This is my response to Jack's blog.
First of all, even though I have seen this video before, I found it absolutely hilarious. It definitely qualifies for my favorite Key and Peele Skit of all time, and I love that Jack chose this one. Also, I think it is a very good example of Incongruity Theory(as Jack Pointed out) as well as Benign Violation Theory. In reference to its incongruity, the video clearly breaks our expectations on how the students' names are typically pronounced. For example, he pronounces Aaron as A-Aron. So, it seems to me that the situation has a descriptive element(the way we typically pronounce names as a matter of fact.) In this case, this typical description is broken, and hence incongruity results. In addition to this, we have a prescriptive element in the skit. In my opinion, this is the social demand that people pronounce each other's names correctly. I.e., it is looked at as a simple courtesy to have our own names pronounced the way we ourselves say them. As a result of this, when the substitute teacher pronounces Aaron as A-aron, he commits a minor social violation. So, in this skit, we have the Incongruity and Benign Violation Theories being represented as two sides of the same coin. In other words, the social expectation that we pronounce each other names correctly partly makes it the case that our names are pronounced a certain way. At the same time, the fact that our names are pronounced a certain way partly makes it the case that we typically seek to enforce the standard pronunciation. I wonder if this understanding of this case could possibly help the way we look at the relationship between incongruity and benign violation generally. That is, incongruity explains how humor breaks our expectation of what typically occurs purely as a matter of description. While, on the other hand, benign violation explains how humor violates the standard social norms which are themselves an enforcement of what that typical description is. If this is the case, then we have a very beautiful symmetry between Incongruity Theory and Benign Violation Theory. That is, incongruity breaks the standard description of how a given social setting usually works, and benign violation breaks the standard rules for how a given social setting is enforced to work. Comedy appears to do both of these things at once.
First of all, even though I have seen this video before, I found it absolutely hilarious. It definitely qualifies for my favorite Key and Peele Skit of all time, and I love that Jack chose this one. Also, I think it is a very good example of Incongruity Theory(as Jack Pointed out) as well as Benign Violation Theory. In reference to its incongruity, the video clearly breaks our expectations on how the students' names are typically pronounced. For example, he pronounces Aaron as A-Aron. So, it seems to me that the situation has a descriptive element(the way we typically pronounce names as a matter of fact.) In this case, this typical description is broken, and hence incongruity results. In addition to this, we have a prescriptive element in the skit. In my opinion, this is the social demand that people pronounce each other's names correctly. I.e., it is looked at as a simple courtesy to have our own names pronounced the way we ourselves say them. As a result of this, when the substitute teacher pronounces Aaron as A-aron, he commits a minor social violation. So, in this skit, we have the Incongruity and Benign Violation Theories being represented as two sides of the same coin. In other words, the social expectation that we pronounce each other names correctly partly makes it the case that our names are pronounced a certain way. At the same time, the fact that our names are pronounced a certain way partly makes it the case that we typically seek to enforce the standard pronunciation. I wonder if this understanding of this case could possibly help the way we look at the relationship between incongruity and benign violation generally. That is, incongruity explains how humor breaks our expectation of what typically occurs purely as a matter of description. While, on the other hand, benign violation explains how humor violates the standard social norms which are themselves an enforcement of what that typical description is. If this is the case, then we have a very beautiful symmetry between Incongruity Theory and Benign Violation Theory. That is, incongruity breaks the standard description of how a given social setting usually works, and benign violation breaks the standard rules for how a given social setting is enforced to work. Comedy appears to do both of these things at once.
I wonder if you could write a paper entitled something to the effect of: Is Our Oughts Learning? The Is-Ought problem in comedy theory. Could you also argue that part of what makes this scene effective is that the normative aspect of this social situation is one incongruous to the typical rule pattern for name description?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see how comedy serves a social function. It's kinda like in that article about Trump's humor how a joke isn't just a joke. Making a certain joke at a certain time can affect how it is received and may influence other people.
ReplyDelete