Anyway the paper was:
The Performance of Humor in Computer-Mediated Communication
by Nancy Baym
in the (electronic)
Journal of Compyter Mediated Communication
at URL:
http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue2/baym.html
And although Baym draws on data from a Usenet group discussing soap operas
I think her analysis of humour as a tool for community building is relevant
to this list as well. She writes in her conclusions (my pp 19-20):
>My analysis is a response to constructions of computer-mediated
>communication as a socially-impoverished domain. I have shown here how one
>group creates social life through the medium, and the privileged role of
>humorous performance in that process. Because humor relies on group norms,
>knowledge, practices, and problems, it provides a way to deal with
>problematic issues within the group, to generate unique identities and to
>create group identity and solidarity.
=2E..
>One implication is that humor can be a particularly important locus of
>social formation in the computer-mediated context. Given that so many
>identity and group-defining cues are stripped in this text-only medium,
>discourse practices gain enhanced force to create social meaning. Because
>humor simultaneously indexes so many important social domains, it has
>particular power to affirm the group's self-definition and to transform its
>social structure. Future analyses of computer-mediated groups should
>consider the extent to which they use humor and the ways humor operates.
>Rich comparative analyses of humor (or the lack of humor) across a range of
>computer-mediated groups can provide unique insights into the dynamics of
>CMC social formation.
=2E..
>The group's
>identities and sense of solidarity also emerge in direct relationship to
>the topic under discussion. This demonstrates that computer-mediated
>communication cannot be understood as a unified field. The computer medium
>is only one of many influences on on-line groups. Social processes in
>computer-mediated groups, including performance and humor, are deeply
>rooted in specifics, including topics of discussion and purposes.
And before that (my p. 18) she notes that not all Usenet groups develop a
"sense of community":
>R.a.t.s. humor is responsive to other's posts in at least two ways. Humor
>more often than not occurs in explicit reactions to others' messages, and
>humor often invokes past group discussions. Humor is thus one of the ways
>in which participants blend the group's discourse into a unified whole. Wha=
t
>could be an ongoing stream of messages with little coherence are transforme=
d
>into group history and interpersonal contacts. This does not happen in all
>Usenet groups, and may be one reason other groups do not develop the sense =
of
>community found in r.a.t.s. Furthermore, by incorporating previous r.a.t.s.
>voices into their humor, the performer makes the audience collaborators. Th=
e
>humor is a joint production, which the audience not only understands but
>helps
>create. This joint authorship enhances group identity and solidarity.
In the community of rec.arts.tv.soaps the tensions between participants'
involvement in the soap events AND their frustrations with the blatant lack
of realism are a rich source of humour -- discrepancies breed opportunities
for laughs and smiles. So there are shared experiences as a grounding for
shared humour -- and also rich opportunities for smiles at one's own
expense.
The r.a.t.s community also has an excellent target for their jokes in the
complementary community of writers&producers -- a THEM that is definitely
NOT an US...
Now, the xmca may have a lower rate of humour -- it kind of doesn't feel
right to make fun of multiple-choice tests when fun-making won't help a bit
with Helena's teaching dilemma. Doesn't feel right at all to make fun of
educationally disadvantaged people... and a lot of the time we are sailing
close to issues of those kinds.
On the other hand, I don't have the sense we're the kind of academics that
never smile -- there's far too much consciousness here of how essential a
certain playfulness is to creativity. And I think we're pretty good at
looking upon the tensions and discrepancies in our own experiences of
academia with some humour: if you don't want to cry you just have to
laugh,eh?
As we are truly computer mediated there are certainly some risks
involved -- we don't always share *styles* of humour. Irony is one of the
risky styles, certainly. However, I think that using irony may be less
risky in Academia than in many other communities (or maybe I think so just
because I have worked with British colleagues recently...) Whatever it is:
remember that Humour Is a Joint Production.
Eva