Humour and/as violence?
A folkloristic-linguistic approach
Keywords: folkloristics, linguistics, humour, aggression, violence
Humour has long been viewed as a subversive phenomenon that points to the incongruities and shortcomings noticed and ridiculed by members of society. The intentions of humour creators are always difficult to pinpoint. Whether with good reason or not, most humour has a target, and the depiction of this target is inevitably politically incorrect, insulting, or even downright blasphemous. Jokes violate harmonious coexistence, collective identity, and communication norms, and that seems to lie at the core of humour. We claim that the superiority and incongruity approaches to humour (traditionally, three major approaches to humour are recognized: superiority, incongruity, and relief) relate to the idea that humour contains some form of clash, either between individuals or meanings. This clash is an element that connects many existing humour theories and is increasingly useful in explaining contemporary forms of humour.
Many academic definitions of humour have been proposed (e.g., Martin 2007: 3), many of which underline the partial overlap between humour and aggression. Besides researchers, laypeople also seem to know the ingredients of good (and bad) humour (Laineste 2011, 2020; Kuipers 2006). They draw a sharp line between “good” – funny, healthy, harmless – humour, and “bad” humour – aggression, offence, or blasphemy (Laineste 2011; for lay definitions of irony, see Simpson 2003). Furthermore, the emergence of the internet has shaped how humour is perceived and communicated (Attardo 2023; Laineste, Shilikhina 2024).
The contextual nature of humour and/as violence is distilled in the observation that “humour does not give offence; its recipients take offence” (Bucaria, Barra 2016: 7), meaning that offence is always relative and contextual and needs answers to questions like: Who is it offensive to? In what situation? What kind of power dynamics are at play? The answers to these questions are not necessarily straightforward because, in the context of online communication, humour has become a topic of intense political and social dispute worldwide. On the one hand, having a sense of humour is a highly valued personal trait, and lacking it is a serious drawback; on the other hand, humour verges on the border between acceptable and unacceptable, appropriate and inappropriate, good-natured and violent – in general: good and bad. Recent humour studies focusing on white supremacist jokes, religious humour, or anti-democratic jokes challenge the notion of humour as mere entertainment. Moreover, it is difficult to predict what is humorous and to whom, especially in a globalized society where every joke is within an easy reach of anyone. Humour scandals arise at the juncture of different discourses within society, triggering discussions about the nature of humour. In present-day online interactions, the ambiguity of joking may lead to unpredictable results. Additionally, it has been suggested that audiences have become more sensitive to all kinds of attacks, including humorous ones (Nagle 2017).
Our theoretical contribution analyzes ideas about humour proposed by humour scholars over centuries, particularly those proposed by folklorists and linguists. Humour violates logic, expectations, or linguistic conventions in order to “kidnap” its recipient where they do not intend to go. This is especially true in the anonymous space of the internet, where users enjoy little responsibility for what they say and can usually deny any harmful intention – the ambiguity of humour allows for that. The bottom line is that humour can be used to convey a variety of messages and achieve different goals, some prosocial and others more aggressive. Humour in itself, however, is inherently neither friendly nor aggressive, and its meaning always emerges in context.
Liisi Laineste (b. 1978), PhD, Research Professor at the Estonian Literary Museum (Vanemuise 42, 51003 Tartu); Research Fellow in Folkloristics at the University of Tartu, liisi@folklore.ee
Władysław Chłopicki (b. 1962), PhD, Associate Professor at the Department of Linguistic Pragmatics and Theory of Translation and Interpreting at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków (al. Adama Mickiewicza 9a, 31-120 Krakow), w.chlopicki@uj.edu.pl
Kirjandus
VEEBIVARAD
Collins English Dictionary: snowflake generation. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/snowflake-generation
Delfi. https://www.delfi.ee
NETLANG = The Language of Cyberbullying: Forms and Mechanisms of Online Prejudice and Discrimination in Annotated Comparable Corpora of Portuguese and English. https://sites.google.com/site/projectnetlang/introduction?authuser=0
YouTube: The worst of Christian TikTok. https://youtu.be/qm7HFwaNYpY?si=65HkSTGPfyahDHBe
KIRJANDUS
Aristoteles 1996. Nikomachose eetika. (Avatud Eesti raamat.) Tlk, komment Anne Lill. Tartu: Ilmamaa.
Aristoteles 2003. Luulekunstist (Poeetika). (Keele ja Kirjanduse raamatusari 4.) Tlk, komment Jaan Unt. Tallinn: Keel ja Kirjandus.
Attardo, Salvatore 2001. Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. (Humor Research 6.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110887969
Attardo, Salvatore 2020. The Linguistics of Humor: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791270.001.0001
Attardo, Salvatore 2023. Humor 2.0: How the Internet Changed Humor. New York: Anthem Press.
Barcelona, Antonio 2003. The case for a metonymic basis of pragmatic inferencing: Evidence from jokes and funny anecdotes. – Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 113.) Toim Klaus-Uwe Panther, Linda L. Thornburg. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, lk 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.07bar
Baron, Robert A.; Richardson, Deborah R. 1994. Human Aggression. New York: Plenum Press.
