A Class Full of Class Clowns: a Case Study on the Education of Aspiring Comedians

A Class Full of Class Clowns: A Case Study On The Education of Aspiring Comedians

Jayson San Miguel

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

A Class Full of Class Clowns: A Case Study On The Education of Aspiring Comedians Jayson San Miguel Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto 2020

Abstract

Stand-up comedy is not just for entertainment. It is a platform that many comedians have used to question hierarchies, critique social injustice and inspire change (Chattoo, 2019; Gilbert,

2004; Bingham & Hernandez, 2009). For this reason, it is important to understand the education and progression of aspiring comedians as they embark on their journey as social influencers. The purpose of this study was to examine the comedy principles that students learned and how they applied these to their own practice. This study also examined the instructional approaches of stand-up comedy instructors as they guided students with their professional expertise. To inform my case studies, I observed two stand-up comedy classes over a sixteen week period. My results showed that instructors used a balance of different feedback and modeling techniques to create a safe space for their students to explore their comedic creativity. For the students, the classes were a practice on self-reflection, as they learned the importance of drawing on their own experiences to create authentic stage personas. Through their writing and their performances, they also had to negotiate ways to be relatable to their audience. However, one of the major challenges that students encountered was finding the right balance in showing and sharing their vulnerable sides.

Some students had difficulties navigating “the hurtline” (Perez, 2013), while others over-relied on negative self-deprecating humour. This study supports the idea that being a comedian is much

ii more than “being funny” and telling jokes. It also highlights the importance of the self and drawing on lived experiences in the composition and performance of comedy. The implications of this study go beyond the stand-up comedy profession, as the resulting instructional themes can be applied to arts education. Additionally, the principles of being a comedian can be applied to everyday social interaction as humour plays a significant role in our lives.

iii

Acknowledgements

First, to my participants – Nancy, Mike, Paulo, Bradley, Timothy, Miqal, Elizabeth, Ramsey, Geoff and Britt – thank you being a part of my study and for allowing me to understand the world through your comedic minds.

To my supervisor, Dr. Shelley Stagg Peterson, thank you for your guidance and mentorship during my doctoral candidacy and for inviting me to be a part of the NOW Play team. I feel so fortunate to have had a supervisor who really cared for the success of each of her students.

To my committee members, Dr. Marcel Danesi and Dr. Guy Allen, thank you for all the valuable feedback that you have given me. Guy, your expressive writing class will always be one of my fondest memories of my graduate studies.

To my examiners, Dr. Elizabeth Campbell and Dr. Oliver Double, thank you for accepting such a pivotal role. Presenting to you during my final oral examination was an absolute joy. Olly, I can only aspire to become as great a comedian and researcher as you.

To my parents, Jesusa and Lorenzo, thank you for your love and unwavering support. I am forever grateful for all of the sacrifices that you made to provide a good life for Josh and I. You always challenged us to be the best version of ourselves. And even through our struggles and failures, you believed that we can accomplish anything. This dissertation is truly dedicated to both of you in honour of the hard work you put in raising us – I'm sure it wasn't easy to raise two doctors.

To my brother, Dr. Joshua San Miguel, thank you for blazing the PhD trail. I've always been proud of your success. Now, I hope you can help me get a job.

To my partner, Mallory Ryan, thank you for being you. You are my motivation, my inspiration, and my dance partner. I am so lucky to be with someone who understands my passions and my aspirations. Not many people would have gladly given up their Friday nights to spend it with me at the U of T library like you have. And I only hope I can support you in the way that you have supported me while you pursue your own ambitions. I cannot wait for our next chapter together!

To all of my colleagues and past professors from U of T, thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience with me. I have learned so much from each of you. Special thanks to Dr. Joan Peskin and Dr. Jack Miller for being my mentors when I first started my graduate studies.

To the NOW Play Team and my OISE Support Group – Naz, Shakina, Krystle, Audrey, Alesia, Soon Young, Alison, Jeanne, Denise, Wales, Mia, and Nev – thank you for all your positivity and for cheering me on! I am so glad that we crossed paths and have taken this journey together.

To my dearest friends, thank you for being there when I needed you. You have all supported me in more ways than you know. All of the softball games, bonspiels, brunches, second dinners, bubble teas, road trips and late-night drives have kept me grounded during this entire process. These moments remind me of how fortunate I am to have so many great people in my life with whom I can share my time.

To all my cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, Lola, and my extended family, thank you all for your support. Even from a distance, I can feel the love and well-wishes that you have sent my way.

And finally, to the Toronto comedy community, thank you for welcoming me with open arms and for providing me with a stage where I can share my creativity. The world is truly a better place when we can all laugh together.

Table of Contents

Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vi List of Appendices xi Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Background 1 Purpose 2 Research Questions 3 A Brief Overview of Stand-up Comedy 4 Significance 6 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review 8 Sociocultural Theory 8 Sociocultural Theory, Identity and The Self 10 Theories on Humour 14 Early Theories on Humour and Comedy 14 Benign-Violation Theory 16 Comedy Safe Space 17 The Structure of Comedy 18 A Sense of Humour 19 The Source of Humour 20 The Functions of Comedy 22 The Aggressive Nature of Comedy 22 Comedy and Political Correctness 26 The Empowering Nature of Comedy 29 Vulnerable Comedy and Self-Deprecation 30 Instructional Strategies 33

