«Никогда в жизни я не слышал столько абсолютной бессмыслицы»: политическая сатира как способ преодоления кризиса COVID-19

Обложка

Цитировать

Полный текст

Аннотация

В данной статье рассматривается жанр политической сатиры в период, когда по всему миру вирус COVID-19 унес жизни многих людей и оказал глубокое драматическое влияние на социальное поведение в обществе. Население многих стран пережило «самоизоляцию», периоды принудительного домашнего заключения. В средствах массовой коммуникации появились изображения пустых улиц больших городов, символы радикальных изменений, необходимых в связи с чрезвычайной ситуацией в области здравоохранения, и неизвестные в западных странах со времен Второй мировой войны. В этой ситуации в основных печатных СМИ политические сатирики продолжали высмеивать официальные ответы властей на затянувшийся кризис, а в социальных СМИ начали появляться комические мемы. Цель данной статьи - рассмотреть связь политической сатиры и юмора, попытаться объяснить юмористический эффект этих мультимодальных артефактов в таких удручающих обстоятельствах и с прагматической точки зрения определить их социально-политическую функцию. В исследовании используются мемы, взятые из различных онлайн-источников (Facebook, Twitter, Google) в период пандемии, которые были проанализированы с применением комплексной методологии, с использованием понятий из исследований юмора, особенно понятия несовместимости (Morreall 2016), и основных положений лингвистической прагматики (Kecskes 2014). Результаты подчеркивают эмоциональную сторону этой формы сатиры и показывают, что мемы работают на основе ряда чувств (гнев, горечь, разочарование, отчаяние и т. д.), многие из которых были вызваны кризисом COVID-19 и политическими ответами на него. Перефразируя Уолтера Бенджамина (2008: 378), можно заключить: у человека могут «кончиться слезы, но не смех». Полученные данные способствуют нашему пониманию онлайн-сатиры как жанра, который использует возможности новых медиа для расширения социального потенциала традиционной формы оппозиционного дискурса.

Об авторах

Дуглас Марк Понтон

Катанийский университет

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: dmponton@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9968-1162

доктор, профессор, преподаватель английского языка и перевода на кафедре политических и социальных наук в Катанийском университете (Италия). Сфера его научных интересов включает анализ политического дискурса, эколингвистику, социолингвистику, прикладную лингвистику, прагматику и критический дискурс-анализ. Его последние публикации: For Arguments Sake: Speaker Evaluation in Modern Political Discourse («Во имя аргументов: оценка оратора в современном политическом дискурсе») и Understanding Political Persuasion: Linguistic and Rhetorical Aspects («Способы убеждения в политике: лингвистические и риторические аспекты»). Наряду с политикой интересы Д.М. Понтона связаны с социальной тематикой: туризмом, дискурсом медиации, экологией, местными диалектами, народными традициями, пословицами и блюзом.

