Independent Research Project

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