Bergson, Henri 1911. Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. New York: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1037/13772-000
Brône, Geert; Feyaerts, Kurt 2003. The Cognitive Linguistics of Incongruity Resolution: Marked Reference-point Structures in Humor. Leuven: KU Leuven Departement Linguistiek.
Bucaria, Chiara; Barra, Luca (toim) 2016. Taboo Comedy on Television: Issues and Themes. (Palgrave Studies in Comedy.) New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59338-2
Cheauré, Elisabeth; Nohejl, Regine (toim) 2014. Humour and Laughter in History: Transcultural Perspectives. (History in Popular Cultures 15.) Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Davies, Christie 1990. Ethnic Humor Around the World: A Comparative Analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Davies, Christie 2002. The Mirth of Nations. New Brunswick: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315133171
Davies, Christie 2010. Jokes about disasters: A response to tales told on television full of hype and fury. – Sick Humor. (Comic and Violence 1.) Toim Christian Hoffstadt, Stefan Höltgen. Bochum–Freiburg: Projekt Verlag, lk 11–40.
Davies, Christie; Kuipers, Giselinde; Lewis, Paul; Martin, Rod A.; Oring, Elliott; Raskin, Victor 2008. The Muhammad cartoons and humor research: A collection of essays. – Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, kd 21, nr 1, lk 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2008.001
Eagleton, Terry 2019. Humour. New Haven: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300244786
Ermida, Isabel 2023. Distinguishing online hate speech from aggressive speech: A five-factor annotation model. – Hate Speech in Social Media: Linguistic Approaches. Toim I. Ermida. Cham: Palgrave McMillan, lk 35–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38248-2_2
Fiadotava, Anastasiya; Castañar, Guillem; Laineste, Liisi 2024. Humorous reactions to controversies in the Estonian public sphere: Form, content, mechanisms and comments. – Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore, nr 93, lk 143–166. https://doi.org/10.7592/FEJF2024.93.controversies
Ford, Thomas E.; Lappi, Shawn K.; Holden, Christopher J. 2016. Personality, humor styles and happiness: Happy people have positive humor styles. – Europe’s Journal of Psychology, kd 12, nr 3, lk 320–337. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i3.1160
Freud, Sigmund 1990 [1905]. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. (The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud VIII.) Tlk James Strachey, Anna Freud, Alix Strachey, Alan Tyson. London: Hogarth Press, Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
Giora, Rachel 2003. On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
Gruner, Charles 1997. The Game of Humor: A Comprehensive Theory of Why We Laugh. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Gundelach, Paul 2000. Joking relationships and national identity in Scandinavia. – Acta Sociologica, kd 43, nr 2, lk 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016990050079572
Han, Xiao; Kuipers, Giselinde 2021. Humour and TikTok memes during the 2020 pandemic lockdown: Tensions of gender and care faced by Chinese mothers working from home. – China Information, kd 35, nr 3, lk 393–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0920203X211049634
Hempelmann, Christian F.; Attardo, Salvatore 2011. Resolutions and their incongruities: Further thoughts on Logical Mechanisms. – Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, kd 24, nr 2, lk 125–149. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2011.008
Hobbes, Thomas 1651. Leviathan, or, The Mattter, Forme, & Power of Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill. London: Andrew Crooke.
Hurley, Matthew M.; Dennett, Daniel C.; Adams, Reginald B. 2011. Inside „Inside Jokes”: The Hidden Side of Humor. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9027.001.0001
Koestler, Arthur 1964. The Act of Creation: A Study of the Conscious and Unconscious in Science and Art. New York: Dell.
Krikmann, Arvo 2003. Arthur Koestler, huumoriteooria „kodutu meel”. – Keel ja Kirjandus, nr 11, lk 805–814.
Krikmann, Arvo 2009. On the similarity and distinguishability of humour and figurative speech. – Trames. A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, kd 13, nr 1, lk 14–40. https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2009.1.02
Kuiper, Nicholas A.; Martin, Rod A. 1998. Is sense of humor a positive personality characteristic? – The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality Characteristic. (Humor Research 3.) Toim Willibald Ruch. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter, lk 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804607-009
Kuipers, Giselinde 2006. Good Humor, Bad Taste: A Sociology of the Joke. (Humor Research 7.) Berlin–München–Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510441
Kuipers, Giselinde 2009. Humour styles and symbolic boundaries. – Journal of Literary Theory, kd 3, nr 2, lk 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/JLT.2009.013
Kuipers, Giselinde 2011. The politics of humour in the public sphere: Cartoons, power and modernity in the first transnational humour scandal. – European Journal of Cultural Studies, kd 14, nr 1, lk 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549410370072
Laineste, Liisi 2003. Take it with a grain of salt: The kernel of truth in topical jokes. – Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore, nr 21, lk 7–25. https://doi.org/10.7592/FEJF2002.21.jokes
Laineste, Liisi 2008. Vaenunimedest eesti internetis. – Mäetagused, nr 38, lk 7–32. https://doi.org/10.7592/MT2008.38.laineste
Laineste, Liisi 2010. Äpardunud huumor internetikommentaarides. – Keel ja Kirjandus, nr 8–9, lk 655–670.
