Paste your essay in here… As social beings, we find humor in many different aspects of life. Humor is seen every where in society and jokes tell different stories about different social groups. Humor can be interpreted in different ways for different people. Not everyone finds the same humor funny, some may find jokes offensive and others may find humor in the same jokes. The way we analyze humor is within its social context and social background, not just simply in the joke alone. The social context has a lot to do with why a group of people will find certain things funny and others do not. The thought process and life experiences of a social group has an impact on what they find funny, which will lead them to interpret jokes in a way other social groups may not. The social context of a joke is interpreted differently by different social groups. Social groups may not find a joke funny solely due to the content of the joke. The content of a joke is not as impactful as the social context of the joke, because we have to understand the social context in order to fully understand and interpret the content of the joke. Mary Douglas addresses this concept in her article, Implicit Meanings. Douglas argues that as humans, we analyze humor within its social context, rather than limiting our investigation into the content of the joke alone, because humor is cultural, humans have different definitions of jokes, and different human experience allows each individual to perceive humor
differently.
There is a social control on perspective, in result each joke can be perceived by each society’s morals and values. Douglas talks about social control on perception. She discusses how “social requirements may judge a joke to be in bad taste, risky, too near the bone, improper, or irrelevant” (98). Each society has different morals and values and the social context of the joke usually portray that society’s beliefs. A person of a different societal background may not be able to comprehend the humor of a different society’s joke, because he/she holds a different belief system and may interpret the joke completely differently. What is a hilarious joke can be a crude comment for different societies, because of this. An example would the color-blind ideologies held in Mexico and Peru, which was discussed in Christina Sue and Tanya Golash-Boza’s article “‘It was Only a Joke’: How Racial Humour Fuels Colour-blind Ideologies in Mexico and Peru”. This article discusses how jokes about Blacks and the indigenous population is the norm in Mexico and Peru, however these jokes would be seen as disrespectful to most societies, because others would perceive these jokes differently due to the morals and values their society holds. No matter the content of the joke, one would not be able to understand why a joke is funny because they do not connect with the social context of the joke. Douglas also discusses social situations in her article. Her “hypothesis is that a joke is seen and allowed when it offers a symbolic pattern of a social pattern occurring at the same time” and that “all jokes are expressive of the social situations in which they occur (98). The social situation pertains to the society it is occurring in and that society will solely be able to fully comprehend the humor within that joke. In
America, for example, during the election there were many jokes that were surfacing, and they all related to the election, other societies would not be able to fully understand the social context of the joke, because they did not experience the election like Americans.
Each and every culture has a different upbringing and that upbringing effects what they find funny. Mary Douglas touches on the African culture and its joking institutions. In the article, she discusses how the “African joking institutions combine the following elements: a crude scatology, a range of specific relationships, and certain ritual occasions expressed scatologically” (92). The social context of African humor is very specific, so not just anybody will find the humor in African humor, because they do not understand the social context behind the jokes. In order to understand African humor, you have to have knowledge of the culture, and if you do not have this knowledge, you will not be able to comprehend the joke. Another example would be when there are family gatherings, and my family is telling jokes in our native tongue, my cousins and I do not always grasp the humor in the joke, because we do not understand the social context of the joke completely. We grew up differently than our parents, aunts and uncles, so we translate the joke in a different manner. This shows that Mary Douglas’s objective, that we analyze humor within its social context, not just the content of the joke, is true. If we only analyzed humor within the content of the joke, we would be able to find every joke funny, however we do not, because we cannot always comprehend jokes within its content alone, we need to be familiar with its social context. All jokes have a social context to it and we have to understand that context in order to find humor in that joke. Humor is a social construct and a joke is not understood based on the content alone, there is familiarity in the context of the joke that allows it to be funny.
As humans, our different experiences and backgrounds leads us to have different definitions of certain jokes. We may find a certain joke funny because of completely different reasons. Mary Douglas discusses the possibility of finding jokes funny for different reasons. She talks about Bergson and Freud and how the “difference between them lies in the different place of joke analysis in their respective philosophies”. Bergson’s perspective on laughter “are a distillation of his general philosophy on the nature of man” while Freud believes “the essence of wit is neatly to span gulfs between different ideas” and the “pleasure of a joke lies in a kind of economy” (93-94). As humans, we have different social context, therefore there is a possibility we find something funny due to different reasons. Although the joke is the same, we may find humor in the joke because of completely different social contexts. Douglas uses the example of the man who slips on the banana to illustrate this concept. Bergson and Freud would laugh at this joke for completely different reasons, Bergson would laugh because “[the man] has lost his bodily control and so becomes a helpless automaton”, while Freud find this man funny, due to “his stiff body has for two seconds moved with the swiftness of a gazelle, as a if a new form of life had been hidden there” (95). Bergson and Freud watched the same man fall, but they found it funny for completely different reason, showing that the social context in humor is what people find funny, not the joke itself. There is a hidden context in the man falling for both Bergson and Freud although the joke is simply a man slipping on a banana peel, they both interpreted the
joke differently. This can relate to others as well, we interpret jokes differently, because we are raised and surround ourselves with certain social groups. We discussed the concept of racist jokes in class, some people find the social context in racist jokes funny, while others do not. Some view racist jokes funny, while others will interpret the joke as disrespectful, because we interpret jokes differently. Some may view the joke as hurtful and others will only see it as a joke, not something that is true.
Humor is something that is present in every society, however the social context of humor is varies with each society. Therefore, the perception of humor will also vary within each society. Not everyone will be able to find the social context of humor funny, because of this difference in perception. The experience of each society will continue to impact their social context within their jokes. The contents of jokes are heavily influenced by the values and morals of a society. Each society follows certain rules and if the humor does not follow that society’s values and morals, it will not be understood by that society. A joke’s content cannot be understood without the knowledge and understanding of the social context of the society’s humor. Just like how I cannot fully understand my parent’s humor due to their experiences in Punjab, they will not fully grasp the jokes of my generation, because they have not had the experiences my generation has experienced. Humor being a social construct will always be influenced
by social experiences, and the social context will differ from person to person. If a joke is not relatable to a person, they will not be able to fully grasp the concept of the joke, therefore humor is defined by its social context not simply on its content.