Articles for San Zen Che Ride
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Jokes, Culture and Identity Song Mei Lee-Wong Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Abstract Universally, jokes form an important part of communication and interaction. They can be considered to be representative of a collective voice, (the community) whose meanings rest on a shared culture, language and even aspirations. A community, which may be described as a gathering of “a crowd of one” because “Our sense of self is not something that we solely control; furthermore it is not something that can be divorced from how we see and are seen by others. We really are a crowd of one-and one in a crowd” (Clippinger, 2007:21); the crowd of one motivates, configures and shares jokes of interest to them, and in so doing identify who they are/are not. Specifically, this paper examines the lexico-semantics of jokes constructed by Singapore’s ‘heartlanders’ (usually people at the grass root level who are well versed in the local vernaculars). Through humour, they claim the public space of free speech to give expression to their perceived social reality (Habermas, 1984). The jokes could be self disparaging, making fun of the community’s social behaviour and values, institutions or matters of public interest, for example, these two ‘New Work Rules’ in Singapore: DEATH OTHER THAN YOUR OWN - This is no excuse (for not coming to work) DEATH YOUR OWN – This will be accepted It can be argued that one of the most significant functions of humour in the larger socio-political context is that it extends to a particular community or sub- community a degree of laxity in self expression as well as free censorship. The corpus of jokes is analysed at the lexical and discourse level. The analysis shows use of irony and sarcasm, use of vernacular utterance particles, colloquialisms, Singapore slang, and code-mixing of Singapore English with local dialects/language(s). Wit and humour is also successfully communicated by wordplay - a linguistic device facilitated by Singapore’s multilingualism and multiculturalism. Key words: social reality; identity; public space; culture; community INTRODUCTION In the search to understand humor more than a hundred different theories have been proposed during the last three millennia (Feinberg, 1978). Conceptualizations and theories range from the traditional: from Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, to Hobbes (1651) and Schopenhauer (1819), to the modern: Bergson (1900, 1947), Freud (1935), and the more contemporary such as Morreall (1983). The classifications include the relief or release theories, superiority or aggression theories, incongruity theories, the cognitive, social and psychoanalytical theories. Of more recent times, Raskin (1985) and Attardo (1994) proposed the semantically and pragmatically motivated theories. Despite the diversity of methods of approach, humor is universally perceived as both human and social. Studies on ‘ethnic humor’ and ‘national styles of humor’ theorize on the elements of aggression, hostility, superiority, triumph, derision and disparagement present in these jokes. Davies, (1996) on ‘Who gets called stupid?’ speaks of Poles as the butt of ethnic jokes in the United States and the Irish in Australia (1996:42). Humor and its social function is strongly emphasized by the Superiority Theory of Bergson (In Morreall, 1987: 117) which postulates that primarily the appreciation of jokes is a group phenomenon: “You could hardly appreciate the comic, if you felt isolated from others.…Our laughter is always the laughter of a group” (Bergson. In Morreall, 1987:119). Bergson’s vivid illustration in his “fundamental observations on the Comical” is a compelling example of the importance of the social in the comic: A man was asked why he wasn’t crying during a sermon which had everyone else in tears. “I’m not from the parish,” he answered. What this man thought about tears is even more true of laughter. However frank it may seem, laughter always conceals a subconscious thought of community, one might almost say of complicity, with laughing companions real or imaginary.” (de Sousa. In Morreall, 1987: 241-242). [Italics mine] Community and culture are at best indistinguishable. “What qualifies as a joke can be expected to vary between cultures or societies; … within a given culture or society, there will be a general recognition of what constitutes a joke” (Ritchie, 2000:16). Laughter implies cultural understanding as well as cultural biases. Ziv (1988) in his review of national styles of humor commented that despite the fact that the articles in the book all sharing a common western culture, nevertheless were found to contain differences, not because languages differ but that “history and tradition also create differences“(Ziv, 1988: xi). Take for instance, the following two jokes from Davis and Croft (1988) on Australian humor: A very pompous pommy walked up to an Aussie in Sydney because he was lost and looking for the subway, he said, “Excuse