[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.It gives us more things to makefun of and we just think it s funny. 9 What Stone does not say is why Kyle sJewish identity is funny and how this humor relates to Stone s own secularupbringing in Texas and Colorado.Why Do We Laugh?To help my students think about the culture of political incorrectness andinternalized racism, getting them to reflect on how humor and comedy func-tion is important.One of the first ideas I posit is the notion that humor oftenderives its source from real feelings of pain and anxiety that are then turnedinto a positive experience by entertaining others.In fact, in Freud s highlymisunderstood work, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, he posits thetrue goal of a joke is to bond with a third party and to bribe this social othernot to analyze or criticize one s humor (119).Thus, jokes not only releaserepressed urges and desires, but they also constitute a social act of bonding.Importantly, Freud s theory of humor is dominated by references to Jewishjokes.10 One reason Freud gives for this choice is the debatable idea that Jewsare more self-critical than other people and thus they make better comics(133).However, as many people insist, in our culture, all types of social groupsare the target of humor and, in most cases, the comic is from the same groupthat is being attacked.Central to this structure of in-group comedy is the ideathat attacking someone in your own group is okay, but someone from anothergroup cannot attack your group.In many cases, I have found this logic of theinner group attacking itself functions to circulate prejudice under a safe cover.Furthermore, one of Freud s central ideas about humor is his notion that theethnic group member performs an act of self-mockery for a neutral party and,therefore, even when a person of an in-group mocks his or her own group, thatpresentation of intolerance is performed for the social and cultural other.In this structure of humor, we find the basic process of assimilation asthe appeal of the minority to the dominant culture s definitions and values. 104 Robert SamuelsFurthermore, Freud insists that the object and second party of the joke playsthe role of the social censor who must be avoided (116).In fact, for Freud,the primary example of humor is a dirty joke that is meant to seduce awoman, but due to her high moral standing, the joke must be redirectedtoward a male third party.In this structure, the third party becomes the allyof the first party joke teller against the second party female object and socialcensor.If we now apply this structure to the general framework of the filmSouth Park, we see that the Jewish mother represents the object of the jokeand the source of social censorship.11 To overcome the Jewish mother s resis-tance to the pure expression of sexual aggression (the desire of the joketeller), the mother must be attacked for the benefit and the enjoyment ofthe third party or audience.The joke teller and the audience thus bond overthe attack on the Jewish mother.Through this theory, we can begin to see how so much of our popular cul-ture is often centered on a process of male bonding through the tragic orcomedic stigmatization of minority groups.Even if the audience is not com-prised entirely of men, this theory argues that the viewer is placed in the third-party position of being the one who accepts or rejects the presentations of thefirst-party joke teller.Here, the third party represents the dominant culturethat must be bribed by the first party s victimization of the second party.In thecase of South Park, we can say that Matt Stone (a Jew) victimizes his Jewishmother and identity to bond with his audience.Internalized anti-Semitismthus serves the processes of assimilation by sacrificing a part of the subject sown ethnic identity in the goal of bonding with the dominant culture.The Myth of Free SpeechIn response to this theory of assimilation and prejudice in popular culture,some may argue that we have a society built on tolerance and equal opportu-nity prejudice and, therefore, no one group is ever really being singled out.Although I would not deny aspects of this argument, I respond by pointingout that the rhetoric of universal equality can work to veil important inequal-ities in our society.In fact, teachers can reveal to students how the agenda ofconservative politics helps to explode the myth of the neutral realm of uni-versal free speech and tolerance.As Stanley Fish argues in his book There sNo Such Thing as Free Speech, the claim for a universal tolerance of all expres-sion is always grounded on a hidden agenda of particular vested interests (7).Moreover, Fish posits that all universal claims are invalid because they do nottake into account the context and history of their own formulations (viii).Therefore, Fish affirms that we must always contextualize every universalclaim to see what interests lie behind it.In the case of South Park, the uni-versal claim of free speech relies on the unstated idea that words have no real Freud Goes to South Park 105effect on people and thus they should never be constrained.However, thisidea is itself challenged by the notion that the words of the politically correctdo actively constrain the freedoms of the politically incorrect.Yet the wayout of this conflict is to argue that, unlike the words and actions of the pro-ponents of political correctness, the politically incorrect makers of this moviedo not believe that their representations have any meaning or context.With regard to South Park, by making references to the Holocaust with-out any concern for the original context of these representations, the writersare able to claim that these depictions are not harmful to any particulargroup [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl milosnikstop.keep.pl
