Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/108109
|
| Title: | 幽默中的性別與性傾向歧視：以台灣華語的現場站立喜劇為例
Gender and sexual orientation prejudices in humor : a case study of live stand-up comedy in Taiwan Mandarin |
| Authors: | 楊媜媞
Yang, Zhen Ti |
| Contributors: | 何萬順
Her, One Soon
楊媜媞
Yang, Zhen Ti |
| Keywords: | 幽默
站立喜劇
性別歧視
性傾向歧視
Humor
Stand-up comedy
Gender prejudices
Sexual orientation prejudices |
| Date: | 2017 |
| Issue Date: | 2017-04-05 15:34:42 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 幽默，是把雙面刃。其雙面性來自於其所具有的四個功能：認同、澄清、強化、區隔(Meyer, 2000)。現場喜劇演員在設計表演橋段時，為求笑聲的回饋，往往會忽略幽默的後兩種功能：強化和區隔，使得笑點中蘊含的歧視再度被加深。在面對性別和性傾向主題時，這樣的現象更是無可避免。
本篇研究將以《卡米地喜劇俱樂部》的站立喜劇為例，選擇切合性別與性傾向主題的表演橋段進行質化研究，將主題分為四類：男性、女性、男同性戀、女同性戀，以幽默的三個理論：優越論、不一致論、紓解論，以及佛洛伊德對笑的觀察為分析基礎。我們想要知道幽默的呈現手法選擇和幽默的主題，是否有一定程度的相關性？在這四大主題內的歧視，是針對整個族群，又或者是針對特定的次族群進行？最重要的是，這樣的歧視背後的意涵為何？又可能造成怎麼樣的傷害？我們旨在透過詮釋幽默形成的脈絡，帶領大家看見幽默下潛藏的性別和性傾向歧視，並加以反思。
研究結果顯示，相較於幽默主題，幽默的手法和站立喜劇演員自身的性別具有更加顯著的關聯性。男性演員較常使用優越論和有意圖的笑話，女性演員則更常運用不一致論和紓解論中的降階不一致感。以男性為主題時，男性演員表面上看起來是在嘲笑特定族群的男性，但本質上都還是建立在父權對女性的偏見之上；男性演員在貶低地位較自己高的男性時，最常見的作法，就是將對方說成男同性戀。這也顯示了男性演員不單是將男同性戀貶低到男性異性戀之下，更將無能跟男同性戀劃上等號。女性演員在攻擊男性的時候，由於父權主義作祟，男性在上位、女性在下位，難以鬆動兩者的階層，其殺傷力往往小的多。以女性為主題時，男性演員多從外貌或身材進行攻擊，將其獨立於女性主體之外，並反向以局部決定了一個女性的好壞。但由於反映了觀眾不敢講的話，男性演員在紓解論的庇護下，得以免於責難。男性演員針對特定族群女性的表演，不但反映了社會對其的刻板印象，更反映了更深層、父權下對女性的厭女情結。女性演員在談論女性主題時，即使嘗試實踐幽默中的認同、澄清功能 (Meyer, 2000)，卻很有可能再度落入父權刻板印象。兩難的是，由於男性地位在父權框架裡是較高的，一旦女性演員以攻擊男性的方式為女性發聲，可能會因為反抗父權而沒了笑聲。女性演員提到己身婚姻狀況時反映了社會對未婚男女的差別待遇。相較於未婚的男性，未婚女性容易被視為是「有問題」的，這也反映了父權下的社會期望值裡，女性是被設定成「適當年齡時結婚走入家庭」的刻板角色。面對男同性戀主題時，男性演員對男同性戀的再現反映了「男同性戀很陰柔」的刻板印象，並錯將性別氣質和性傾向劃上等號。這同時也反映了男同性戀跟陰柔的特質，在父權之下都是個可以被嘲笑的錯誤。以女同性戀為主題時，女性演員也同樣反映了「女同性戀很陽剛」的刻板印象，並反映了同性戀在異性戀主流下的出櫃困境。
The four main functions of humor, a double-edged sword, are: identification, clarification, enforcement, differentiation (Meyer, 2000). While planning their performances, live stand-up comedians, to pursue laughter, tend to neglect the latter two functions of humor: enforcement and differentiation. This makes prejudices beneath punch lines to be rooted deeper, which are even more inevitable when comedians deal with gender and sexual orientation topics.
This study takes as examples stand-up comedies from Live Comedy Club Taipei and we choose performances that touch upon the gender and sexual orientation topics to conduct qualitative research. Based on the nature of the topics, we divide the performances selected into four categories: male, female, gay, and lesbian. We take the three main theories of humor, namely, superiority theories, incongruity theories, and relief theories, and also Humor in Freud as our basis to analyze these performances. We set out to explore the following questions. Is there a connection between the way humor is delivered and the specific topic of humor? Are the underlying prejudices in these four major topics against the target group as a whole or a specific sub-group? Most important of all, what lies beneath these prejudices, and what damage do they cause? Through interpreting how humor comes into existence, we aim to reveal the gender and sexual orientation prejudices in humor, and further reflect upon such phenomena.
