A Polarization Effect?

I love how Faith took a different approach in looking at humor. We've studied this topic in depth from many philosophers' standpoints. And, we've discussed through blogs a little about how humor is used in science. It is interesting to hear the sociological view on humor.

I do agree humor plays a major role in our human interactions...that part is obvious. But, whether or not these humorous interactions influence our values and beliefs...this is a harder, interesting, and more complicated question. I believe in a way all human interactions with others influence our beliefs. When challenged with another perspective (especially one with a solid argument), it's human nature to rethink our ideologies. However, claiming jokes play a (major or even minor) role in changing our beliefs, is a difficult argument to prove. Considering the nature of humor (silly and normally not evidence-based), a person with a solid ideology is most likely not going to be influenced. More than anything, I believe jokes about politically controversial topics tend to make extremists angry. These jokes almost in a way lead to more polarization. I know if someone joked about something I didn't agree with, I wouldn't necessarily be angry but I would feel concern.

This argument is a difficult one to make primarily because most jokes don't employ much well-thought-out evidence. Look at the Trump joke for instance. The joke is witty and clever none the less. But, where is the proof or evidence for Trump actually having a mental illness? If the guy in Faith's scenario is a strong Trump supporter, he's most likely not going to question his views without logically proof his beliefs are wrong.

Comments

  1. UnknownNovember 1, 2018 at 12:30 PM

    I agree that jokes on political views can definitely make people that do not agree with it angry and probably concerned as well. If they have their own belief they are likely not going to be swayed by someone else's view in the form of a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Caroline BassNovember 1, 2018 at 4:15 PM

    Awesome post, Hannah! I especially like your last point that strong Trump supporters are unlikely to question their beliefs without logical proof (and sometimes even with logical proof, but I will only leave that can of worms half-open). In this way, it appears that political jokes actually have the potential to further polarize supporters on either side. I would argue this is at least partly because they don't like stereotypes about their ideologies to be mocked, especially when they are true. They then further retreat into their own in group to hear the ideological echochamber of ideas in order to maintain a favorable view of themself, as proposed by the article "The Irony of Satire".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shane HerronNovember 2, 2018 at 9:23 AM

    What if anything then might be able to challenge beliefs? Does humor have a different way of being effective? Does it have any role?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laugh Track and Its Ambiguous Role

The Office differs from most comedy shows in that it employs a unique comedic style. For example, unlike other sitcoms such as Friends and Seinfeld , The Office does not feature a laugh track into its background noise. One can argue this stylistic choice is to create an increased sense of awkwardness and realism to their static office scene, but I believe just like political satire often employs ambiguity to broaden its audience, The Office is utilizing a similar technique.  The laugh track establishes very set and stone points at which the audience is supposed to laugh. In a way, it is possible, since humor is argued not only to be strongly related to social constructs but part of our social identity, hearing a collective of people laughing encourages us to do the same. Even strong moral me finds herself laughing in Friends along with the laugh track at jokes I would typically deem a violation. Telling jokes followed by awkward pauses and complete silen...
Read more

The Millennial Generation

The analysis you gave this show was fantastic! I found it really interesting how the structure of this show utilizes the superiority theory to its advantage. The show host, Eric Andre, interviews audience members and asks them absurdly uncomfortable questions, so we, the audience, can get a laugh when feeling superior. By knowing what is happening while the audience doesn't and watching their discomfort and reactions to what’s happening, a feeling of superiority from the unaffected audience (the audience watching the show on TV) is possible. The show also involves very incongruous humor because truly no one would really expect any TV show host to ask audience members the questions Eric Andre asks them. What I also found very interesting was how this particular TV show closely relates to what we've been talking about recently, the absurdist humor style of the millennial generation. Considering the Eric Andre show aired in 2012 and the millennial generation starts in 19...
Read more

Ridicule vs. Humor

Based on the comedies I've seen, heard, and read, I believe the three theories can be used to explain all types of humor felt. The theory of incongruity, for example, explains why the typical punchline jokes are humorous. As the listener, we expect the joke to mean one thing, but suddenly it takes an unexpected turn. This unpredictability, according to the incongruity theory, is why we find the joke funny. The incongruity theory, however, cannot be used to explain everything we find comical. For instance, the incongruity theory cannot explain an audience laughing at jokes or skits which do not make unexpected or unrelated comparisons. All examples of incongruity are not always funny because sometimes an audience can find comparisons offense. Occasionally, a listener will take a joke as ridicule rather than humor. However, sometimes offensive jokes are funny. For example, in "The Office", most of Michael Scott's jokes are offensive, but the audience still finds hi...
Read more