Teaching Sociology ARTICLES NOTES - American Sociological Association

Teaching Sociology Volume 37, Number 4 October 2009

An Official Journal of the American Sociological Association

ARTICLES

“Laughing Matters”: The Comedian as Social Observer, Teacher, and Conduit of the Sociological Perspective Shawn Chandler Bingham and Alex A. Hernandez

Practicing Sociological Imagination through Writing Sociological AutobiographyAlem Kebede

NOTES

Teaching Race as a Social Construction: Two Interactive Class ExercisesNikki Khanna and Cherise A. Harris

The Behaviors that College Students Classify as Political Bias: Preliminary Findings and ImplicationsCraig Tollini

Using Journals to Show Students What Social Psychology is All AboutWendy J. Harrod

Michael Apted’s The Up! Series as a Teaching Prompt for Understanding, Collaboration, and New Learning in a Sociology Course SettingWilliam C. Diehl, Candace Head-Dylla, Maya Nehme, Jose M. Salazar, and Jinai Sun

BOOK REVIEWS

FILM REVIEWS

Teaching Sociology

O

ctober 2009

Volum

e 37, Num

ber 4

TEAC

HIN

G SO

CIO

LOG

Y(U

ISSN 0092-055X

)1430 K

Street NW

, Suite 600W

ashington, DC

20005

Periodicals postage paidat W

ashington, DC

andadditional m

ailing offices

Editor Liz Grauerholz

University of Central Florida e-mail: [email protected]

Deputy Editor Jay Howard

Indiana University Columbus e-mail: [email protected]

Rebecca Bordt DePauw University

Peter L. Callero Western Oregon University

Jeffrey Chin Le Moyne College

Marisol Karina Clark-Ibanez California State University-San Marcos

Michael DeCesare Merrimack College

Tracy L. Dietz University of Central Florida

Lauren Dundes McDaniel College

Anne Frances Eisenberg State University of New York-Geneseo

Nancy A. Greenwood Indiana University-Kokomo

Chad Hanson Casper College

Angela J. Hattery Wake Forest University

Jay R. Howard Indiana University Columbus

Mark Israel Flinders University

David D. Jaffee University of North Florida

Diane Elizabeth Johnson Kutztown University

Chigon Kim Wright State University

Donna L. King University of North Carolina-

Wilmington

Matthew T. Lee University of Akron

Kathleen Lowney Valdosta State University

Betsy Lucal Indiana University-South Bend

Wendy Ng San Jose State University

Laura Nichols Santa Clara Univeristy

Anne M. Nurse The College of Wooster

Matthew Oware DePauw University

Shireen S. Rajaram University of Nebraska

Robyn Ryle Hanover College

Monica A. Snowden Wayne State College

Heather Sullivan-Catlin State University of New York-Potsdam

Steven A. Sweet Ithaca College

Susan R. Takata University of Wisconsin-Parkside

Jan E. Thomas Kenyon College

Jean L. Van Delinder Oklahoma State University

Leslie T.C. Wang St. Mary’s College

Morrison G. Wong Texas Christian University

Copy Editor Georgina Hill

Emma Grauerholz-Fisher

Managing Editor Deborah Barr

Desktop Production and Electronic Editor Pauline Hayes Pavlakos

Editorial Board

Teaching Sociology (ISSN 0092-055X) is published quarterly in January, April, July, and October by the American Sociological Association, 1430 K Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005, and is printed by Boyd Printing Company, Albany, New York. Periodicals’ postage paid at Washington, DC and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Teaching Sociology, 1307 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005-4701.

Scope and Mission: Teaching Sociology publishes articles, notes, applications, and reviews intended to be helpful to the discipline’s teachers. Articles range from experimental studies of teaching and learning to broad, synthetic essays on pedagogically important issues. The general intent is to share theoretically stimulating and practically useful information and advice with teachers. Formats include full-length articles, notes of 15 pages or less, interviews, review essays, classroom applications of current research, conversations, and film, video, and software reviews.

Communications about articles, notes, and conversations should be addressed to the Editor, Teaching Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Central Florida, Howard Phillips Hall 403, Orlando, FL 32816-1360, e-mail: [email protected], voice: (407) 823-2227, fax: (407) 823-3026. Communications about reviews and review essays should be sent to the Deputy Editor, Teaching Sociology, Department of Sociology, Indiana University Columbus, 4601 Central Avenue, Columbus, IN 47203-1769, e-mail: [email protected], voice: (812) 348-7270, fax: (812) 348-7276.

Concerning advertising, changes of address and subscriptions, address the Executive Office, American Sociological Association, 1307 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington DC 20005-4701. Subscription rates for members, $40 ($25 student members); institutions (print/online), $185, Institutions (online only), $170. (Individual subscribers are required to hold ASA membership. To join or for additional information, visit www.asanet.org.) Rates include postage in the United States and Canada; elsewhere, add $20 per journal subscription for international postage. Single issues available. Change of address: Six weeks advance notice to the Executive Office, and old address as well as new, are necessary for change of subscriber’s address. Claims for undelivered copies must be made within the month following the regular month of publication. The publisher will supply missing copies when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will permit.

Copyright 2009, American Sociological Association. Copying Beyond Fair Use: Copies of articles in this journal may be made for teaching and research purposes free of charge and without securing permission, as permitted by Section 107 and 108 of the United States Copyright Law. For all other purposes, permission must be obtained from the publisher.

The American Sociological Association acknowledges, with appreciation, the facilities and assistance provided by University of Central Florida and Le Moyne College.

CONTEXTS

EDITORS //

Christopher UggenDouglas Hartman

DETAILS //

ISSN: 1536-5042eISSN: 1537-60522009, Vol 8February, May, August,November

An award-winning quarterly magazine of the American SociologicalAssociation, Contexts presents cutting-edge perspectives on themost provocative issues facing contemporary society. This pioneeringjournal brings accessible, incisive writing and the best of sociologicalinquiry to bear on crucial concerns such as poverty, education, popculture, immigration, religion, environmental justice, and much more.

W W W. U C P R E S S J O U R N A L S . C O M

Understanding People in their Social Worlds

ARTICLES “Laughing Matters”: The Comedian as Social Observer, Teacher, and Conduit of the Sociological Perspective .... Shawn Chandler Bingham and Alex A. Hernandez Practicing Sociological Imagination through Writing Sociological Autobiography . ................................................................................... Alem Kebede NOTES Teaching Race as a Social Construction: Two Interactive Class Exercises .......... ...................................................... Nikki Khanna and Cherise A. Harris The Behaviors that College Students Classify as Political Bias: Preliminary Find-ings and Implications .......................................................... Craig Tollini Using Journals to Show Students What Social Psychology is All About ............. .............................................................................. Wendy J. Harrod Michael Apted’s The Up! Series as a Teaching Prompt for Understanding, Col-laboration, and New Learning in a Sociology Course Setting ... William C. Diehl, ................ Candace Head-Dylla, Maya Nehme, Jose M. Salazar, and Jinai Sun BOOK REVIEWS Constructing Social Theory. David C. Bell. ........................ Michael Klausner Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Charles C. Ragin. ............. ............................................................................... David K. Brown Stat-Spotting: A Field Guide to Identifying Dubious Data. Joel Best. ............... .................................................................................. Isaac Heacock Changing Bodies: Habit, Crisis and Creativity. Chris Schilling. ..................... .......................................................................... C. Clayton Childress Understanding Human Sexuality. 10th ed. Janet Shibley Hyde and John D. De Lamater. ................................................................. Todd E. Bernhardt The Sage Companion to the City. Tim Hall, Phil Hubbard, and John Rennie Short, eds. ............................................................................. Amy Foerster Race, Place, and Environmental Justice after Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to Re-claim, Rebuild, and Revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Robert D. Bullard and Beverly Wright, eds. ................................ Lori Peek and Paul Stretesky The Prisoners’ World: Portraits of Convicts Caught in the Incarceration Binge. William Tregea and Marjorie Larmour. ................................ Wanda Hunter FILM REVIEWS Unnatural Causes: . . . Is Inequality Making Us Sick? Larry Adelman, producer. .......................................................................... Matthew D. Gayman Running on Empty. Brenda Kelly, executive producer. ....... Karen A. Callaghan Diamond Road. Nisha Pahuja, director. ............................. Kyoung-Ho Shin Writ Writer: One Man’s Journey for Justice. Susanne Mason, director. ............ .............................................................................. Rebecca L. Bordt Edge of Islam. Alex Gabbay, director. .................................... Nels Paulson