Feedback 33 Laughter as Feedback 36 Modeling 37 Chapter 3: Method 40 Qualitative Research 40 Case Study 41 Description of the Study 42 Setting 42 Stand-up Course 43 Participants 43 Data Collection 46 Data Analysis and Organization 48 Maintaining Validity and Trustworthiness 50 Limitations 51 Chapter 4: Results 52 Stand-Up A 52 The Instructor: Nancy 52 The Narrative Approach 52 The First Week 53 Class Exercises 55 Conclusion 60 Student # 1: Paulo 61 A Comparison of Performing Arts 62 Paulo in the Classroom 63 Paulo's Final Set 67 A New Hobby? 69 Student # 2: Bradley 70 Being Yourself 71

vii

Bradley in the Classroom 73 Bradley's Final Set 78 Identity, Comedy and Empowerment 81 Student # 3: Timothy 83 Writing Makes Perfect 83 Timothy in the Classroom 85 Timothy's Final Set 89 A Future in Comedy 92 Student # 4: Miqal 93 A Logical Approach 94 Miqal in the Classroom 96 Miqal's Final Set 98 An Appreciation of the "Soft Skills" 101 Student # 5: Elizabeth 102 From the Perspective of an Actress 103 Elizabeth in the Classroom 105 Elizabeth's Final Set 107 A Balance of Confidence and Vulnerability 111 Student # 6: Ramsey 111 Comedy as a Form of Expression and Self-Discovery 113 Ramsey in the Classroom 114 Ramsey's Final Set 117 Building off Confidence 119 Stand-Up B 120 The Instructor: Mike 120 The Point-of-View Approach 121 The First Week 123 Class Exercises 125

viii

Conclusion 128 Student # 7: Geoff 129 Following Your Dream 130 Geoff in the Classroom 131 Geoff's Final Set 135 Integrating into the Comedy Community 139 Student # 8: Britt 140 Empowerment through Comedy 141 Britt in the Classroom 142 Britt's Final Set 146 Comedy Makes You Feel Good 149 Chapter Conclusions 149 Chapter 5: Discussion 151 Restatement of Purpose 151 Research Question # 1 151 Comedians need to draw from real life experiences 151 Developing a persona 151 Bringing experience into practice 152 Drawing from a role model 152 Comedians need to be relatable 153 Stand-up is a dialogue 153 Drawing on shared experiences with the audience 154 Comedians need to show vulnerability 156 Comedians need to navigate the "hurtline" 158 Research Question # 2 160 Instructors demonstrated stand-up is a skill 160 The importance of feedback 160 Creating a collaborative community 162

Instructors modelled the principles of stand-up 163 Limitations 164 Student Sample Size 164 Instructor Sample Size 165 Implications 166 Implications for Comedians 166 Implications for Educators 166 Future Research 168 Conclusion 169 References 171 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms 186 Appendix B: Sample Interview Questions – Instructors 187 Appendix C: Sample Interview Questions – Students 188

List of Appendices Appendix A: Glossary of Terms 183 Appendix B: Sample Interview Questions – Instructors 184 Appendix C: Sample Interview Questions – Students 185

Chapter 1

Introduction

It can be easy to overlook the influence of stand-up comedians. For many, comedy is nothing more than a form of entertainment. Most people would not think to attend a comedy show at their local bar and come away reflecting on their own lives, or thinking about social justice issues. However, for decades, comedians have been changing and shaping the way we look at ourselves and how we look at society. One of the most recent examples happened in 2014, when a Hannibal Buress joke shed light on allegations against fellow comedian Bill Cosby (Elahe, 2018). Buress did not know the impact at the time, but it was not long after that things changed. Soon comedians were divided, one of the biggest movements of this generation started to take place and the voices that were previously silenced became empowered (Gilbert-Hickey, 2019; Rottenberg, 2019; Zinoman, 2018).

Considering the consequential effects that a joke can have, it is important to realize that having this kind of influence should not be taken lightly. With different comedy courses being offered in North America and post-secondary institutions now offering diplomas and certificates in comedy, I argue the importance of treating the comedy process more seriously and taking a closer look at the how comedians are created and developed. This dissertation investigates stand- up comedy in an educational setting and observes the development of amateur comedians prior to their entry into professional comedy.

Background

I remember the first time that I performed stand-up comedy on stage. I had signed up for a talent show at the university and at the time, the only talent I could think of was that I could make a handful of people laugh with some bad puns. I prepared myself for hours leading up to the night of my performance. I wrote as much as I could and shared my jokes with anybody who would listen. I even watched videos of amateur comedians bombing on stage to prepare me for a potentially embarrassing time. The evening of the show, I invited forty of my friends to come to help “fill in the laughs” for when I come on stage. I was nervous leading up to my performance and was shook by the spotlight that hit when I came out to do my set. Then, the next fifteen

1 minutes was a blur. By the end, I walked off the stage to a scatter of laughs and applause. And I felt great. Soon after that, I knew that I wanted to do it again.

Over the next few years, I performed as much as I could in the Toronto comedy scene. I also enrolled in almost every professional comedy theatre in the city that offered a comedy class. I loved experimenting and learning about new styles and genres. Eventually, I took a liking to improv comedy. In a short amount of time, this little comedy hobby turned into a passion. By 2014, I was with a comedy group that had a monthly show, winning local comedy awards along the way. I performed in major comedy markets like Vancouver, Montreal, Chicago and New York. And I was coaching local university improv teams and running comedy workshops for engineering undergrads looking to relieve stress.

It was this experience of coaching and teaching workshops that started me thinking about what it meant to teach comedy. It was also at this time that I began my graduate studies at OISE. I started thinking about my academic future and how I could combine my research skills with my comedy skills. I thought about my experiences as a student and a facilitator of comedy. I wanted to reflect on my own growth in the comedy community to eventually guide my research. From then, I knew that I wanted to look at the professional development of comedians – how comedy students become comedians.

Purpose

Comedy can be expressed through a variety of different styles. Therefore, to narrow the focus of my study, I draw upon my first experience with comedy and I intend to use stand-up as the form that I wish to investigate.

The first reason for choosing stand-up is that it is one of the most popular comedic styles (Butler & Russel, 2018). Numerous documentaries, television shows and films have featured the lives of stand-up comedians. Stand-up acts are also frequently featured on network reality shows and talent competitions. More recently, streaming services like Netflix have invested millions of dollars on stand-up specials. Dave Chappelle alone made sixty million dollars on three different stand-up specials produced by Netflix over the past decade (Nededog, 2016). As a result of stand-up comedy’s popularity, prominent comedians like Jerry Seinfeld and Ellen Degeneres

2 have become household names in North America and have found success as writers, actors and presenters in other media.

The second reason for choosing stand-up for my study is for the structure of the style. Stand-up performances bear similarities to storytelling traditions and slam poetry (Roozen, 2008). Unlike other forms of comedy where actors take on “characters,” in stand-up, a comedian presents themselves as the actor on stage (Brodie, 2004). Therefore, the process to be a comedian is closely tied to a person’s real life experiences and emotions. Additionally, unlike open-ended forms of comedic performance like improv, stand-up can be observed at two different definite points – during writing and during performance. It would be interesting to see how these two relate to each other as part of the stand-up comedy learning experience.

