Philosophy of Jokes and Its impacts on Society, Culture, and Human Identity

Philosophy of Jokes and Its impacts on Society, Culture, and Human Identity Comment by Bailee D Chandler: I’m overwhelmed. This 1st line strategy is broad. Can you begin with a question, quote or example that is relevant to the scholarly convo and your MQ? The main catch in this essay is how a joke can positively or negatively affect people from different societies.

These are people from different cultural backgrounds and human identities, including being female and male members of society. Furthermore, a joke is anything said by a person to cause laughter or amusement, especially stories that have funny punchlines. Jokes also define people’s identities and a person’s identity can be an inside joke.

For that reason, jokes can negatively or positively affect different people or social groups having different cultural backgrounds. According to Yue et al. (2016), humor appears to manifest contrarily in Eastern and Western cultures even with the small information known about how culture shapes the perception about humor or jokes. Comment by Bailee D Chandler: I’m unsure.

Is this your MQ? Can you phrase it as inquiry? Can you add more L3 specificity? What kind of jokes (inappropriate jokes, charged humor, sarcastic jokes, etc)? Is it negative or positive (try to pick 1)? Is it “people or social groups” (try to pick 1)? Yue et al. (2016) suggest that Westerners consider a joke as a positive and common outlook while the Chinese consider humor as an exceptional outlook explicit to humorists, displaying debatable aspects.

Consequently, humor is professed more positively by Western Culture than Eastern Culture. Canadians also evaluate humor to be important when compared to how the Chinese evaluate humor. According to the Chinese Culture, only specialized comedians are expected to be humorous while Canadians expect anybody to possess humor. Perhaps, the possession of humor is influenced by different perspectives on humor as people come from different cultural backgrounds (Yue et al., 2016). Comment by Bailee D Chandler: I’m rushed & skeptical.

Can you develop more summary for readers that haven’t read the sources? Can you provide a quote-worthy quote that gives readers access to important exact language from the text? Comment by Bailee D Chandler: I’m cautious. This is patch-writing where at times you are copying verbatim from Yue without giving quotations or citations. This violates AI standards & also indicates that you do not understand the sources. I also don’t see any of your voice here via analysis. Yue et al. (2016) also confirm that humor is a broad and multifaceted concept since it encompasses comic and amusement reactions.

The psychosomatic cognitive nature of humor involves evaluating the perceptions of playful strangeness, vocal-behavioral languages of laughter, and joyful emotions. Even though wit is referred to as a universal human experience, individuals from different cultures still use and recognize humor differently. For that reason, it is easier to say that Westerners are seriously funny while Chinese individuals are funnily serious. Yue et al. (2016) clarify that humor styles can be classified as affiliative, self-enhancing, belligerent, and self-defeating. These styles of humor indicate that both Easterners and Westerners are deterred and distraught by aggressive humor.

For instance, people from North America tend to react positively to humor that is perceived to be self-enhancing while people from Eastern do not. This is a sign that cultural dissimilarities are ascribed to Eastern collectivistic and Western distinctive cultural differences. Comment by Bailee D Chandler: I’m lost. How is Critchley building on the convo that Yue was having? Old-to-new sentences can help show these connections & create cohesion/flow. Critchley (2002) also relates humor or joke with philosophy and according to the professor, philosophy is a funny business and most philosophers are known to be funny people.

For instance, a philosopher will ask a person to be skeptical about issues people take for granted and the reality of the world. In that regard, the thoughts of a philosopher are comparable to that of comedians who train themselves to ask people to look into the world askance. Both a humorist and philosopher will ask individuals to view the world from the viewpoint of Martian. They want societies to view things as if they came from another planet. Philosophically, a joke can be a meaningful and specific practice recognized by both the teller and the audience (Critchley, 2002).

Joke or humor brings the aspect of the social contract, which is a form of agreement in the social world that individuals found themselves in the inherent background supported by a joke. For that reason, there is a need to have a consensus or shared understanding of what a joke entails since some issues are regarded as jokes while others are not.

Even Though St.George (2015) has similar arguments to Yue et al. (2016) on the issues pertaining to cultural influence on humor, the author is more concerned with how identity is an inside joke. St.George (2015) discussion on humor or joke is borrowed from the words presented by the Dutch sociologist Giselinde Kuipers. He stated that decision of whether something is humorous or not can be unconscious, spontaneous, or almost a reflex. This is a sign that comedy lies closely to self-image. For that reason, St.George (2015) confirms that humor tends to take the shape of the teller’s surroundings, which include clan, class, gender, and age. Therefore, shared humor means shared identity and shared ways in which people confront reality.