Laineste, Liisi 2011. Politics of taste in a post-Socialist state: A case study. – Studies in Political Humour. (Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 46.) Toim Diana Elena Popa, Villy Tsakona. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, lk 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.46.14lai
Laineste, Liisi 2013. Can the ‘stripping of the boss’ be more than a joke? – Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, kd 47, nr 4, lk 482–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-013-9251-1
Laineste, Liisi 2020. „Zero is our quota”: Folkloric narratives of the other in online forum comments. – Folklore and Social Media. Toim Andrew Peck, Trevor J. Blank. Utah: Utah State University Press, lk 108−128. https://doi.org/10.7330/9781646420599.c005
Laineste, Liisi; Chłopicki, Władysław 2023. Humorous use of figurative language in religious hate speech. – Hate Speech in Social Media: Linguistic Approaches. Toim Isabel Ermida. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, lk 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38248-2_7
Laineste, Liisi; Lääne, Margus 2015. Images of the enemy from both sides of the front: The case of Estonia (1942–1944). – War Matters: Constructing Images of the Other (1930s to 1950s). Toim Dagnoslaw Demski, L. Laineste, Kamila Baraniecka-Olszewska. Budapest: L’Harmattan, lk 222–243.
Laineste, Liisi; Shilikhina, Ksenia 2024. New forms and genres of humor in social media. – The Handbook of Humor Studies. (De Gruyter Contemporary Social Sciences Handbooks 2.) Toim Thomas E. Ford, Władysław Chłopicki, Giselinde Kuipers. Berlin–New York: De Gruyter, lk 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110755770-020
La Fave, Lawrence 1972. Humor judgments as a function of reference groups and identification classes. – The Psychology of Humor: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Issues. Toim Jerry H. Goldstein, Paul E. McGhee. New York: Academic Press, lk 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-288950-9.50016-X
Marsh, Moira 2014. On going too far. – European Journal of Humour Research, kd 2, nr 4, lk 126–139. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2014.2.4.marsh
Martin, Rod A. 2007. The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. St Louis: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-372564-6.X5017-5
Martin, Rod A.; Puhlik-Doris, Patricia; Larsen, Gwen; Gray, Jeanette; Weir, Kelly 2003. Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. – Journal of Research in Personality, kd 37, nr 1, lk 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2
Morreall, John (toim) 1987. The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. (SUNY Series in Philosophy.) Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mulkay, Michael 1988. On Humour: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Musolff, Andreas 2015. Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media. – Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, kd 3, nr 1, lk 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.3.1.02mus
Nagle, Angela 2017. Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4Chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right. Winchester: John Hunt Publishing.
Oring, Elliott 1992. Jokes and Their Relations. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Oring, Elliott 1995. Appropriate incongruities: Genuine and spurious. – Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, kd 8, nr 3, lk 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1995.8.3.229
Oring, Elliott 2023. The Consolations of Humor and Other Folklore Essays. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Orwell, George 1945. Funny, but not vulgar. – Leader Magazine 28. VII. https://orwell.ru/library/articles/funny/english/e_funny
Rapp, Albert 1951. The Origins of Wit and Humor. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Raskin, Victor 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. (Synthese Language Library 24.) Dordrecht: Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6472-3
Rothbart, Mary K.; Pien, Diana 1977. Elephants and marshmallows: A theoretical synthesis of incongruity-resolution and arousal theories of humour. – It’s a Funny Thing, Humour: Proceedings of the International Conference on Humour and Laughter held in Cardiff, 13–17th July 1976. Toim Anthony J. Chapman, Hugh C. Foot. Oxford: Pergamon, lk 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-021376-7.50011-5
Simpson, Paul 2003. On the Discourse of Satire: Towards a Stylistic Model of Satirical Humor. (Linguistic Approaches to Literature 2.) Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.2
Zillmann, Dolf; Cantor, Joanne R. 1976. A disposition theory of humour and mirth. – Humor and Laughter: Theory, Research, and Applications. Toim Anthony J. Chapman, Hugh C. Foot. London–New York–Sydney–Toronto: Wiley & Sons, lk 93–115.
Ziv, Avner 1984. Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.
Triezenberg, Katrina E. 2008. Humor in literature. – The Primer of Humor Research. (Humor Research 8.) Toim Victor Raskin. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter, lk 523–542. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198492.523
Weaver, Simon 2011. The Rhetoric of Racist Humour: US, UK and Global Race Joking. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Ödmark, Sara 2021. De-contextualisation fuels controversy: The double-edged sword of humour in a hybrid media environment. – The European Journal of Humour Research, kd 9, nr 3, lk 49–64. https://doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2021.9.3.523