Third, the existing wealth of research on stand-up comedy will help guide my study. Focusing specifically on stand-up in a classroom setting, Oliver Double’s (2000), Raul Perez’s (2013) and Marianna Keisalo’s (2018a) studies have laid the groundwork that has informed this dissertation. The purpose of this study is to contribute in greater detail to those earlier works by positioning comedy under an educational framework and expanding on the teaching practices of instructors and the learning experiences of students.

Research Questions

With this purpose in mind, I would like to address two specific research questions with this study.

1. What are the principles of being a comedian that students learn in a stand-up comedy class and how do they apply these principles to their practice?

2. How do comedy instructors teach these principles?

There are some key terms to consider with my research questions. I would like to point out the difference between “being a comedian” and “being funny.” By definition, being “funny” is to elicit laughter (Berger, 1999). However, even though something or someone is being funny, this might not be their intent. Comedy, on the other hand, is the purposeful intent of eliciting laughter (Berger, 1999). Therefore, comedy is consciously attempted.

Despite this distinction between “being funny” and “being a comedian,” there exists a misconception that comedy instructors teach students “how to be funny.” Even comedy instructors have mistakenly claimed that their job is “to make people funny” (Perez, 2013, p. 488). However, if we are to assume that comedians play a larger role in society as social commentators (Bingham & Hernandez, 2009) and if we are also to assume that they can engage in meaningful discourse with their audiences (Gilbert, 2004; McCarron & Savin-Baden, 2008), then there is more to being a comedian than simply “being funny.” With this study, I would like to investigate what it takes to be a comedian beyond joke-telling. What do comedians do to prepare? How do they feel when they write or when they perform on stage? How do they become successful comedians?

To give context to my research questions, in the following section, I will discuss historical and modern perspectives on stand-up comedy. I have also provided a glossary of terms related to stand-up and comedy that I will be using throughout this dissertation (see Appendix A).

A Brief Overview of Stand-up Comedy

Although the modern concept of stand-up comedy did not attain its name until the 1950s, comedic oral storytelling and joke-telling have been examined in medieval performers such as fools and jesters, performing poets, circus clowns and other cultural storytelling traditions (Mintz, 1985). Today, stand-up comedy is defined by the simplicity of its style – a comedian reciting jokes in front of an audience (Carr & Greeves, 2016).

Researchers and scholars have traced the beginnings of modern stand-up to variety and burlesque acts in vaudeville theatres in New York City (McGraw & Warner, 2014). At the time, to keep audiences entertained, comedians used “quick-hitting” set-ups and punch-lines and often used a number of physical comedy gags. With the introduction of the radio, vaudeville performers were eventually pressured into writing stories and jokes that attracted listening audiences and focused on everyday topics (Schwarz, 2010). Then, the development and popularity of cinema changed the comedy landscape and eventually, vaudeville theatres became less and less popular (McGraw & Warner, 2014). Despite this transformation, a number of comedians still found great success, particularly while performing in the resort area known as the

“Borscht Belt” (McGraw & Warner 2014: Schwarz, 2010). It was here that comedy performances were revived and remained popular in smaller theatres and nightclubs. The “underground” nature of stand-up caused a shift in the type of material that comedians were also performing (Schwarz, 2010). Comedians became more open in talking about politics, sex and illegal substances. This shift gave stand-up comedians prominence during the 1950s and 1960s, where they became the voice of political criticism during an uneasy political time.

In the 1970s, stand-up comedy was widespread and clubs dedicated to comedy performances became very popular (McGraw & Warner, 2014). George Carlin and Richard Pryor became two of the first stand-up comedy superstars with their provocative, politically driven type of humour. Many comedians still cite them today as their main influence in the industry. The popularity of late-night television gave stand-up comedians another platform to reach wider audiences. Comedy variety shows like Saturday Night Live allowed comedians to contribute as both writers and performers. It was not long after that prominent stand-up comedians were given their own television shows. Television gave comedians in the 1980s and 1990s plenty of exposure and catapulted the careers of Eddie Murphy, Jerry Seinfeld, Robin Williams and Billy Crystal (Schwarz, 2010). In the 2000s, stand-up comedians continued to find success on television, film and on digital media. Social media soon became a breeding ground for many up-and-coming young comedians. For example, Canadian comedian Russell Peters found his big break in 2004 when his Comedy Now! performance went viral on YouTube (Hirji, 2009). His performance not only launched his career, but it also paved the way for younger comedians of colour in Canada and reignited important conversations on ethnic identity comedy (Hirji, 2009).

Today, stand-up comedy remains a popular comedic style. Despite the changing comedy landscape in North America, there is still an appreciation for the simplicity of the stand-up tradition (McGraw & Warner, 2014). Many performances still begin and end with a comedian on stage, in front of a group of people, holding a microphone. Rarely do true stand-up comedians use props – those who do are labelled as "prop comics" (Colleary, 2014). Stand-up comedians also do not perform theatrically produced material like plays with costumes and characters – this would fall into the realm of sketch comedians and one-man shows. Most modern stand-up comedians use simple oral storytelling techniques to relay their jokes. Although there are

5 comedians who famously use one-liners and riddles as part of their sets – like Demitri Martin or the late Mitch Hedberg – generally, the stand-up comedy performance is the telling and retelling of various stories, both real and imagined, from the perspective of the comedian (Gillota, 2015). More often than not, these stories have been written and rehearsed several times before, a trait that also separates this tradition from improvised comedy.

Today’s comedians are also still heavily influenced by pioneers such as Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor and Joan Rivers (Lockyer, 2011). Comedians still talk about and deal with social tensions, which include dialogues about race and gender related issues, police brutality, wars, corruption and everyday politics (Gilbert, 2004). There is now also a greater research interest in stand-up comedy, particularly in its applications. Comedy is being studied and observed globally under different social, cultural and political contexts (McGraw & Warner, 2014). Academics are also now pondering how stand-up comedy can be used in different disciplines such as in science communication (Pinto, Marcal, & Vaz, 2013), mathematics (Kurniahsi, Lenaldi, & Wahidin, 2011) and in online instruction (Smith & Wortley, 2017).

