Jokes and Their Relation to Apperception

So lately I’ve been reading Robert Pippin’s book, Hegel’s Idealism: The Satisfactions of Self-Consciousness, which is an amazingly well-written reinterpretation of Hegel’s work, placing it in the context of the general Idealist problematic originating with Kant, viz. the “Transcendental Deduction”: essentially speaking, how can we genuinely ground our knowledge of the world? According to Pippin, what Hegel deems most important in Kant is the “transcendental unity of apperception.” What this boils down to is that when I do something, say, writing this blog post, I don’t simply write it, but I take myself to be writing it, or, to formulate it in propositional terms, the difference between asserting that S is P and taking myself to be asserting that S is P. This “taking myself to be asserting” is the apperceptive formula and, according to Kant and Hegel, the dimension of self-consciousness.

So how does humor come to play a role? Recently I was talking with some friends and the topic of conversation turned to one professor here at the university who has a reputation on campus for having a grandiose and flamboyant persona (it’s impossible to describe unless you were to meet him in person, really). When I took one of his courses during my sophomore year, for example, it was commonplace for my friends and I to work on our impersonations of him, delivering them to one another to see who could do the best rendition. Anyhow, it turns out that our on-campus Onion-esque magazine, the Every Three Weekly, recently published an article titled, “University celebrates one-millionth Ralph Williams impersonation.”

The reason why the joke is funny is because, at a structural level, it informs you about something that you hadn’t realized before: it takes into cognition an action performed that hadn’t been self-consciously reflected upon. Meaning, when I, as a single individual, perform this action (an imitation, in this example) sans self-reflection, I immediately think of it as something I’ve done spontaneously, on my own free will. Yet, what the joke makes clear is that the action itself is a product of a certain structure and therefore not “spontaneous,” in the sense of autonomous, at all. There is therefore a contradiction between consciousness and self-consciousness, between (individual) action and joke, that distinguishes the way in which I can either be unconsciously determined by the symbolic order or take into account, by means of apperception, the way in which the actions that I take to be considered spontaneous/autonomous are, at least to some degree, not.

I would say too that, at a certain abstract level, this apperceptive dimension is inherent to most jokes. The elementary gesture is purely transcendental in the sense that it identifies individual actions not as peculiar and individual, but instead as alienating products of social phenomena and our laughter is produced by an anxiety, one that is provoked by both a sense of prior heteronomy (that I performed my individual action as spontaneous) and a new-found sense of autonomy (the joke qua outside voice serves as the previously-barred apperceptive reflexivity of self-consciousness). Consequently, laughter, genuine laughter, is the product, objet petit a, of the very transition from Symbolic determination to the Real, the fact that, through the apperceptive dimension of my actions, I become aware of my freedom.

—Bryan Klausmeyer 1 Comment

It’s Time To End “The Office”

From Ricky Gervais’ website, Kyle Carpenter critiques the US Office for straying too far from the British original.

For the most part, the American Office has departed so far from the British version that the two can barely be thought of as the same show. One major pitfall is that some of the main characters in the American version are vastly different from their portrayal in the British one. For example, Carrell’s role as Michael Scott is, at best, an overblown parody of the bumbling British boss David Brent. The real loss is that Gervais’s style of subtle comedic delivery throughout the series has been abandoned. Instead, Carrell’s jokes are over the top and spoon-fed to the American audience.

Another prominent character that was spoiled in the American version is the role of the slightly neurotic wimp Gareth Keenan. Mackenzie Crook’s role as Gareth was turned into Dwight Shrute, portrayed by Rainn Wilson. Wilson’s role is so over-acted and unbelievable that he comes across more like a villain from a little kid’s show than a character in a comedy that is supposed to be funny because of how realistic it is. This brings me to the fundamental difference between the two shows. Although a stretch at times, the British version feels like it could be a real workplace, and the characters are humorous in their authenticity. In the American version, the characters are larger than life, and often find themselves in unrealistic situations. While some viewers see this as part of the show’s charm, it entirely undermines the original premise of the series.