TEACHING SOCIOLOGY www.lemoyne.edu/ts/tsmain.html

Volume 37, Number 4 October 2009

NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS COMMENT FROM THE EDITOR

335

353

369

379

390

402

413

414

416

417

419

421

423

425

427 428 430

432 433

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii

REVIEWERS FOR VOLUME 37 ........................................................ INDEX FOR VOLUME 37 ................................................................. GUIDELINES FOR PAPERS SUBMITTED TO TEACHING SOCIOLOGY

436

439

STATEMENT OF ASA POLICY ON MULTIPLE SUBMISSION

“Submission of manuscripts to a professional journal clearly implies commitment to publish in that journal. The competition for journal space requires a great deal of time and effort on the part of editorial readers whose main compensation for this service is the opportunity to read papers prior to publication and the gratification associated with discharge of professional obligations. For these reasons, the ASA regards submission of a manuscript to a professional journal while that paper is under review by another journal as unacceptable.” Section II.B4, ASA Code of Ethics

MANUSCRIPT PROCESSING FEE

A processing fee of $25.00 is required for each paper submitted, except reviews. (Fees are waived for student members of the ASA and associate editors of Teaching Sociology.) This practice reflects a policy of the ASA Council and Committee on Publications. A check or money order payable to the American Sociological Association should accompany each submission. The fee must be paid in order to initiate manuscript processing. Manuscripts that are revisions of papers previously declined by Teaching Sociology, but not revisions of manuscripts for which the previous outcome was a request to revise and resubmit, will be assessed an additional $25.00.

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION AND PROCESSING

• Formats: Teaching Sociology publishes several types of papers. Generally an article is about 25 pages long, is

analytical and/or empirical, and is based on appropriate literature. A note is usually less than 15 pages long, contains a brief literature review, and describes a specific idea, strategy, or technique. Applications are typi-cally 20 pages in length and are solicited by the editor. Teaching Sociology does not accept unsolicited applica-tions manuscripts. Conversations should be no longer than eight pages (about 2,000 words) and are meant to encourage lively, thoughtful, and controversial discussion. For more information on these formats, see the “Guidelines for Papers Submitted to Teaching Sociology.”

• Email one (1) electronic copy of the manuscript to [email protected]. Include an email address for acknowledgment of manuscript receipt and regular mailing address for correspondence.

• Manuscripts are reviewed anonymously. Authors’ names, affiliations, and other identifying material such as acknowledgments or personal references should be placed on the title page only, or on other separate pages preceding the text. It is the authors’ responsibility to remove all identifying information before submitting a manuscript.

• All papers should include an abstract of no more than 150 words on a separate page. • Manuscripts must be typed, double-spaced (including footnotes, biography, acknowledgments, abstracts,

references, indented material, and tables), and paginated. Place footnotes at the end of the manuscript. Margins should be at least one-inch wide all around.

• Type each table and figure on a separate page. Figures must be prepared professionally. Place acknowledgments, credits, grant numbers, corresponding address, and e-mail on the title page and mark with an asterisk. If you include this information, place an asterisk after the title.

• Manuscripts accepted for publication are subject to copyediting. • Clarify all symbols with notes in the margins of the manuscript. Circle these and all other explanatory notes not

intended for printing. • Three kinds of footnotes are possible, each serving a different purpose:

A. Content footnotes: Content footnotes are explanations or amplifications of the text. Because they are distracting to readers, an author should include important information in the text and omit irrelevant information. Content footnotes generally will not be allowed.

Rather than footnoting long or complicated material, such as proofs or derivations unnecessary to the text, consider 1) stating in a short footnote that the material is available from the author, 2) depositing the material in a national retrieval center and including an appropriate footnote, or 3) adding an appendix. If you use an appendix, the reference in the text should read “(see Appendix for complete derivation)”.

Number the text footnotes consecutively throughout the article with superscript Arabic numerals. If you mention a footnote later in the text, return to it with a parenthetical note (“see Footnote 3”) rather than repeating the superscript number.

B. Reference footnotes: Use footnotes for reference only to cite material of limited availability. Acceptable reference footnotes include 1) legal citations, which should follow the footnote style of “A Uniform System of Citation” (Harvard Law Review Association 1967), 2) copyright permission footnotes, 3) unpublished works, and 4) works in progress.

C. Table footnotes: Table footnotes are appended only to a specific table. Footnotes to a table should be lettered consecutively within each table with superscript lowercase letters.

Revised: November 5, 2007

NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS

REFERENCE FORMAT

IN-TEXT CITATIONS • Identify each source at the appropriate point in the text by the last name of the author or authors, year of

publication, and pagination (if needed). Examples: Glaser and Strauss (1969) discussed the importance…. Declining enrollments pose a threat to the faculty (Huber 1985:375-82). Merton (1940, 1945) argues…. • In the first in-text citation of items with four or more names, use the first author’s last name plus the words “et

al.” List all names only when “et al.” would cause confusion. In citations with three or fewer authors, all authors’ last names should be listed the first time the reference is cited.

• When two authors in your reference list have the same last name, use identifying initial, as in in (J. Smith 1990).

• For institutional authorship, supply minimum identification from the beginning of the reference item, as in (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1986:123).

• When you cite more than one source, alphabetize citations within parentheses, as follows: ...issues that both faculty and students are expected to address (DeMartini 1983; Lynch and Smith 1985; Rippertoe 1977).

• Ampersand (&) should not be used as a substitute for “and” in citations and reference. • Names of racial/ethnic groups that represent geographical locations or linguistic groups should be capitalized—

for example, Hispanic, Asian, African American, Appalachian, Caucasian.

REFERENCE LIST • In a section headed REFERENCES, list all items alphabetically by author. If you include more than on item by

any author, list those items in chronological order. • The reference section must include all sources cited in the text. Name every author in each source; “et al.” is

not acceptable. • Use authors’ first names, not first initials. • Most page references should be elided (pp. 132-48, pp. 1002-11, pp. 1054-82; except for pp. 102-106, 1101-

1108, and the like). • List publisher’s name as concisely as possible without loss of clarity, as in “Wiley” for “John A. Wiley and

Sons.” • If the item has been accepted for publication but is still unpublished, use “forthcoming” where the year would

normally appear; otherwise use “unpublished.” • Type the first line of each reference item flush to the left margin. Indent any subsequent lines .12 inch. • Double-space the references. • Do not insert a space after a colon connected with an issue number. Example of correct form: Changes 19

(2):200-32.

Examples of correct Teaching Sociology reference format: Journal article with single author:

Nelson, Craig E. 2003. “Doing It: Examples of Several of the Different Genres of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 14(2/3):85-94.

Journal article with two authors: Mauksch, Hans O. and Carla B. Howery. 1986. “Social Change for Teaching: The Case of One Disciplinary

Association.” Teaching Sociology 14(1):73-82. Journal article with three or more authors:

Persell, Caroline Hodges, Kathryn M. Pfeiffer, and Ali Syed. 2007. “What Should Students Understand After Taking Introduction to Sociology?” Teaching Sociology 35(4):300-14.

