231 research outputs found
The expanding beauty regime, or: why it has become so important to look good
No full textThe expanding beauty regime: Or, why it has become so important to look good
Published as Kuipers, Giselinde (2022), The expanding beauty regime: Or, why it has become so important to look good. Critical Studies in Fashion & Beauty 13(2): 207-228.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1386/csfb_00046_
Playing with Aggression. In memoriam Christie Davies
No full textThis Special Issue contains twenty contributions based on the area of reserach of the late Christie Davies (PhD Cantab) and Emeritis Professor of Sociology at the University of Reading, UK. The contributors are world wide scholars from Austrailia, Estonia; Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Russia, UK and the USA. Each contribution pivots on the theory of benign violation and how it is adopted in humour in diverse communities
Introduction
Get PDFThis is an introduction to a special issue in honour of one of the most eminent humour scholars, the sociologist Christie Davies (PhD Cantab), University of Reading UK
sj-docx-1-sor-10.1177_13607804221149796 – Supplemental material for Cultural Capital in China? Television Tastes and Cultural and Cosmopolitan Distinctions Among Beijing Youth
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-1-sor-10.1177_13607804221149796 for Cultural Capital in China? Television Tastes and Cultural and Cosmopolitan Distinctions Among Beijing Youth by Yang Gao and Giselinde Kuipers in Sociological Research Online</p
sj-docx-2-sor-10.1177_13607804221149796 – Supplemental material for Cultural Capital in China? Television Tastes and Cultural and Cosmopolitan Distinctions Among Beijing Youth
No full textSupplemental material, sj-docx-2-sor-10.1177_13607804221149796 for Cultural Capital in China? Television Tastes and Cultural and Cosmopolitan Distinctions Among Beijing Youth by Yang Gao and Giselinde Kuipers in Sociological Research Online</p
Recommended from our members
The Muhammad cartoons and humor research: A collection of essays
No full textAt the 2006 conference of the International Society for Humor Studies (Danish University of Education, Copenhagen), several panels addressed issues raised by the Muhammad cartoon story. Among these, a colloquium organized by Paul Lewis and decorously titled "Transnational Ridicule and Response" focused on the implications for humor research of the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons. Along with other materials, panelists were encouraged to review summaries of and timelines for the story available from the BBC and Wikipedia. Of the questions considered by panelists, the following drew interesting and, at times, provocative responses: Were the cartoons humorous; if so, did they represent a distinct or new kind of humor? Were the modes of global transmission of the cartoons new? Does the story have implications for ongoing humor research and advocacy? The goal was to approach the controversy not as partisans with particular political outlooks but as students of humor. The brief essays collected here were written following the conference by members of the panel (Christie Davies, Giselinde Kuipers, Paul Lewis, and Victor Raskin) and by two others who attended the colloquium (Elliott Oring and Rod A. Martin). After reviewing the essays, HUMOR editor Salvatore Attardo suggested that each of the participants be invited to read what the others had written and submit a brief response. Responses included here were received from Davies, Kuipers, Lewis, Oring, and Raskin
Humour and polarization: How the clown style in 21st century drives people apart, in politics and beyond
No full textIn this essay, I analyse how humour drives people apart, in politics and in society at large. Since the early 2000s, many politicians across the world have embraced humour to position themselves politically and chastise and provoke the establishment. This "clown style" in politics is mostly used by politicians on the populist right, occasionally on the left. In this essay, I analyze over 100 cases of political utterances from the years 2015-2020 from the Dutch, English and Italian-speaking world, that are 1. signalled as non-serious by verbal or non-verbal cues; 2. recognized as humorous by amused responses; 3. explicitly mark ‘symbolic boundaries’ (Lamont, 1992; Kuipers, 2009) or we-them divisions. I identify five strategies by which humour fuels polarization: wilful ambiguity, humorous attack, provocation, community-building and the cultivation of negative affect. This new political humour is both a symptom and a catalyst of increasing polarization. In a polarized political arena, joking politicians believe they stand to gain more from stylistic opposition to conventional politics than from adaptation to it. Previously, politicians with an outrageous style were usually encapsulated by the system. Once elected or appointed to office, they adopted a serious persona more compatible with their new station in life. But today, many politicians remain rowdy, funny and inconsistent even in the highest elected office. Through humour they bond with their substantial following in liberating, carnivalesque, sometimes downright hateful humor
