This is my response to Mallory's lead blog.
I think that Mallory is completely correct in noting that the incongruity theory is a very good explanation of this video. The main character is acting in a manner which is incongruous with the way people typically behave regarding water. That is, we typically look at water as being a very everyday sort of beverage which is only remarkable for how unremarkable it is. Nevertheless, we see the main character and, later on, the others acting as though water was the most astounding and remarkable beverage one could possibly encounter. The surprising linking of two typically unconnected things, (the unremarkable nature of water, and the attitude of the characters in relations to water) is clearly explained by incongruity theory.
In addition to this, and even though it is a little harder to see, we can also apply the benign violation theory to this case. Initially, it seems difficult to do this. After all, in what sense is the act of delighting excessively in water a violation of some norm? Well, first of all, we have to note that this is note a violation in the sense of something that actively does something that is socially taboo or forbidden; it may be odd, but it does not seem to be some a prohibited behavior of any sort. Nevertheless, I think we can find another sense in which this behavior is a benign violation. It is a violation in the sense that the way in which the characters in this video treat water does not agree with the value that people typically assign water in everyday life. That is, water is typically thought of as being boring and dull, but it is being treated here as if it were some high-value commodity. So, we have two different senses in which something can be a benign violation. On one hand, something can be a benign violation in that it actively does something which is prohibited. Jokes about taboo topics such as violence, drugs, and sex would fall into this category. On the other hand, something can be a violation not in the sense that it involves some taboo topic, but in the sense that the value the object is treated as having does not correspond to the typical way the we treat that object in everyday life.
I think that Mallory is completely correct in noting that the incongruity theory is a very good explanation of this video. The main character is acting in a manner which is incongruous with the way people typically behave regarding water. That is, we typically look at water as being a very everyday sort of beverage which is only remarkable for how unremarkable it is. Nevertheless, we see the main character and, later on, the others acting as though water was the most astounding and remarkable beverage one could possibly encounter. The surprising linking of two typically unconnected things, (the unremarkable nature of water, and the attitude of the characters in relations to water) is clearly explained by incongruity theory.
In addition to this, and even though it is a little harder to see, we can also apply the benign violation theory to this case. Initially, it seems difficult to do this. After all, in what sense is the act of delighting excessively in water a violation of some norm? Well, first of all, we have to note that this is note a violation in the sense of something that actively does something that is socially taboo or forbidden; it may be odd, but it does not seem to be some a prohibited behavior of any sort. Nevertheless, I think we can find another sense in which this behavior is a benign violation. It is a violation in the sense that the way in which the characters in this video treat water does not agree with the value that people typically assign water in everyday life. That is, water is typically thought of as being boring and dull, but it is being treated here as if it were some high-value commodity. So, we have two different senses in which something can be a benign violation. On one hand, something can be a benign violation in that it actively does something which is prohibited. Jokes about taboo topics such as violence, drugs, and sex would fall into this category. On the other hand, something can be a violation not in the sense that it involves some taboo topic, but in the sense that the value the object is treated as having does not correspond to the typical way the we treat that object in everyday life.
In economics there is something called the "water/diamonds" paradox--why is water cheap, but diamonds expensive, when water is useful and diamonds useless? Does this video address this?
ReplyDeleteBenign violation theory applies to this video in very interesting ways, and I like that you bring that up! The concept of value is certainly an interesting one. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI like how you brought in benign-violation theory. I was trying to figure out how to apply it to this video, and I could not quite pinpoint it, but I think you do a good job of this. I also think it could be seen as a violation due to the incongruity of it, so I think that they kind of play into each other.
ReplyDelete