Катания, Италия

Список литературы

  1. Al-Shaikh, Abdul-Rahim. 2007. Historiographies of laughter: Poetics of deformation in Palestinian political cartoon. Third Text 21 (1). 65-78
  2. Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2009. Language and the three spheres of Hip Hop. In Alim H. Samy, Awad Ibrahim & Alastair Pennycook (eds.), Global Linguistic Flows Hip Hop Cultures, Youth Identities, and the Politics of Language, 43-63. Abingdon/New York: Routledge
  3. Apter, David E. 2006. Politics as theatre: An alternative view of the rationalities of power. In Jeffrey C. Alexander, Bernhard Giesen & Jason L. Mast (eds.), Social Performance, Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics and Ritual, 218-257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  4. Attardo, Salvatore. 2019. Humor and mirth: Emotions, embodied cognition, and sustained humor. In Mackenzie J. Lachlan & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.), Emotion in Discourse, 189-213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  5. Bach, Kent. 2007. Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics). In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics (Advances in Linguistics), 22-44. Palgrave-Macmillan: Basingstoke.
  6. Bal, Anjali S., Leyland, Pitt, Pierre, Berthon & Philip Des Autels. 2009. Caricatures, cartoons, spoofs and satires: Political brands as butt. Journal of Public Affairs 9. 229-237.
  7. Belloc, Hilaire. 1979. Hilaire Belloc's Cautionary Tales. Boston: Gregg Press.
  8. Bell, Steve & Eli Valley. 2013. Drawing truth to power: A conversation about cartoons between Steve Bell and Eli Valley. Jewish Quarterly 60 (1). 28-33.
  9. Benjamin, Walter. 2008. The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility, and other Writings on Media. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
  10. Billig, Michael. 2002. Freud and the language of humour. The Psychologist 15 (9). 452-455.
  11. Brottman, Mikita. 2004. Funny Peculiar: Gershon Legman and the Psychopathology of Humor. Hillsdale: Analytic Press.
  12. Canestrari, Carla & Ivana Bianchi. 2013. From perception of contraries to humorous incongruities. In Dynel, Marta (ed.), Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory, 3-25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
  13. Chafe, Wallace. 2007. The Importance of Not Being Earnest: The Feeling behind Laughter and Humor. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  14. Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Dawkins, Richard. 1999. The Selfish Meme. Time International 11 April 1999. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,22988,00.html (accessed: 28 July 2021).
  16. De Sousa, Michael A. & Martin J. Medhurst. 1982. Political Cartoons and American Culture: Significant Symbols of Campaign 1980. 8 (1), 84-97. https://repository.upenn.edu/svc/vol8/iss1/9 (accessed: 29 July 2020).
  17. Dolitsky, Marlene. 1983. Humor and the unsaid. Journal of Pragmatics 7. 39-48
  18. Dynel, Marta. 2013. A view on humour theory. In Dynel, Marta (ed.), Developments in Linguistic Humour Theory, vii-xiv. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  19. El Maarouf, Moulay Driss, Taieb, Belghazi & Farouk El Maarouf. 2020. COVID-19: A critical ontology of the present. Educational Philosophy and Theory 53 (1). 71-89. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2020.1757426 (accessed 29 July 2021)
  20. Feldman, Lauren & Donnagal G. Young. 2008. Late-night comedy as a gateway to traditional news: An analysis of time trends in news attention among late-night comedy viewers during the 2004 presidential primaries. Political Communication 25 (4). 401-422. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584600802427013 (accessed 29 July 2021)
  21. Ferrara, Emilio. 2015. Manipulation and abuse on social media. SIGWEB Newsletter (4). 1-9. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2749279.2749283, (accessed 29 July 2021).
  22. Ferrara, Emilio. 2020. What Types of COVID-19 Conspiracies are Populated by Twitter Bots? First Monday https://firstmonday.org/article/view/10633/9548, (accessed 29 July 2021).
  23. Forabosco, Giovannantonio. 1992. Cognitive aspects of the humor process: The concept of incongruity. HUMOR. International Journal of Humor Research 5 (1). 45-68.
  24. Fowler, Roger. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London/New York: Routledge.
  25. Freud, Sigmund. 1976. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  26. Garner, R. L. 2006. Humor in pedagogy: How ha-ha can lead to aha!. College Teaching 54 (1). 177-180.
  27. Gates, Bill. 2020. Responding to COVID-19-a once-in-a-century pandemic? New England Journal of Medicine 382. 1677-1679.