Book references: Brown, Charles, ed. 1985. The Joys of Teaching. Springfield, IL: Freewheeling Press. _____. 1989. Writing Programs in American Universities. 8th ed. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Brown, Charles and Lois Dorsi. Forthcoming. The Suburban Campus. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: Bourgeois. Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Item in edited volume: Dynes, Russell and Irwin Deutscher. 1983. “Perspectives on Applied Educational Programs.” Pp. 295-311 in

Applied Sociology, edited by Howard E. Freeman, Russell Dynes, Peter H. Rossi, and William F. Whyte. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Electronic sources: Brown, L. David and Rajesh Tandon. 1983. “Ideology and Political Economy in Inquiry: Action Research and

Participatory Research.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Retrieved March 1, 2003 (http://www.outeru-university.org/slmonograp.html).

HEADS AND SUBHEADS • First-level heads are capitalized, bolded, and centered. • Second-level heads are italicized, bolded, and placed flush with left-hand margin. • Third-level heads are italicized, bolded, and indented .12 inch at the beginning of the paragraph. Capitalize first

letter only; end with period. Example: Morality. Within the literature of sociology, social reality is often derived from morality, and social

meanings are described as reflexive and moral, serving private and collective ends.

OTHER DETAILS • Spell out all numbers through nine. Express numbers 10 and up as numerals. • Spell out all ordinals through ninth. After 10th, express as ordinals (e.g., 10th, 20th). • Spell out “percent.” Always use a numeral with “percent” even if it is a number below 10, as in “3 percent.” • Avoid biased language. For example, use first-year or lower-level students rather than freshmen. • Copies of the ASA Style Guide are available at cost from the editorial office and the ASA.

AS I WRITE THIS NOTE, my last after six years as editor, I am filled with mixed emo-tions. I am so grateful to have been given the opportunity to edit Teaching Sociology, a professional dream come true. To be able to help shape the discipline’s approach to teaching, and forge connections with people I would never have had the chance to meet otherwise, has been an incredible honor. But there’s also a grieving (although I sus-pect I will recover quickly) because the journal has been a constant in my life for six years, my “child,” and I feel the same kind of ambivalence as I do as I prepare to send my oldest daughter away to college next year. Have I done enough? Is it really time to let go? At least in the case of this journal, I know that the next home is a great one and I have no doubts that the new editor, Kathleen Lowney, will see that the journal continues to flourish and make an impact on the broader SoTL field.

I am grateful to all those who have pro-vided invaluable assistance along the way. It would not have been possible without the help of many talented and committed indi-viduals. I am especially grateful to Pauline Pavlakos, who has served as typesetter and Web site coordinator, and who has an

amazing knack for spotting errors after eve-ryone else had “signed off.” Karen Ed-wards and Janine McKenna at ASA kept the administrative problems at a minimum and were always willing to help. I’ve had the pleasure of working with three graduate students who served as managing editors—Jori Sechrist, Monica Mendez, and Deborah Barr—and their ability to juggle their doc-toral work along with the journal never ceased to amaze me. The editorial board members—too numerous to list—have been a constant source of guidance and assis-tance. Last, but certainly not least, are the many reviewers who have sacrificed valu-able time to ensure that the manuscripts published here maintain the highest quality. These dedicated individuals who reviewed over the past year are listed in the appendix of this issue.

I have learned more about the scholarship of teaching and learning, teaching, and the profession, from my experience as editor, than any other professional endeavor I’ve undertaken. It’s been a great ride!

Liz Grauerholz

Editor

COMMENT FROM THE EDITOR

This issue is dedicated to

Carla Howery

(1950-2009)

whose commitment to and

support for teaching and

this journal greatly

enhanced our discipline

Indeed, an argument could be made that the social scientist who does not perceive this comic dimension of social reality is going to miss essential features of it. . . . These re-marks, needless to say, are not meant to deni-grate the serious study of society but simply to suggest that such study itself will profit greatly from those insights that one can obtain only while laughing. (Peter Berger 1963:165)

Many of our courses within the sociological curriculum, such as “Contemporary Social Problems” or “Domestic Violence in Amer-ica,” often represent society as tragedy (Johnson 2005). Our texts, lectures and discussions routinely present social life and social data through measurements of ine-

quality, crime and other quantifications of injustice (Zijderveld 1995). Indeed, it is not surprising to us when a student eventually asks, “why is sociology so negative?”

In reaction to what many students inter-pret as the “doom and gloom” of sociology, and to pique students’ interest in the com-plexities of mundane, everyday social life, we have successfully incorporated a society as comedy component into our introductory course. More specifically, we use the socio-logical insight and social critique of the comedic eye, through the work of individu-als such as George Carlin and Jon Stewart, to model the sociological perspective. This article explores the success of these peda-gogical methods based on comparisons be-tween experimental and control groups at two universities. A general discussion of parallels between the comedic eye and the sociological perspective is followed by spe-cific steps for locating, selecting and incor-porating comedic clips into various courses to explore such issues as race, inequality, class and gender relations. We conclude

ARTICLES “LAUGHING MATTERS”: THE COMEDIAN AS

SOCIAL OBSERVER, TEACHER, AND CONDUIT OF THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE*

Much of the sociological curriculum often represents society as tragedy. This article explores the incorporation of a society as comedy component in intro-ductory courses at two institutions using the sociological insight and social critique of comedians. A general discussion of parallels between the comedic eye and the sociological imagination is followed by specific steps for locating, selecting and incorporating comedic clips into various courses. Through com-parisons between experimental and control groups, as well as student ques-tionnaires, we found that the use of comedians to model sociological perspec-tives increased student ability to apply course concepts, decreased student anxiety when tackling new concepts, and engaged a broader number of stu-dents during class discussion. We conclude with discussion of challenges spe-cific to these methods—language use and controversial comedians—as well as the broader need to learn from figures who have been historically successful at engaging the public on issues of social importance.

Teaching Sociology, Vol. 37, 2009 (October:335-352) 335

*Please direct all correspondence to Shawn Bingham, PhD, Director of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Department of Sociology, Uni-versity of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler, Coo-per 109, Tampa, Florida 33604; e-mail: sbingham @cas.usf.edu.

Editor’s note: The reviewers were, in alpha-betical order, Edward Kain and William L. Smith.

SHAWN CHANDLER BINGHAM University of South Florida

ALEXANDER A. HERNANDEZ University of South Florida

with discussion of challenges specific to these methods. As teachers interested in pedagogy as a form of public sociology, we also lay bare the need for teaching sociolo-gists to learn from figures who have been historically successful at engaging the pub-lic on issues of social importance—comedians. For as Peter Berger has noted, to teach society as comedy does not “denigrate the serious study of society,” rather it “suggest[s] that such study itself will profit greatly from those insights that one can obtain only while laughing” (cited in Davis 1993:5).

THE PEDAGOGICAL AND SOCIAL

FUNCTIONS OF HUMOR Over the last few decades sociologists have increasingly made efforts to incorporate both humor and popular culture into sociol-ogy courses. The teaching literature in-cludes significant discussion of the peda-gogical utility of such pop cultural items as music (Ahlkvist 1999; Armstrong 1993; Martinez 1995, 1994; Walczak and Reuter 1994), film (Burton 1988; DeFronzo 1982; Hannon and Marullo 1988; Leblanc 1998; Pescosolido 1990; Prendegrast 1986; Tipton and Tiemann 1993), television (Cantor 1991; Douglas and Olson 1995; Olson and Douglas 1997; Scanlan and Feinburg 2000; Snow 1983) and comics (Hall and Lucal 1999; Snyder 1997). In a similar fashion, teaching sociologists have turned to the use of humor in the classroom as an innovative way to engage students and improve learn-ing outcomes (Hynes 1989; Schacht and Stewart 1990). These efforts have proven to be especially effective in helping students to recognize and apply the sociological per-spective outside of the classroom. Yet, the use of these tools has not been limited to sociology—similar approaches have been taken by educators in fields such as litera-ture, psychology, composition and nursing (Berk 2000; Kaplan and Pascoe 1977; Kir-man 1993; Reeves 1996). The use of humor as a pedagogical tool has been linked spe-cifically to memory, creative thought, reten-

tion, comprehension and anxiety in “dreaded courses” (Gorham and Christo-phel 1990; Hellman, 2006; Kaplan and Pas-coe 1977; Kher, Molstad and Donahue 1999; Southam and Schwartz 2004; War-nock 1989).

