SOC250 Everyday Interaction
Independent Research Project
Caitlin O’Connor
Tutor: Matthew Dallas
Comedians,
Hecklers and Micro-Sociology
Data
After a joke about bullying, someone calls out, ‘were you
bullied at school?’ Carr simply replies, ‘no’, and the whole audience laughs.
Another man then shouts, ‘but you are a faggy twat’. The specific interaction I
will be looking at begins here but I will be looking at in the context of the
whole show. It can be found on YouTube here:
00:00 - 01.41
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the everyday
interaction between a stand-up comedian and a heckler through different lens of
micro-sociology. The data is interesting to analyse because it looks at how
scripted data turns into natural data. Garfinkel’s breaching experiments
triggered an interest in what happens when a planned speech or presentation is
interrupted by an audience member. All interaction may have a ‘constitutive
structure’ but there is worth in determining the elements that have critical
value through breaching the ‘sacredness of the rules’ (Heritage 1984, p.83).
This report will look at the intricacies of the interaction between the
comedian Jimmy Carr and the heckler Chris. This will be done using the
frameworks of the documentary method of interpretation, definition of
situation, symbolic interactionism and discourse analysis specifically focusing
on the use of profanity. Running through the whole report I will explore the
notion that ‘offence is taken, not given’ and how that constructs itself (or we
construct it) in everyday interaction. The switch from scripted talk to
naturally occurring conversation was best observed within a recorded stand-up
comedy routine. The specific clip chosen was done so because it was not just a
single voiced insult but a conversation and exchange of insults which then
offered lots of details to analyse. Humour is useful in decoding sets of
meaning about ‘social situations, role-types, beliefs, social and individual
behaviour’
(Paolucci and Richardson, 2006, p.333).
Comedy has come to play a central part of British culture and
life. The steady presence and continuing growth of stand-up comedy has become a
multi-million pound industry (Friedman, 2011, p.347). One of the more successful comedians is Jimmy
Carr. Jimmy Carr is a British comedian who describes himself as ‘”the marijuana
of comedy”: mainstream but with a whiff of rebellion’ (Jones 2008). His tours draw 250,000 million fans annually, his quiz
show 8 Out of 10 Cats attracts 3.5
million viewers and he has sold more than 650,000 DVDs (Jones 2008). His stand-up routines are made up of ‘rapping
one-liners’ with clinical precision and his look is ‘pitched somewhere between
buttoned-up ventriloquist's dummy and public-school prig’ (Jones 2008). He
wrote a book along with university friend Lucy Greeves about the psychology of
joke-telling in 2007 called The Naked
Jape. It looked into why stand-up comedy is dominated by men, how jokes are
constructed, and what constitutes offensive humour. For the final point they
conclude that context is more important than content (BBC News 2012). When people purchase a DVD or a ticket to a
show, ‘they’re buying into your sense of humour’ and thus ‘offence is taken,
not given’ (Meeting the Comedian: Jimmy Carr 2010).
This interaction is between a comedian, heckler and audience when
someone interrupts a comedy show. Interruptions are generally viewed as
disrespectful and aggressive toward the victimised speaker (Goldberg, 1990,
pp.884-885). However, some convey rapport or camaraderie and are prompted by an
enthusiastic interest in what the speaker is saying (Goldberg, 1990, p.885). The
role of the ‘heckler’ has become institutionalised in comedy as part of the
show and marks a change in the social dynamic. Jimmy Carr is well known for
dealing well with hecklers. In fact, an online self-help article shows men how
to use his techniques to improve confidence in social situations (Alpha Male
Examples 2012). Carr incorporates hecklers into his show and has said that ‘the
audience participation is such an important part of the show ... I want the
people at the back to be able to shout’ (Meeting the Comedian: Jimmy Carr 2010). By
analysing this data I hope to gather insight into the conventions of
interruption in stand-up comedy and how this affects the different power
dynamics.