From its high in the second season, I think the US Office has been in steady decline. I don’t watch a lot of TV, but I’ve been following the US show using torrents since the begining. Before I begin my critique I should say that I’m not a television writer and I don’t know anything about the television industry or what it takes to make a show, I’m just offering my opinions as a fan.

I believe that the US Office needs to close. For the sake of the show’s integrity, it needs to give itself a strong final push and plot arc and try to end on a high note.

It’s still “funny” but it’s not “funny and challenging”. It came close a few times, but now it’s way off the mark. The UK Office was consistently funny and challenging. Each scene was well-crafted and extremely well acted. It played with fourth walls, left things unsaid and was willing to deliver tragedy.

One problem is the lead character. I hadn’t realized this before Carpenter pointed it out, but Ricky Gervais’ performance as David Brent was a great moment in acting. It was funny, subtle, completely alienating and yet totally sympathetic. Steve Carrell is funny, and he’s a great actor as we saw in Little Miss Sunshine, but the increasingly broad material and irreconcilable idiocy of his character give him very little wiggle room.

There is no emotional risk for the characters. The continuation of the franchise depends on their consistency. Of course the indicted executive Ryan returns as a secretary. Of course Jim comes back from another branch, just as Jan came back, just as Dwight came back from working at Staples. Just as Pam will come back from art school and Toby will return from Costa Rica (wait a few weeks, Amy Ryan’s contract is not a permanent deal).

Even when the characters are flung out and pushed away they always return to a paper company in the middle of nowhere. Why? They are free of consequences and reality. The show tried to take risks but never followed through. It’s a comedy cock tease.

I believe that with some firm guidance from Merchant and Gervais the show could finish in style instead of lingering and fading into Two and a Half Men with no laugh track. Merchant and Gervais need to reign in the NBC/US creative team. I hope that this is what Gervais was hinting at by posting the link to the Carpenter critique on his website. At the very least, someone should send the NBC team a copy of the original Office on DVD.

Of course ending the show at this point would mean taking risks, telling off the network and killing a cash cow. But they need to ask themselves: Do they want to make great comedy, or do they want to sell some fucking candles?

As Carpenter said, “the last good thing about the British version is that it knew when to die with dignity.”

EDIT: The November 6th episode was a great accomplishment, probably the best one in the last two seasons. Maybe I’ve been hyper critical…

—Mark Elliot Cullen 5 Comments

A World-Historical Swindle

Joe Nocera writes in the Times that banks receiving pieces of the $700 bn. bailout package are actually hoarding the money instead of using it to make loans more accessible. In fact, not only hoarding the money but in some cases using it to buy out other banks!

Perhaps this is why Paulson’s “no strings attached” bill was so fucking idiotic in the first place: if the government has no ability either to monitor what these pieces of shit are doing with taxpayer money or to actually enforce the laws (what some might refer to as the raison d’etre of a “government”), then what good was the fucking bailout to begin with?

Let’s hope this isn’t another case of a world-historical swindle perpetrated by the financial oligarchy. If there is any sliver of justice left in this world, and there is little hope of that, all of the CEOs of the banks that violate the spirit of the $700 bn. bailout ought to be thrown in prison and the banks immediately nationalized.

As Ben Popken of Consumerist writes:

What is the government doing to make banks use the money for loans? Apparently, jack except for asking really really nicely. If this continues and banks don’t use their government handout to open up loans, this bailout will be the single greatest ripoff in American history, and those responsible are naive if they don’t think they’ll have a giant bloody revolution on their hands.

If the elite are simultaneously trying to justify further transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich by raising the claim that “progressive” economic intervention constitutes “socialism”, perhaps a fruitful strategy for the Left would be to take these claims seriously by putting together some decent socialist legislation.

—Bryan Klausmeyer 5 Comments