While the pedagogical utility of popular culture, including some facets of humor, has been examined, few sociologists have analyzed the specific commonalities of the comedic eye and the sociological perspec-tive. In fact, within the underdeveloped area of sociology of humor, the majority of so-ciological research (outside of the class-room) has focused on the social functions of humor to ease tension, decrease social dis-tance, challenge authority, or discredit an-other individual (Botkin and Dorenson 1985; Koller 1988; Yoles and Clair 1995). As David Alan Fine points out, the socio-logical community as a whole has been re-luctant to embrace the comedic eye within its classrooms and its journals (cited in Davis 1993). In other words, while humor is sometimes used as a tool in teaching or in social situations, there has been little to no emphasis on the process by which the come-dic eye functions and the ways in which this perspective relates to sociological objec-tives, nor has there been significant discus-sion of how these parallels can be peda-gogically useful.

Among the few sociologists to engage in a comparative analysis of the comedic eye and the sociological perspective has been Murray S. Davis. His book, What’s So Funny? The Comic Conception of Culture and Society (1993) provides us with one of the few comprehensive examinations of the relationship between the comedic perspec-tive and the sociological perspective. Davis does not simply argue that we should take comedy seriously (and that we should incor-porate more humor into sociology), he draws important parallels between the co-medic eye and the sociological perspective. He argues that comedians, like sociologists, (1) take the contemporary and ever-changing world as their subject matter, (2) deconstruct, unmask, and debunk status quo

336 TEACHING SOCIOLOGY

social expectations, organizations, rules and people, (3) reorder and reverse the audi-ence’s perspective, (4) compare social ideas to reality, (5) play off typically expected patterns, (6) compare and contrast groups, (7) challenge hypocrisy, (8) examine the presentation of self in everyday life, and (9) point out the fluidity of social life. Comedi-ans, Davis points out, break open our frames by disordering what has been or-dered by human constructions and social expectations.

Though we believe Davis’ argument is sound and provides fecund areas for further analysis, there have not been concerted ef-forts to formally integrate these links into the sociology classroom. We find this gap ironic given the range of values, norms and attitudes that can be unpacked through an examination of humor (Mintz 1985). Come-dians often encourage their audience to rec-ognize and wonder at the mundane aspects of everyday social life, including human interaction, social rules and stereotypes. Furthermore, many comedians have suc-ceeded where most academics (including sociologists) have not—they have captured the social conscience of the American pub-lic, and in the process, gotten Americans to think about important social issues, such as race and politics. Comedy in American cul-ture has been an important form of social commentary, as it has both endorsed and challenged dominant social cultural norms (Mintz 1985).

From Richard Pryor’s influence on white America’s views of race to Jon Stewart’s more recent success at engaging the younger generation in political commentary, comedians continue to play an important role as voices of dissent, change and con-science in American society. For example, known by many to be one of the first “true” publicly recognized comedians, Lenny Bruce attacked pervasive social norms of the 1950s, including sexism and anti-Semitism. At the time, his acts were consid-ered by authorities to be so blatantly offen-sive that he was arrested on several occa-sions for obscenity, and he was later banned

from performing in several cities in the United States. Viewed by today’s standards, though, his act contained words that are commonly used by many contemporary comedians. Bruce’s social critiques not only had an impact on American popular culture, but there are parallels to be drawn between his aims and those of the sociologist. In The Trials of Lenny Bruce, Ronald Collins (2002) describes Bruce as:

a comic sage . . . a scholar of sleaze . . . who revealed the gap between the real and the offi-cial . . . unmasked the masked man . . . de-lighted in exploring why certain words were forbidden—he challenged “community stan-dards” by questioning whether the community actually held to these standards (pp. 20-1). Particularly in regards to speech, Bruce

believed that “social conventions” of lan-guage “sheltered the lies,” while “vulgarity, by contrast, outed them” by serving up “life in its raw and raunchy form” (Collins 2002:21). Ultimately, Collins states, Bruce attacked the “should” world with vivid re-ports from the “is” world (2002:21). These efforts were effective in encouraging main-stream Americans to re-examine themselves and the ways in which they subserviently bought into social conventions.

Following in the legacy of Bruce, a num-ber of television programs, such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Real Time with Bill Maher and The Colbert Report—all hosted by comedians—have also made a concerted effort to challenge society’s most prevalent social and political sensibilities while at the same time reaching a wide au-dience. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, in particular, has received significant atten-tion for its impact on the political awareness of its viewers, the majority of whom are males between the ages of 18 and 34 (Baumgartner and Morris, 2006; Baym, 2005; Fox, Koloen, and Sahin, 2007; McKain, 2005). The show, which has ap-proximately 1.4 million viewers each night (Goetz 2005), has helped to demonstrate that fans of comedy do not simply tune in to be entertained. For example, in 2004 the

LAUGHING MATTERS 337

University of Pennsylvania’s National An-nenberg Election Survey found that the viewers of late-night comedy programs, especially The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, were “more likely to know the issue posi-tions and backgrounds of presidential candi-dates than people who do not watch late-night comedy.” Julia Fox (2007) found that The Daily Show featured as much substan-tive information concerning the 2004 Presi-dential election as its “real” news counter-parts on "ABC Evening News," "CBS Eve-ning News" and "NBC Nightly News." Furthermore, Fox points out that "when people are in a positive mood, they're tak-ing in more information” (cited in Hurwitz 2006). The show has clearly connected with audiences, as they seek to be entertained and to gain insight into the political arena. In fact, at a time in 2004 when audiences were on information overload from the me-dia coverage of the Presidential Election, The Daily Show received more male view-ers in the 18 to 34 bracket than the evening news broadcasts and politically-oriented shows such as Nightline, Hannity & Colmes and Meet the Press (Learmonth 2005).

Given the demonstrated utility of pop cultural items and humor for learning out-comes, the relevant parallels between the comedic eye and the objectives of the soci-ologist, and the important social function that comedy has served—from a political and entertainment perspective—we moved forward in our project with the following hypothesis: as instructors we could incorpo-rate footage and writings of comedians as useful pedagogical tools to advance and reinforce a number of the core objectives in an introductory class. We speculated that the use of the social observations and analy-sis of comedians would provide a familiar and engaging avenue to introduce students to the wonder of the sociological perspec-tive from some of the most fundamental concepts of an introductory course (exploring everyday social interactions or learning to name and describe social life) to more sophisticated skills (looking at social life as an outsider or employing conflict

theory to analyze inequality in social life). By unpacking the “schtick” of the comedian and evaluating his or her sociological per-spective, we could at the same time unpack a range of sociological issues. This ap-proach, we believe, might help breathe life into the sociological classroom. Because the college-level introductory course is for most college students’ their first encounter with sociology as an academic discipline, the door through which they enter can either constrict further exploration, or reveal in creative ways a complex world of interest-ing questions and inquiry available to every-one—even the non-major. This innovative approach, we hoped, would beat back what C. Wright Mills (1959:217) has described as sociology’s “turgid, polysyllabic prose”—a dry, mechanical and technocratic approach to investigating the social world.

THE COMEDIC EYE AND THE

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE One of the reasons that comedians have garnered little attention from sociology is the assumption that humor and rationality are mutually exclusive. To us, however, those who hold this belief fail to recognize the poignant ways in which the comedic eye shares common soil with the sociological perspective. From the comedian’s choice of subjects to his or her methods of decon-structing social life, there are clear socio-logical parallels. Comedic attempts at irony and satire, though, do not simply function to challenge commonly held social ideals and expectations by unveiling power (Dwyer 1991) or by serving a “watchdog function” (Koller 1988:216); they often explore issues such as power and authority in ways that are much more accessible to the public than academic sociology.

