Proquest Dissertations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy subm itted. 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. Higher 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' Bell & Howell Information and teaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 A GENERIC ANALYSIS OF THE RHETORIC OF HUMOROUS INCIVILITY IN POPULAR CULTURE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial FuljBUment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Laura K. Hahn, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1999 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. Sonja K. Foss, Advisor Dr. Mary Garrett Advisor Dr. Dale Brashers Department of Journalism and Communication Graduate Program T3MI Number: 9941337 UMI Microform 9941337 Copyright 1999, 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 ABSTRACT This research examines the rhetoric of humorous incivility as it is enacted in popular culture, specifically in the television programs, Seinfeld and Beavis and Butt- Head. and the radio and television program. The Howard Stem Show. The purpose is to identify, describe, and understand the features and functions of a rhetoric of humorous incivility. The method of genre criticism is used to identify and explain the rhetorical situation, the substantive and stylistic features, and the organizing principle of each show. The analysis of the shows suggests humorous incivility may function in two ways for audiences. The shows may be read as both civil and uncivil, depending on the frame from which the audience views them—closed to the perspectives of the other in a self focus or open to such perspectives in an other focus. When the self-focused topics of sex, family, technology, and bodily functions receive the focus of attention, they may be read within the civil frame—as open, playful, and innovative. When viewed from this perspective, the shows fall into categories at the civil end of the continuum because the characters handle these topics in a manner that appears open or unrestricted. When viewed from the perspective of other-focused topics, however, they appear closed to the possibility of allowing external influences to have an impact. For being a woman I admire and want to live up to; For the way she shares herself and her life with her femily, friends, and community; For the many ways she enjoys her life; and for all that she brings to mine I dedicate this project to my loving grandmother Erma Katherine Lewis. Ill ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As I finish this degree, I am happily back home in California at Humboldt State University. I want to thank the department and my students for making coming to work so pleasurable and for making the Ph. D. process worth it. There are numerous others who fed me, coached me, helped me think, listened to me bitch, and made me feel that this could, indeed, be done. For those of you who were with me in the summer of 1998, the greatest thanks and appreciation must go to you. I needed and appreciate every expression of tenderness and care you lavished on me—whether it was daily phone calls, nightly meals, sleepovers when I needed company, and shoulders to cry—on you were there. Robin, how do I express my gratitude for your role in my life this year? Our daily calls to talk about the writing process, the day's events, and to "just bitch" were an enormous source of support. Likewise, our workouts always gave me something to look forward to after a solitary day spent at the computer or in the library. Like few others, I knew you could really understand my dilemmas, and I appreciate the way you always listened to, and never judged, my struggles and concerns. My only regret is that this friendship did not bloom sooner and that our careers have taken us to opposite ends of the country. Thanks for entering my life and being a wonderful friend. IV I wish to thank my family for their support and encouragement of my academic pursuits. Dad, I remember my first year in college when I wanted to quit. What kept me fi-om doing so was knowing how much that decision would disappoint you. Your approval has always meant so much to me and is partly responsible for this final degree. Thank you for making me want to stick with it! Mom, as a kid, I remember you scolding me with, "If you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all." I am thankful that Jerry Seinfeld, Mike Judge, and Howard Stem did not follow similar advice. Fish, I appreciate all the times when you instinctively knew not to ask about the writing while at the same time communicated that you were supportive and aware of my process. Your research help toward the end of this process was truly helpful. Of course, none of this would have been accomplished without the support of the faculty at The Ohio State University. Thanks to my committee members. Dr. Mary Garrett and Dr. Dale Brashers, for your time and valuable assistance. I have had the good fortime and privilege to work with Dr. Sonja K. Foss as my advisor, mentor, and fi-iend. Her work inspired and motivated me to come to The Ohio State University to earn this degree, and her guidance, encouragement, and spirit enabled me to complete it. The most celebrated aspect of my graduate school experience are the wonderful firiendships I made and carry with me. Thanks to Debian Marty and Debra Moddelmog for taking me on long walks with the dogs and reminding me that “life is good.” Pam Tracy, our friendship has blossomed and continues to grow in ways that add humor, support, understanding, and kindness to my life. And, Sharon Varallo, thanks for being the kind of firiend who wakes me up on a Saturday morning to say, “Hey, let’s go to China!” VITA August 25, 1968 Bom - Orange, California 1991............................................................. B.A. Liberal Studies, San Francisco State University 1994......................................................... M.A. Speech Communication, San Francisco State University 1994-1998................................................ Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Research Publication 1. Hahn, Laura. "Incorporating Theory and Practice: Student Involvement in a Social Movement." Speech Communication Teacher 12.1 (1997): 1-2. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Communication. VI TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract..........................................................................................................................ii Dedication ......................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgments ..........................................................................................................iv V ita.................................................................................................................................vi Chapters: 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 2. Seinfeld ......................................................................................................................57 3. Beavis and Butt-Head ........................................................................................ 96 4. The Howard Stem Show ...........................................................................................131 5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 160 Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 193 Bibliography.................................................................................................................. 195 vu CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCnON Cultural commentators claim, “We are in a culture war. And one of the first casualties of war is civility” (Himmelfarb in DeMott 15). In this war, no one respects anyone and anything anymore because there are no one and nothing left to be held in high regard.. Decency has been dethroned. We have become nothing more than a nation of selfish, whining complainers, and every time we open our mouths, the cavities are there for all to see. We are all conniving to get ahead