THE ARTILLERY OF CRITIQUE VERSUS THE GENERAL UNCRITICAL CONSENSUS: STANDING UP TO PROPAGANDA, 1990-1999 by Andrew Alexander Monti Master of Arts, York University, Toronto, Canada, 2013 Bachelor of Science, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy, 2005 A dissertation presented to Ryerson University and York University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Joint Program of Communication and Culture Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2018 © Andrew Alexander Monti, 2018 AUTHOR’S DECLARATION FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF A DISSERTATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this dissertation. This is a true copy of the dissertation, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I authorize Ryerson University to lend this dissertation to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this dissertation by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I understand that my dissertation may be made electronically available to the public. ii ABSTRACT The Artillery of Critique versus the General Uncritical Consensus: Standing Up to Propaganda, 1990-1999 Andrew Alexander Monti Doctor of Philosophy Communication and Culture Ryerson University, 2018 In 2011, leading comedy scholars singled-out two shortcomings in stand-up comedy research. The first shortcoming suggests a theoretical void: that although “a number of different disciplines take comedy as their subject matter, the opportunities afforded to the inter-disciplinary study of comedy are rarely, if ever, capitalized on.”1 The second indicates a methodological void: there is a “lack of literature on ‘how’ to analyse stand-up comedy.”2 This research project examines the relationship between political consciousness and satirical humour in stand-up comedy and attempts to redress these two shortcomings. It offers a new theoretical model and a new set of longitudinal data: the political content of American stand-up comedy over the course of the decade from 1990-1999. It capitalizes on the interdisciplinary study of comedy, which scholars describe as a “huge cultural phenomenon,”3 by offering a plausible context for the manifestation of satirical stand-up comedy content. The development of the context proceeds in logical steps integrating insights from five realms of inquiry – language science, political economy, propaganda studies, mass media effects and humour theory – into a consistent theoretical framework. The interdisciplinary effort offers a new method to analyse stand-up comedy, captured by the symbolic formula SC²={OGB,CERP}, whereby the satirical content of stand-up comedy (SC²) manifests itself in the association of two sets of statements: operative group beliefs (OGBs) and contrary empirical rational propositions (CERPs). 1 Lockyer et al., 2011:99. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 100. iii As a whole, this research project falls within the conflict theory tradition of sociological research.1 It argues that structurally, the aggregate demand for stand-up satire is stimulated by the dominion exerted by mass media over mass opinions. Given that elite “control of society, while certainly manifest in material modes of production, is culturally embedded and naturalized in the minds of the people via its hegemony over discourse,”2 the content of stand-up satire cannot be properly examined unless the political economic repercussions of mass communication are taken into account. Mass propaganda and satire are inextricably entwined. This dissertation hypothesizes that the former fuels the general uncritical consensus while the latter acts as the artillery of critique. 1 Klaehn et al., 2010:10. 2 Theobald, 2006:26. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the following people: Stephanie Walsh Matthews, Ryerson University Jamin Pelkey, Ryerson University Anne MacLennan, York University Ian Tattersall, American Museum of Natural History NYC Brigitte Bogar, York University Patricia Mazepa, York University Alex Bal, Ryerson University Henry Warwick, Ryerson University John Isbister, Ryerson University John Shiga, Ryerson University Jo Ann Mackie, Ryerson University John Justin McMurtry, York University Maryclaire Odorico, Emily Carr Secondary School Ada Rosmini, Italian Cultural Institute The Italian Trade Commission – Toronto Office Staff Pasquale Bova, Italian Trade Agency Rinaldo Boni, Omni TV Laura D’Aprile v DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to: My late grandfather, Mario Odorico (1923-2016) My late doctoral supervisor, Christopher David Innes, PhD, CRC (1941-2017) vi TABLE OF CONTENTS AUTHOR’S DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................................ ii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................. v DEDICATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF CHARTS ................................................................................................................................................................x LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Origin of the Project .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Research Project ................................................................................................................................................. 6 3. Research Paradigm and Literature ............................................................................................................. 9 4. Research Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 15 5. General Framework ....................................................................................................................................... 17 6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 2: THE LANGUAGE FACULTY ............................................................................................................ 23 1. Preview................................................................................................................................................................ 23 2. Core Properties ................................................................................................................................................ 27 3. Emergence of Language ............................................................................................................................... 30 4. Language as Play ............................................................................................................................................. 35 5. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 37 CHAPTER 3: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY .......................................................................................................... 40 1. Preview................................................................................................................................................................ 40 2. Language as Competitive Advantage ...................................................................................................... 42 3. The Power Advantage ................................................................................................................................... 46 4. Micro Political Economy............................................................................................................................... 49 5. Macro Political Economy ............................................................................................................................. 55 5.1 Contextualizing the Macro ................................................................................................................. 62 5.2 Causality in the Macro.......................................................................................................................... 65 6. Global Political Economy ............................................................................................................................