#michael billig

[notathoughtexperiment]

We learn that 'phenomenography favours a dynamic approach'; and that 'combining a phenomenographic and a systemic functional perspective... provides an opportunity to develop a coherent understanding'. Who would not want a dynamic approach or an opportunity to develop a coherent understanding? This sort of claim has more than a passing resemblance to promotional language that boasts the worth of commercial products: this yoghurt improves digestion; this detergent kills all known germs; and this research favours a dynamic approach. Phenomenography might not kill all known ignorance. But, do you want to produce something coherent? Then try Phenomenography right away. Improve your research with new, scientifically tested Phenomenography. [...] Did anyone really imagine that travelling to conferences, staying in hotels with expenses paid, attending drinks receptions and attracting the attention of established figures was a good means to develop original, critical thinking? The more academic friends that you make, the longer your list of academics whose work you cannot publicly criticize. [...] James ended his address by declaring that 'our undisciplinables are our proudest product'. Let us agree, he concluded, 'in hoping that the output of them will never cease'. Today, university managers have a different understanding of the words 'product' and 'output'. They are now proud of products and outputs which are financially accountable and which, in consequence, are highly disciplinable.

“​Learn to Write Badly: How to Succeed in the Social Sciences”, by Michael Billig

[thecamillerules]

Ogni volta che un'ortodossia s'impone si corre il rischio che una voce a carattere monologico soffochi lo spirito critico. -Quando il successo diventa una trappola-

Diffidate dell'ossificazione delle metodologie affermate.

L'isolamento della metodologia dal contesto delle teorie che essa incorpora e dei problemi che permette di affrontare produce una rigidità che dovrebbe essere evitata:

(1) "Qualsiasi pensiero disciplinare, specialmente se offre un addestramento di tipo metodologico, può svincolarsi dall'originario contesto argomentativo verso il quale si era dimostrato coraggiosamente rivoluzionario: il successo diventa una trappola."

(2) Le metodologie non devono avere il sopravvento sulle questioni teoriche e sull'atteggiamento critico.

- Michael Billig, 1987

[femlaugh]

Billig refers to 'ridicule' as a demeaning form of laughter that serves a necessary social function. He attempts to counter the trend of ideological positivism in psychological humour theory by arguing that ridicule, though typically considered a divisive and negative form of humour, serves to discipline minor social foibles through embarrassment.

This framework is useful as an introduction to a negative humour/laughter that serves a valid social purpose. Billig sets a precedent for humours and laughters that produce positive social effects by employing necessarily cruel content. Again, I propose that ridicule working downwards (the abused party as punchline) ought to be differentiated from ridicule working upwards (abusers as punchline). The language of 'progressive' and 'regressive' humour still applies here.

[femlaugh]

Michael Billig presents two very broad ways of characterizing humour. These are presented in dichotomies: negative vs. positive humour, and rebellious vs. disciplinary humour. 

The first set is defined as being either an aggressive humour that separates, divides, and excludes, or one that encourages group solidarity (22). This is an insufficient distinction, as it ignores the possibility of an aggressive humour/laughter that works against the dominant social order - encouraging group solidarity by excluding the population that seeks to do harm. 

The distinction between the second set, rebellious and disciplinary humour, is drawn less clearly. Disciplinary humour would function to embarrass those who break social norms or expectations, and is described by Billig as being a 'conservative' use, whereas rebellious laughter would seek to dismantle those same social norms, expectations, and hierarchies. 

This is an overly simplistic categorization for my project, as it relies too heavily on an exact definition of 'social norms.' Sexual assault and rape exist simultaneously as normative and counter-normative. With some estimates suggesting one of every three women will be a target of sexual aggression in her lifetime, a significant amount of men, and a huge amount of trans* people, it would seem that dealing with sexual violence on a personal level, or supporting a friend who has been aggressed is a lived norm for millions of people. Still, sexual assault and rape are illegal in North America, a ban which enforces the conception of sexual consent as the norm, and any breach of that consent as being deviant and therefore deserving of punishment. 

Instead of qualifying feminist trauma humour as being a form of "disciplinary rebellion," (an ambiguous and confusing term) I am looking for language that distinguishes between progressive and regressive trauma humour. 

Briefly, a progressive humour/laughter about trauma prioritizes the comfort of survivors by shaming, ridiculing, and 'making strange' the behaviour of sexual aggressors, while a regressive trauma humour would take the form of a typical rape joke, in that it prefers the comfort and group cohesion of potential and actual sexual aggressors.

My language choice of 'progressive' and 'regressive' is preliminary and tentative, of course, as I navigate through my initial readings.