Significance I anticipate that the results of this research could help guide the refinement of comedic writing and the stand-up comedy curriculum. By helping develop a more structured, sound, research-based approach, theatre schools can develop pragmatic workshops that allow students to learn purposefully. This study may also provide insight on the relationship between humour and the perception of oneself through the sharing of lived experiences (Colleary, 2014; Keisalo, 2018a). The ability to find humour in one's personal experiences is a mark of a great comedian. This study should contribute to the growing literature on the social psychology of humour.

I also believe that this research may contribute to the growing study of critical political, cultural and social discourse in humour. Keough suggests that comedians aim to have their audiences “see things in a new way, or rather, see things as they are without the frosting” (1990, p. 194). Billig (2005) argues that comedians should be considered as modern day philosophers. The popularity of stand-up comedians in the media today suggests that it is important for society to take a closer look at comedy theory, particularly in times of social and political turmoil. The review of relevant literature shows that stand-up comedy has been used as a tool to create both togetherness and divisiveness. This study will take a closer look at how aspiring comedians learn

6 how to use this tool to shape their world as they develop into expert storytellers and social commentators.

Finally, on a personal note, as a student of comedy and a member of the Revue Theatre, I hope that this study will allow me to better understand my own development in my craft as a comedian. Along with my peers, I would like to know what makes a great comedian, both as a teacher and student of comedy. By understanding the processes of comedic writing as it relates to the self, then perhaps I can apply these principles to my own practice on stage and in life.

Chapter 2

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

Sociocultural Theory

In this study, I draw upon sociocultural theory, a framework used frequently in educational research (Phan, 2012). This approach, pioneered by Lev Vygotsky (1978), challenges historical views that look at development solely on a cognitive psychological level. Vygotsky (1978) challenges the idea that maturation, or natural development is synonymous with the process of learning. Instead, he argues that learning develops as a result of social interaction.

There are key foundational elements to sociocultural theory. The first is that learning is social (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertch, 1991). The second is that development occurs first on the interpersonal level and eventually the intrapersonal level (Vygotsky, 1978). Every function in a child's cultural development appears first externally, through interaction with their social environment and then is internalized. As an example, children verbalize as they interact with objects and the talk helps them to carry out the actions. As they grow older, children are able to carry out the actions without the external talk—their language, used as a problem-solving tool, is internalized (Vygotsky, 1978). In the transition to the intrapersonal plane, over time, they take on increasing responsibility for their own learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

During the interpersonal process, when beginning an activity, learners depend on others with more experience. This leads way to another of Vygotsky's (1978) important ideas: the zone of proximal development – or ZPD. The ZPD indicates the relationship between learning and development in children, as it is "the distance between the actual developmental level as a determined by independent problem solving under the adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). In discussing the ZPD, Vygotsky's (1978) intention is to allow educators to not only take into account what he considers as "cycles of maturation," but to show the impact of social interaction on learning.

The second foundational understanding of sociocultural theory sees human action as mediated by signs and tools (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Humans use signs, a system of

8 symbols, to attach meanings to objects. (Vygotsky, 1978). The use of signs is deeply rooted in the social and cultural history of the signs themselves. The understanding of the shared meaning of a set of signs is the essence of a culture (Smagorinsky, 2011). Tools, including speech and writing, are the means through which meaning-making is carried out. Vygotsky (1978) argues that symbolic memory and thinking separates humans from even the more advanced animals and the use of tools and signs that allows for advanced development.

While Vygotsky's work has been influential in the field of education, much of his research was based on childhood education (Bonk & Kim, 1998; Smagorinsky, 2011). However, this does not mean that sociocultural theory cannot be applied, or has not already been applied to adult learning. Vygotsky's (1978) view on internalization (or appropriation) through social interaction with the mediation of tools and signs should remain true for adults as well as children. In practice, the concept of the zone of proximal development is already being applied in different fields of adult education and professional development (Fithriani, R., 2019; Khaliliaqdam, 2014; Warford, M.K., 2011). Alfred (2002) suggests that sociocultural theory “embraces, rather than rejects, the more traditional theories that dominate the field of adult education, while opening up a discursive space for acknowledging and supporting multiple ways of knowing” (p. 12). Kim and Merriam (2010) extend this idea, stating that many adult learning experts, whether knowingly or unknowingly, in fact already promote a range of teaching approaches for adults that encourage reflection, discussion, role play and intellectual challenges that fall under the framework of sociocultural theory.

In addition to this focus on collaboration, adult education allows for more control for the learners themselves. At a more mature age, this social interaction between a more knowledgeable peer and an adult learner can be treated more consciously, since an adult learner would have more autonomy towards their learning experience than a child. Teaching techniques in the field of adult education must treat adult learners with respect and dignity through self-directed learning opportunities, allowing learners to take as much control as possible over the design process and evaluation of their learning (Smagorinsky, 2011).

Sociocultural theory influences adult education, however, when it comes to contextual learning (Hansman, 2001). Since learning "does not occur in a vacuum," then the social context must be considered (Hansman, 2001). The context itself may include the physical setting – such

9 as a school or community centre – or the group in which the learning experience occurs (Lave, 1988). More importantly, this social setting is also where participants can access the use of tools and the shared meanings of signs (Smagorinsky, 2011).

These assumptions – Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of internalization, the zone of proximal development, the use of stand-up performance as a tool and the social context of the comedy classroom – are important considerations in this study. The learning that takes place in the classroom occurs through social interaction between the more knowledgeable, expert professional comedian and the less experienced aspiring comedian. The expert must work within the zone of proximal development of the student. Throughout the course, their role is to teach their student how to use the tool of stand-up performance to create comedic material, to negotiate their sense of selves and entertain their audience.

Sociocultural Theory, Identity and the Self

An important aspect of stand-up comedy is how the comedian presents their “self” on stage (Brodie, 2014; Colleary, 2014; Keisalo, 2018a). What comedians say is intrinsically tied with who they are. Unlike other forms of comedy when comedians can become “characters,” stand-up comedians are generally more grounded, drawing upon real-life experiences.