Using the documentary method of interpretation allows the
methods people use to construct everyday situations to become visible. Using
set documentary methods audience members are able to construct an ‘assimilation
of a set of appearances to an underlying pattern’ then reproduce it through the
enactment of certain rituals (Heritage 1984, p.86). The indexicality and
context of a stand-up comedy show is realised by the individuals as audience
members and the comedian as entertainer. Audiences know it is a comedy show
because they purchased a ticket to see Jimmy Carr, who is a well known
comedian. People who did not know it was a comedy show would learn it was
quickly by attributing sense to the actions of the individuals in the theatre
and the staging of props. What distinguishes a comedy show from other types of
theatre shows is the presence of jokes. Also, often in comedy shows the fourth
wall is broken so the comedian talks directly to the audience (sometimes as
individuals but mostly as a constituted blob of audience). Most critically, the
participants co-produce each other and the situation by their relationship,
once the comedian stops telling jokes and/or the audience stops laughing, by
definition, it stops being a comedy show. However, when the frame shifts from
the telling of jokes to a heckle, the audience and comedian can, and mostly do,
interpret this exchange as a further part of show. The interaction has changed
but the reaction of the audience to laugh and the comedian to acknowledge and
respond allows each other to attribute sense to it.
The documentary
method of interpretation allows the actors to define the situation. The comedy
show is defined by the one-to-many communication which is controlled by the
seating, lighting and staging. The seating is a typical theatre styling so the
audience is in a position to listen to the person on stage but not with each
other without considerable effort. This is heightened by the lighting which is
directed at the stage so the audience can see Carr but cannot see each other
and nor can he see them. Also, Carr is elevated on a stage for even greater
visibility. People enter willingly into this situation by buying a ticket and
once they take their seat in the theatre they enact their roles. Carr’s role
is to tell jokes and the combined audience role is to listen then laugh, clap
and oooo at what is said.
The definition of situation changes with the heckle from
one-to-one-to-many. Codeswitching in comedic performances has great social
significance because it often is a ‘commentary on contemporary linguistic
practices and policies (Atkinson and Kelly-Holmes 2011, p.252). With the
change, comedians are able to expose topics that are often seen as taboo (Paolucci
and Richardson, 2006, p.333). With the interruption, the comedian now has
permission to talk inappropriately; daring the audience to be offended once
they have offended him. The comedian and heckler now have a dialogue but
rest of the audience remains part of the interaction by responding in the same
manner to what is said. The setting changes slightly to incorporate this
interaction. The lighting changes to be directed at both the audience and
comedian. This gives the appearance of greater power to the audience in the
interaction. However, the seating and staging do not, cannot change so Carr is
still in control. Chris, the heckler, stays in his seat and has limited
movement. While Carr is still elevated and able to move around as he pleases.
Symbolic Interactionism is useful to analyses the value
items, gestures and language give to the different roles and power structures. These
‘sign-vehicles’, according to Goffman, contextualise interactive fronts (Paolucci
and Richardson, 2006, p.340). The constitution of the self is based on
the significant other through deference and demeanour. Goffman defines
deference as a reflection of the persons place in context of larger society
where demeanour is the qualities given to individual by their social standing (Goffman
1967, pp.48-55). Social communication is achieved through the symbols of
clothing, setting, actions and language. All these contribute to the demeanour
of Carr and Chris and the level of deference they show each other.
The way Carr and Chris are dressed can be used as symbols of
their position of power within the interaction. Carr is dressed in a nicely
pressed suit with his hair styled precisely with a side part. His appearance is
clean and ordered displaying a certain level of sophistication. Whereas Chris is
dressed in ‘some sort of hooded top’, as Carr points out, and his hair is swept
casually off his face. His appearance is casual and typical of a high-school
student. ‘The
suit is definitely the universal business outfit for men. . . . it projects this
image of power’ (Paolucci and Richardson, 2006, p.340) while, as Carr implies,
a hooded top conveys an image of concealment. Carr’s sophisticated demeanour
contrasted with Chris’ casual demeanour, illustrates the deference that Chris
shows to Carr.
The set is arranged so Chris is almost forced to give Jimmy
deference. As previously explained, Carr is visible to everyone where Chris is
limited in view and movement. Also, there is a huge picture of Carr’s head in
the background which is almost Big Brother-esque in intimidation style. This is
Jimmy Carr’s show and attempts to undermine his face value are encouraged for
the few brave audience members but they will ultimately lose because he holds
the power. This power is exemplified in the turn of conversation and language
that is used. After his initial comment, Chris only replies in strict
answer to jimmy’s questions. The routine of the interaction goes (1) heckle,
(2) acknowledgment by Carr, (3) response by Carr, (4) brief question and answer
section, (5) final joke/insult by Carr. Chris only becomes important because
Jimmy gives him importance but an extra level of deference is maintained.