me, old fellow, could you tell m how I could get underground?” and the Aussie said, “Sure thing, drop dead, you pommy bastard. A local farmer’s wife had a baby and the farmer came into the hospital to see them for the first time. “You’ve got a fine boy,” said the sister, smiling, “but as you know, he is premature, so he is very small.” “Ah, well, “said the farmer, “a season like this you are lucky to get your seed back.” As an example of aggressive humor in Australia, the first joke also highlights the Australian ethos of egalitarianism. “No one is spared the aggressive search for equality of Australian humor… Tall poppies are aggressively knocked off what are believed to be their pompous pedestals” (1988:24). The second example, on the other hand, was used to exemplify Australian humor as a defense mechanism. It reflects the early pioneer spirit: the choice of laughter instead of tears when faced with the harsh reality of life in the bush. Non Australians unfamiliar with the tradition and culture of the Australian bush might not appreciate such humor. These jokes contrast sharply with the following ones from Singapore, an urban island- state nation. To understand the social salience of a joke, it is imperative that one takes cognizance of its socio-cultural context, or social reality. In Habermas’s terms (1998: 48-49; 90) social reality comprises the following domains: (a) The external reality of that which can be “perceived” i.e. “everything that can be explicitly asserted as the content of statements”. (b) The internal reality of that which a speaker would like to express as her intentions … (c) The normative reality of that which is “socially and culturally recognized” It can be seen that these three domains (the assertion of statements, the expressed intentions and the socially and culturally recognized reality of a speaker) are integral to understanding a joke. In other words, a joke is socially constituted, and conditioned to a degree. The communicative contents of jokes are therefore understood by the intended particular joke audience because they share a common socio-cultural history, a national identity and values. Jokes inadvertently carry the collective voice of many in the community. Through the avenue of jokes, this group of people communicates their intention to be heard and to share their laughter with the joke audience. Alternatively, they may be described as claiming what amounts to Habermas’s concept of ‘public space’ (1998) which is generally defined as free participatory speech accorded by institutions of democratic societies. In the context of Singapore, public space is comparatively limited to an extent for reasons that are discussed below. Should the two jokes cited for illustration be considered a claim for public space? There is some evidence which points to the possibility of such a consideration. ‘Ah Beng Talks about Singapore History and Current Affairs’ and the ‘7 Cs of Work Rules’ communicate issues which have social import to the Singaporean community. BACKGROUND Singapore is an island city state with a land area of only 271.8 square miles situated on the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. As an ex British colony full independence was gained on 9th August 1965 following the separation from Malaysia. It was an emotional and intimidating experience. There was this threat that “if Singapore’s foreign policy is prejudicial to Malaysia’s interests, we couId always bring pressure to bear on them by threatening to turn off the water in Johore” (Lee Kuan Yew, 1998:663). Singapore’s current multi-racial population is only 5 million consisting of Chinese, Malays, Indians, Asians and Caucasians of diverse ethnic origins, The Chinese, of diverse linguistic groups make up the largest sector of the residents – 74.2%. The population density of Singapore is comparatively high, more than eighty percent of the population live in low cost state-built high-rise housing. To promote social cohesion housing policy dictates that that each block of flats has a fair distribution of all ethnic groups. (Wikepedia). Linguistic pluralism is one of the major characteristics of Singapore. English, the legacy left by earlier British colonial rule, is the first language, the medium of instruction and the lingua franca of Singaporeans. English, Mandarin (Putonghua), Malay and Tamil form the four official languages in Singapore. At the same time, Singapore’s Chinese speech community shares amongst its speakers a variety of Chinese dialects, the major ones being Hokkien (from Fujian in China), Chaozhou (from Shantou) and Cantonese (from Guangzhou). Code-switching between these languages and dialects is a frequent occurrence in a Chinees majority-speaking diglossic community. Singapore English is best described along a cline of proficiency: the most native-like is the acrolect, the next range is the mesolect, and at the bottom is the basilect, described as furthest from the acrolect in accuracy, pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary (Platt, 1977).