Sociocultural theory has been a prominent framework for studying identity and the self (Park, 2015). Identity can be treated as a higher mental process, although Vygotsky himself did not conceptualize any guidelines for understanding issues in identity formation (Penuel & Werscht, 1995). However, one of the main issues in the sociocultural framework of identity is the lack of consistency in defining the term "identity.” Although the terms have often been used interchangeably in the past, modern theorists have suggested that there is a distinction between the “self” and “identity” (Holland & Lachicotte, 2007). Stets and Burke (2003) outline the relationship between the self and identity:

…while the self emerges in social interaction within the context of a complex, organized, differentiated society, it has been argued that the self must be complex, organized and differentiated as well… This is where identity enters into the overall self. The overall self is organized into multiple parts (identities), each of which is tied to aspects of the social structure. (p. 8)

Complementary to Vygotsky’s sociocultural framework, social interactionists Mead (1934) and Goffman (1956) laid some of the early foundation in conceptualizing self and identity. Like Vygotsky's (1978) view on higher mental processes, Mead views identity as being developed through social interaction mediated by symbolic communication. This identity is also dynamic – it is negotiated and renegotiated through daily social interaction (Mead, 1934). People form their identities in relation to existing social positions. Different forms of identity that people take can be interpreted as the social roles that are understood by the group in which the interaction is taking place (Holland & Lachicotte, 2007). These social roles have their own history, rooted in the culturally accepted values by the group in which the participation takes place. This social group, in which a participant can negotiate the role of their self, is called the generalized other (Mead, 1934). Mead uses the analogy of a baseball game to explain this concept. If a person is to join a baseball team, in order to play the game, one must have an understanding not only of their role on the team and the expectations and assumptions that are set upon them by the rest of their teammates, but they must also be aware of the roles that their teammates play in relation to their own. This gives the participant a sense of self situated in a particular social group.

Sociologist Erving Goffman (1956) provides a somewhat complementary interpretation of Mead's theory of the self. Goffman analogizes social interactions in terms of a theatrical performance – a concept that is now known as dramaturgy. Like Mead, he also supports a view of identity negotiation from a social interactionist framework. However, under Goffman’s theory, he suggests that people negotiate their selves based on the expectations of society – which he calls the front stage. The front stage encompasses the roles that people play when they have an "audience.” These are the social roles that are expected of oneself within social interactions with members of particular social groups. Typically, the front stage follows some set of cultural norms or social rules that have historically been established by members of that community. Goffman (1956) states:

When an actor takes on an established social role, usually, he finds that particular front has already been established for him. Whether his acquisition of the roles was primarily motivated by desire to perform the given task or by a desire to maintain the corresponding front, the actor will find that he must do both. (p.17)

Goffman (1956) indicates that typically fronts are selected, not created, since social groups have already established a number of different fronts that an actor can adapt to. He also suggests that to maintain a front, certain key elements must be upheld, like a particular appearance and manner. This front stage behaviour is conscious of the roles that is expected of it and how the audience perceives the actor within the role. The front stage role is also what is believed to be the most positive self that can be potentially accepted within a social group (Goffman, 1956). The engagement in this role for the purpose of "pleasing an audience" is what Goffman calls impression management (1956). This conformity to the expectations of a social group changes with every situation and interaction. Different groups require different fronts and thus different social roles. In this sense, the front stage self is every changing and fluid and maintaining front stage impression becomes an important aspect of being seen in a positive way by society (James, 2015).

The negotiation of the self through the front stage is applicable to the study of comedy. The behaviours which comedians choose to portray in front of their audience that invoke laughter are calculated impressions (Paolucci & Richardson, 2006). For example, when a comedian sarcastically says a line as “tongue in cheek,” they are presenting their front stages in a particular way that only the self recognizes (Menard, 2004). This impression management is critical for the development of a comedian’s persona, as they actively choose which aspects of their selves to portray on stage.

In a more contemporary view, Colleary (2014) presents her notion of the "comic 'I'.” Colleary suggests that the comic "I"dentity is fluid – that the person performing plays with their own notion of impression management in determining what will be the most pleasing comedic reaction from their particular audience. The identities and social roles they negotiate depend on the material they present and their audience's expectations. Colleary (2014) states,

The comic ‘i’ is understood here as that which constitutes ‘me,’ as fragments or aspects of the self, selected and projected outward from within by means of a comic persona and bound by ideas inherent to the comic frame. In this way, the formulation looks to subjectivity in comic performance and how that staged subjectivity is keyed to broader social and communal structures. Some suggest that postmodern culture may privilege how the story is told over and above what that story is telling. Stand-up comics take

narrative bits and pieces of experience, pull them apart, manipulate them, change, defamiliarise and refashion them, to create comic business for laughter. It foregrounds the performed self lensed through the comic frame, which does not suggest that one necessarily precedes the other (p. 59).

The presentation of the self is dependent on the identity that comedians would like to portray with the audience to get their message across in a positively receptive and socially acceptable way. Stephen Colbert and his use of the character "Stephen Colbert" is a modern day example. Colbert rose to fame through this persona of "Stephen Colbert" – a hard, right-wing social commentator – even though he himself identified as a liberal. Although the persona did not reflect his own beliefs, the satirical approach did, becoming the source of his humour and a fan favourite.

However, Colleary points out that the comedian's approach and persona depends on the message and where they stand with the audience. A comedian who acts as a "messenger to the other side" generally sides with the audience, points out relatable observations and creates a collective community through their material that may or may not include targeting a different out-group (Colleary 2014). Becoming what she calls a "messenger from the other side,” a comedian can turn the audience into the out-group by breaking social conventions and expectations and using material through shock and awe tactics that may be deemed offensive by some of the audience (Colleary, 2014). The challenge is that sometimes comedians can be unaware of where their audience lies with particular issues and may have difficult negotiating an identity or social role when trying to actively decide on the message they want to share. Regardless of the message, the role of comedians is defined by their audience. Colleary (2014) quotes comedian Bob Berky to explain the role of comedians:

The clown may suffer on an audience’s behalf and may experience on stage that which an audience has experienced in everyday life. The clown may act as a scapegoat or whipping boy and can embody or articulate political, social and cultural praxis or concerns. That said, the expectation always remains that the audience expects the clown to be immortal to the event… [the audience expects that the clown] will not be hurt. (p. 76)

According to Berky, then, regardless of how comedians present themselves, their role is to create an atmosphere that will entertain the audience, even at the expense of the comedian themselves. To further explore the role of the comedian and how they create comedic situations, I will discuss in the following section the early theories on humour and how these theories helped shape the current understanding of comedy.