  28. Gharpure, Radhika, Hunter Candis M., Schnall Amy H., Barrett Catherine E., Kirby Amy E., Kunz Jasen, Berling Kirsten, Mercante Jeffrey W., Murphy Jennifer L. & Garcia-Williams Amanda G. 2020. Knowledge and practices regarding safe household cleaning and disinfection for COVID-19 prevention - United States, May 2020. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 69 (23). 705-709. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6923e2
  29. Gilbert, Daniel T., Romin W. Tafarodi, & Patrick S. Malone. 1993. You can't not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (2). 221-233.
  30. Giora, Rachel. 1991. On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics 16. 465-85.
  31. Goffman, Erving. 1961. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  32. Granville, Shannon. 2009. Downing Street's favourite soap opera: Evaluating the impact and influence of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. Contemporary British History 23 (3). 315-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13619460903080135.
  33. Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press.
  34. Gruner, Charles R. 1965. An experimental study of satire as persuasion.
  35. Gilbert, Daniel T., Romin W. Tafarodi & Patrick S. Malone. 1993. You can't not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (2). 221-233.
  36. Gruner, Charles R. 1965. An experimental study of satire as persuasion. Speech Monographs. 32 (2). 149-153.
  37. Halmari, Helena & Tuija Virtanen. 2005. Persuasion Across Genres: A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  38. Hardy, Bruce W., Jeffrey A. Gottfried, Kenneth M. Winneg & Kathleen H. Jamieson. 2014. Stephen Colbert’s civics lesson: How Colbert super PAC taught viewers about campaign finance. Mass Communication and Society (17). 329-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891138.
  39. Haslam, Alexander S., Penelope J. Oakes, Katherine J. Reynolds & John C. Turner. 1999. Social identity salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (7). 809-818
  40. Haugh, Michael. 2010. Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 2106-2119.
  41. Her, Minyoung. 2020. How is COVID-19 affecting South Korea? What is our current strategy? Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.69
  42. Hooley, Daniel M. 1997. Roman Satire. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.
  43. Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford & Joshua Green. 2013. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York/London: New York University Press.
  44. Jensen, Minna S., Christina Neumayer & Luca Rossi. 2018. Brussels will land on its feet like a cat: Motivations for memefying #Brusselslockdown. Information, Communication & Society, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1486866.
  45. Kaplan, Robert M. & Gregory C. Pascoe. 1977. Humorous lectures and humorous examples: Some effects upon comprehension and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology 69. 61-65.
  46. Kapogianni, Eleni. 2011. Irony via “surrealism”. In Marta Dynel (ed.), The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  47. Kayam, Orly. 2017. The readability and simplicity of Donald Trump’s language. Political Studies Review 16 (1). 73-88. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1478929917706844.
  48. Kearns, Kate. 2000. Implicature and language change. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, 895-912. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  49. Kecskes, Istvan. 2014. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  50. Kecskes, Istvan. 2016. A dialogic approach to pragmatics. Russian Journal of Linguistics 20 (4). 26-42.
  51. Kennedy, George A. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  52. Kimura, Doreen. 1976. The neural basis of language qua gesture. In Haiganoosh Whitaker & Harry A. Whitaker (eds.), Studies in Neurolinguistics, 145-156. New York: Academic Press.
  53. Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia & Simon M. Lavis. 2017. Selecting serious or satirical, supporting or stirring news? Selective exposure to partisan versus mockery news online videos. Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12271
  54. Kozintsev, Alexander. 2015. War propaganda and humour: World War II German, British, and Soviet cartoons. In Kamila Baraniecka-Olszewska & Dagnoslaw Demski (eds.), War Matters: Constructing Images of the Other (1930s to 1950s), 84-107. Paris: Editions l'Harmattan
  55. Krauss, Robert, Yihsiu M. Chen & Purnima Chawla. 1996. Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 28. 389-450
  56. Lakoff, George. 1987. The death of dead metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 2 (2). 143-147.
  57. Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 202-251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  58. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003 /1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  59. Larina, Tatiana, Vladimir I. Ozumenko & Douglas M. Ponton. 2020. Persuasion strategies in media discourse about Russia: Linguistic ambiguity and uncertainty. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 15 (1). 3-22.