In our own classroom, for example, we have effectively used articles from the sa-tirical newspaper, The Onion, to encourage students to critically explore their own youth culture from a sociological perspec-tive. A recent online article entitled “MySpace Outage Leaves Millions Friend-


less,” (2007) which explored the hypotheti-cal social implications of three days without the social networking Web service MySpace, allowed our students to analyze the ways in which such sites structure and shape youth interaction. The article reports that a “massive system failure” has caused MySpace to crash, leaving 150 million peo-ple “friendless.” Quotes from informants in the article include, “I vaguely remember trying to make friends pre-MySpace. . .”; “without an ‘About Me’ section, I’ve lost all sense of self”; “I lost 6,456 of my best friends in an instant,” and “I’ve just been wandering in and out of my cubicle in a daze, not knowing what to say and who to talk to.” Because the temporary “replacement sites” are more austere, the article states, “friendship capability and popularity” will be “nearly impossible to predetermine.” In this case, satire became a vehicle for engaging students in analysis of the norms, structure and habits that exist in the MySpace world. This particular article helped our students raise important ques-tions about the relationship between tech-nology and society: How has social interac-tion and youth culture been shaped by sites like MySpace? What might happen if the MySpace “universe” of networking sud-denly came to a halt? How might humans deal with having to communicate “the old fashioned way”?

Social Inquiry Comedy and satire certainly share “unvei l ing,” “quest ioning,” and “debunking” tendencies with the sociologi-cal perspective. However, the comedian’s methods of observing and deconstructing social life also have clear parallels to sociol-ogy. At their core, these methods of social observation are qualitative forms of social inquiry. As “outsider sociologists” (outside of academic sociology), or contemporary anthropologists (Koziski 1984) who look at society from the inside (as a participant-observer), their methods of collecting “material” at times border on autoethnogra-phy. They give informant accounts of their

own experiences of everyday social life, from the mundane details of “trying to make a living” to current trends pertaining to important sociological issues such as, sex, race and gender. As Davis (1995) states, humor is a form of perception that takes in realities in a different manner. We believe that it is this social inquiry that makes the comedian a relevant conduit for teaching the sociological perspective. In other words, we are not encouraging stu-dents to laugh at social problems, such as poverty. Rather, we want students to exam-ine the method and perspective from which the comedians we have chosen look at the world, to explore its relation to the socio-logical perspectives, and then to determine why they are laughing.

The Audience-Comedian Interaction The context of the comedic interaction, it-self, is also pregnant with elements of so-ciological applications. In fact, the audience-comedian interaction is one of the few are-nas in which the topics of race, class, gen-der and religion can be openly explored. For example, both Richard Pryor’s ability to speak to a white audience in the 1960s about racial issues and Margaret Cho’s dis-cussions of her own bi-sexuality in her stand-up shows demonstrate that the come-dic arena is a space of free inquiry where no subject is taboo and the rules of political correctness can be temporarily suspended. Few other social interactions include cover-age of such a range of sociological issues in such a short period of time—and fewer in-volve people actually purchasing a ticket to listen to the discussion (that is, except for an introduction to sociology course). While the audience willingly suspends its own boundaries on acceptable topics of public discussion, the comedian might articulate thoughts, beliefs and ideas that perhaps lurk in the back of audience members’ minds, but are subject to social constraint in most other contexts. Comedians also have license to poke fun at the norms and behavior of people and groups within the audience it-self. Often the comedian calls out or chal-


lenges the audiences’ behavior or ideals while physically present to them. The come-dian or satirist, then, is uniquely situated: he or she has the ear of a willing audience—a scenario most educators themselves would relish.

Classroom discussion of the sociological relevance of these perspectives, methods and interactions certainly was a part of this project as we aimed to use comedians as a vehicle to teach specific sociological con-cepts. However, we also felt that no exami-nation of the links between the comedian and the sociologist would be complete with-out student consideration of larger scale sociological issues that link humor and soci-ety. Among the broader questions we posed in class were: Is comedy simply entertain-ment? If not, what are other social functions of comedy and satire? Can humor be an effective form of social commentary? How rational can the comedian be? How do the things people laugh at inform us about cul-ture? Is the audience’s reaction to comedic material important? While some might view these issues as “a laughing matter,” our consideration of such questions is not sim-ply academic. These are doors that can lead to further fruitful sociological exploration—for students, for sociologists and for any individual struggling to make sense of social life. They certainly are doors that allow us to explore both theoretical and applied is-sues of social inquiry, culture, politics, and social change.

For the sake of this article, these are also pedagogically important questions that have implications for disciplinary boundaries in our curriculum and classrooms. In the sec-tions that follow, we discuss the logistics of transforming the “doom and gloom” cur-riculum approach into a more self-reflective sociology that does not take itself too seri-ously. Again, this does not mean we laugh at social problems. Rather, it means we face the realization that academic sociology is not the final word on society (Berger 1963). If we choose to learn from the comedian how to laugh at society and sociology, and to explore why we are laughing, we stand to

gain important insights about cultural norms and ironies. More importantly, we can gain insight into reaching a broader public—in the classroom and beyond. To help others adopt such an approach we cover research design, clip location and selection, logistics of incorporation, evaluation, challenges and precautions and a general discussion in the remaining sections of this paper.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND

COURSE LOGISTICS In this project the experimental and control groups were exposed to the same readings, lectures, assessment methods (including rubrics), instructor, films and active learn-ing exercises. Within the experimental courses, though, we decreased the amount of time spent on some films and lecture examples to provide additional time for co-medic clips and the activities surrounding them. These comedic clips and correspond-ing discussion and activities relevant to the clips were the only pedagogical difference between the control and experimental groups. During each experimental class session, we incorporated at least one come-dic clip, which ranged in time from one minute and thirty seconds to over six min-utes. Clips were used to launch either a group discussion or an active learning exer-cise. This will be detailed further in the sections that follow.

Our experimental sample included a large introductory course in a theater style lecture hall at a large state public university (n=223) and a small introductory course at a small residential Catholic university (n=51). The control groups were made up entirely of students from the large state pub-lic university (n=200). While the course instructor, content, text and readings were constant between the control and experi-mental groups, the teaching assistants varied from section to section. However, these teaching assistants only lectured once during the semester and did not offer breakout groups. Teaching assistants were not used at the smaller liberal arts institution.


Locating Clips Before moving to discussion of the evalua-tion methods, we will review the methods of integrating “society as comedy” compo-nents into an introductory sociology course. From the beginning we had no intentions of completely redesigning our course in order to test our theory. Part of the utility of us-ing comedians, we believe, is the relevance they already share with the current course content. Seamless integration was part of our hypothesis. Instead, we started by com-piling a list of all of the major themes and topics that we typically cover in an intro-ductory course and then went about locating potential comedic material (visual footage or written) that was relevant to these. As avid fans of stand-up comedy and comedy history, we already possessed a range of DVDs, books, sound files and Web mate-rial. However, because we typically used short clips in class we found it was not nec-essary to purchase DVDs for use, particu-larly because our monetary resources were limited. The internet contains a range of accessible fair use resources that can be used to locate all of the necessary materials one would need to incorporate short clips into the classroom. We drew from a number of Web sites that provide comedy archives, excerpts from videos, transcripts of stand-up comedy routines, and even discussions of the roles of comedians throughout his-tory. A sample of these Web sites can be found in Table 1. Most are easily navigable and allow users to search the sites for con-tent. The sites that provided us with a good start, yielding the most material belonged to Comedy Central, ClipBlast and The Onion.

Locating comedic materials for a class requires the same skills instructors already use to search for journal articles, books and audio-visual material for courses through database or online search engines. Here we will use examples from Table 1 to briefly review several easy methods for locating video clips on the internet. Comedy Cen-tral, the channel that produces The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, hosts a Web site (see Table 1) that

allows users to easily search their entire site for videos clips from past episodes. The format is the same as most search engines, such as Google or Yahoo. After logging on to the Comedy Central Web site, simply type a topic, theme or comedian into the search box and click “go.” A search for the term “race,” for example, will return over 400 video clips. If your classroom is inter-net-ready, you can simply stream the clip from the Web site during class.