Theories on Humour

Humour is an essential part of human interaction. Laughter as a result of social exchange signifies acceptance, mutual understanding and a particular degree of trust (Berger, 1999). Sharing jokes and laughing together are important for creating and maintaining friendships, having positive self-image and for social growth (Ron & Rover, 2014; Sletta, Sobstad & Valas, 1995; Wagner, 2019). Over the years, many researchers from a variety of fields have taken on the serious task of trying to come up with an all-encompassing theory that explains the causes, applications and consequences of humour. As Rutter (1997) states,

For the sociologist studying humour, jokes and laughter are rarely just idle play or inconsequential fooling but are purposeful and effective ways of managing environments, situations and experiences. (p. 27)

In the following section, I review some of the relevant literature on comedy and humour theory.

Early Theories on Humour and Comedy

Humour, comedy and joke-telling have long been studied under the interdisciplinary field of “humour theory.” Over generations, theories and the way comedy has been presented have evolved – from basic storytelling to modern sketch and modern stand-up comedy (Jakoaho & Marjamaki, 2012). Berger (1999) suggests that there are four elements by which comedy can be presented: through language, logic, identity and action. He states that most, if not all humour, can be observed through at least one of these elements, no matter the style of comedy. Regardless of the means, the goal of comedians has stayed the same – to evoke the most laughter from their audience. And it is only by the audience’s response that a comedian’s humour can be validated.

Through humour research, many theories have risen concerning the development, understanding and purpose of humour, comedy and jokes. Some of these theories can be traced

14 back to ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, who attempted to provide an explanation as to why people laugh (Perks, 2012). While many theories have been debated and even debunked, three general theories regarding humour have endured. The first is that humour is associated with happiness increment – through superiority, heightened self-esteem and the reduction of tension (La Fave, 1976; Berger, 1999; Davies, 2010). Philosopher Thomas Hobbes first suggested that humour is used to create a divide between the superior and the inferior and that jokes are made at the expense of the inferior (La Fave, 1976). The feeling of being superior to someone heightens self-esteem and can cause a great deal of happiness. This acknowledgement of the difference in status and power has been the foundation for medieval jester and “fool’s” comedy, modern day slapstick comedy and insults. The second is known as the “relief theory” (Berger, 1999). Originating from the works of Immanuel Kant and Sigmund Freud, relief theory suggests that humour is a result of releasing emotional tension (Shurcliff, 1968).

The third theory of humour is the incongruity theory (Berger, 1999). Unlike the superiority or relief theories, which focus on the emotion of happiness, the incongruity concept focuses on logic. When the audience expects one thing, but is exposed to another, the disparity can result in laughter. Incongruity theories can explain why jokes are funny once heard for the first time but become less funny over time because the element of surprise is removed.

Since the development of these three early theories on humour, researchers have discussed their merits and how they relate to each other. Double (2000) suggests that incongruity theory is the most useful of the three, particularly in teaching stand-up. Shaw (2010) extends this argument by suggesting that despite having these three theories of humour, each theory is actually quite different form one another and do not refer to the same study of humour. Lintott (2016) summarizes the relationship between the three theories.

The incongruity theory purports to define the formal object of comic amusement, which it locates in certain kinds of incongruity. The superiority theory is concerned with the affective response that often accompanies comic amusement, which it maintains is an enjoyable feeling of superiority to the object of amusement. Finally, the relief theory focuses on the expression of comic amusement in laughter, which it considers a welcome release of pent up tension and energy. We might say that the incongruity theory focuses

on the cognitive aspects, superiority the emotive and relief the physical of comic amusement. So, just as my heart quickens (physical) and I am fearful (emotive) when I judge (cognitive) a car is about to hit me, it is likely that the experience of comic amusement often includes some or all of these aspects. (p. 347).

Benign-Violation Theory

Through the incongruity theory, researchers began to formulate different linguistic and cognitive models of humour, such as the Semantic Script Theory and the General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo & Raskin, 1991; Raskin & Attardo, 1994). Working on incorporating assumptions about the context and prior knowledge that people bring when processing humour, researcher Pete McGraw (2014) built on the prior dominant theories of humour with his own theory called the “benign-violation theory.” Under the benign-violation theory, McGraw suggests that humour is tied to particular expectations and assumptions that we believe. However, it is the degree to which these expectations and assumptions are broken combined with the feeling of security that creates the benign-violation theory.

According to the benign-violation theory, humour only occurs when something seems threatening or unsettling (violation) to a person, but they still have a simultaneous feeling of being secure and safe (benign) (McGraw & Warner, 2014). That instantaneous realization causes us to laugh. Also, in order for this to work, there must be an equal amount of thought that something is both a violation and is benign. If the violation outweighs the benignity of the statement or action, then a person can feel threatened or unsafe, meaning that they do not find something funny on moral grounds because they may feel offended by the joke. If the benignity outweighs the violation, then the joke may seem uninteresting. Take the following question-and- answer joke as an example:

Why was six afraid of seven? Because seven ‘ate’ nine!

Here we see a violation of linguistic principles, presented as a pun. Those who find this joke amusing understand the violation and the reconciliation of the violation that gives them the “aha!” moment. At the same time, this violation is seen as non-threatening to the listener on moral grounds. Those who are offended by the joke may feel that the violation of linguistic

16 principles should never be allowed, or perhaps they have a moral objection to numbers eating each other. Those who find it boring might feel that the violation as uncreative or uninspired, like many people who groan at puns.

Let us consider another variation of this joke

Why was six afraid of seven? Because seven is a registered ‘six’ offender!

Again we see a violation of linguistic principles. It is also possible that this could be a violation of expectations if we had expected this joke to be the similar to the prior joke. In this case, however, there may be a greater moral objection to the pun used, since some may be triggered or offended by the light-hearted treatment of the word “sex offender.” Those who feel safe by the joke and those who do not find it boring or uninspired will accept the joke as funny. However, to some, the violation may be much greater and they are not able to relieve themselves of the tension of the violation.

