meyer - four functions of humor in communication

8/12/2019 Meyer - Four Functions of Humor in Communication

1/22


2/22


3/22


4/22


5/22


6/22


7/22


8/22


9/22


10/22


11/22


12/22


13/22


14/22


15/22


16/22


17/22

CommunicationTheory

fo rm into the aud ience, he leti t be know n tha t he had simply decided totry break dancing. This reassured his audience that, althoughi t wasunusual for a candidateto fall off the platform, things were really allright and he was still in con trol. Th e norm (doing crazy things in thecourse of cam paigning) was stressed in the h um or over a nd above theviolation (beingso clumsy o r unsteady th at he felloff a platform).

H um or also can divide through the enforcement an d differentiationfunctions with derision a nd p ut-dow ns of o thers pointingto incongru-ities in wh at they d o o r say. Com mu nicators imply th at others actionsnot only are unexpected, but unacceptable, and hence worthyof oppo-sition in the form of discipline by laughter (Duncan,1962) . Here, it isthe violation that is stressed over the no rmality (tho ug h both percep-tions must be present for appreciation of hu m or) . Acceptance of put-dow ns implies tha t au dience mem bers, as well as the speaker, are supe-rior to tho se being laughed at. Yet,it is the incong ruity of others actionscom pared t o wh at is expected o r desiredof them tha t provokes laughteran d serves as a co rrector o r divider. Regardless of the theoryof humororigin selected, however, differentiation and enforcement humor focuso n the violation, rath er th an the n orm . After all, if certain behaviors arelaughable, should others seriously su pp ort them in fellow gro up mem-bers or in a political cand idate? Persuaders and politicians u sing hum orto attack ho pe m ost audience mem bers think not. D uring the1996 presi-dential debates, Bob Doles most memorable(of very few) humorouslines were said when he noted, in response to a questiono n whetherpeople were better off than they were four years earlier, that Well hes[President Clintons] better off than he was four years ago. SaddamHussein is probably better off than he was four years ago.Time re-ferred to this respon se a s Doles best linein the entire deba te (Levasseur

Dean, 1996) . Opponents of former Vice President Dan Quayle havetaken to simply passing aro un d qu otes from his various speeches. Theirclear intent is to show, in a humorous way, his lack of intelligence. In aspeech to the United Neg ro College Fund, Quayle noted that, W hataterrible thing t o have lost ones mind. O r not t o have a mind at all . Ho wtrue that is. H e noted in a speech to the Phoenix Republican Forum in1990 that I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more free-dom and democracy, but th at could change. W hen discussing the envi-ronment, he noted that i t isnt pollution thats harming the environ-me nt. Its the im purities in the air an d w ater th at are do ing it. Later heannounced that I stan d by all the misstatements that Ive made. Q uay lemay be unique in supplyingso much divisive humor about himself, but

his oppo nen ts clearly relish using suc h quote sto point to his apparentstupidity in contrast to themselves. They stress Quayles violations ofdebate or intelligence norms as the most relevant factor in the humor,

326


18/22

Humor as Double-Edged

though the element of a normal politician is in mind, as well, to sparkhumor appreciation.

Divisive humor is applied to rhetorically push away the other and

to show that they or their opinions are beyond the pale of commonvalues being invoked. President Bill Clinton has certainly been the sub-ject of varied uses of differentiation humor. In one story, three high-school-aged boys are walking down a street in Washington when sud-denly they see Clinton go jogging by. He is about to be hit by a car, sothey pull him out of the way and save his life. Clinton tells them, Thankyou for saving my life. 111 grant each of you one wish. The first boysays, I want to go to Georgetown. Clinton pulls some strings and getsthe boy admitted. The second boy says, I want to get into West Point,

but it normally requires a congressional appointment.

