Stand-up that stands out: Analysis of gendered sequences from a Foucauldian perspective

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 223 - 241, 18.12.2022

Nur Sürüç Şen

https://doi.org/10.47216/literacytrek.998939

Abstract

This article intends to unveil the conceptualization of gender and power dynamics buried in the sequences uttered by Turkish female comedians in their stand-up performances. Investigating ten clips of staged performances, 69 gendered and 28 failed utterances are given a closer look with the help of thematic analysis under in vivo coding framework. Furthermore, the utterances are transcribed and analyzed in line with conversation analysis premises. The findings might shed light upon the content of the instances alongside discursive strategies that the comedians use to tackle gender and power issues. This defined artifact analysis attempts to put forward how the Turkish female comedians place themselves and other women with regards to power dynamics in the society under the roof of their story lines. Basing on their reactions, audiences’ attitudes towards the subject matter have been analyzed. In this respect, humor functioned in many ways such as depicting others’ expectations and impositions upon women, eradicating passivized roles assigned by the society, and so on. Overall, the analysis demonstrates that humor can have several dimensions, operating as reflecting on the experiences and societal perceptions in the eyes of a woman. Within the analyzed dataset, the instances seem to be unearthing certain patterns and recursive experiences found in the stories of the comedians.

Keywords

humor, gender, power, Foucault, stand-up performance, discursive function

References

• Adegbembo, B. F., & MacQuarrie, C. (2017). The word nigger as racialized and non-racialized: A Foucauldian discourse analysis on the n-word in a Canadian society. Journal of Undergraduate Ethnic Minority Psychology, 3, 16-24.
• Bing, J., & Scheibman, J. (2014). Blended space as subversive feminist humor. In D. Chiaro & R. Baccolini (Eds.), Gender and Humour: Interdisciplinary and International Perspectives (pp. 13–29). Routledge.
• Cameron, D. (2009). Theoretical issues for the study of gender and spoken interaction. In P. Pichler & E. M. Eppler (Eds.), Gender and Spoken Interaction, (pp. 1-17). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230280748_1
• Chiaro, D., & Baccolini, R. (Eds.). (2014). Gender and humor: Interdisciplinary and international perspectives. Routledge.
• Coates, J. (2014). Gender and humor in everyday conversation. In D. Chiaro & R. Baccolini (Eds.), Gender and humor: Interdisciplinary and international perspectives (pp. 145–166). Routledge.
• Cortés-Conde, F., & Boxer, D. (2010). Humorous self disclosures as resistance to socially imposed gender roles. Gender & Language, 4(1), 73-97.
• Crawford, M. (2003). Gender and humor in social context. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1413-1430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00183-2
• Cullen, F. (2015). Are teenage girls funny? Laughter, humor and young women's performance of gender and sexual agency. Girlhood Studies, 8(2), 119-136.
• Delap, L. (2016). Raffaella Baccolini and Delia Chiaro: Gender and humor: Interdisciplinary and international perspectives. Humor, 29(1), 135-137. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0133
• Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2007). Putting communities of practice in their place. Gender & Language, 1(1), 27-37.
• Gilbert, J. R. (2004). Performing marginality: Humor, gender, and cultural critique. Wayne State University Press.
• Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. Tavistock.
• Foucault, M. (1994) [1981]. So is it important to think? In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984 (Vol. 3, pp. 454-458). Penguin.
• Hay, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 709-742. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00069-7
• Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, (pp 103-147). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hodder, I. (1994). The contextual analysis of symbolic meanings: Interpreting objects and collections. Routledge.
• Hoey, E. M., & Kendrick, K. H. (2017). Conversation analysis. In A. M. B. De Groot, & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Research methods in psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide (pp. 151-173). Wiley & Sons.
• Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friends. Humor, 15(1), 65-87. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2002.006
• Holmes, J. (2006). Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(1), 26-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.007
• Holmes, J. & Marra, M. (Eds.). (2010). Femininity, feminism, and gendered discourse: A selected and edited collection of papers from the fifth international language and gender association conference (IGALA5). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Kitzinger, C. (2002). Doing feminist conversation analysis. In P. McIlvenny (Ed.), Talking gender and sexuality (pp. 49-78). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Kotthoff, H. (2006). Pragmatics of performance and the analysis of conversational humor. Humor, 19(3), 271-304. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.015
• Kotthoff, H. (2006b). Gender and humor: The state of the art. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(1), 4-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.003
• Kotthoff, H. (2007). Oral genres of humor: On the dialectic of genre knowledge and creative authoring. Pragmatics, 17(2), 263-296. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.2.04kot
• Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (2006). Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(1), 51-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.004
• Matwick, K., & Matwick, K. (2019). Humor and performing gender on TV cooking shows. Humor, 32(1), 125-146. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2017-0093
• Meyerhoff, M., & Niedzielski, N. (1994). Resistance to creolization: An interpersonal and intergroup account. Language & Communication, 14(4), 313-330.
• Meyerhoff, M. (1996). Dealing with gender identity as a sociolinguistic variable. In V. Bergvall, J. Bing, & A. Freed (Eds.), Rethinking language and gender research: Theory and practice (pp. 202-227), Longman.
• Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Indiana University Press.
• Norrick, N. R. (2010). Humor in interaction. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(4), 232-244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00189.x
• Ruiz-Gurillo, L., & Linares-Bernabéu, E. (2020). Subversive humor in Spanish stand-up comedy. Humor, 33(1), 29-54. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2018-0134
• Russell, D. (2002). Self-deprecatory humour and the female comic. Thirdspace: A journal of feminist theory & culture, 2(1).
• Saldana, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Schnurr, S., & Chan, A. (2011). When laughter is not enough. Responding to teasing and self-denigrating humour at work. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.001
• Tang, C. W. (2019). Creating a picture of the world class university in Taiwan: a Foucauldian analysis. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(4), 519-532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09581-5
• Willis, K. (2005). Merry hell: Humour competence and social incompetence. In S. Lockyer & M. Pickering (Eds.). Beyond a joke, (pp. 126–145). Palgrave Macmillan.