P. G. WODEHOUSE’IN İNCİLER, KIZLAR VE MONTY BODKIN İLE KEDİ HIRSIZLARI ROMANLARINDA TOPLUMSAL CİNSİYET VE GÜLMECE

Abstract

Gülmece ile ilgili çalışmalar yapan bilim insanları, bir durumu ya da bir yapıtı gülünç yapan şeyin ne olduğunu açıklamaya çalışmışlardır. Bu çalışmaların sonucunda, çeşitli gülmece kuramları ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu kuramlardan ‘tutarsızlık kuramı’, gülmece çalışmalarında yaygın olarak kabul görür. Britanya’nın önde gelen yazarlarından biri olan P. G. Wodehouse, gülmece romanlarıyla ünlüdür. Bu çalışmada yazarın İnciler, Kızlar ve Monty Bodkin (1972) ile İngiltere’de ilk kez Teyzeler Centilmen Değildir başlığı altında 1974 yılında yayımlanmış olan Kedi Hırsızları adlı romanlarında gülmecenin, karakterlerin kişilik özellikleriyle toplumda egemen olan, dolayısıyla okurun cinsiyet şemasında bulunan, toplumsal cinsiyet kalıp yargıları arasındaki tutarsızlıktan kaynaklandığı tartışılır. Bu makale, incelenilen romanlarda erkek karakterlerin toplumsal olarak makbul erkeksi özellikler sergilemediklerini, kadın karakterlerin çoğunun ise erkeksi özellikler taşıdıklarını ortaya koyar. Wodehouse, göndermeler yaparak kadın karakterlerin erkeksi özelliklerini vurgular. Çalışmada romanlardaki karakterlerin özellikleriyle okurların cinsiyet şemalarında bulunan kalıp yargılar arasındaki tutarsızlığın gülmeye neden olabileceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Wodehouse
• gülmece
• tutarsızlık kuramı
• toplumsal cinsiyet
• tolumsal cinsiyet şeması

GENDER AND HUMOUR IN P.G. WODEHOUSE’S PEARLS, GIRLS AND MONTY BODKIN AND THE CAT-NAPPERS

Abstract

The scholars preoccupied with humor have tried to explain what makes a situation or a work of art humorous. Consequently, various theories of humor have come into being. Of these theories, “the incongruity theory” is widely accepted in humor studies. P.G. Wodehouse, one of the leading authors of Britain, is famous for his humorous novels. This study argues that in Wodehouse’s Pearls, Girls and Monty Bodkin (1972) and The Cat-Nappers, first published in England under the title Aunts Aren’t Gentlemen in 1974, humor stems from the incongruity between the personality traits of the characters and gender stereotypes dominant in society, and accordingly, in the gender schemas of the readers. This article displays that while the male characters do not exhibit socially accepted masculine traits, most of the female characters have masculine traits. Using allusions, Wodehouse emphasizes the masculine traits of his female characters in these novels. The study concludes that the incongruity between the personality traits of the characters in these novels and the stereotypes in the gender schema of the readers may cause laughter.

Keywords

• Wodehouse
• incongruity theory
• gender
• gender schema
• Humor

References

1. Ashmore, Richard D.; Del Boca, Frances K. (1979). “Sex Stereotypes and Implicit Personality Theory: Toward a Cognitive-Social Psychological Conceptualization”. Sex Roles, 5 (2), p. 219-248. Accessed: 16. 07. 2018. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00287932
2. Babynames.co.uk. Accessed: 7.07.2020. https://www.babynames.co.uk/names/ivor/
3. Basow, Susan A. (1992). Gender Stereotypes and Roles. (3rd Edition). California: Brooks/Cole.
4. Bem, Sandra L. (1974). “The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), p. 155-162. Accessed:17 07. 2018. https://psycnet.apa.org.doi./10.1037/h0036215.
5. Bem, Sandra L. (1981). “Gender Schema Theory: A cognitive Account of Sex Typing”. Psychological Review, 88(4), p.354-364. Accessed: 16.07.2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-25685-001
6. Bem, Sandra L. (1983). “Gender Schema Theory and Its Implications for Child Development: Raising Gender- Aschematic Children in a Gender-Schematic Society”. Signs, 8(4), p. 598-616. Accessed: 16. 07. 2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173685.
7. Berger, Arthur A. (1993). An Anatomy of Humor. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
8. Biedermann, Hans. (1996). The Wordsworth Dictionary of Symbolism. J. Hulbert (Trans.) Hertfordshire: Wordsworth.

