Abstract
Studies of humor informed by an understanding of rhetoric offer a number of conceptual tools for the analysis of disparagement humor. This article examines recent rhetorical approaches to humor analysis and evaluates their strengths and weaknesses. Where possible, it seeks to synthesise these approaches for what might be called an emerging methodological branch of humor studies. Although not all rhetorical analysts can be considered critical theorists, the article argues for the particular usefulness of these approaches for critical humor studies. A sample of 28 online anti-Semitic jokes is used to illustrate the various methods of rhetorical humor analysis. The discussion examines the fundamental assumptions, propositions, uniqueness and limitations of each theory. The central observation is that rhetorical humor analysis provides methods that add to disparagement theory. This central observation is supported by three points: that humor is structured with rhetorical devices that might, in various ways, convince; that the context of utterance influences the meaning of humor and thus the context of utterance is rhetorical; and, that the discursive content of humor provides the material to be reinforced.
About the author
Simon Weaver is a Lecturer in Media and Communications in the Department of Social Sciences, Media and Communications at Brunel University London. He completed his PhD in the Department of Sociology, University of Bristol, with a thesis entitled Humour, Rhetoric and Racism: A Sociological Critique of Racist Humour (2007). Simon has published on racist humour in number of journals and in his book, The Rhetoric of Racist Humour (2011: Ashgate). Address: Department of Social Sciences, Media and Communications, College of Business, Arts and Social Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK.
Appendix 1: Berger’s (1995: 54–55) list of forty-five humor techniques
| Technique | Category | Technique | Category |
| 1. Absurdity | Logic | 24. Infantilism | Language |
| 2. Accident | Logic | 25. Insults | Language |
| 3. Allusion | Language | 26. Irony | Language |
| 4. Analogy | Logic | 27. Literalness | Language |
| 5. Before/After | Identity | 28. Mimicry | Identity |
| 6. Bombast | Language | 29. Mistakes | Logic |
| 7. Burlesque | Identity | 30. Misunderstanding | Language |
| 8. Caricature | Identity | 31. Parody | Identity |
| 9. Catalogue | Logic | 32. Puns, Wordplay | Language |
| 10. Chase Scene | Visual | 33. Repartee/Outwitting | Language |
| 11. Coincidence | Logic | 34. Repetition/Pattern | Logic |
| 12. Comparison | Logic | 35. Reversal | Logic |
| 13. Definition | Language | 36. Ridicule | Logic |
| 14. Disappointment | Logic | 37. Rigidity | Logic |
| 15. Eccentricity | Identity | 38. Sarcasm | Language |
| 16. Embarrassment | Identity | 39. Satire | Language |
| 17. Exaggeration | Language | 40. Scale/Size | Identity |
| 18. Exposure | Identity | 41. Slapstick | Visual |
| 19. Facetiousness | Language | 42. Speed | Visual |
| 20. Grotesque | Identity | 43. Stereotypes | Identity |
| 21. Ignorance | Logic | 44. Theme and Variation | Logic |
| 22. Imitation | Identity | 45. Unmasking | Identity |
| 23. Impersonation |
Appendix 2: Summary of approaches
| Summary | Fundamental assumptions | Propositions | Uniqueness | Limitations |
| Author | ||||
| Jerry Palmer | Humor is metaphorical in structure. The peripeteia is constitutive of the joke. | A humorous peripeteia is less ‘plausible’ than a metaphor. | Shows the important connection between humor and metaphor. | The argument that humor is less plausible than metaphor, if accepted, removes the scope for critical analysis. |
| Arthur Asa Berger | Rhetorical devices structure humor. | Rhetorical devices persuade people to laugh. | Provides a list of 48 rhetorical humorous devices. | Humor analysis remains uncritical. |
| Kenneth Burke | The comic can be used to respond to aggression. Through it, perceptions of mistakenness replace perceptions of evil | The comic can circumvent cycles of othering and violence. | Mobilises the comic as a political strategy. | Does not directly analyse humor and joking. |
| Michael Billig | Identifies the importance of history and context in meaning formation. | Jokes are used to express and disclaim violence. | Identifies the meta-discourses that surround and justify humor. | Does not examine the structure of humor and jokes. |
| Laughter and unlaughter have rhetorical impact as ridicule. | Laughter and unlaughter play a key role in social discipline. | Connects humor, discipline and power relations. | Does not account for humor that is not used in ridicule. | |
