Sitting Targets and the Joking Relationships
Authors: Lloyd Robert V. 
Published: October 2020

The spotlight is on the stand up comic. Huge roars of laughter fill the comedy club, as the stand up comic struts his stuff. The audience lap it up. They drink pint after pint of beer, while reinforcing each other's laughter response, in this feel-good-factor-event. Here, the in-house clan is affiliated to the lord of belly bursting laughter!
Eager participants of the above stand up comedy club scenerio are certainly "sophisticated" members of these social laughter occasions. We enjoy being active participants of these types of pleasurable community occasions! I first took an interest in humour research study when I first began writing comedy scripts and plays. It was while I was completing a MSc in Appplied Behavioural Sciences I found that only a limited number of social research projects on humour had been published. After discussions with my tutors, I undertook my research thesis on an interpretive study of contemporary stand up comedy. I'd already completed several short research modules to help me build up my skills in academic study in research design and methodology. At first I didn't have any specific questions about the field of stand up comedy, as I wanted to enter the field with an open and inquisitive mind. I took an ethnographic approach. The questions and answers would "emerge" as the project progressed. I completed an extensive literature review reading all recently published humour research in journals and book publications, plus Phd theses in the UK and elsewhere. I first examined the three "Classical" theories of humour: Superiority; Psychic Relief; and Incongruity, (although there are many other less significant theories). The first two theories are seen as universal theories of humour but there is little evidence to show that humour is universal; rather it is culturally relative within differing social contexts. I found Oliver Double's (1997) book and Phd thesis to be relevant to my study. Double believes the incongruity theory is key to understanding humour, in that stand up comedians rely on effective joketelling and sustaining the audience's faith. As my literature review progressed I began to see a clear split between the theories that argue humour is caused by innate urges, instincts or physiological processes, as opposed to those theories that see humour as a cultural product. By the time I'd completed my study of stand up comedy and analysed all the data collected throughout the research process, I took the the latter argument to be more relevant to common experiences of both comic and comic audience.
Although there are many ways of studying humour, much depends on the researcher's main interest; theoretical standpoint; research methods and design. I decided to research humour in a live comedy situation rather than research jokes. I took the view that comedy is an interactional resource, as Michael Mulkay (1988) has noted in his humour research publications. What I mean by this term is that humour functions and is constructed to produce and reproduce certain desirable, socio-cultural effects within social in-groups. Although humour and social group laughter has psychological and anatomical factors that have been identified by behavioural-cognitivists and neuroscientists alike, these studies don't offer much insight into the social interactions, implicit within the joking relationship between comic teller and audience. Likewise, I felt that a study of the semantics, discourse and language is limited, in relation to humour. As these studies seperate humour from real world time, the methods that these disciplines use were not f use in collecting data in the field.
I began by listing several comedy clubs in my immediate area. Six comedy clubs were listed within the county that I reside. I selected these comedy clubs for a number of reasons - some practical, other reasons weres based on the numbers of people attending and the differing types of comedians on the comic circuit. I made frequent visits and my primary research method was using "direct observations" of the interactions and cultural exchanges occurring. I used some of the ethnographic methods used by Le Compte and Schensul (1999) to aid data collection. Fieldnotes were analysed for themes and then index coded to delineate the forms of stand up comedy that show both variability and repetiton. Semi-structured interviews took place with several audience members after the shows, eliciting responses about the acts. Notes were taken. After several site visits, a clear pattern of recurring behaviours, especially the purposeful targeting of audience members by each stand up comic emerged. Several stand up comedians, coaches and tutors were also interviewed. Traditionally, ethnographic study use only qualitative research methods but Le Compte and Schensul (1999) apply quantitative methods as well. To measure the amount of variability and repetition of these behaviour patterns, I decided to complete a content analysis of a wide range of stand up comedy videos and cds (50 items in total). Eventually I was able to identify and categorise four specific patterns of comic behaviour or what I termed "Joking Repertoires". I'II briefly discuss these in turn.
The first joking repertoire I discovered is the BUILDING RAPPORT repertoire. Here the comic's strategy is to work on the audience's expectations in a mischevious manner. The comic directly targets several audience members in turn throughout his or her act. The comic make fun of the member's dress, accent, laugh, to name but a few characteristics. The audience accepts this direct "piss taking" as a legitimate rule of engagement. The strategy develops and builds a comic audience. An experience and skilled comic compere will use this repertoire to establish a contract between performer and audience. The audience expects and demands this implicit contract. They have paid to be entertained, even at the risk of being humiliated themselves. Of course some audience members want to be picked out and made fun of, as they purposely dress up for the part. Others less confident hide in the darkest corners of the club, out of the comic's gaze.
The SPONTENEITY repertoire involves the comic using timing, control and delivery of the comic material in a spontenious manner. For example, during a performance an audience member's mobile phone may ring and stop the comic in his or her tracks. Comics will use these moments to their advantage. Audiences enjoy the unexpected and thrive on the skill of performers who are wellprepared with clever one-liners. They appear to be improvised but they are well thought-out, prior to the performance. Any breach of convention by the comic actor is rewarded with enthusiastic laughter and applause.
The third repertoire is the DIRECT PUT DOWN. This is a more aggressive strategy for targeting individuals or group members of the audience. On my field studies of the comedy clubs, this repertoire was used extensively by all or most of the comics. The comic's aim in using direct put downs is to diffuse situations of heckling and regain control of their act. Audience's are usually wise to these put downs and will reward comedians who use cleverly worked out put downs. But audiences can also become quickly critical of the comic who over use or abuse audience members with overly cruel put downs. Much depends on whether or not there is a prevailing hostile atmosphere in the club.
The CONFRONTATIONAL repertoire is the fourth category I delineated from my research findings. Here the comic purposely targets a large section of the audience or specific members of society; for example, the Establishment. The comic may take the role of devil's advocate and irritate the hell out of the audience over contentious issues. He or she might want to get the audience to take sides or be completely against what is being stated by the comic. The confrontational comic aims to gain SHOCK VALUE out of the material. Lenny Bruce (2000) and Bill Hicks (1992) were the forerunners of this kind of confrontational humour. Much copied later by UK performers in the 1980s Margaret Thatcher period. This repertoire appears to attract hostile audiences, as the more confrontational the comic, the more hostile the audience reciprocates.
The above four joking repertoires can't cover every aspect of the stand up comedy experience. What it does show though is a clear pattern of social group interaction between comic and audience, in the creation of social group laughter. I did find that there are of course exceptions to these four delineated categories; where for example the surrealist humour of say Eddie Izzard (1997), breaks social convention, without targeting anyone or thing in particular.
On studying stand up comedy at live events, I discovered different aspects of humour. First, as Provine (1996), a neuroscientist says: "Laughter is not about jokes but about social relations." Second, that the joking relationship relies on the performer establishing a contract of MAKE BELIEVE with the audience, using a number of performance strategies. Third, the contract includes cultural and economic exchanges by all parties and creates specific cultural niches or insider groups. Fourth, these exchanges encourage consumption and reinforcement of both permissive and prescriptive humour. Permissive humour tends towards alternative comedy, which in the UK historically aimed to be politically correct, yet antagonistic to the joke. Prescriptive humour functions as "applied humour". For example, it's function is always to target outsiders. Commonly used by traditionalist comedians, who "tell" ageist,disablist, homophobic, sexist, racist jokes. To my own surprise I found my research of stand up comedy here in the UK to uncover a great deal of prescriptive humour, currently being practiced in the so-called alternative stand up comedy circuit. I found similar prescriptive "targeting" on the pre-recorded videos and Cds of USA stand up acts that I undertook a content analysis of.
My conclusions of this study show that stand up comedy appears to function to encompass and perpetuate an array of socialisation practices, circulating within specific cultural domains in the UK and possibily elsewhere. Some of these socialisation practices appear on the surface to be merely "pleasurable" social group occasions but they can also be interpereted as oppressive and discriminatory towards outsider groups, whatever their age, disability, gender, ethnicity or sex.
From a more personal experience, I experienced alienation while visiting these clubs. I found it difficult to remain an "objective" researcher, whilst trying to be an active audience member. I seemed to laugh less at the stand up acts, at each subsequent site visit. This wasn't because I'd lost my "sense of humour", but because I became acutely aware (and disappointed) in the fact that joking relationships hasn't really moved on from traditional methods of targeting someone to "get a (cheap) laugh". Today's contemporary stand up comedy and the popular rise of the stand up comedy club, reveals a prescriptive humour, manufactured, delivered and received as an integral part of our mass cultural consumption.