So, Clinton callsup his Democratic friends in Congress and gets the boy his appoint-ment. The third boy says, I want to be buried in Arlington NationalCemetery. Clinton says, Thats an odd request for a 17-year-old The boy says, Yeah, but when my father finds out I saved your life hesgonna kill me No clearer political differentiation can be made throughhumor than that, as the violation of norms by the fathers exaggeratedanger at Clinton dominates such humor. Others have put forward hu-morous dictionaries of what Bill Clinton is really saying: My fellowcitizens really means suckers, broad-based contributions aretaxes, investing in our infrastructure is pork-barrel spending,opportunity and compassion are really federal handouts, andhealth care reform is really increasing broad- based contributionsThese so-called definitions stress violations through contrasts, presentedas humor, and illustrate the differences between opponents and support-ers of Bill Clinton in a sharp, memorable way.

Humor can also be used to attack misbehavior and enforce confor-mity to social norms. In a year of political scandal, humorous jabs at thepresident and his sexual activity were everywhere. Many reported learn-ing the latest news from the jokes that Jay Len0 and David Lettermantold about President Clinton on their nightly television talk shows. Justtwo fictitious questions to Clinton can serve as examples of this:

Question: Mr. P resident, have you ever considered contributing to a sperm bank ?Clintons answer: No, I already gave at the office.

Question: Mr. President, when you fall in love, should it be forever?Clintons answe r: Thirty goo d seco nds should do the trick. Bishop Brand, 1 99 8 )

These jokes, which make verbal jabs at their target, separate audienceswho laugh a t the violations of social norms illustrated in them from the

327


19/22

CommunicationTheory

person o r grou p described in them . Politicians wh o invoke such hum orin their rhetoric wa nt th at divisiveness t o extendto audience suppo rtforthemselves an d disfavor for their o pponents.

In noting th at hu mo r is used to unify as well asto divide, other strik -ing instances of it potentially doing bo th at once are fou nd in teases. Atease is viewed as humo rous an d aggressive a t the same time, as it makesa potentially negative statement about the recipient, but is framed ashum or or play (Alberts, Kellar-Guenther, Cor ma n,1996, p. 337) .Thu s, the receiver is left t o decide, based prim arily o n the prior relation-ship to the teaser (Alberts et al.,1996) ,whether the m essage is primarilya tension-relieving mood lightener or a lightly disguised critique. Thecontext of the re lationsh ip allows the receiver to place the stressof teas-ing hum or o n the no rm (friendly making lightof faults) or the violation(a muffled criticism or put-d ow n). The duality of h umo r also can be astrength for comm unicators a s they use it t o relax tensions by show ingtha t a speaker is aw areof contradictions in messages o r values causingtension and is dealing with them, encouraging others involved to getbeyond their ow n tension by doing the same (Meyer,1997) .

Hum ors potential power as an influential comm unication tool is il-lustrated by the acknowledgment that the two most popular and ad-mired U.S. presidents of the past40 years, John F. Kennedy an d RonaldReagan, have been men with the most agreeable sensesof humor(Gardner, 1986; Troxler, 1983). Use of humor clearly enhances onesleadership an d persuasive influence becauseof the nearly universal ad-miration of this skill (in moderation-overuse of hum or can lower cred-ibility [Gruner, 19851).M any consider a senseof humor a crucial indi-cator of good character. Yet, this sense of humor can cut both ways.Itcan be a kind, humane, friendly, pleasant meansof communicationthrou gh promo ting identification and clarificationof issues, or it can bewry, cynical, cutting, and even mean. Some people may feel less safecomm unicating witha person enacting a divisive senseof hum or throughenforcement or differentiation, but they also may be entertained, en-lightened, or even m otivated (a t times, perhaps, even ange red ) by suchcom mu nicato rs. Th e necessity of holding multiple perspectives in mindallows bo th users an d receivers of h um or t o choose on w hich perspec-tive to focus: the norm briefly an d benignly violated hum orously o r theviolation, which draw s condem nation by humor. Thu s does the dualityparadox of hu mor function allow rhetorical unification or division-orboth at the same time.

