The piece of data that will be discussed in this paper
is a compilation of clips from the Today Show that depict segments in which the
host’s composure- and subsequently their front stage performance- is broken by
an inability to ignore the humorous jousting of their colleagues. Their
institutional responsibility will be examined in respect to how humour affects
the agenda of their interactions and whether or not this could be considered as
a breach in the code of conduct they are expected to uphold. This data shows
numerous occasions in which the traditional agenda of the interactions are in
fact breached by a reaction to a humorous interjection. Before
these ideas are explored further, it is important to clarify how humour should
be defined throughout the rest of the paper. Humour can be characterised as
"the mental faculty of discovering, expressing or appreciating the
ludicrous or absurdly incongruous" (Audrieth 1998). This definition
circles the point that humour generally stems from something outside of the
norm, within the realm of the absurd or the incongruous- it is a statement of
something that is inconsistent within itself. In its simplest form, though,
humour is a comment or act that is intended to bring about amusement. Humour is
a significant part of our day-to-day interactions and is used in a variety of
different formats to achieve different social results. More specifically,
humour is used as a characteristic that is desirable to be attributed with, as
it eases the process of social interaction through lessening tension, providing
a means for a message to be conveyed effectively, and as a way of endearing
people to those who utilise humour. All of these will be examined in reference
to the data above, in the following:
Goffman discusses in his works our sense of the self,
and subsequently how we portray ourselves in different social spheres (1968).
He also discusses the distinction between the front-stage and back-stage of our
social interactions, defining our front-stage selves as mediated- and in some
indefinable way, false (Goffman 1971). These ideas are particularly relevant
when discussing the behaviour of those who work on a television program, with
reference to their interactions with one another, and with the camera. The
sense of the ‘true self’ is an abstract one at best, but it is clear in this
context that the front-stage selves of the hosts are the ones in control of the
regulated interactions between each other and the camera. However, when their
facade is breached by a reaction to a humorous breach of conduct, their
back-stage selves move to the fore. This is seen throughout the compilation as
their composure is repeatedly lost, and replaced with an uncontrollable
laughter that is met with numerous attempts to regain their front-stage
persona. Interestingly, despite continuous infractions to the institutions
agenda, the hosts remain a part of that institutional environment with no
visible consequence or repercussions placed upon their behaviour. This could
imply that despite what would seem to be a repeated disregard for the imposed
conduct on the hosts; they are actually not breaking any of the institutions
codes by doing this. This would mean that while on the surface it would seem
the style of their interactions are inappropriate for their given surroundings,
they are in fact working within the boundaries, and their use of humour which
leads them away from the regulated interaction of the program is in fact
encouraged. If this were the case, our interpretation of the distinction between
their front-stage and back-stage personas would be distorted. Within the
framework of social interaction, a keen sense of humour is a desirable trait to
possess. As John Lippit states: “A sense of humour is a trait no one wants to
be seen as lacking, and one that we value in partners, friends, and colleagues
alike” (2005, p72). In this sense, there may be an explanation for the supposed
permission to break traditional conduct in their methods of communicating
information through the use of humour to endear themselves to the audience. This
is an important task for the presenters as their level of endearment with the
audience is directly related to their role remaining on the show- amongst other
advantages.
Being an Australian television program, their audience
is therefore almost exclusively Australian. Because of this, it is important
for the hosts to be relatable to Australian ideals. Australian’s, in a general
sense, are seen as being prone to use humour on a regular basis as an aspect of
being light-hearted or easy going. This frequent use of humour has an
Australian overtone as much like in regular daily interaction, things are
infrequently taken seriously. Perhaps more outstanding from this line of
thought is Australian’s perceived propensity for disobeying authority and being
inclined to not follow rules to the letter. Within this idea we may have an
explanation for why the show’s presenters are permitted to break from their
routine on such a regular basis without repercussion. This type of behaviour
endears the hosts to their audience culturally as a relatable bond is formed
between the two for sharing and enacting similar ideals. Anna Wierzbicka
discusses the idea of using language as a means to achieve cultural acceptance,
but this use of humour, and an attitude that is anti-authority can be examined
in much the same way- and can lead to similar results. In her work, Wierzbicka examines
the use of common words and phrases used by Australians as a means for
clarifying our cultural alignment (2002).
Wierzbicka’s theory also discusses how the use of a
single swear word, in this case ‘bloody’ can proliferate a great deal of
meaning beneath the surface level meaning- or the back-stage- of a given
sentence (2002). Humour has long been used as a tool to enhance an individual’s
capacity to get their message across effectively. Humour makes things
memorable, much the same as it makes people easy to get along with; it
facilitates communication on a variety of levels, as it can ease tension when
meeting someone new, or when partaking in an interaction that has content which
makes use uncomfortable (McGhee 1999). Our message is enhanced through the use
of humour, and subsequently, so is the messages delivered by the hosts of the
Today Show. If nothing else, their use of humour keeps people from getting
distracted by other things which they may deem more interesting. By using
humour to maintain people’s attention, they ensure that their content is more
likely to be heard. Not only this, but delivering their often-times seriously
themed message in a humorous format makes it more approachable for the viewer
and more memorable, as their likelihood to retain the information increases.
