An anthropological approach to humor relations between women in everyday life

Year 2021, Issue: 41, 172 - 182, 28.06.2021

Barış İşçi Pembeci

https://doi.org/10.33613/antropolojidergisi.915121

Abstract

This paper argues that humor should be taken seriously as it plays a key role in understanding larger issues such as gender relations, social interactions, power, and status in a society. Acknowledging its significance as more than a cultural object, the paper first focuses on the theoretical approaches to humor in anthropology and then constructs a conceptual framework by adding to these theories a new approach that treats the production, sharing and consumption of humor in daily life more effectively. Following this novel theoretical framework, humor interactions among women of a mountainous village of Yeniköy in the city of Muğla are analyzed by positioning them within the context of social and power relations in everyday life. The argument of the analysis is that humor creates a space of agency for the women of Yeniköy who occupy a marginal space in their society and that these women creatively manipulate humor as a tactic for resisting existing power structures. As anthropological studies of humor are increasing in the world, Turkish studies on humor are yet to discover the potential of humor in pointing out important dimensions of everyday life. This study aims to contribute to such studies in Turkey through an analysis of the physicality of humor and the way it resonates through the individual and social body through a long-term participatory observation, and a localized and experience-based investigation.

Keywords

Humor, joking, everyday life, anthropology of humor

Günlük yaşamda kadınlar arası mizah ilişkilerine antropolojik bir yaklaşım

Abstract

Bu çalışmada mizahın antropolojik çalışmalarda ciddiye alınması gerektiği iddiasından yola çıkılarak günlük yaşamın kültürel bir öğesi olması ötesinde mizahın toplumsal cinsiyet, sosyal ilişkiler, otorite ve statü gibi daha genel konuları anlamada kilit görev üstlendiği gösterilmeye çalışılmıştır. Antropolojik mizah çalışmalarının temelini oluşturan mizah teorileri incelenmiş ve bu teorilerden faydalanarak ama mizahın günlük yaşamda üretilme, paylaşılma ve tüketilme biçimlerini analiz etmede daha kullanışlı olabilecek bir teorik çerçeve çizilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu teorik çerçeve içerisinde Muğla kentinin dağlık köyü Yeniköy’de kadınlar arası mizah ilişkileri sosyal ve güç ilişkileri içinde devam eden günlük yaşam bağlamında incelenmiştir. Mizahın yaşadıkları toplumda marjinal bir pozisyonda bulunan kadınlar için bir eylemlilik alanı yarattığı ve kadınların bu alanda mizahı yaratıcı bir direniş taktiği olarak kullandığı iddia edilmiştir. Dünyada antropolojik mizah çalışmaları artarken Türkçe mizah çalışmalarında mizahın sosyal günlük yaşamın önemli boyutlarına ışık tutma potansiyeli henüz keşfedilememiştir. Bu çalışma günlük yaşamda yoğun bir fiziksellik içeren, kişisel ve sosyal bedende akseden mizahı incelemede antropolojinin uzun dönem katılımcı gözlem, yerel bağlama yoğunlaşma ve deneyim-temelli yaklaşımı ile bu eksiği doldurmaya yönelik bir girişimdir.