Th e flexible contradictions inherent in hum or allow rhetorsto enlistit for a variety of purposes, making it a most powerful communicationtool. Understanding its rhetorical functionsof differentiation, enforce-ment, clarification, and identification allows more refined and detailed

328


20/22


assessment of humors communication effects than the theories of hu-mor origin do. Humors flexibility as a rhetorical tool allows communi-cators to transcend recurring arguments or patterns because messages

with humor can get people to laugh at contradictions as a way to accepttheir existence (Boland Hoffman, 1983) instead of frantically, futilely,or tragically seeking to correct or eliminate them. How many work andworld conflicts could be defused if both parties could see humor in theirdifferences? Through the identification and clarification functions, orthe relaxing elements of humor, parties can lower defenses and be moreopen to seeing the new perspectives required to appreciate humor. View-ing new perspectives and laughing together a t them can enhance com-municators identification with each other and move communication to

a comic frame away from a rigid tragic frame (Burke, 1984). Con-tradictions o r differences may also be separated from the allegiance ofcommunicators through humor in the form of burlesque (Moore, 1992).By imitating and mocking differences, they can be recognized and cen-sured in a flexible and perceptive way. Humors fourfold functionalmanipulation of concepts can increase potential future directions forcommunication research, enhancing rhetorical study and illuminatingcommunicators ability to deal with contradictions rather than feelingoppressed or trapped by contradictions and prone to other alternatives,such as violence. In sum, the paradox of duality in humor functionsbetween unification and division serves to make humor a double-edgedsword by which communicators can unite or divide their audiences.Humor use is thus a fruitful area of research for communication schol-ars, as future research can increase understanding of the symbols throughwhich the duality of humor and the four rhetorical functions of humormanifest themselves in a variety of messages.

Jo hn C. M eyer (Ph D, Universityof Kansas, 1991) is associate professorof speech communication

at t he Universityof Southern Mississippi, H attiesburg. The aut hor w ould liketo thank students inhis Hum or in Com munica tion seminars, as well as the editorof Communication Theory and tworeviewers for their contrib ution s to this essay. An earlier version of this essay was pre sented a t theNational Com munic ation Association annual convention, New York, NY, Novem ber1998.

Author

Apte, M. 1985). Hum or and laughter: An anthropological a pproac h. Ithaca, NY: C ornell Univer-sity Press.

Alberts, J. 1990). Th e use of humo r in m anaging couples conflict interactions.In D. Cahn (Ed.),Intimates in conflict (pp. 110-120). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

Alberts, J. K., Kellar-Guenther, Y., Co rm an, J.R. 1996). Thats not funny: Understa nding re-cipients responses to teasing. WestemJournal o Communication 60 337-357.

Berger, A. A. 1993). An anatomy ofhumo r. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Berger, A. A. 1976). Anatomy of the joke.Journal of Communication 26 3), 113-115.Bergson, H. 1911). Laughter: An essay on the meaning of th e comic.Ne w York: MacMillan.Berlyne, D. E. 1972). Hum or an d its kin.In J. H. Goldstein P. E. McG hee (Eds.)The psychology

References

o f h u m o r (pp. 43-60). New York: Academic Press.

329


21/22

CommunicationTheory

Bishop, B. Brand, C. (19 98) . Mr. President. Everything you wanted to know from PresidentBill Clinton b ut we re afraid to ask . [self-published]

Boland, R. J., Hoffm an, R. (198 3). Hu mo r in a machine shop: An interpretationof symbolicaction. In 1 R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G. Morg an, T. C. Dandridge (Eds.), Organiza tional sym-bolism (pp . 187-198). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Boller, P. F. (1981).Presiden tial anecdote s. New York: Penguin Books.Bormann, E. G. (1982) .Fantasy and rhetorical vision: Ten years later. Quarterly jou rna l ofspeech,

Bormann, E. G. (1 97 2) . Fantasy a nd rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality.