.It gives us more things to makefun of and we just think it s funny. 9 What Stone does not say is why Kyle sJewish identity is funny and how this humor relates to Stone s own secularupbringing in Texas and Colorado.Why Do We Laugh?To help my students think about the culture of political incorrectness andinternalized racism, getting them to reflect on how humor and comedy func-tion is important.One of the first ideas I posit is the notion that humor oftenderives its source from real feelings of pain and anxiety that are then turnedinto a positive experience by entertaining others.In fact, in Freud s highlymisunderstood work, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, he posits thetrue goal of a joke is to bond with a third party and to bribe this social othernot to analyze or criticize one s humor (119).Thus, jokes not only releaserepressed urges and desires, but they also constitute a social act of bonding.Importantly, Freud s theory of humor is dominated by references to Jewishjokes.10 One reason Freud gives for this choice is the debatable idea that Jewsare more self-critical than other people and thus they make better comics(133).However, as many people insist, in our culture, all types of social groupsare the target of humor and, in most cases, the comic is from the same groupthat is being attacked.Central to this structure of in-group comedy is the ideathat attacking someone in your own group is okay, but someone from anothergroup cannot attack your group.In many cases, I have found this logic of theinner group attacking itself functions to circulate prejudice under a safe cover.Furthermore, one of Freud s central ideas about humor is his notion that theethnic group member performs an act of self-mockery for a neutral party and,therefore, even when a person of an in-group mocks his or her own group, thatpresentation of intolerance is performed for the social and cultural other.In this structure of humor, we find the basic process of assimilation asthe appeal of the minority to the dominant culture s definitions and values. 104 Robert SamuelsFurthermore, Freud insists that the object and second party of the joke playsthe role of the social censor who must be avoided (116).In fact, for Freud,the primary example of humor is a dirty joke that is meant to seduce awoman, but due to her high moral standing, the joke must be redirectedtoward a male third party.In this structure, the third party becomes the allyof the first party joke teller against the second party female object and socialcensor.If we now apply this structure to the general framework of the filmSouth Park, we see that the Jewish mother represents the object of the jokeand the source of social censorship.11 To overcome the Jewish mother s resis-tance to the pure expression of sexual aggression (the desire of the joketeller), the mother must be attacked for the benefit and the enjoyment ofthe third party or audience.The joke teller and the audience thus bond overthe attack on the Jewish mother.Through this theory, we can begin to see how so much of our popular cul-ture is often centered on a process of male bonding through the tragic orcomedic stigmatization of minority groups.Even if the audience is not com-prised entirely of men, this theory argues that the viewer is placed in the third-party position of being the one who accepts or rejects the presentations of thefirst-party joke teller.Here, the third party represents the dominant culturethat must be bribed by the first party s victimization of the second party.In thecase of South Park, we can say that Matt Stone (a Jew) victimizes his Jewishmother and identity to bond with his audience.Internalized anti-Semitismthus serves the processes of assimilation by sacrificing a part of the subject sown ethnic identity in the goal of bonding with the dominant culture.The Myth of Free SpeechIn response to this theory of assimilation and prejudice in popular culture,some may argue that we have a society built on tolerance and equal opportu-nity prejudice and, therefore, no one group is ever really being singled out.Although I would not deny aspects of this argument, I respond by pointingout that the rhetoric of universal equality can work to veil important inequal-ities in our society.In fact, teachers can reveal to students how the agenda ofconservative politics helps to explode the myth of the neutral realm of uni-versal free speech and tolerance.As Stanley Fish argues in his book There sNo Such Thing as Free Speech, the claim for a universal tolerance of all expres-sion is always grounded on a hidden agenda of particular vested interests (7).Moreover, Fish posits that all universal claims are invalid because they do nottake into account the context and history of their own formulations (viii).Therefore, Fish affirms that we must always contextualize every universalclaim to see what interests lie behind it.In the case of South Park, the uni-versal claim of free speech relies on the unstated idea that words have no real Freud Goes to South Park 105effect on people and thus they should never be constrained.However, thisidea is itself challenged by the notion that the words of the politically correctdo actively constrain the freedoms of the politically incorrect.Yet the wayout of this conflict is to argue that, unlike the words and actions of the pro-ponents of political correctness, the politically incorrect makers of this moviedo not believe that their representations have any meaning or context.With regard to South Park, by making references to the Holocaust with-out any concern for the original context of these representations, the writersare able to claim that these depictions are not harmful to any particulargroup [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]