When a Joke Becomes Discrimination

Last February, the Court of Cassation[1] rejected the appeal by the pasta company Pastificio Rana of a judgment issued by the Venice Court of Appeals[2]. The Court reaffirmed the conviction against the company for harassing conduct towards a manager who had been fired (the conduct is said to have occurred during 2001 and 2007, the year of the dismissal). Among the elements of this conduct, was that the employee was systematically addressed with the term “fag”.

The company criticized the judgment by arguing that the appeals judges had not recognized the playful nature of the epithets, the climate of camaraderie in which they were formulated, and the fact that the manager had not reacted.

The judgment of the Appeals Court of Venice and the ruling by the Court of Cassation bring attention, among other things, to a series of important questions for organizations: to what point can jokes and so-called camaraderie be taken? Can a joke be worse than an insult? Shouldn’t those in positions and roles of power have more responsibilities?

These aspects regard what is said, but also how people present themselves, physically, in their interactions with others. These are issues that become growingly relevant with the increase of diversity in the composition of the workforce and the visibility of the identity characteristics of workers. In an organization that is uniform in terms of social composition, for example an organization in which there are only heterosexual men of Italian origin, the esprit de corps can easily lead to camaraderie. Even in a situation such as this one, people need to be careful, because in any organization, however homogenous the identities of the members may seem, differences remain based on positions and roles; there will always be someone more equal than the others. Therefore, even in this apparently homogenous context, it is very important to understand who leads the jokes and the mockery, and with what aim: maybe to cover up any form of deviance from a dominant model? To delegitimize the other?

As we were saying, the situation gets complicated when homogeneity diminishes and diversity increases. Individuals have different identities, that sometimes are stigmatized, and are almost always susceptible to stereotypes and prejudice. What can be considered a mere joke for one, can create unease for another.

As we learn from The Name of the Rose, in which the plot is centered on the dangers of laughing and comedy, a joke can be much more insidious than an insult. Managers must therefore increasingly develop an ability to interpret situations in order to avoid, prevent, and potentially manage difficult situations. Those who manage other people must attempt to build a culture of good manners and respect, taking care to ensure that no one difference can be used to cancel another difference. In a social context, such as an organization, not everything can be said and done.

The temptation here is to use a term that is increasingly trivialized, ridiculed, and delegitimized: “politically correct”. This term simply means “good manners”, and suggests that regardless of specific cases, whatever one’s position and role, a colleague, superior, or subordinate should not be defined as a “fag”. To the contrary, those who hold positions of power also have a responsibility to ensure that others don’t use such words. We can hope that this ruling by the Court of Cassation is a lesson, as took place a few years ago with Barilla, its president, and the LGBT community.