comedy as symbolic violence

symoblic violence

• how social hierarchies and inequalities are maintained less by. physical force than by forms of symbolic domination.

symbolic boundaries

• Divisions based on non-material things, more so beliefs

• Class division is embedded in symbolic boundaries

moral boundaries

• Drawing boundaries based on mortality, good and bad

why are moral boundaries not as enforacable

• because no consensus on whats morally right and wrong

legitamte tastes

• Cultural preferences and practices deemed acceptable and prestigious within a particular social field

field logic

• Integration of nomos and doxa

differnt styles of apperciation for comedy

• HCC: Has to be more than funny- Complex, original and intelligent ex. Satires

• LCC: funny, pleasurable and sociable, less likely to draw boundaries ( open attitude)

HCC on LCC

• Coarse, loud, vulgar, aggressive, insensitive

LCC on HCC

• Puzzled attitude because they do not think have the cultural capital to appreciate “legitamate comedy”

• Some explicitly rejected High brow comedy - humorless and snobs

right to speak or pass judment

Social privilege to express opinions or make judgments, right to have and dictate TASTE

• Is a mark of status and is stratified along class

• Reflects a lack of confidence and sense of cultural inferiority

What does Friedman & kuipers say about relation of comedy and personhood?

• Comedy taste invokes strong symbolic boundaries among HCC and LCC because comedy has a strong relatiohsipp to personhood- ability to create social bonds

What does friedman & kuipers say about comedy and symbolic violence

• Whether comedy taste acts as symbolic violence depends on if HCC comedy taste is widely shared and if LCC feel excluded by HCC rejection

What does friedman & kuipers say about peoples use of comedy

Those with high cultural capital use comedy taste as a tool in claiming social distance