Comedy Central’s Web site also allows users to narrow a search to a specific show. In our case, once we log on to the Web site, we often click on “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report” tabs on the left side of the screen to narrow our search to one of these specific shows. For example, if you wanted to locate a Jon Stewart segment on white collar crime, simply log on to the Comedy Central Web site and click on “The Daily Show.” Next, type “white col-lar crime” into the video search box and click “go.” Clips matching that search term will then be displayed.

If users have seen a segment on television and want to find it as an online clip, they can either search the show’s Web site or find clips archived by month on related sites, such as http://www.Colbertnation.com. However, the ability to access the Comedy Central channel or these shows via cable television is not a requirement; aside from thousands of brief clips, the channel’s Web site allows users to watch full episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report directly online. The advantage of searching for individual clips, of course, is their length. Most are two to four minutes long, which allows instructors to decide on the relevance in a short period of time. We would like to point out, though, that even though it is a more time-consuming method of finding clips, we have found some of our most effective clips by simply browsing these sights without specific themes or top-ics in mind.

More general methods of searching in-clude the use of Google’s video option and the ubiquitous hub of youth culture, You-


Soci

olog

ical

Con

cept

Sp

ecifi

c So

urce

s A

n E

xam

ple

of S

ocio

logi

cal A

pplic

atio

ns

Dev

ianc

eW

hite

Col

lar C

rim

e D

oes P

ay –

The

Dai

ly S

how�

Bad

Lang

uage

– L

ewis

Bla

ck�

Whi

te C

olla

r Cri

me

Doe

s Pay

– a

n ex

amin

atio

n of

the

Supr

eme

Cou

rt’s m

eage

r pun

ishm

ent g

iven

for c

orpo

-ra

te c

rime.

Rac

eC

ross

ing

the

Line

: Mul

tirac

ial C

omed

ians�

Bigg

er a

nd B

lack

- C

hris

Roc

k�Si

ck &

Tir

ed -

Wan

da S

ykes��

Live

on

the

Suns

et S

trip

- R

icha

rd P

ryor��

For W

hat I

t’s W

orth

by

Dav

e C

happ

elle�

With

Biti

ng H

umor

Pry

or E

xplo

red

Race

in A

mer

ica�

Com

edy

and

Race

in A

mer

ica�

Cro

ssin

g th

e Li

ne –

exa

min

es h

ow m

ultir

acia

l com

e-di

ans a

ddre

ss a

nd d

econ

stru

ct is

sues

of r

ace,

eth

nici

ty,

gend

er a

nd p

lace

.

Gen

der/

Sexu

ality

The

Begi

nnin

g - E

llen

DeG

ener

es��

Her

e an

d N

ow -

Elle

n D

eGen

eres��

Revo

lutio

n - M

arga

ret C

ho��

Tong

ue U

ntie

d - W

anda

Syk

es��

Sick

& T

ired

- W

anda

Syk

es��

Dre

ss to

Kill

- Ed

die

Izza

rd��

Eddi

e Iz

zard

– li

ke F

lip W

ilson

bef

ore

him

, ofte

n pe

rfor

ms i

n m

ake-

up a

nd w

omen

’s c

loth

ing.

Exa

m-

ines

the

soci

al c

onst

ruct

ion

of c

loth

ing

and

gend

er.

Soci

al P

robl

ems

The

Whi

te A

lbum

- Le

wis

Bla

ck�

The

End

of th

e U

nive

rse

- Lew

is B

lack�

Rule

s of E

nrag

emen

t - L

ewis

Bla

ck�

Whe

n Yo

u Ri

de A

lone

You

Rid

e w

/ Bin

Lad

en -

Bill

Mah

er��

Blac

k on

Bro

adw

ay -

Lew

is B

lack��

Vict

ory

Begi

ns a

t Hom

e - B

ill M

aher��

Be M

ore

Cyn

ical

- B

ill M

aher��

You

are

All D

isea

sed

- Geo

rge

Car

lin��

Jam

min

’ in

New

Yor

k - G

eorg

e C

arlin��

Back

in T

own

- Geo

rge

Car

lin��

Doi

n’ It

Aga

in -

Geo

rge

Car

lin��

Rule

s of E

nrag

emen

t – B

lack

exa

min

es g

reed

, Hom

e-la

nd se

curit

y an

d th

e W

ar in

Iraq

.

342 TEACHING SOCIOLOGY T

able

1. E

xam

ple

Res

ourc

e L

ist f

or L

ocat

ing

and

Usi

ng C

omed

ians

to T

each

Soc

iolo

gica

l Con

cept

s

Mos

t of t

he w

orks

list

ed h

ere

do n

ot e

xclu

sive

ly c

over

just

one

topi

c. In

add

ition

, som

e of

the

sam

ple

mat

eria

l bel

ow m

ay in

clud

e sl

ang

and/

or p

rofa

nity

. Ins

truct

ors

shou

ld p

revi

ew c

lips b

efor

e vi

ewin

g in

a c

lass

room

to d

eter

min

e w

hat c

onte

nt re

late

s to

cour

se m

ater

ial,

wha

t dis

cuss

ion

ques

tions

/act

iviti

es w

ould

be

appr

opria

te,

and

if ce

nsor

ship

is p

rude

nt.

Con

sum

er C

ultu

re

The

End

of th

e U

nive

rse

– Le

wis

Bla

ck�

Adv

ertis

ing

Lulla

by –

Geo

rge

Car

lin�

End

of T

he U

nive

rse

– B

lack

exa

min

es if

hav

ing

a St

arbu

cks a

cros

s the

stre

et fr

om a

noth

er S

tarb

ucks

is

real

ly so

cial

pro

gres

s.

Con

flict

The

ory/

Ineq

ualit

y Th

e O

wne

rs o

f thi

s Cou

ntry

– G

eorg

e C

arlin��

Gol

f cou

rses

for t

he H

omel

ess –

Geo

rge

Car

lin�

Ow

ners

of t

his C

ount

ry –

A c

onfli

ct th

eory

vie

w o

f el

ites a

nd th

eir p

ower

.

Med

ia

Med

ia B

litz –

The

Dai

ly S

how�

Jo

n St

ewar

t exa

min

es th

e ro

le o

f the

med

ia in

bra

nd-

ing

the

War

in Ir

aq.

Boo

ksBr

ain

Dro

ppin

gs b

y G

eorg

e C

arlin��

Nap

alm

and

Sill

y Pu

tty b

y G

eorg

e C

arlin��

Whe

n W

ill J

esus

Bri

ng th

e Po

rk C

hops

by

Geo

rge

Car

lin��

I’m

Tel

ling

You

for t

he L

astT

ime

by Je

rry

Sein

feld��

Sham

eles

s by

Loui

s C.K

.��

Web

site

s ht

tp://

ww

w.c

rack

ed.c

om

http

://w

ww

.col

lege

hum

or.c

omht

tp://

ww

w.th

eoni

on.c

om

http

://w

ww

.gor

illam

ask.

net,

http

://w

ww

.i-m

ocke

ry.c

om

http

://w

ww

.com

edyc

entra

l.com

/mot

herlo

ad

http

://w

ww

.funn

yord

ie.c

om

http

://ht

tp://

ww

w.c

ente

rfor

soci

alm

edia

.org

/reso

urce

s/fa

ir_us

e_an

d_te

achi

ng/

http

://ht

tp://

ww

w.u

muc

.edu

/libr

ary/

copy

.shtm

l

Key

�

Soun

dfile

on

NPR

.org

�

DV

D�

CD

/Aud

io�

Boo

k�

onlin

e st

ream

ing

vide

o

�

Kno

wle

dge

Con

stru

ctio

n C

onve

ntio

nal W

isdo

m –

The

Dai

ly S

how

² W

ikilo

bbyi

ng –

The

Col

bert

Rep

ort ²

W

ikilo

bbyi

ng –

Ste

phen

Col

bert

expl

ores

Wik

iped

ia a

s an

em

ergi

ng a

utho

rity.


Tab

le 1

(con

t’d.

).