The concept of delivering a serious message through a humorous tone brings up
yet another instance where Goffman’s dramaturgical idea of front-stage and
back-stage can be applied. A message being conveyed in this format is
structured in much the same way to our sense of self as the humorous overtone
of the message’s delivery can be considered the front-stage, whereas he
message- which in and of itself is not humorous- serves as the back-stage.
Throughout this examination of the Today Show
compilation, there have been numerous references to ‘breaching of conduct’ and
an ‘imposed responsibility’ upon the presenters to uphold their institutional
agenda. These terms stem from Harold Garfinkel’s theory of Ethnomethodology, in
which he examines interactions and their boundaries, as well as what occurs
when those boundaries are exceeded (Heritage 1984). The host’s repeated
inability to maintain their composure in the face of humorous interjections are
a prime example of what is known as a breach in their institutional persona.
Garfinkel’s idea of breaches in social codes- in this case within an
institution- are illustrated well in this data as the regulated interaction
governed by teleprompters and other means are shown to be frequently
disregarded as the course of the discussion often becomes sidetracked by
humour. This case of the institutional environment within which these
interactions take place provides a different perspective for the subject to be
discussed. In the context of the presenter’s interactions- to most extents they
are not supposed to have free reign over their discussion, and don’t because of
the structured framework they are interacting within in terms of a list of set
times that events should occur (weather, sports etc) and the interviews and
topics which they are to cover being chosen for them. Yet because of their use
of humour, they are allowed to break from this restraint up to a point by
releasing themselves from the agenda and entering their own tangent of
discussion which is only ever loosely related to the content which they are
expected to discuss (Benwell & Stokoe 2002). This relates back to earlier
points about an Australian ideal for not succumbing wholly for rules and
authority- endearing the presenter’s to their audience, while remaining within
the boundaries of their back-stage institutional boundaries. To clarify, in
this case their front-stage boundaries are to remain within the topic of
discussion and not become sidetracked by humorous anecdotes, while their
back-stage boundaries encourage them to breach the boundaries of the
front-stage and take part in this behaviour for the purpose of earning the
attention of the audience. Another aspect of the institutional context of this
data is the use of humour itself. Humour works as an institution which requires
a level of understanding that what is being said is intended to be amusing and
is not a serious statement. Throughout the compilation this institution is
enacted repeatedly as the presenter’s collaboratively breach their front-stage
boundaries and partake in the humorous antics that their colleagues have
incited.
A more specific example of a humorous interaction
takes place between 00:10 – 00:35 of the video when a gender related comment is
made that in many cases would be derogatory towards women if it was not
understood as an attempt at humour. Interestingly, within the interaction the
men are the only two who partake in the patriarchal comments while the women
are recipients of the humour, and subsequently use humour to counteract the
controversial comments. This could be explained through the work of Jennifer
Hay who distinguishes between each gender’s use of language, and more
importantly, their use of humour. In the work she describes men as being
socialised in a competitive environment and is more likely to criticise and
take part in detrimental styled humour, whereas women are socialised towards
solidarity, and only using criticism for constructive purposes (1995).
The fact that this video exists on Youtube provides
another perspective to be examined as the medium through which the content is
being proliferated has changed. The Today Show is a program intended for
morning television, and its content is based on the audience the show is
intended to have. The transfer from television to the internet in the case of
the compilation- which is one of a series of many- has changed the context of
the institution that the presenters are being examined through (Ross 2007). It
is only because of the behaviour of the presenters which on some level is
deemed as incongruous which would lead an individual to create and highlight
this anomaly by uploading it to the internet in an effort to draw attention to
it. This breaching of the norm does not go unnoticed as individuals within the
audience recognise that this behaviour does not fit with traditional ideals of
television programs of a similar format.
At the centre of this data, and the examination of it
is the use of humour and how it can affect institutional contexts and
boundaries, along with the presenter’s sense of self, and their portrayal of
that self within the environment. These perceived breaches of traditional institutional
agendas are recognised as such, but allowed to continue and subsequently be expanded
into the sphere of the internet because of back-stage motivations. Humour has a
profound affect not only on how the show operates, but on how it is related to,
how endearing the hosts are, and how well their message comes across.
- 2011 words -
Reference List
Audrieth, A 1998, The
Art of Using Humour in Public Speaking, accessed 24/10/12, http://www.squaresail.com/auh.html
Benwell, B & Stokoe, E 2002, ‘Constructing discussion
tasks in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and identities’, Discourse
Studies, vol.4, no.4, pp 429-453
Goffman, E 1967, ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanour’, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face
Behaviour, Pantheon Books, New York, pp 47-96
Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin, Harmondsworth,
pp 28-82
Hay, J 1995, Gender
and Humour: Beyond a Joke, pp15-18
Heritage, J 1984, ‘The Morality of Cognition’, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Polity
Press, Cambridge, pp 75-102
Lippit, J 2005, ‘Is a Sense of Humour a Virtue?’, The Monist, vol.88, no.1, pp 72-92
McGhee, P 1999, Health,
Healing, and the Amuse System: Humor as Survival Training, Kendall/Hunt,
pp112-120
Ross, D 2007, ‘Backstage with the Knowledge Boys and Girls:
Goffman and Distributed Agency in an Organic Online Community”, Organisation Studies, vol.28, no.3, pp
307-325
Wierzbicka, A 2002, ‘Australian Cultural Scripts – Bloody
Revisited’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.34, pp 1167-1209
