Is It All a Laugh?

There's a clip doing the rounds from Andrew Huberman's podcast — an interview with Dr Dacher Keltner about male friendship that makes an interesting claim. Men bond through paying each other out. The banter, the ribbing, the pet names and the jokes at each other's expense, all of it is actually a form of trust-building. When you let someone laugh at you, and you laugh back, you're communicating: I trust you enough to be vulnerable, and I've got your back.

The Good Version

There's a reason the Huberman clip resonates. Most men with close friendships will recognise something true in it. The groups of friends who can laugh hardest at each other are often the ones who would drop everything to show up in a crisis. The banter is a language — shorthand for a level of trust that took years to build.

Tim sees it in his own friendships. Joel sees it in the boys who came to his son's baptism at the Easter river service and congratulated him publicly, without any awkwardness about the seriousness of what had just happened — because the friendship was solid enough to hold both the silliness and the significance at the same time.

And there's something worth naming about the context Joel describes: a bucks party where the guys sit around and say genuinely encouraging things about the groom. Where someone suggests they pray for each other. That's not nothing. That's years of discipleship showing up in a format the world would use very differently.

The Dangerous Version

But Tim raises a concern that won't go away. The same dynamic that builds trust in a secure friendship can mask something much more damaging in an insecure one.

He's thinking about adolescents, the strength of the pull toward group belonging in teenage years, the way a young person will laugh along with something that's genuinely hurting them on the inside, because the alternative is worse. Because not laughing means not belonging, and not belonging in adolescence is its own kind of crisis.

Tim names the proverb that cuts through all the nuance: like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death is the one who deceives their neighbour and says, I was only joking. Proverbs 26:18-19. There's a category of humour that is actually weaponised criticism. The joke is real. The "only joking" is the get-out clause that removes accountability while the damage remains.

The danger isn't just the joke itself. It's what happens when someone tries to name the hurt. An unhealthy relationship responds to that with: don't be so sensitive, it was just a laugh, I can't believe you're making this a thing. At that point the banter isn't building trust — it's enforcing compliance.

The Australian Complication

Stu has been thinking about this longer than almost anyone. And what he brings to the conversation is a layer that goes beyond individual friendships into the cultural architecture underneath them.

NT Feather, a psychologist who has written extensively on the tall poppy syndrome in Australia, argues that Australians use sarcasm and banter not just to bond but to regulate. To make sure nobody gets too big for their boots. To keep the grass at an even height. It's egalitarianism enforced through humour, and while it presents as anti-hierarchical, Feather's argument is that it's actually a power structure of its own. You can have status in the group as long as you let the group laugh at you. You can lead as long as you accept the mockery as the check on your authority.

The person who specifically joined parish council because he disagrees with Stu, then laughed at the end of saying it, in the distinctly Australian way that communicates both the affection and the limit at once. I love you, but don't get too big for your boots. The laugh is the punctuation on the power relationship.

And then there's the darker version of this, which Stu traces with considerable personal honesty. The boy in the youth group in the 90s who survived by being more racist about his own heritage than the white kids around him. The pressure to dress like the world, drink like the world, respond to a bucks party like the world, because the price of non-compliance is expulsion from the community.

Gramsci called this hegemony: the way dominant cultural norms are maintained not through overt force but through social pressure that makes non-compliance feel like the problem. When Stu told the youth group they couldn't use sexist language anymore, some of them expelled him from their social world. Not violently. Just withdrawal. Silence. The sense that he'd broken an unspoken rule and disqualified himself from belonging.

He's not claiming the full Gramscian framework. But he is naming something real: that banter can be a mechanism for enforcing conformity, and that the cost of non-conformity can be social death. Which means "it's just a laugh" can sometimes be the cover story for "you will comply or you won't belong here."

The Bucks Party

Stu’s mate put him in stocks — literally, a physical wooden stock restraining his arms — and took him to see a film called Misery as a joke about marriage. The implicit message, buried in the comedy: you're giving up your freedom, we're laughing at the institution you're entering, and we're laughing a little at Louise too.

Stu and his brother, neither of them raised in banter culture, both from a household where words were used to build up rather than cut down, didn't find it funny. His brother left, found a hardware store, bought a saw, and cut Stu out of the stocks.

And then everyone went home. The mates who had arranged the whole thing left, and didn't speak to them properly again. At the wedding, one of the bridal party was visibly awkward, because Stu and Greg hadn't got the joke, hadn't gone along with the bit, had opted out of the hegemony.

The thing that strikes Stu most, looking back, is that the choice in that moment wasn't really between laughing and not laughing. It was between compliance and expulsion. The humour was the vehicle for a much more serious demand: be like us, or you don't belong.

Does Jesus Ever Make a Joke?

The theological question the episode circles back to is genuinely interesting: did Jesus have a sense of humour? Some scholars read jokes into his interactions, the wordplay on Peter's name, the sarcasm in his address to the Pharisees. But Stu pushes back on this with something worth sitting with.

As far as he can tell, when God laughs in scripture, it's a laughter of judgment. The Psalms describe God laughing at the nations who plot against him, not with fondness, but with the contempt of the one who sees clearly and knows how it ends. In the book of Nahum, God's laughter precedes judgment on Assyria. The laughter is power, not warmth.

This doesn't mean Jesus was humourless. He was fully human, and joy is a fruit of the Spirit, which means there must be a sanctified version of laughter and delight. But it's worth noticing that the attempt to read easy human banter into Jesus's interactions might be more about making him feel familiar than reading the text carefully.

Where Joyfulness Fits

Creation: there's a creational joyfulness. God made a platypus. He made colours that nobody needed to see but that are beautiful. There's delight and frivolity built into the fabric of things. Joy is woven into creation before the fall.

Fall: humour gets corrupted. It becomes a weapon, a power play, a mask for hurt, a tool for enforcing conformity. James's warning about the tongue setting a forest on fire applies here, a small word can do catastrophic damage, and calling it a joke doesn't undo what it did.

Redemption: joy is a fruit of the Spirit. It can be redeemed. Friendships built in Christ, shaped by the gospel, held in community with older and wiser people — those friendships can carry banter that is genuinely bonding, that has grace and forgiveness and maturity built in, that can name hurt when it happens without the relationship collapsing.

Consummation: what does joyfulness look like in new creation? What role does humour play in resurrection bodies, in the presence of Jesus, in the fully redeemed experience of human community? It's a question worth sitting with.

The answer to "is it just a laugh?" is: no, probably not. But that doesn't mean the laugh is bad. It means it needs to be handled with the care that befits something that powerful.

Discussed on this episode
Cultivating Awe & Emotional Connection in Daily Life | Dr. Dacher Keltner and Andrew Huberman

NT Feather on tall poppy syndrome
Miroslav Volf's Exclusion and Embrace
Chester Pierce on microaggressions
Gramsci's concept of hegemony

Get in touch

Shock Absorber Email: joel@shockabsorber.com.au
Shock Absorber Website: shockabsorber.com.au
Soul Revival Shop: soulrevival.shop