Tube. To search for video from Google’s main Web page simply type in the topic or comedian you desire, then instead of select-ing “search,” click the “more” link at the top and scroll down to select the “video” option. This will narrow your search to videos only. This method searches all video files, including those found on YouTube. A more time efficient method for amassing a collection of clips on different topics is to encourage students to find and bring their own clips to class—once they have been cleared for viewing by the instructor. This not only helps share the responsibility for locating clips, it encourages students to lo-cate the sociological perspective outside of the classroom.

Of course, instructors should familiarize themselves with recent “Fair Use” law. U.S. Code, Section 110.1 and 110.2 of Ti-tle 17, (updated as the Technology, Educa-tion, and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002), which allows educators to display copyrighted works and even to store them for short periods of time. For more infor-mation on these laws visit the copyright Web sites listed in Table 1.

Clip Selection Once we located potential clips, we consid-ered the following criteria as we narrowed down our choices: (1) To what major theme(s) does the clip relate and (2) What specific concepts or theories can the clip help to illuminate? We also turned to Davis’ ideas by looking for comedic clips that (3) debunk status quo social expectations, organiza-tions, rules and people, (4) reorder and re-verse the audience’s perspective, (5) com-pare social ideas to reality, (6) play off typi-cally expected patterns, (7) compare and contrast groups, (8) challenge hypocrisy, (9) examine the presentation of self in eve-ryday life, and (10) point out the fluidity of social life. We made special efforts to not immediately omit clips that demonstrated stereotypical thinking, since these could be used to illustrate and deconstruct relevant sociological concepts as well as the individ-ual worldview of the comedian. Ultimately,

we were successful in finding clips that ad-dressed all major chapter topics covered in our chosen introductory text. In fact, we initially doubted that we would find a come-dian who had addressed “social research,” yet we eventually located an excellent clip of Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) covering “conventional wisdom” and how we arrive at knowledge—which offered us a poignant segue into discussion about social science methods.

Incorporating Clips into Class to Generate Discussion and Active Learning Rather than beginning every class with a clip, we played them either in the middle of the class session or toward the end of class. This gave students a break from lecture and created a nice transition into active learning and discussion. Leaving the clip until the very end of class, we discovered, would not provide enough time to debrief and generate adequate discussion, which is absolutely necessary. The classrooms at each of our institutions included large retractable screens, DVD players and internet access. For smaller classes, though, a television screen would be adequate. If internet access is not a possibility, students could certainly be directed to locate online clips outside of class and be ready to discuss the clips dur-ing class time.

Once clips were located and selected to match up with course content, the most im-portant task was the development of discus-sion questions and active learning exercises to engage students with each clip and its content. In most cases we began discussion by simply asking students if they found the comedian’s routine humorous, and if so, why? We also posed the reverse question: if it is not funny, why not? This discussion ultimately led to the fundamental analysis of how the clip demonstrated sociological thinking. Typically, we also asked students how each clip was relevant to the week’s topic, and we followed up their discussion with some combination of the following probing questions to encourage them to push their analysis: What elements of eve-


ryday life do they analyze? What is the pur-pose of the comedian’s discussion—what relevant sociological points does s/he make? In the viewed clip is the comedian an “outsider sociologist”? What does the clip unveil about social life? Does the comedian make efforts to name and describe social life, or to debunk the status quo view of social life? How does the comedian attempt to get the audience to see with “new eyes”? Does s/he reorder or reverse the audience’s perspective? Does s/he compare cultural ideals to reality, or play off typically ex-pected patterns? Does s/he compare and contrast groups? To which theoretical per-spectives do the comedian’s observations relate? Are her/his observations valid, and sociologically, how do we know? Do her/his observations challenge or play into stereotypes? Do they make efforts to exam-ine presentations of self in everyday life? Are these observations valid, and how could we know using sociological methods dis-cussed in class?

For example, we have successfully used the work of George Carlin to develop ques-tions and discussion that highlight conflict theory in our introductory course. During our coverage of economic stratification, we show a segment of George Carlin’s sketch titled, “Golf Courses for the Home-less” (1992). In this segment he explores the social problem of homelessness and the American ideology of NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard). Carlin proposes what initially seems to some students to be a preposterous idea: building low cost housing for the homeless on golf courses across America. Golf, he argues, is a sport practiced pre-dominately on good land, in nice neighbor-hoods, “primarily by white well to do busi-ness men who get together to do deals to carve this country up a little bit finer” (Carlin 1992). He goes on to explain that there are over 17,000 golf courses in America averaging over one-hundred and fifty acres each.

After showing the clip we ask students the following questions: How do Carlin’s ideas parallel conflict theory? What does the clip

say about the use of space and land in America, as well as whom we value? What is the relationship between social class and the use of space and land in America? We also ask students to continue their inquiry outside of class by exploring some of the following questions: How much do Ameri-cans spend on recreational sports versus subsistence aid for the homeless? And how does socio-economic class level shape choices of sport participation? Although we generate some discussion of whether or not students agree with Carlin, we utilize this clip to meet our primary objective of illus-trating conflict theory and its basic tenets. Coupled with other Carlin clips, such as “The Owners of this Country” (Carlin 2005), we have found few materials, aca-demic or otherwise, which so poignantly and concisely communicate conflict theory to our students.

In our experience, then, the captivation and interest inherent in the comedian-audience interaction can easily be exploited not only to illustrate sociological concepts, but also to generate quality student discus-sion on sociological issues and engage stu-dents in further inquiry outside the class-room. Unlike many of our texts and jour-nals, students are already watching these comedians during their leisure time outside of class, a point that was made numerous times by our students during the formal evaluation of these methods. Yoking this interest and familiarity, however, does not simply result in “entertainment”; rather, this method serves the pedagogical function of creating a less intimidating and more active environment where students become interested in openly discussing issues such as race, class, gender and sexuality. Often, as we discuss below, students will even assist in finding relevant comedic clips, making the process of locating clips even easier. Integration of these methods does not require a complete course re-design, nor does it even require that faculty be able to construct humorous anecdotes themselves. With the recommended Web sites, the stan-dard equipment available to many class-


rooms, and an appreciation for the complex-ity of the comedic “eye,” a variety of socio-logical courses can benefit from utilizing these methods.

EVALUATION OF TECHNIQUES

Our evaluation of this project included the following measures: (1) a comparison of exam, paper and final scores between con-trol and experimental groups; (2) student questionnaires administered to the experi-mental group that included objective and open-ended questions about the project; (3) a comparison of student evaluations of the instructor; (4) a comparison of withdrawal rates between control and experimental groups; and (5) completion rates of online discussion questions. Because our students have a number of institutional assessments and questionnaires throughout the semester, we decided not to utilize a pre-test.

Compared to the control groups, the ex-perimental groups had higher exam scores (79.61 percent vs. 73.04 percent) and final grade scores (79.18 percent vs. 74.05 per-cent), lower rates of withdrawal (6.3 per-cent vs. 10.2 percent), and higher comple-tion of online discussion questions.1 Scores for papers that were assigned in the course, which required that students conduct a con-tent analysis of advertisements, were unaf-fected by the project. Instructor evaluations, which averaged 4.5 out of 5, remained un-changed. Students’ perceptions of the utility of the method for their learning were over-whelmingly positive. Table 2 shows high student ratings of these methods for “illustrating sociological concepts,” “applying a critical sociological perspective to everyday life,” “complement readings and class discussions” and “effective teach-ing/learning tool.” Our students reported that the use of comedians helped them feel more relaxed about tackling new concepts, helped to keep their attention, and made it easier to engage in class discussion. As one student stated to us in our evaluations, “this is society through the backdoor. That is

why it works in class . . . it’s almost a sneaky way of getting us to do school work!!”

Perhaps the most poignant evidence of our success was the frequency with which students would, without our provocation, bring in their own clips of comedians ad-dressing sociological issues, and then articu-late the connections between the clip and class concepts in front of the rest of the class. This demonstrated that students were embracing the sociological perspective by incorporating sociological practice—“seeing sociologically”—into their everyday lives. One of our students articulated this idea even more appropriately: “This is recrea-tional sociology . . . where you find sociol-ogy even in leisure activities.”