Works Cited

Berger, P.L. Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience. New York: SUNY P. 1997.
Bruce, Lenny. Shut Your Mouth and Open Your Mind: The Rise and Reckless Fall Of Lenny Bruce. Enlightenment: Chrome Dreams CD. 2000.
Double, O.J.. Stand Up! On Being a Comedian. London: Methuen. 1997
Hicks, Bill. Relentless. Recorded at the Laff Stop; Austin, Texas USA: Rykodisc. 1992.
Izzard, Eddie. Glorious. London: Laughing Stock CD. 1997.
Mulkay, M.J.. On Humour: Its Place in Modern Society. Oxford: Polity P. 1998.
Holmes, B. "Titter ye not..." New Scientist, (17th April), 1996: 2-3.

Links

http://www.chinwag.co/uk-comedy.html
http://www.comedyonline.co.uk
http://www.humorlinks.co/lnks/Academic
http://www.ahahaha.co.uk/virginmirth/humour/html

Citation reference for this article
MLA Style

Lloyd, Robert V. "Sitting Targets and the Joking Relationships" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture
<http://www.media-culture.org.au/0311/8-lloyd-sitting-targets.php>.

APA Style

Lloyd, R. (2003, Nov 10). Sitting Targets and the Joking Relationships. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture, 6,
<http://www.media-culture.org.au/0311/8-lloyd-sitting-targets.php>