FALL 2013 VOLUME 29:1 PROTEUS A JOURNAL OF IDEAS Humor and Culture PROTEUS A J OURN A L OF I DE A S Humor and Culture VOLUME 29:1 FALL 2013 An ancient Greek sea divinity, herdsman of seals, Proteus could be elusive by changing his form at will appearing as a lion, a serpent, a boar, water, or a tall tree. However when those who caught him succeeded in holding him fast, Proteus assumed his proper shape of an old man and told the truth. Upcoming Issues of Proteus Watch for our Call for Papers on H-Net and in the Chronicle of Higher Education among other places in the Fall of 2013. We welcome ideas for future themes! Submissions, requests for further information, or orders for copies should be addressed to the Managing Editor of Proteus at [email protected]. • Proteus is indexed in the MLA International Bibliography, PAIS International (http://www.pais.org/), America: History and Life, MEMBER ISI Web of Knowledge, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and Historical Abstracts. • It is a member of the Council of Editors of Learned Journals (CELJ). Council of Editors • Past issues are available on microfilm from ProQuest, Information and Learning. of Learned Journals • Proteus is published annually and is funded by Shippensburg University. © 2013 by Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257-2299. ISSN 0889-6348. ii PROTEUS A J O U R N A L O F I D E A S VOLUME 29 SPRING 2013 NUMBER 1 HUMOR AND CULTURE Contents 1 Review Editor’s Introduction 39 “A horse walks into a bar…”: The Rhetoric Matthew C. Ramsey of Humor as Consummate Communication Contrivance 3 Review Editor’s Introduction Sandra Young Misty L. Knight 45 Intersections of Wit and Classical Rhetoric: 5 “She remembered that he had yet to learn to Humor as Rhetorical Enterprise be laught at”: Humor, Humility, and Steve Sherwood National Identity in Pride and Prejudice Jennifer L. Martinsen 53 This is NOT Funny: How Michael Haneke’s Funny Games Corrects its 17 Equipment for Riffing: Advanced Text- Audience Reading Tactics and Polyvalent Constraints Janna Houwen in Mystery Science Theater 3000 Matt Foy 29 The Road to Excess Leads to The Magic Christian: Comedy, the Grotesque, and the Limits of the Body Kevin M. Flanagan iii EDITORIAL BOARD EDITORIAL STAFF H. James Birx Laurie J.C. Cella, editor Canisius College Richard A. Knight, editor Misty L. Knight, review editor Harry M. Buck Matthew C. Ramsey, review editor Wilson College Matthew J.C. Cella, managing editor Dan T. Carter Jessica S. Kline, publications assistant University of South Carolina Valerie Ceddia ADVISORY EDITORS Fayetteville, Pennsylvania David Godshalk Mary Stewart O. R. Dathorne University of Kentucky REVIEW COMMITTEE Don H. Doyle University of South Carolina Michael Bibby Neil Connelly Henry Louis Gates Jr. Alison Dagnes Harvard University Catherine Dent Glenda Gilmore Carla Kungl Yale University Eveline Lang Katie Peel Scot Guenter Zach Savich San Jose State University Christine Senecal Donald L. Henry Kim Van Alkamade Shepherd University Stephen Kantrowitz University of Wisconsin–Madison Mary Karasch Oakland University Linda Smosky Wingate, North Carolina Marjorie J. Spruill University of South Carolina Rebecca Steinberger Misericordia University iv 1 REVIEW Editor’S INtrodUctioN M ATTHEW C. R A M SEY S HIPPEN S BURG U NIVER S ITY As noted by scholars from various academic disciplines, typically neglect, the cognitive nature of humor. Morreall humor is seemingly an inescapable part of human existence (1983) noted that the superiority perspective primarily (Martin, 2007; Meyer, 2000). Humor’s pervasiveness can addresses the emotional and affective; however, “for the been observed in personal relationships (see Hampes, 1992, incongruity theory [humorous] amusement is an intel- 1994), places of employment (see Gibson 1994; Ramsey, lectual reaction to something that is unexpected, illogi- Knight, Knight, and Verdon, 2011), political and social cal or inappropriate in some other way” (p. 15). Simply discourse (Meyer, 2000; Stewart, 2012), and many other put, humor may be a product of cognitive and/or percep- contexts of human-based message production and recep- tual shifts. Like the superiority perspective, Aristotle is tion. But, what is humor? The Oxford English dictionary credited as incongruity theory’s initial creator (Morreall, has defined humor as “the faculty of perceiving what is 1983; Martin, 2007); however, this perspective was not ludicrous or amusing, or of expressing it in speech, writing, fully realized until the eighteen and nineteenth centuries, or other composition; jocose imagination or treatment of when the works of Kant and Schopenhauer explicated a subject” (Simpson & Weiner, 1989, p. 486). Obviously, incongruity humor (Morreall). Much like the superiority