9. Clark, Michael. (1970). “Humour and Incongruity”. Philosophy, 45(171), p. 20-32 Accessed: 21. 06.2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/37449521.
10. Cixous, Hélène. (1990). “Sorties”. Ann Liddle (Trans.) David Lodge (Ed.). Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader. (p.287-293). Fourth Impression. New York: Longman (Originally it was published in 1975).
11. English, Thomas Dunn. (1993). “Ben Bolt”. J. Hollander (Ed.) American Poetry: The Nineteenth Century Volume One: Philip Freneau to Walt Whitman. (p.718-719). 7th printing. New York: The Library of America. (The poem was first published in 1843).
12. Guralnik, David B. (1985). Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language. New York: Simon and Schuster
13. Hudak, Mary A. (1993). “Gender Schema Theory Revisited: Men’s Stereotypes of American Women”. Sex Roles, 28(5/6), p. 279-293. Accessed: 17. 04. 2018. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00289886
14. Jasen, David A. (1975). P.G. Wodehouse: A Portrait of a Master. London: Garnston.
15. Lueptow, Llyod B; Garovich, Lori; Lueptow, Margaret B. (1995). “The Persistence of Gender Stereotypes in the Face of Changing Social Roles: Evidence Contrary to the Sociocultural Model”. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, p. 509-530. Accessed: 13. 03 2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595000720
16. Martin, Rod A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. San Diego: Elsevier.
17. Mooneyham, Laura. (1994). “Comedy among the Modernists: P.G. Wodehouse and the Anachronism of Comic Form”. Twentieth Century Literature, 40(1), p. 114-138. Accessed. 25 April 2018. https://www.jstor.org/stable/441553.
18. Morreall, John. (2009). Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
19. Parovel, Giulia; Guidi, Stefano. (2015). “The Psychophysics of Comic: Effects of Incongruity in Causality and Animacy”. Acta Psychologica, 159, p.22-32. Accessed:10.10.2019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691815000967
20. Prentice, Deborah A.; Carranza, Erica. (2002). “What Women and Men Should Be, Shouldn’t Be, Are Allowed To Be, and Don’t Have to Be: The Contents of Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26 (4), p. 269-281. Accessed: 25 February 2016. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
21. Scheel, Tabea. (2017). “Definitions, Theories, and Measurement of Humor”. Tabea Scheel and Christine Gockel (Eds.) Humor at Work in Teams, Leadership, Negotiations, Learning and Health. (p. 9-29). SpringerBriefs in Psychology. Springer, Cham. eBook. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-6591-5_2. Accessed: 21. 07. 2018. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-65691-5_2
22. Shakespeare, William. (1994). “The Tragedy of Macbeth”. S. Wells and Gary Taylor (Gen. Edits.). The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works. (p.975-999). New York: OUP. (It was first published in 1623).
23. Stroud, Angela. (2012). “Good Guys with Guns: Hegemonic Masculinity and Concealed Handguns”. Gender and Society, 26(2), p. 216-283. Accessed: 27 July 2018. https://www.jstor.org /stable/23212214.
24. Usborne, Richard. (1988). The Penguin Wodehouse Companion. London: Penguin.
25. Watson, Cate. (2015). “A Sociologist Walks into a Bar (and Other Academic Challenges): Towards a Methodology of Humour”. Sociology, 49(3), p. 407-421. Doi:10.1177/00380385/35/6694.Accessed:8.05.2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44016673
26. Webber, Elizabeth, Mike Feinsilber. (1999).The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Allusions. Massachusetts: Merriam Webster.
27. Wikipedia. Accessed: 7.07.2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor
28. Wind, Herbert Warren. (1972). The World of P.G. Wodehouse. New York: Praeger.
29. Wodehouse. P. G. (1974). Pearls, Girls and Monty Bodkin. 2nd ed. London: Penguin. (It was first published in 1972)
30. Wodehouse. P.G. (1985). The Cat-Nappers. Perennial Library ed. New York: Perennial Library. (The novel first published in England under the title Aunts Aren’t Gentlemen in 1974).