McGraw and Warner (2014) suggest that all humourous principles fall under this theory. Apart from puns and other linguistic-featured jokes, comments about race, cultures and different backgrounds can have a different effect depending on the speaker. The goal of comedians is to find the perfect balance between what they perceive as a violation and what as benign.

Comedy Safe Space

In order for comedians to encourage a group of people to laugh, they need to create a setting where laughter is both acceptable and expected. Sophie Quirk calls this the comedian's "safe space" – an abstract concept "in which jokers can operate outside the restrictions which govern most of regular interaction" (2015, p. 45). By establishing safe space, comedians are inviting the audience to temporarily relax their views on honesty and decency. The rules which govern the comedy safe space are similar to the rules that govern play (Quirk, 2015). Participants are invited to step out of reality to negotiate an abstract world with each another. Similar to participation in play, participation in humour can be initiated spontaneously in everyday interaction, or purposefully in an established setting like a comedy club.

Working within this safe space enables comedians to talk about potentially controversial topics with their audience through humour. It also allows them to make outrageous and exaggerated claims for the sake of being funny without being taken too seriously. However, comedians can also overstep the boundaries of safe space. For example, comedians who make jokes about tragedies immediately after they occur may anger their audience. At a time when people are seeking compassion and sympathy, humour that targets tragedy is often seen as disrespectful and mean-spirited (Quirk, 2015).

The illusion of safe space can also be broken if comedians fail to provide an entertaining distraction and "the boundaries between offstage and onstage become blurred" (Quirk, 2015, p. 47). If the comedian on stage is struggling to make people laugh – also known as "bombing" – then the audience can suddenly feel uncomfortable and become disinterested. The comedy safe space can also be disrupted if the comedian breaks their persona (Colleary, 2014). It is important for comedians to maintain consistency in their sets. For example, a comedian who heavily critiques the current government cannot suddenly praise them at the end of their set without any explanation. The sudden change of perspective and inconsistent point of view will lead the audience to question the comedian's credibility.

Negotiating the boundaries of safe space can be a complicated task for any comedian. In order to be successful at establishing this space, comedians need to be equipped with the proper strategies and techniques to connect and build a relationship with their audience.

The Structure of Comedy

Early comedy research focused on the structural and aesthetic nature of comedy, starting with the linguistic analysis of jokes. On the most basic level, jokes are composed of “jokemes” – elements that make up the telling of a joke (Berger, 1976). Jokes involve the set-up of multiple scripts. The punch-line is the statement or utterance that presents an incongruous script to what was expected, which can trigger a humorous response after the listener has worked out this incongruity (Keisalo, 2018b; Raskin & Attardo, 1994). In a stand-up comedy performance, the delivery of the punch-line typically receives the largest reaction from the audience.

For comedians to be successful, they need to be able to tell several jokes, which includes properly creating good set-ups and punch-lines. Joke-telling is a practice that can be

18 accomplished outside of the comedy profession and exists as part of everyday interaction. Cohen (1999) suggests that jokes can be categorized into two different groups – conditional and pure. A conditional joke requires the audience to have prior knowledge and the understanding of this prior knowledge is subjective to each listener. A pure joke is universal and understood by everyone in the same manner. He further states that there is actually no such thing as a pure joke and that all jokes are conditional (1999). Jokes require prior knowledge that sets up an expectation and their understanding is unique to each individual depending on their own personal experiences and backgrounds. The notion of conditional jokes coincides with superiority and incongruity theory and can be linked to the audience’s understanding and expectations of stereotypes. Approval of a joke, often through laughter or applause, can demonstrate an agreement in ideology between the participants. Disapproval can demonstrate an ideological divide or contrary points of view.

Rutter (1997) analyzes different joke-telling strategies and the purpose of jokes in social interactions. First, he suggests that jokes are too complex to be analyzed as simply part of a stimulus-response system. Jokes are meant to illicit laughter, but they do not always do so, as the audience can decide whether or not the joke is funny. Jokes exist in a social and cultural context and the meaning of jokes is negotiated between the speaker and the hearer (Rutter, 1997). Instead, jokes should be viewed as “invitations” to laughter, leaving the audience with the ability to accept or reject these invitations.

Secondly, there are many ways to tailor these invitations. Rutter analyzes over six different rhetorical techniques and four different stand-up specific techniques that complement joke-telling strategies (1997). Some of these rhetorical and presentational techniques – such as the use of lists, puzzle-solutions, alliteration and word-play and changes in voices and intonation – also exist outside the realm of stand-up comedy. They can also be found in other written modes such as poetry and speech-writing. Regardless of the form or rhetorical technique that can be adapted, jokes generally still follow the rules of incongruity and are presented with a set-up and a punch-line.

A Sense of Humour

It is also widely accepted in North American culture that “having a sense of humour” is a desirable characteristic (Apte, 1987). Berger defines sense of humour as “an acquired

19 antipompous, antisolemn attitude and an ability to detect and enjoy wit and irony in many situations…an ability to take a joke – directed against oneself and made by somebody else – in good grace and to join in the laughter” (cited in Apte, 1987). Having “a good sense of humour” is one of the most desired human traits, as it elicits positivity around those who possess it (Greengross, Miller & Martin, 2014). In a survey of executives from 100 of the United States’ top companies, when asked whether an employee with a sense of humour does better, same, or worse at his or her job compared to others with a lack of sense of humour, 84% said that the employees with a sense of humour do a better job (Apte, 1987). In another study, it has also been suggested that close friendships are closely associated with having a similar sense of humour or humour style (Hunter, Fox, & Jones, 2015).

However, the definition of “having a sense of humour” can be interpreted in different contexts. La Fave (1976) brings up the following question,

…it is commonly held by contemporary social psychologists that the Ethnocentric Bigot or right wing authoritarian personality lacks a sense of humor. Does he? Or is the social psychologist who argues this position merely displaying his own left-wing authoritarian personality or bigotry by implicitly defining sense of humor as finding the same jokes funny as he does? (p. 119)

Having a sense of humour, then, cannot be objectively defined, as people’s tastes and preferences for jokes differ depending on sociocultural, political, or religious beliefs. Therefore, people will not always agree on what they interpret as funny, since comedy depends on so many different contexts. It is important to understand where people’s sense of humour comes from and how personal experience shapes our tastes, styles and preferences.