When people do not get a joke they always feel left out, but when they get, the feeling of belonging is witnessed. Subsequently, when two individuals are laughing it means that they recognize the world in the same way. Comment by Bailee D Chandler: I’m curious, but skeptical. This seems important to your MQ. Is there a quote to prove this point? Comment by Bailee D Chandler: I’m lost. I don’t understand the organization you’re following. Why is it necessary to have multiple paragraphs of summary for Yue & St. George? Where is the convo between the authors? According to St.George (2015), humor can help people find their own boundaries even if it is a dull one. Members of society are also bounded by things that they find not to be funny.

The idea is borrowed from the understanding of the science of when to laugh and why to laugh. For that reason, it is imperious to know the audience before delivering a joke. The same audience will determine whether the tale is serious or not. Once more, some witticisms or humor tend to be precise to a certain group of people. Humor can be good, but unfortunately, become a bad taste to the audience. St.George (2015) contin

ues to confirm his concept of identity is an inside joke. He goes further to explain that jokes are meant to throw the boundaries of perceived gender identities, specifically the types of jokes that are into sharp relief. The argument is also supported by the fact that men are always more fun than women. The argument here is that men are always attracted to women’s bodies, and for that reason, women do not need to develop a good sense of humor.

In other words, men need to rely on their wit and humor in order to get laid. However, there is a category of women who are funny and they do it behind their men’s back. St.George (2015) insists that women should know that humor is not only about jokes but the audience must also be involved. Humor is meant to carry the message that changes

perceptions of people of different identities and belonging. Despite having the collective desire of changing gender parity, the consumption of charged humor gives the way to do so. St.George (2015) explains that is the jokes that people say, that influence their identity of being a male or female. This is summarized in the gender role narrative, whereby some jokes are exceptionally adaptable to specific listeners. The joke can be from the man’s or woman’s point of view, but the riff that comes with being stereotypes will distort the message. For instance, it is obvious that women like feelings and shopping at the same time. Men, in contrast, like sports and do not like being linked to feelings. Comment by Bailee D Chandler: Mark, It was a pleasure to read your 1st draft.

Your MQ has an effective beginning to L3 specificity in your focus on different backgrounds. Nice work! To globally revise: I encourage you to reconsider the actor/action & cause & effect you’ve created in your MQ. Your MQ suggests that jokes are the subject that affects different cultures. However, your summaries /evidence start to point to different cultures/backgrounds as the subject/actor that determines if comedy is negative/positive. Therefore, your MQ might be focused on this subject, which changes your cause & effect too. In other words, your MQ might focus on exploring how/ways/extent that different cultural backgrounds determine if comedy is negative. I encourage you to apply this revision/logic to your MQ & to your summaries/convo (see below for more advice). I encourage you to develop your summaries with strategic evidence, especially quotes, that speak to your MQ. I encourage you to return to all texts and reread for more effective evidence, especially evidence that focuses on argument points and/or main claims. Then, try to follow them with analysis that explains what the evidence means. I suggest you work carefully on writing summaries in your own words, rather than patch-writing/copying from the texts without giving credit. If you need help understanding what the texts are arguing & how you can put them into your own words, I strongly encourage you to come to office hours & mentor meetings to get help with this strategy. Your global organization is difficult to follow & doesn’t leave you much room to synthesize.

I encourage you to follow a BFF or 2X1 structure (see Class Collaboration 6.1 for advice on global organization) & to develop 1-2 paragraphs focused exclusively on the convo between the scholars & how they answer your MQ. This draft needs significant global revisions. I encourage you to get additional help from Joey & myself to revise. Good luck revising! Best, Bailee References Critchley, S. (2002). Did you hear the one about the philosopher writing a book on humor? ​Think Autumn. Zach St.George (2015) Identity Is an Inside Joke. Why do you laugh with your friends? Illustration by Robin Davey. Yue, X., Jiang, F.,, Lu, S & Hiranandani, N. (2016). To Be or Not To Be Humorous? ​​Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Humor. Frontiers in Psychology