Brooker, G. W. (1981).A comparision of the persuasive effectsof mild humor and mild fear ap-

Burke, K. (1984 ). Permanence a nd change.Los Angeles: Universityof California Press. (Original

Cantor, J. (1 976 ).What is funny to whom ?fourna lo Communication, 26(3 ), 164-172.Carrell, A. (1992 , October). The need to incorporate audience and situation into a theoryo hu-

mor. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association annual convention, Chicago,IL.

Chan g, M., Grun er, C.R. (19 81) . Audience reaction t o self-disparaging humor. Southern Com-munication Journal, 46,4 19- 426 .

Chapel, G. J . (1 97 8) Hu mo r in the W hite House: An interview with presidential speechwriterRobert O rben. C omm unication Quarterly, 26, 44-49.

Chapman, A. J., Foot, H . C. (Eds.). (19 77) . Itsa funny thing, humour. New York: PergamonPress.

Charney, M. (1978 ). Comedy high a nd low. N ewYork: Ox ford University Press.Dahlberg, W. A. (1945).Lincoln, the wit. Quarterly Journalof Speech, 31, 424 -427 .Deckers, L., Devine, J. (1 98 1) .Humor by violating an existing expectancy .journa1o Psychol-

68,288-305.

Quarterly jour nal o Speech, 58,3 96- 407 .

peals. jo urna l o Advertising, 10,29-40.

work published 1934)

om 108,107-110.Deckers, L., Kizer, P. (1975 ). Humor and the incongruity hypothesis.journa1 ofPsychology,90

215-21 8.Dole, R. ( 199 6). Th e best days are yetto come. Vital Speeches of th e Day, 6 2, 674-679.Duncan, H. D. (1962) .Communication and social order. New York: Bedminster Press.Duncan, W. F. (1 98 2) . Hu mo r in managem ent: Prospects for administrative practice and research.

Eckhardt, A. R. (1992) .Sitting in the ea rth an d laughing:A handbook ofhumor. New Brunswick,

Feinberg, L. (1 97 8).The secret of humor. A msterdam: Rodopi.Festinger, L. A. ( 19 57 ).A theory o cognitive dissonance. E vanston,IL: Row, Peterson.Fine, G. A. (1976 ). Obscene joking across cultures. journa lo Comm unication, 26( 3), 134-140.Freud, S. (1960 ).Jokes an d their relation to the unconscious. New York: Norton.Gardner, G. (1986).All the presidents wits. Ne w York: William M orrow .Goldstein, J. H. (1976).Theoretical notes on humor. jour na lo Communication, 26(3),104-112.Graham, E. E. (1995).The involvement of sense of humor in the developmentof social relation-

Graham, E. E., P apa , M . J., Brooks, G . P. ( 19 92 ). Functions of humor in conversation:

Grimes, W. (19SS a). The mirth experience in public address. Comm unication Monographs, 22 ,

Grimes, W. (19SSb).A theory of humor for public address: The mirth experience. Communication

Grotjahn, M. (195 7).Beyond laughter: Hu mo r an d the subconscious. N ew York: McG raw-H ill.Gruner, C. R. (1997). The gameo humor. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Gruner, C. R. (19 85) . Advice to the beginning speakero n using humor-W hat research tells us.

Gruner, C. R. 1 78) . Understanding aughter: Tbe workingo wit andhumor. Chicago: Nelson -Hall.Gruner, C. R. (19 67) . Effectof humor on speaker ethos and audience information gain.jou rna1o

Academy o Management Review, 7, 136-142.

NJ: Transaction.

ships. Com munication Reports,8, 158-170.

Conceptualization and measurement. W estern jou rna lo Communication, 56,161-1 83 .

243-255.

Monographs, 22,217-226.

Communication Education,3 4 142-146.

Communication, 1 7 3 ) , 28-233.