The result shows, in terms of the four topics, how humor is delivered is more relevant to the gender of the comedian. Male comedians favor the superiority strategy and tendentious jokes, while female comedians tend to use the strategies of incongruity and descending incongruity of relief strategy. In male topics, male comedians seem to target specific subgroups of males, while their performances are in fact based on prejudices against women rooted in patriarchy. If male comedians want to degrade males in higher position, the most common way for them to do so is to insinuate the homosexuality of the target. This suggests that male comedians degrade homosexual men and view them as incompetents. Female comedians` attacks on males are weaker due to patriarchy, in which males are in higher positions and females in lower ones. In female topics, male comedians attack women on their appearance or figure, isolate these characteristics from women`s entity, and evaluate females by parts. Since male comedians say what the audience dares not to say aloud, they can escape blame, as suggested by the Relief Theory. Performances against specific groups of women by male comedians reflect not only social stereotypes but also misogyny from patriarchy. Besides prejudices from male comedians, even female comedians may fall into the patriarchy trap as well while trying to identify and clarify themselves, which are two of humor’s functions (Meyer, 2000). Female comedians are in a dilemma due to the higher position of men in patriarchy. If female comedians voice for females by attacking males and thus rebel against patriarchy, consequences are that they may lose laughter from the audience. The discrimination between unmarried men and unmarried women appears while a female comedian mentions her marital status. Compared to unmarried men, unmarried women are more easily to be seen as deficient, which reflects that under the expectation from patriarchy, women are expected to get married and form a family at the proper ages. In gay topics, a recurrent theme from the male comedians’ performances is that gay are born to be feminine and confuses gender with sexual orientation. This also shows that under patriarchy, gay and femininity are mistakes that can be laughed at. In lesbian topics, the female comedian also shows the stereotype that lesbians are born to be masculine, and reflects the dilemma for homosexuals to come out under the world of heterosexuals. |
| Reference: | e-joker（編）（2001）。北極熊拔毛。台中：晨星出版。
王貴正. (2007). 由仇恨犯罪概念論同性戀污名化形成及影響.國立臺北大
學犯罪學研究所碩士論文.
康宏錦（譯）（1998）。女性的人體形象。載於王政、杜芳琴（主編）（頁101-130），
社会性别研究选译。北京：三連書店。（S.Brownmiller，1984）
李欣宜. (2014). 女丑= 女醜? 幽默的性別權力─以綜藝節目諧星表演為例. 臺灣
大學新聞研究所學位論文.
鄭玉菁（譯）（2008）。女性主義觀點的社會學。台北：巨流圖書公司。（Abbott, P.,
& Wallace, C，1996）
鄭郁欣（譯）（2009）。笑聲與嘲弄: 幽默的社會批判。台北：韋伯文化國際。（M.
Billig，2005）
Abbott, P., & Wallace, C. (1996/2008). An introduction to sociology: feminist
perspectives. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Apte, M. L. (1985). Humor and laughter: An anthropological approach. New
York: Cornell Univ Pr.
Bain, A. (1864). The senses and the intellect. London: Longman, Green, Longman,
Roberts, and Green.
Bain, A. (1865). The emotions and the will. London: Longman, Green, Longman,
Roberts, and Green.
Beattie, J. (1779). Essays: on poetry and music, as they affect the mind: on laughter,
and ludicrous composition; on the usefulness of classical learning. London: Printed for E. and C. Dilly and W. Creech, Edinburgh.
Bergson, H., Brereton, C. S. H., & Rothwell, F. (1911). Laughter. An essay on the
meaning of the comic... Authorised Translation by Cloudesley Brereton... and Fred
Rothwell. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Billig, M. (2005/2009). Laughter and ridicule: towards a social critique of humour.
New York: SAGE.
Bing, J. M. (2004). Is feminist humor an oxymoron?. Women and Language, 27(1),
22-33. Wichita, Kansas: Elliott School of Communication at Wichita State University.
Brownmiller, S. (1984). Femininity. Dublin: Linden Press.
Campbell, G., & Bitzer, L. F. (1850). The philosophy of rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: SIU
Press.
Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference: on gender and language (Vol. 7). New York:
SAGE.
Freud, S. (1905/1964). Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious (J. Strachey
Trans). Leipzig, Germany: F. Deuticke. (Original work published 1905).
Hartley, D. (1834). Observations on man, his frame, his duty, and his expectations. London: Samuel Richardson.
Hobbes, T. (1968). Leviathan, ed. CB Macpherson. London: Penguin.
Kaufman, G. J., & Blakely, M. K. (Eds.). (1980). Pulling our own strings: feminist
humor & satire. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Lakoff, R. T., & Bucholtz, M. (2004). Language and woman`s place: text and
commentaries (Vol. 3). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Locke, J., & Yolton, J. W. (1993). An essay concerning human understanding. London:
Dent.
Hutcheson, F., & Hutcheson, F. (1989). Thoughts on laughter; and, observations on
the fable of the bees: in six letters : 1758. Bristol, England: Thoemmes.
MacHale, D., Nilsen, A. P., Derks, P., Lewis, P., Berger, A. A., Mintz, L., ... & Morreall,
J. (1997). Humor and political correctness. In MacHale, D., Nilsen, A. P., Derks, P., Lewis, P., Berger, A. A., Mintz, L., ... & Morreall, J., HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 10(4):453-513. Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter.
Merrill, L. (1988). Feminist humor: rebellious and self‐affirming. Women`s Studies:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(1-3), 271-280. London: SAGE.
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double‐edged sword: four functions of humor in
communication. In K. G. Wilkins (Ed.), Communication theory, 10(3), 310-331.
Washington, D.C.: International Communication Association.
Mickes, L., Walker, D. E., Parris, J. L., Mankoff, R., & Christenfeld, N. J. (2012).
Who’s funny: gender stereotypes, humor production, and memory bias. In Psychonomic bulletin & review, 19(1), 108-112. New York: Springer.
Mulkay, M. J. (1988). On humor: Its nature and its place in modern society.
Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Mitchell, C. (1985). Some differences in male and female joke-telling. In Women`s
folklore, women`s culture, 163-186. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Spencer, H. (1864). The Principles of Biology, 1. London: Williams and Norgate. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
102555008 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102555008 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [語言學研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 500801.pdf | 5196Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1750 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
