Band 25, Heft 2

Many modern humor scholars have oversimplified their summaries of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian's views on humor, focusing on the philosophers' cautionary warnings about the rhetorical efficacy and ethics of humor. Although the philosophers did write much on the offensive nature of jests, which can be considered illustrative of superiority theory, I describe elements of the incongruity and relief theories of humor motivation in their work. There is evidence to suggest that all four philosophers found humor to be a fitting and effective response to certain exigencies. It is more accurate to summarize their views thus: Humor has the potential to be a powerful tool of persuasion, but like any potent weapon (discursive or non-discursive) it should be used with caution.

Drawing on scholars who have discussed humor's capacity to simultaneously unite and divide (Appel 1996; Mintz 1999; Meyer 2000) and on Kenneth Burke's (1969b) rhetoric of identification and division, this paper describes the rhetorical strategies Jewish-American humorists have used to respond to Christmas as a national American holiday. An examination of Jewish humor about Christmas contributes to the growing literature describing how Jewish humorists have helped shape American popular culture (Bloom 2003; Cohen 1987; Gabler 1988; Limon 2000; Zurawik 2003). In addition, our paper makes a theoretical contribution to the study of humor by expanding upon previous research that has focused on how humor creates unity and division. Specifically, we explain how humor can foster identification and division simultaneously not only between groups, but inside each of us, often resulting in partial forms of identification and division with our humorists.

This paper argues for a broader understanding of racist and ethnic humor (or blason populaire ) that takes into account research from areas in folklore studies, philosophy and psychology. It argues that part of the general view that racist and ethnic humor is thought to be problematic comes from a conservative reaction by researchers focusing on racist and ethnic humor in the United States. Since the arguments against racist and ethnic humor are broadly consequentialist in nature, it takes issue with the evidence for such claims. Further, it is argued that not all racist and ethnic humor has negative outcomes and that some certain forms are not so problematic as one might initially expect. The paper then shows that the consequentialist view does not evenly apply to all forms of racist and ethnic humor despite their claims that all forms of racist and ethnic humor are blameworthy.

From ancient times to the present, artists' and authors' creative, critical, and diverting pens have caricatured the human nose. Their amusing games express the power of the artistic imagination to turn their subjects into game pieces by (1) poking fun at their sociopolitical status through exaggerating or diminishing the size and shape of their noses; (2) playing upon hilarious, multifaceted links between their noses, phalluses, and the mocking pen; and (3) building canonical play frames that expand the artists' and authors' ability to mock the sociopolitical competition for power and influence. Though these games at times transgress the boundaries of decorum, they also underscore graphic and verbal caricaturists' self-promotional creativity, as they address the many inequalities in actual and fictive worlds.