ABSTRACT Title of Document: A THEORY OF RHETORICAL HUMOR IN AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE Michael Andrew Phillips-Anderson, Ph.D., 2007 Directed By: Professor Robert N. Gaines, Department of Communication This dissertation offers a theory of the strategic use of rhetorical humor in political discourse. This theory accounts for the differences between intentional and unintentional humor while creating a structure for the identification of humorous utterances. The largest gap in the current state of knowledge concerning rhetorical humor is a lack of understanding regarding the connection between humorous attempts and persuasive situations. This area of concern is answered with a classification of the rhetorical strategies of humor. I propose three nested categories for the identification of actions that have amusement or laughter as an expected response. These three categories in order of increasing exclusivity are the risible, humor, and rhetorical humor. The risible includes all stimuli that create amusement, regardless of intention. The risible is not limited to, but includes, those situations in which the speaker did not attempt to use humor but the audience was amused. Humor is a linguistic act on the part of a speaker that carries with it the intended effect of producing a state of amusement or mirth in the audience. Rhetorical humor is a linguistic act on the part of a speaker that carries with it the intended effect of producing a state of amusement or mirth in the auditor for the purpose of bringing about a change in attitude or belief. The theory presented here contends that rhetorical humor can be used to achieve nine strategic objectives for the speaker. The employment of these strategies is demonstrated through an examination of significant speeches by President Bill Clinton, Governor Ann Richards, and rights activist Sojourner Truth. With the development of a theory of rhetorical humor in political discourse and its application as a critical heuristic this project contributes to our understanding of rhetoric, political discourse, and that most human of experiences, humor. A THEORY OF RHETORICAL HUMOR IN AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE By Michael Andrew Phillips-Anderson Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2007 Advisory Committee: Professor Robert N. Gaines, Chair Professor Jeanne Fahnestock Professor Edward L. Fink Professor James F. Klumpp Professor Mari Boor Tonn © Copyright by Michael Andrew Phillips-Anderson 2007 Dedication For my parents, Paula and Bill Phillips, without whose emotional, financial, and culinary support, this dissertation would not have been completed. ii Acknowledgements My advisor, Robert Gaines, is to be commended for his wisdom and patience. He did not laugh when I told him on my first day in grad school that I wanted to write a dissertation about humor. Gaines possess a powerful intellect that made this dissertation much better than it would have been with any other advisor. He was a great source of help ab ovo usque ad mala. Ed Fink was always ready with jokes, trivia, and questions that stopped me in my tracks. I thank James Klumpp for our conversations about rhetoric, contemporary philosophy, and the Washington Capitals. Mari Boor Tonn, helped me to find wonderful sources of rhetorical humor and her suggestion to look at the discourse of Sojourner Truth was invaluable. Jeanne Fahnestock’s example of scholarship and collegiality is one I shall try to follow in my academic career. The members of my committee read my work carefully and thoughtfully. I hope that their suggestions are reflected in this final version. My parents have been great supporters of my academic career, especially when that career involved significant underemployment. My father even read a draft of the dissertation on an airplane to Australia. I made 179 of his 184 suggested revisions. I have been very fortunate to be close to many family members whose support helped be complete this project. Of special note are my grandparents, Bill and Ruth Phillips and Sol and Bettie Bogen, who likely did not think I would be in school this long. My pseudo- aunt Sue Farkas, also read part of the dissertation and always made sure I had many books from a young age. My in-laws, Carolyn Winter and Roger Bybee also read parts of the dissertation and made helpful suggestions. iii There are many people to thank in the Department of Communication at the University of Maryland. Mary Bell is to be thanked for her unqualified encouragement and Leah Waks for discussions about hockey (and academic advice). The cohort of graduate students at Maryland who were finishing as I arrived, Diane Blair, Nacho Cordova, Leslie Dinauer Lisa Gring-Pemble, and Noemi Marin, were unparalleled in their intellectual curiosity and capacity for fun. Without my cohort, I do not see how I would have finished this project. Diane Hemmings demonstrated that I was not the snarkiest person in the room. My fellow Hassle House denizen, Ric Winston, and I shared many diversions along with research and teaching ideas. Michael Philipp, also of Hassle House, was responsible for at least one year of lost productivity, several instances of anthroponomastic confusion, and many years of friendship. Bjørn and Belinda Stillion-Southard are to be commended for arriving at Maryland just in time to be the recipients of my many complaints. Of all my colleagues at Maryland, Amy Heyse, deserves special thanks. My Piceses sister and I shared many classes and papers and phone calls and revisions. We may have taken some different approaches in our programs, but I’m so glad we got to walk together at the end. Long time friends, Min and Matt McKnight, Kara Reinsel, Emily Rems, James Calder, Leigh Bailey, and Kimberley Raue were always ready to help, particularly if it involved dinner. Lydia Hu was of great help in locating articles about the speeches of the Silly Season. The librarians and staff at the Museum of Television and Radio in New York and Kristin Carey and Comedy Central found video archives which were of great value. iv Finally, I owe so much to my wife and partner, Rachel Phillips-Anderson. When I began this project I had no idea that I would have a wife and a new name before graduation. I think it is no coincidence that that I really started writing after we met. I thank you for your great understanding of late nights and weekends of furious work, your excellent bibliographic skills, and for making this process a much more fun experience than so many others seem to find it. You may not have married a doctor, but at least you’re married to one now. v ridiculum acri fortius et melius magnas plerumque secat res. For ridicule often decides matters of importance more effectually and in a better manner, than severity. Horace Sermones (1.10.14-15, c. 35 BCE) vi Table of Contents Dedication ........................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. vii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x List of Figures ......................................................................................................................x Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem and the Theoretical Background of Humor in Rhetoric ...........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2 Research into Humor .......................................................................................................... 3 Theories of Humor in Philosophy ............................................................................... 3 Theories of Humor in Psychology ............................................................................ 15 Theories of Humor in Communication ..................................................................... 17 Critical Studies with Theoretical Implications ......................................................... 34 Questions still to answer ................................................................................................... 44 Ontology of humor and the classification of humorous occurrences ....................... 45 The strategic uses of humor ...................................................................................... 45 Chapter Two: A New Theory of Rhetorical Humor in Political Discourse, Illustrated by Examples of American Political Rhetoric ...................................................49 An Ontology of Rhetorical Humor ................................................................................... 50 Humor is a Speaker-Centered Practice ..................................................................... 51 Identification of Humorous Attempts ............................................................................... 54 A Pragmatic Approach to Humor ..................................................................................... 56 Classification of Rhetorical Humor .................................................................................