  60. Latta, Robert. 1999. The Basic Humor Process: A Cognitive-Shift Theory and the Case Against Incongruity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  61. Marín-Arrese, Juana. 2008. Cognition and culture in political cartoons. Intercultural Pragmatics 5 (1). 1-18.
  62. Marín-Arrese, Juana. 2015. Political cartoon discourse. In Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie & Todd Sandel (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/browse/book/10.1002/9781118611463/title?startPage=&alphabetRange=p (accessed: 1 May 2021).
  63. Milner, Ryan M. 2013. Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the occupy Wall Street movement. International Journal of Communication 7 (34). 2357-2390
  64. Mitchell, Amy, Jeffrey Gottfried, Jocelyn Kiley & Katarina A. Matsa. 2014. Political polarization and media habits. http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarizationmedia-habits/ (accessed: 1 May 2021)
  65. Morreall, John. 1989. Enjoying incongruity. Humor 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1989.2.1.1.
  66. Morreall, John. 1983. Humor and emotion. American Philosophical Quarterly 20 (3). 297-304
  67. Morreall, John. 2016. Philosophy of Humor. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/humor/ (accessed: 29 July 2021)
  68. Peniston-Bird, Corinna & Penny Summerfield. 2001. 'Hey, you're dead!': The multiple uses of humour in representations of British national defence in the Second World War. Journal of European Studies 31. 413-435
  69. Plevriti, Vasiliki. 2013. Satirical user-generated memes as an effective source of political criticism, extending debate and enhancing civic engagement. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d0d9/474318b12c8ef519951f1ee93b27a655092b.pdf (accessed: 31 September 2020)
  70. Randolph, Haley E. & Luis B. Barreiro. 2020. Herd immunity: Understanding COVID-19. Immunity 52 (5). 737-741
  71. Rappaport, Kim L. 1998. In the wake of Reno v. ACLU: The continued struggle in Western constitutional democracies with internet censorship and freedom of speech online. American University International Law Review 13 (3). 765-814
  72. Ritchie, Graeme. 2003. The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. London: Routledge
  73. Rocklöv, Joacim (in press). COVID-19 healthcare demand and mortality in Sweden in response to non-pharmaceutical (NPIs) mitigation and suppression scenarios. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.20.20039594.
  74. Rosen, Ralph. 2007. Making Mockery: The Poetics of Ancient Satire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  75. Sangsuvan, Kitsuron. 2013. Balancing freedom of speech on the internet under international law. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 39. 701-732.
  76. Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1818/1844 [1907], The World as Will and Idea (Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  77. Sclafani, Jennifer. 2017. Talking Donald Trump: A Sociolinguistic Study of Style, Metadiscourse, and Political Identity. London/New York: Routledge.
  78. Shifman, Limor. 2014. Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  79. Simpson, Paul. 1998. Odd talk: studying discourses of incongruity. In Jonathan Culpeper, Mick Short & Peter Verdonk (eds.), Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context, 34-53. London: Routledge.
  80. Simpson, Paul. 2009. Humor: Stylistic approaches. In Jacob Mey (ed.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, 337-339. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  81. Street, John. 2001. It’s just for fun: Politics and entertainment. In John Street (ed.), Mass Media, Politics and Democracy, 60-80. London: Palgrave.
  82. van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  83. van Zoonen, Liesbet. 2005. Entertaining the Citizen: When Politics and Popular Culture Converge. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
  84. Winter, Eugene. 1994. Clause relations as information structure: Two basic text structures in English. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis, 46-68. London: Routledge.
  85. Young, Malcolm. 1995. Black humour: making light of death. Policing and Society (5) 2. 151-167.
  86. Young, Dannagal G. 2013. Entertainment, satire, and the big questions of our political world. In Robert W. Glover & Daniel Tagliarina (eds.), Teaching Politics beyond the Book: Film, Texts, and New Media in the Classroom, 179-198. New York: Bloomsbury
  87. Ziv, Avner. 1988. Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. Journal of Experimental Education 6 (1). 37-44

© Понтон Д.М., 2021

Creative Commons License
Эта статья доступна по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Данный сайт использует cookie-файлы

Продолжая использовать наш сайт, вы даете согласие на обработку файлов cookie, которые обеспечивают правильную работу сайта.

О куки-файлах