countless definitions of humor exist. This is also true for perspective, modern scholars have continued to employ the theoretical explanations proposed to explain humor incongruity theory in social-psychological works (see occurrences. The most popular theories of humor are three Deckers & Devine, 1981; Galloway, 2009; Samson, 2009) unique perspectives aptly labeled the Big Three. and modern communication research (see Meyer, 1997, Plato and Aristotle are credited for introducing the old- 2000; Shouse, 2007). Nevertheless, like the superiority est of the Big Three, the superiority perspective (Morreall, perspective, the incongruity theory only offers a partisan 1983). Proponents of this perspective believe that humor is approach to humor. Critics of the incongruity perspective merely a product of perceptual superiority. In other words, have noted that this approach reduces humor to an indi- humor emerges from discourse tied to inferior social status, vidualistic and cognitive process (Shouse, 2007). Moreover, physical and mental weaknesses, mistakes, errors, defects, all incongruous events are not humorous. Car accidents, or deviant behavior. Examples of humor embodying this unexpected deaths, violations of valued social norms are perspective include self-deprecatory humor, put-down all incongruous, but they are rarely considered humorous. jokes, and racist and sexist humor. Gruner (1997), a mod- The last of the Big Three, the relief perspective, examines ern contributor to this perspective, proposed that jokes the emotional, affective, and behavioral nature of humor. and other humorous messages contain targets of aggres- The relief perspective has inspired modern researchers to sion. Moreover, he contended that targets of aggression examine humor and arousal (see Berlyne, 1960, 1972) and are observable in all humor incidences. Consequently, humor as an emotional coping mechanism (see Harzold & humorous messages ranging from simple “knock knock” Sparks, 2006; Martin, 1996; Wanzer, Sparks, & Frymier, jokes, where the unknowing participant plays the part of 2009). Herbert Spencer and Sigmund Freud are credited the fool, to gallows humor, where the death of a target is with the development of the relief perspective (Martin, imminent, originate from a sense of superiority. Adding 2007), which presents humor and laughter as mechanisms support for this perspective, biologists have argued that for the release of stressors, tension, and excess energy. From human-based humor may have evolved from rough and this perspective, laughter may be considered humorous tumble play, physical play where dominant and submissive or non-humorous (Morreall, 1983). Humorous laugh- acts are performed. Such play is observable in a wide variety ter is experienced when one laughs at humorous stimuli of animal species (Gervais & Wilson, 2005; Martin, 2007; (a joke, an incongruity, or etc.) and feels a sense of relief Panksepp & Burgdorf, 2003). Although the superiority from excess stressors, energy, or tension. Non-humor- perspective may explain a large portion of humor, like all ous laughter is experienced without humorous stimuli; theoretical perspectives, limitations abound. however, energy, tension, and/or stressors are released The second of the Big Three, the incongruity perspec- through laughter (Morreall). Moreover, relief laughter tive, explains one aspect of humor that superiority theorists can be situational (where tension is built and relieved in Matthew C. Ramsey received his PhD from the University of Southern Mississippi. He is an assistant professor at Shippensburg University in the Department of Human Communication Studies. His teaching and research areas include organizational communication, humor, message effects, and quantitative research methods. 2 PROTEUS: A Journal of Ideas one situation) or cross-situational (where tension builds Gibson, D. E. “Humor Consulting: Laughs for Power and Profit in Organizations.” Humor: International Journal of Humor via multiple events and situations and is relieved at a later Research 7 (1994): 403-428. time through laughter) (Morreall). Gruner, C. R. The Game of Humor. New Brunswick NJ: As an early contributor to the relief perspective, Freud Transaction, 1997. (1959) believed that drives were responsible for the excess Hampes, W. P. “Relation between Intimacy and Humor.” energy, tension, and/or stressors that create humor. He Psychological Reports 71.1 (1992): 127-130. believed that the only drives that produce humor are sexu- —. “Relation between Intimacy and the Multi-Dimensional Sense ality and hostility; conversely, modern research indicates of Humor Scale.” Psychological Reports 74 (1994): 1360-1362. that almost any number of drives may motivate the cre- Harzold, E., & Sparks, L. “Adult Child