Humor styles and symbolic boundaries
No full textHumor is strongly related to group boundaries. Jokes and other humorous utterances often draw on implicit references and inside knowledge; they tend to refer to sensitive topics which may offend people; and they ideally incite laughter, one of the strongest markers of social solidarity and emotional attunement. Hence, a shared sense of humor is generally a sine qua non for sustained relationships. Inversely, people who do not share one's humor are often shunned (Kuipers, Good Humor Bad Taste: A Sociology of the Joke, 2006). Laughing together, therefore, is a sign of belonging: those who join in the laughter, are part of the group; those who don't join expose themselves as outsiders. This essay explores the mechanisms through which humor is related to social boundaries: how does humor differ between groups? What are the consequences of such differences? How do humor styles emerge and change, and what happens when different humor styles »meet«? Theoretically, the essay draws on insights from cultural sociology (Bourdieu, La Distinction: Critique Sociale du Jugement, 1979; Elias, Über den Prozess der Zivilisation: Sociogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen, 1939; Lamont 1992; Lamont/Thevenot, Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology, 2000; Lahire 2004; Molnar/Lamont, Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167-195, 2002), the sociology of emotions (Collins 2005; Goffman 1959)., as well as humor scholarship (Davies, The Mirth of Nations, 2002; Oring, Engaging Humor, 2003; Raskin 2008). The discussion will be organized around empirical examples both from my own sociological research on humor in various European countries and the US, and from examples of humor in literature and popular culture. The essay will discuss the following mechanisms: Humor draws on implicit and culture- or group-specific knowledge. Moreover, it requires considerable linguistic aptitude. In other words: humor needs to be decoded. Humor touches on sensitive topics and taboo issues, which obviously differ strongly between groups. Hence, what is funny to some is offensive to others. Humor requires, and leads to specific emotional responses (laughter, mirth) that are strongly connected with emotional closeness, solidarity and trust. Hence, humor requires specific social bonds to flourish. On the other hand, humor may also generate such social bonds, if used wisely. Humor has generic conventions and markers that may differ between groups. As a result, people may not recognize attempts at humor as such, or they may object to a specific form. Also, a specific form may require specific skills (e. g. appreciating Shakespearean comedies requires considerable background and training, which is not related to humor appreciation as such but still may be an impediment. Alternatively, educated Europeans often distrust the joke form to the extent that they will not be open to it even though they might rather like the content of the joke). Finally, and most importantly: Different groups often have different notions of what good and bad humor is. In other words: they have different stylistic criteria and standards, and different ideas of what humor is, or should »do«. This may lead to different evaluations of the same humorous utterances and genres. Such stylistic factors are hardest to grasp, but probably account for most of the difference in appreciation of humor, especially within one culture or society (Kuipers, Good Humor Bad Taste: A Sociology of the Joke, 2006). These five mechanisms by and large account for the emergence of »humor styles«. Such humor styles are often related to social boundaries, and they often demarcate what sociologists refer to as »symbolic boundaries«: social boundaries that become salient, meaningful, and often imbued with status differences (Molnar/Lamont, Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167-195, 2002). Such stylistic differences are expressed in the use of humor in everyday life, but also in standardized and mediated forms of humor - such as literary humor. Literary humor reflects, but also contributes to, the humor style of a specific place, time, and group. Moreover, innovation in literary humor, as well as other forms of mediated humor, often implies adaptation or even transgression of the current humor styles
- …