The Source of Humour

Comedian and researcher Oliver Double (2017) suggests that stand-up comedians can often find humour in situations that others typically would not. Comedians need to have the ability to “detach” themselves from the world, seeing things in an objective lens as an outsider and then build on these narratives to create a comedic dialogue with the audience (Double, 2017).

The idea that comedians need to draw from their personal experiences is echoed in a number of different anecdotes by professional comedians and “how-to” instructional comedy writing books. Comedy, like other arts, is a form of self-expression, in which the artist is trying to connect with their audience (Colleary, 2014). In her ethnographic review of stand-up performances, Keisalo (2018a) states that particularly in modern stand-up comedy, the individual self is emphasized as the primary source for material. Personal experiences and perspectives are used as inspiration for jokes, which creates the “paradox of stand-up comedy” – that authentic experiences are valued as source material, but the stories that are told can be fabricated or exaggerated for the purpose of humour (Keisalo, 2018a).

Drawing from real-life experiences and observations also helps the comedian develop their on-stage persona, or comic “I” (Colleary, 2014). Keisalo (2018a) states that having a developed on-stage persona can help frame a comedian’s jokes, as it can create a distinctive voice on stage and create consistency by having comedians continually develop their material from the perspective of this persona. According to Colleary (2014), when comedians take the stage, that persona or “comic I” takes hold and it tells the audience “‘hey this is me and this is the funny side of my life’, or ‘here are my experiences and views of the world, but I still want to make you laugh’” (p. 42).

Through habit, professional comedians develop a second nature for finding and developing material from their own self-reflections and from everyday observations. Once a comedian has noticed something odd, unusual, or something that they can turn into a comedic bit, they can then play with patterns, rhetorical devices and story-telling strategies to build their jokes. One such comedy-development technique is known as finding “The Game of the Scene” (Besser, Roberts, & Walsh, 2013). Originating from works of improv and sketch comedians, “finding the game” involves observing something unusual or odd and then finding or creating supporting patterns through exaggeration to eventually reach absurd, comedic conclusions. For example, a comedian might wonder what dogs say when they bark and then imagine a conversation that they might have with a particularly gossipy dog.

Professional comedians spend a lot of time documenting and drafting their material until they feel it is ready to be performed in front of an audience. A comedian’s most prized possession is their comedy notebook (Double, 2017; Keisalo, 2018a). These notebooks are used

21 to note everyday observations and to document the things that comedians want to share that may be odd or interesting to them. A closer look at a comedian’s notebooks is like being able to see the world through their comedic lens.

The Functions of Comedy

Jokes always exist in a particular social and cultural context. Due to the personal nature of comedy, jokes can either unite people by pointing out similarities, or further divide society by poking fun at differences (Davies, 2010). From a psychological perspective, Martin, Puhlik- Doris, Larsen, Gray and Weir (2003) suggest that humour can be adaptive or maladaptive. They found that people can use humour in everyday interaction as a way to enhance their own self- esteem (self-enhancing), to improve their relationship with others (affiliative), to enhance themselves by putting others down (aggressive), or to improve relationships with others by putting themselves down (self-defeating). The combination of these functions with people’s own sense of humour and style affect the way they view themselves and manage their social relationships (Heintz & Ruch, 2019).

The idea that comedy can serve multiple functions simultaneously makes it an important tool for both the oppressed and the oppressors (Kraemer, 2013). Meyer refers to this as the “duality paradox of comedy,” in that comedy intended to divide people through forms of targeting, can also unite them through association (Meyer, 2000). In the following section, I review the research that directs how comedy has both divided and united groups of people.

The Aggressive Nature of Comedy

To begin this review on aggressive and offensive humour, it is important to differentiate between what is considered “aggressive and offensive” and what is considered “dirty and vulgar.” Dirty and vulgar jokes have been used by various stand-up comedians as a way of expressing emotion or punctuating particular punch-lines (Saporta, 1994). However, dirty or vulgar jokes are not meant to be as divisive as jokes that are aggressive or offensive. Dirty and vulgar jokes are typically objected to by audiences through the comedian’s use of language, while aggressive and offensive jokes are based on a disagreement of morals and politics (Saporta, 1994). Aggressive and offensive jokes also typically target specific groups and populations through identity humour.

Identity humour reveals biases based on personal experiences (Davies, 2010). People's interpretation of jokes shows a lot about how they perceive the world. How they create and tell jokes based on everyday observational material gives others a quick glance of the things they notice. Even different comedic styles show what comedians believe in and they can be a reflection of people's true personalities (Carr & Jeeves, 2015).

One source of humour comes from comedians’ cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Ethnic humour has a long history that predates the so-called pioneers such as Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy. Apte (1987) defines ethnic humour as “a type of humor in which fun is made of the perceived behavior, customs, personality, or any other traits of a group or its members by virtue of their specific sociocultural identity” (p. 27). Early ethnic humour associates itself with the superiority concept of humour. Palmore (1962) uses the term “ethnophaulism” to refer to ethnic group insults. These insults were typically used for humour by the dominant cultural group and still prevail today as an oppressive practice. Ethnophaulisms describing physical characteristics of members of a non-dominant ethnic group can become derogatory and are often used for the amusement of dominant group members (Palmore, 1962). Terms such as “tar baby” to describe Blacks and “ching-chong” to describe Asians had been once common place in everyday discourse. Blackface comedy had been popular in the 1940s (Berger, 1999) and films featuring people of different ethnicities had contained characters with exaggerated attributes (for example, squinty eyes for Asians, bad teeth for Brits).

Michael Billig (2005) notes that much of earlier ethnic comedy had been used as propaganda by the dominant group. For example, derogatory terms about the Black community had emerged from the Klu Klutz Klan and other white supremacy campaigns. During the World Wars, North American sentiments towards the German and the Japanese had been accompanied by hateful, derogatory stereotypes that tapped into the “us vs. them” mentality. The use of ethnic humour in a hateful manner highlights the differences of groups and finding humour against an out-group creates camaraderie and pride for in-group members (2005). Ha