Keywords

mizah, şakalaşma, günlük yaşam, mizah antropolojisi

References

• Apte, M. (1985). Humour and laughter: An anthropological approach. Cornell University Press.
• Apte, M. L. (1988). Disciplinary boundaries in humorology: An anthropologist’s ruminations. Humor, 1(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1988.1.1.5
• Beckett, J. (2008). Laughing with, laughing at among Torres Strait Islanders. Anthropological Forum, 18(3), 295-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00664670802429412
• Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour. Sage.
• Boyer, D., ve Yurchak, A. (2010). American stiob: Or, what late-socialist aesthetics of parody reveal about contemporary political culture in the West. Cultural Anthropology, 25(2), 179-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01056.x
• Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
• Cardeña, I., ve Littlewood, R. (2006). Humour as resistance: Deviance and pathology from a ludic perspective. Anthropology and Medicine, 13(3), 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470600863613
• Carty, J., ve Musharbash, Y. (2008). You’ve got to be joking: Asserting the analytical value of humour and laughter in contemporary anthropology. Anthropological Forum, 18(3), 209-217. https://doi:10.1080/00664670802429347
• Colla, E. (2013). In praise of insult: Slogan genres, slogan repertoires and innovation. Review of Middle East Studies, 47(1), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2151348100056317
• Critchley, S. (2011). On humour. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870129
• Dağtaş, M. S. (2016). ‘Down with some things!’ The politics of humour and humour as politics in Turkey’s Gezi protests. Etnofoor, 28(1), 11-34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43823940
• De Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of everyday life. University of California Press.
• Dinç, E. (2012). On the limits of oppositional humor: The Turkish political context. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 5(3), 322-337. https://doi.org/10.1163/18739865-00503012
• Douglas, M. (1968). The social control of cognition: some factors in joke perception. Man, 3(3), 361-376. https://doi.org/10.2307/2798875
• Douglas, M. (1975). Implicit meanings: Essays in anthropology. Routledge.
• Driessen, H. (2016). Afterword: Humour matters. Etnofoor, 28, 141-146. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43823947
• Dundes, A. (2017). Cracking jokes: Studies of sick humor cycles and stereotypes. Quid Pro Books.
• Dwyer, K. (2009). Geertz, humour and Morocco. Journal of North African Studies, 14(3–4), 397-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629380902924059
• Eken, B. (2014). The politics of the Gezi Park resistance: Against memory and identity. South Atlantic Quarterly, 113(2), 427-436. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-2644212
• Eker Öğüt, G. (2009). İnsan Kültür Mizah, 1. Basım. Grafiker Yayınları.
• Fine, G. A. (1985). Sociological approaches to the study of humor. D. L. F. Nilsen, P. E. McGhee ve J. H. Goldstein (Ed.) içinde, Handbook of humor research (s. 159-181). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5572-7_8
• Freud, S. (1963). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. P. Gay (Trans.). W. W. Norton. (Özgün eserin basımı 1905).
• Gardiner, M. (2016). Gündelik hayat eleştirileri. Heretik Yayınları.
• Goldstein, D. M. (2013). Laughter out of place: Race, class, violence, and sexuality in a Rio shantytown. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520955417
• Görkem, Ş. Y. (2015). The only thing not known how to be dealt with: Political humor as a weapon during Gezi Park Protests. Humor, 28(4), 583-609. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0094
• Graeber, D. (2009). Direct action: An ethnography. AK press.
• Gürcan, E., ve Peker, E. (2015). Challenging neoliberalism at Turkey’s Gezi Park: From private discontent to collective class action. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137469021
• Gürel, P. (2015). Bilingual humor, authentic aunties, and the transnational vernacular at Gezi Park. Journal of Transnational American Studies, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/T861019932
• hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. South End Press.
• Kuipers, G. (2011). The politics of humour in the public sphere: Cartoons, power and modernity in the first transnational humour scandal. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(1), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549410370072
• Lewis, P. (2006). Cracking up: American humor in a time of conflict. University of Chicago Press.
• Lockyer, S., ve Pickering, M. (2008). You must be joking: The sociological critique of humour and comic media. Sociology Compass, 2(3), 808-820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00108.x
• Makar, F. (2011). ‘Let them have some fun’: Political and artistic forms of expression in the Egyptian revolution. Mediterranean Politics, 16(2), 307-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2011.583755
• Musharbash, Y. (2008). Perilous laughter: Examples from Yuendumu, Central Australia. Anthropological Forum, 18(3), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00664670802429388
• Nielsen, M. M. (2011). On humour in prison. European Journal of Criminology, 8(6), 500-514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370811413818
• Osella, C., ve Osella, F. (1998). Friendship and flirting: Micro-politics in Kerala, South India. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 4(2),189-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034499
• Paolucci, P., ve Richardson, M. (2006). Sociology of humor and a critical dramaturgy. Symbolic Interaction, 29(3), 331-348. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2006.29.3.331
• Pollio, H. R. (1985). Notes toward a field theory of humor. Paul E. McGhee ve Jeffrey H. Goldstein (Ed.) içinde, Handbook of humor research (s. 213-230). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5572-7_10
• Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press.
• Seizer, S. (1997). Jokes, gender, and discursive distance on the Tamil popular stage. American Ethnologist, 24(1), 62-90. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1997.24.1.62
• Trnka, S. (2011). Specters of uncertainty: Violence, humor, and the uncanny in Indo-Fijian communities following the May 2000 Fiji coup. Ethos, 39(3), 331-348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1352.2011.01196.x
• Türkmen, F. (2019). Mizah-fıkra ve katmerli fıkralar. 9. Milletlerarası Türk Halk Kültürü Kongresi Bildirileri, 419-426.https://www.kulturportali.gov.tr/mrepo/eKitap/eb-Mizahfikravekatmerli/
• van Roekel, E. (2016). Uncomfortable laughter: Reflections on violence, humour and immorality in Argentina. Etnofoor, 28(1), 55-74. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43823942
• Zijderveld, A. C. (1968). Jokes and their relation to social reality. Social Research, 35(2), 286-311. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40969908