INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter fiice, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Hgher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 THE HU>:OR MATRIX: A CALCULUS OF THE ENTRY .YND INTENSITY VARIABLE IN FRIEND AND MATE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN A MARGINALIZED COMMUNITY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Kenneth Emerson Williams, M.A., M.A. The Ohio State University 1997 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor John Dimmick, Ph.D., Adviser Professor James Hikins, Ph.D. Professor Nancy Chism, Ph.D. / Adviser Graduate Program of Communication UMI Number: 9731745 UMI Microform 9731745 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Copy ri gh c by Kenneth Emerson Williams 1997 ABSTRACT Ellen DeGeneres's outing of herself and her character last month on Ellen have brought the humor of gay men and women into the homes of many. Long before that show (30 April, 1997), four years of field notes were gathered in gay male nightclubs for this research. Analysis of the notes was done for the purpose of understanding humor's roles and functions for that case-study population. Humor serves an adaptability role allowing for friend and mate relationship growth. Humor is an entry and intensity variable in the relationships of men joking in the gay nightclub. This growth occurs as a result of the expanded repertoire of humor types (advancement through humor classes) that they share. Though humor class growth is both indicative and reflective of relationship growth, humor content is more significant in predicting relationship types, within this population. Coupled gay men used more anti-gay humor as their humor content; non-coupled gay men used more anti­ straight humor. Who joked with whom affected humor content ii and humor style. Single gay men in the crowd were scapegoated more often than coupled gay men. Single gay men seemed to accept this role. Female terms and pronouns were used more often when targets of the humor were single gay men. Varying humor styles existed. Some enhanced communication competency more than others by having greater potential for flexibility and adaptability. As such, humor enhanced competency and could make communication more successful if norms were respected. Norms were explored as well; men were able to recognize uses of humor which violated norms but found articulating the norms difficult. Some relationships grew, and others ended while research continued. This leads to the humor calculus; a way of anticipating how a relationship is changing by examining how humor is changing. Unlike the humor used by Ellen, her producers, and her writers, the humor throughout this project was unscripted. This allows for a better understanding of humor's functions and roles in our own everyday lives, as opposed to seeing how gay or lesbian humor manifests itself in our living rooms via the medium of television. Ill A treatise on humor should naturally be dedicated to those who make us laugh the most. This includes not only the famed comediennes and comedians like Lucille Ball, Joan Rivers, Phyllis Diller, Moms Mabley, Gilda Radner, Roseanne, Ellen Dégénérés, Rosie O'Donnell, Robin Williams, Jim Carey, Billy Crystal, Chris Rock, Bill Cosby, Dick Gregory, Bill Mahr, and the cast of Golden Girls. It also includes, for me, friends and family with whom I laugh loudest, hardest, and longest: Dr. Michele S. Davis, Dan Dugan, Bob Mangia, Brian Rafferty, Brett Reid, Adam Savage, Deb Stollenwerk, Chris Stringer, and Ken Swickard (here in Columbus); my subjects, my peers and my students (at Ohio State); countless friends from Everett, Pa. and Shippensburg University and, of course, my siblings (Janet, Barb, and Bill), nephews and nieces (Donnie, Brian, David, Heather and Hayley), and in-laws (Jody, Don, and Tom). Of course, I first learned laughter from my parents, and I dedicate this to them most of all: to Harold Emerson and Jessie Elizabeth Williams, I say thanks for life, love, long-time support/ encouragement, and lots and lots of laughter. IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I'm verbose. I know this. Though I assume most dissertations contain a standard two to four pages of acknowledgments, I doubt if this is like most dissertations. First of all, with field notes being collected during 43 months over a nine-year span of time, I encountered more subjects than most. Because of that span of time, I may have encountered more road-bumps than most. I also worked with more faculty and committee members than most (or at least it has felt that way). Further, my friends and family, with their patience, have been more generous than most. And I feel like I should acknowledge most. Second of all, because my friends, family, peers, subjects, and students have been so willing to help or encourage me when road-bumps occurred, I am so keenly aware of their faith and trust in me. It makes me proud. As such, I feel like I should thank so many and thank them so often that I would feel like Oscar-winner Cuba Gooding, Jr. speaking on and on with much jubilation while the Oscar music plays, the commercial is started, and the public can no longer even hear his thanks. Unlike Cuba, I have no Oscar or music leading me into a commercial, but that does not diminish my ovm jubilation in any way (even though most will no longer even hear my thanks either). Still, it is how I feel. Academically and at Ohio State, let me first and foremost thank my students. Only one (Marilyn, who introduced me to Harvey Mindess's Antioch Humor Test and, indirectly, to his other works) had direct influence on my dissertation topic and research. However, had it not been for students in my math and linguistics classes as far back as 1984 and 1985 and Michele Davis's Academic Support Program Students in Communication 105 in 1988, I would not have known the thrill of teaching. Without that thrill, and the knowledge that I would need to have a Ph.D. to continue to teach at the college or university level, I doubt that I would have been as motivated as I was to finish. After all, nine years of lit reviews and field notes is a long time (I began the same month that Roseanne's sitcom debuted; and finished one month after it left the air.). They truly must have inspired me. Academically, I must also thank former faculty and supervisors before even starting to thank the current ones. vi without their early influence, I might not have chosen grad school or communication as a field. John P. Taggert and James St. Clair from Shippensburg University were instrumental in my pursuit of graduate studies in linguistics and speech. While working on my M.A. in linguistics, I took a single course in political communication and rhetoric from Dr. James Golden in The Department of Communication at The Ohio State University, and I was hooked. That one course with Dr. Golden turned in to many, and it led to courses with Goodwin Berquist, William Brown and Josina Makau, and eventually my pursuit of the Ph.D. Position papers done for Dr. Golden's classes were developed further in Clifford Vaida's Discourse Analysis course and a number of courses with Vic Wall, Jr. All four of these communication faculty served at some point as chair or advisor of my doctoral committee but their departures from O.S.U. made it impossible for them to see my project through its final phases. Thanks go to Dr. Makau for her help with communication ethics and in the structure and organization of the first dissertation drafts. Special thanks go to Dr. Wall and Dr. Golden for their help in the earliest stages of topic selection and, mostly, for supportive words of encouragement as I embarked on a project that would allow me to draw upon my strengths within the field and to begin to overcome my weaknesses. No other two Vll faculty within my field seemed to have as much confidence in me as they did: I have remembered that over the years. Dr. John Dimmick was very helpful, willing to move from the role of committee member to advisor when Josina Makau left and doing so quite well.