To better understand what is happening in an interaction it
is helpful to look at form and content: ‘to recognise what is said means to
recognise how a person is speaking’. Gestures and emphasis add to what is being
said. For example, when Carr opens the ‘can of whoop arse’ it illustrates the
beginning of the insults and adds emphasis by sharply contrasting with his
demeanour. The emphasis added to the phrase ‘you’re still in secondary school
is Ireland’ becomes an insult and a joke even though it is only just a
repetition of what Chris said. Chris and Carr’s speech is very dysphemistic because
in needs to be because if they were tentative it would destroy the impact of
the insult. This exchange of insults cruises the line on the ‘power-rapport
continuum’ because alone, the content is quite abusive and indicative of power
struggle but the situation is light-hearted encouraging mutual rapport (Goldberg,
1990, p.898). All these things and constitute the relations of deference
between the comedian and heckler and the conventions of a comedy show.
In this interaction profanity is used as a stylistic
intensifier and as insult/abuse. Profanity acts as a barometer of social
relations by the choice of words used and the intensity in which they are said.
Profanity is often said to be used as constituting a backstage social space and
reinforcing social solidarity (Daly et al 2004, p.946). Although insults are
exchanged this specific interaction does not constitute a backstage or show
social solidarity because of the definition of situation the actors are in.
Within comedy insults are passed freely and Jimmy’s demeanour paints his
advanced social standing. Swearing is part of the discourse and institutional
talk of comedy. Profanity is used three times. First with the original heckle
where Chris calls Carr a ‘faggy twat’. Carr uses the word ‘cunt’ to insult
Chris twice: ‘you know you’re a cunt’ and ‘...you’re alone and a bit of a
cunt’. Carr uses the presence of hecklers in his live shows in defence of some
of his more explicit material by stating ‘sometimes people heckle with
something ruder’ (Meeting the Comedian: Jimmy Carr 2010). This is not the case in
this interaction where Carr restates his position of power by using greater
profanity than Chris. Offence in this interaction is not taken by the
participants. Although the material may be viewed as offensive, the intent of
the actors is certainly not to give such.
To conclude, this article has identified conventions of heckles in
stand-up comedy but looking through different established micro-sociological
lens. Conventions of interruption and cases of offence have been proved to be
subjectively dependent on the definition of situation. Jimmy Carr’s interaction
with a heckler in Telling Jokes is indicative
of the elements that constitute a stand-up comedy performance.
Reference List
Alpha Male Examples 2012, How to deal with someone who heckles you: Jimmy Carr, accessed 15/10/2012,
http://www.alphamaleexamples.com/deal-with-hecklers-jimmy-carr/.
Atkinson, D and Kelly-Holmes, H 2011, ‘Codeswitching, identity and
ownership in Irish radio comedy’, Journal
of Pragmatics, vol. 43, no.1, pp.251–260.
Daly, N; Holmes, J; Newton, J and Stubbe, M 2004, ‘Expletives as
solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.36, pp.945-964.
Ferguson, E 2011, ‘This much I know: Jimmy Carr’, The Guardian, 11 December, accessed
12/10/2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/11/jimmy-carr-this-much-i-know.
Friedman, S 2011, ‘The cultural currency of a ‘good’ sense of
humour: British comedy and new forms of distinction’, The British Journal of Sociology, vol.62, no.2, pp.347-370.
Goffman, E 1967, ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanour’, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour,
New York, Pantheon Books, pp.47-96.
Goldberg, J 1990, ‘Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of
relationally neutral, power- and rapport-oriented acts’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.14, no.6, pp.883-903.
Heritage,
J 1984, ‘The Morality of Cognition’, in Garfinkel
and Ethnomethodology, Cambridge, Polity Press, pp.75-102.
Jimmy Carr: Telling Jokes 2009, film, Bwark Productions and Channel 4 Television Corporation
Jones, A 2008, ‘Taboo-buster: the dark side of Jimmy Carr’, The Independent, 11 November, accessed
12/10/2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/features/taboobuster-the-dark-side-of-jimmy-carr-1022921.html
.
‘Meeting the Comedian: Jimmy Carr’ 2010, podcast, iTunes, 16 November, accessed
03/10/2012.
Paolucci, R and Richardson, M 2006, ‘Sociology of humor and a
critical dramaturgy’, Symbolic
Interaction, vol.29, no.3, pp.331-348.
‘Profile: Jimmy Carr’ 2012, BBC News Entertainment & Arts, 21 June, accessed 12/10/2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18532886.
