and Ntontis, E. (2022) ‘Glass children: The lived experiences of siblings of people with a disability or chronic illness’, Journal of community & applied social psychology, 32(5), pp. 936–948. doi: 10.1002/casp.2602.
Lampert, M.D. and Ervin-Tripp, S.M. (2006) ‘Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends’, Journal of pragmatics, 38(1), pp. 51–72. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004.
Meltzer, A. and Kramer, J. (2016) ‘Siblinghood through disability studies perspectives: diversifying discourse and knowledge about siblings with and without disabilities’, Disability & society, 31(1), pp. 17–32. doi:10.1080/09687599.2015.1127212.
Punch, S. (2008) ‘’You can do Nasty Things to your Brothers and Sisters without a Reason’: Siblings’ Backstage Behaviour’, Children & society. Accepted date: 13 July 2007, 22(5), pp. 333–344. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2007.00119.x
Reid, D.K., Stoughton, E.H. and Smith, R.M. (2006) ‘The Humorous Construction of Disability: ‘Stand-Up’ Comedians in the United States’, Disability & society, 21(6), pp. 629–643. doi:10.1080/09687590600918354.
Ryan, T., (2024), “Learning Disabilities and Siblings”. In Oxford Bibliographies in Childhood Studies, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199791231/obo-9780199791231-0292.xml (accessed 13 Nov. 2024).
Scavarda, A., (2023) Disability by association for siblings of adolescents and adults with cognitive disabilities, Disability & Society, doi: 10.1080/09687599.2023.2215393
Shuster, S. M. and Westbrook, L. (2022) ‘Reducing the Joy Deficit in Sociology: A Study of Transgender Joy’, Social problems (Berkeley, Calif.). doi: 10.1093/socpro/spac034.
Sunderland, N., Catalano, T. and Kendall, E. (2009) ‘Missing discourses: concepts of joy and happiness in disability’, Disability & society, 24(6), pp. 703–714. doi: 10.1080/09687590903160175.
Thomas, G., (2022). ‘We wouldn’t change him for the world, but we’d change the world for him’: parents, disability, and the cultivation of a positive imaginary. Current Anthropology.