330


22/22


Gruner, C. R. 1965). s wit to hum or w hat rhetoric is to the poetic?Central States Spee ch/ ou~ na l

Hackm an, M.Z., Barthel-Hackman,T. A. 1993). Communication apprehension, willingness tocommunicate, and senseof humor: United States and New Zealand perspectives.Communica-tion Quarterly 41,282-291.

Levasseur, D. G. , Dean,K. W. 1996). Th e Dole humor myth and the risks of recontextualizingrhetoric. Southern Communication Journal 6 2 56-72.

Levanthal, H., Cupchik,G . 1976). A process model of hum or judgment.]ournal o Communi-cation 26 3), 190-205.

Lorenz, K . 1963). On aggression. New York: Harcourt.Maase, S. W., Fink, E. L., Kaplow itz, S. A. 1984). Incongruity in humor: The incongruity

theory. In R. N. Bostrom B. H. Westley (Eds.), Comm unication Yearbook 8. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Malone, P B. 1980). Hu mo r: A double-edged tool for todays managers.Academy ofManagementReview 5 357-360.

Ma rtineau, W. H . 1972). A m odel of the social functions of humor. In J. H. Goldstein P E.McGhee (Eds.),The psychology ofhumor (pp. 101-125). New York: AcademicPress.

McGhee, P. E. 1979). Hum or: Its origin and developmen t. San Francisco: W. H . Freeman.Meyer, J. 1997). Hu mo r in member narratives: Uniting and dividing at work.Western Journal o

Meyer, J. 1990). Ronald Reagan and humo r: A politicians velvet weapon.Communication Stud-

Moore, M . P 1992). Th e Quayle quagmire: Political campa igns in the poetic formof burlesque.

Morreall, J. 1983). Taking laughter seriously. Albany: State U niversityof New York.ODonnell-Trujillo, N., A d a m , K. 1983). Heheh in conversation: Some coordinating accom-

plishments of laughter. Western ]ournu1 of Speech 47,175-191.Rapp, A. 1951). The origins o wit and humor. Ne w York: E. P Dutton.Raskin, V. 1992, October).Meaning truth and the sense ofhumor. Paper presented a t the Speech

Raskin, V. 1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Boston: Reidel.Reagan, R. 1982, September 9). Landon Lecture Series address. Kansas State University, M an ha t-

Reagan, R. 1976, January). Campaign address. Keene, NH: Audiotape.Rybacki, K. C. 1992, October). The rhetoric o hum or: Structure devices and uses. Paper pre-

Schaeffer, N. 1981). The art o laughter. New York: Columbia University Press.Schutz, C. E. 1977). Political humor. London : A ssociated University Presses.Shurcliff, A. 1968). udged hum or, arousal, and the relief theory.Journa1ofPerso nality and Social

Singer,D. L. 1968). Aggression arousal, hostile hum or, catharsis.]ournalof Personality and SocialPsychology Monograph Supplement 8, 1 1 4.

Troxler, L. W. 1983). Along wzts trail: The humor and wisdom o Ronald Reagan. New York:Holt, Rinehart, &W inston.

Veatch, T. C. 1992, October).A theory ofhumor. Paper presented at the Speech CommunicationAssociation annual convention, Chicago.

Volpe, M . 1977). Th e persuasive force of humor: Ciceros defenseof Caelius. Quarterly]ournal oSpeech 63 311-323.

Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Butterfield, M., Booth-Butterfield,S. 1996). Are funny people popular?An examination of humor orientation, loneliness, and social attraction.Communication Quar-terly 44,42-52.

16,17-22.

Communication 61 188-208.

ies 42,76-88.

Western]ournal o Communication S6, 108-124.

Communication Association annual convention, Chicago.

tan, KS.

sented at the Speech Communication Association annual convention, Chicago.

Psychology 8,360-363.

Wilson, C. P 1979). okes: Form content use and function. New York: Academic Press.Winick, C. 1976). The social contexts of humor. Journal o Communication 26 3), 124-128.Ziv, A. 1984). Personality and sen5e ofhumor. New York: Springer.

meyer - four functions of humor in communication

Documents