| Simon Weaver | The rhetoric of humor is formed through the rhetorical triangle (of speaker, audience and content). | The rhetorical triangle should be considered alongside the mode of persuasion. | Provides a method for the critical analysis of humor. | Presents hypothetical readings of humor. |
References
Appadurai, Arjun. 2006. Fear of small numbers. An essay on the geography of anger. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822387541Search in Google Scholar
Berger, Arthur Asa. 1995. Blind men and elephants. Perspectives on humor. New Brunswick, NJ & London: Transaction Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Berger, Arthur Asa. 1998. An anatomy of humor. New Brunswick, NJ & London: Transaction Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Berger, Arthur Asa. 2010a. What’s so funny about that?Society47. 6–10.10.1007/s12115-009-9281-ySearch in Google Scholar
Berger, Arthur Asa. 2010b. Little Britain: An American perspective. In SharonLockyer (ed.), Reading little Britain. Comedy matters on contemporary television, 171–181. London & New York: I.B. Tauris.10.5040/9780755697397.ch-009Search in Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. 2001. Humour and Hatred: The racist jokes of the Ku Klux Klan. Discourse and Society12(3). 267–289.10.1177/0957926501012003001Search in Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. 2002. Freud and the language of humour. The Psychologist15(9). 452–455.Search in Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. 2005. Laughter and ridicule. Towards a social critique of humour. London, Thousand Oaks, CA & New Delhi: Sage.10.4135/9781446211779Search in Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. 1969. A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. 1984 [1937]. Attitudes towards history. 3rd edn. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Daniels, Roger & Spencer C.Olin Jr. 1972. Racism in California. A reader in the history of oppression. New York: The Macmillan Company.Search in Google Scholar
Desilet, Gregory & Edward C.Appel. 2011. Choosing a rhetoric of the enemy: Kenneth Burke’s comic frame, warrantable outrage, and the problem of scapegoating. Rhetoric Society Quarterly41(4). 340–362.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1986. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. London: Macmillan Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ford, Thomas E. & Mark A.Ferguson. 2004. Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review8(1). 79–94.10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4Search in Google Scholar
Goriunova, O. 2012. New media idiocy. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies19(2). 223–235.10.1177/1354856512457765Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, Jerry. 1987. The logic of the absurd. On film and television comedy. London: BFI Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Pérez, Raúl. 2013. Learning to make racism funny in the ‘colour-blind’ era: Stand-up comedy students, performance strategies, and the (re)production of racist jokes in public. Discourse and Society24(4). 478–503.Search in Google Scholar
Rattansi, A. 2007. Racism. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/actrade/9780192805904.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Richardson, John. E. 2006. Analysing newspapers. An approach from critical discourse analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1007/978-0-230-20968-8_7Search in Google Scholar
Waisanen, Don J. 2009. A citizen’s guide to democracy inaction: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s comic rhetorical criticism. Southern Communication Journal74(2). 119–140.10.1080/10417940802428212Search in Google Scholar
Weaver, S. 2010. Developing a rhetorical analysis of racist humour: Examining anti-black jokes on the internet. Social Semiotics20(5). 537–555.10.1080/10350330.2010.513188Search in Google Scholar
Weaver, S. 2011. The rhetoric of racist humour: US, UK and global race joking. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Weaver, S. 2013. A rhetorical discourse analysis of online anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic jokes. Ethnic and Racial Studies36(3). 483–499.10.1080/01419870.2013.734386Search in Google Scholar
Zillman, Dolf. 1983. Disparagement humor. In Paul E. McGee and Jeffrey H. Goldstein (eds.), Handbook of humor research, Vol. 1, 85–107. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4612-5572-7_5Search in Google Scholar
Joke Website
http://www.racist-jokes.info/jewjokes.html (no date) Racist Jokes, Jewish Jokes. [accessed on 24th March 2014].Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