CHALLENGES AND PRECAUTIONS

Because many students are used to a more traditionally formal or “serious” classroom, the incorporation of material they associate with a non-academic environment—especially comedy—can create several chal-lenges. Most immediate is the possibility that students will assume that they need not take the material seriously given the format through which it is presented. We navigated this challenge by sociologically contextual-izing the comedic segments before and after showing them to our students. Prior to viewing each segment during class we had already spent time exploring some of the concepts that would be addressed by each comedian. This provided students with a new and more sociological framework for viewing the segment. We also provided students with questions to consider as they watched the segment, which again would ground their thought process within a socio-logical context. At the end of each segment we pushed students to assess the links be-tween the comedic view and the sociological material from the course. This was typically done through questions that engaged stu-dents with sociological concepts, social sta-tistics or course readings. The comedic ma-terial was always used as a tool to engage


1p<.01.


Did the perspectives of humorists and comedians used in class help to illustrate sociological concepts?

YesNo

Neutral

96.7 % 0.0 % 3.3 %

Did the comedic insight help you apply a critical sociological perspec-tive to everyday life?

YesNo

Neutral

87.3 % 2.0 %

10.7 %

Did the use of comedy complement or distract from course readings and class discussion?

ComplementDistract Neutral

92.61% .09% 7.3%

In your opinion, is the use of comedic analysis an effective teaching and learning tool?

YesNo

Neutral

96.4% 0.0% 3.6%

Examples of Student Comments on Open-Ended Section of Questionnaire: Taught Sociology in Different Way“Helped illustrate concepts that were first difficult to understand.”

“I’m a visual learner, so I remember it better...it made dry reading more understandable.”

“If there was something I did not understand or that I thought I understood the comedian would often give another perspective on the concept.”

“The use of Carlin, Lewis Black and Jon Stewart helped to illustrate many of the concepts, especially conflict theory.”

“It put the concepts in a forum where you can see how it works in real life, rather than reading defini-tions and numbers.”

“I think the films helped me to better grasp an understanding of different concepts and ideas. Every clip helped!”

Engaged Audience “Humor makes learning more enjoyable.”

“Comedy is memorable. It is easier to remember a joke than a definition.”

“It made us more attentive and motivated to learn.”

“It helped relate the theories…and made the course less depressing from a content point of view.”

“A great way to keep the class attention in a 1 hour and 15 minute class!”

“It is a medium that opens us to relax and naturally listen.”

Facilitated Discussion “Good way to break the ice for topics that are uncomfortable.”

“It got the discussion rolling and broke the ice.”

“We are more willing to speak up in class.”

Demonstrates Sociology All Around Us/Pulls Covers Off of What We Consider Normal: “Comedians point out things we don’t notice.”

“They [Comedians] take simpl[e] circumstances that everybody takes for granted and highlight the char-acteristics that identify them as a more complex issue.

“A lot of things we saw made me think of how I see it in my life everyday. I always came out of class with something to talk about with my friends.”

*We modeled our questionnaire after the work done by Scanlan and Feinburg in The Cartoon Society (2000).

Table 2. Summary of Student Responses to Questionnaires on Use of Comedians* (n=274)

students with formal course material. That is, we made efforts to focus on the relation-ship between the comedic content and the course material, rather than allowing the discussion to focus on the comedians’ bio-graphical celebrity histories.

For example, after showing the Jon Stew-art segment on “conventional wisdom,” we had our students examine data on the sources that American voters use to make decisions on presidential candidates. Like-wise, after viewing George Carlin’s seg-ment on “Golf Courses for the Homeless,” we examined some of the statistics behind Carlin’s claims, as well as some of the geo-graphic inequities of land ownership and land use. In our experience, the segments functioned to engage students with the course material; we did not find that the use of comedians encouraged students to take the course lightly. In fact, we observed an increase in attendance, range of participa-tion during class, and completion of online discussions.

Second, comedians often address contro-versial issues, a tendency that could detract from students’ concentration on the con-cepts to be learned. And, while sociology typically embraces the examination of such issues as an important part of the educa-tional process, the comedic presentation relies on a more edgy and raw method of presentation as a way of engaging the audi-ence. Indeed, as stated earlier, the come-dian is the rare cultural figure who has per-mission to explore such issues as race, gen-der and politics in a public arena. It is pos-sible that students could misinterpret these examinations (Scanlan and Feinburg 2000), react emotionally, or worse, assume that by “giving a comedian the floor” the professor is endorsing that particular comedian’s point of view. While some might view the contro-versy within a comedic routine as risky ter-ritory, classroom examination of raw come-dic discussion of controversial issues, espe-cially stereotypes, can be an excellent method to unpack social norms and question their accuracy (Davidson 1987). We cer-tainly found pedagogical utility in the ex-

amination of the comedian’s discussion of the taboo—their willingness to discuss what often goes unexamined or unsaid due to social constrictions. However, by address-ing the controversial, the comedian does not simply provide us with an opportunity to challenge stereotypes and traditional ideas; the comedic presentation itself can actually help to defuse classroom discussions that can often become combative. Humor can defuse antagonism and encourage a less charged environment. We found this to be the case, as evidenced from student feed-back that comedians created a more relaxed environment: “it was a good way to break the ice for topics that are uncomfortable.”

Finally, some comedians who possess a cogent sociological perspective often use language which some students might find offensive. While there is enough useful ma-terial to omit segments containing “foul” language, we chose to incorporate some of these segments as a way to get students to explore socially constructed definitions of deviance, especially the shared meanings attached to language. Rather than shock value, “foul” language can be used for a teachable moment where students can exam-ine why certain words may offend them, while others do not. We used some of these segments to challenge our students to exam-ine whether they are focusing on the lan-guage itself or the overall message of the comedian. In one exercise we prefaced the segment by presenting several potentially offensive terms in foreign languages—mostly languages that none of the students spoke—to help students understand that the power of offensive language depends on their own interpreted meaning of the words. We also had students explore terms that have emerged as slang over the last 100 years, and words that once were considered slang, but have become normalized in popu-lar culture. Rather than simply creating a firestorm of controversy, we believe that the use of comedic language can provide significant pedagogical opportunities to critically examine the relativity of language.


CONCLUSION

From the availability of stand-up comedy on internet sites such as YouTube, to the com-mercial success of cable television shows, such as The Colbert Report, comedic mate-rial has become more ubiquitous. At the same time, comedians have re-emerged as public figures and social critics who often challenge traditional social norms and prac-tices. The college-age generation show an avid familiarity with a range of comedians, comedic material is immediately available to them (especially through the internet), and college audiences appreciate that comedians speak in an accessible manner to issues that are relevant to their lives. All of these fac-tors make the integration of the comedic sociological perspective into a range of courses relatively hassle-free. The available resources, particularly on the internet, allow instructors to easily integrate the comedic viewpoint without major changes to a course. An archive of material can be quickly amassed, especially since students are eager to find and bring to class socio-logical comedy clips they have found on their own.

While students are typically eager for these types of sociological explorations, we recognize that some instructors could ini-tially look upon these methods with some skepticism. We would like to point out that incorporating the work of comedians into the sociological classroom does not mean that our courses become less rigorous. For decades, teachers of sociology have been utilizing the sociological perspective of mu-sicians, artists, novelists, movie writers, and other “extra-mural” sociologists. Like these other figures, comedians are a gate-way to talking with our students about the sociological perspective; we are not seeking to replace Comte with Carlin, or Marx with Maher. Furthermore, we believe that a will-ingness to call upon the work of figures such as Richard Pryor or Lenny Bruce dem-onstrates a healthy disciplinary self-reflexivity, especially a recognition of two important realities. First, understanding

society is not the birthright of sociologists. And second, our discipline has a lot to learn from individuals who have been much more successful than we have at engaging a pub-lic audience on issues of social importance. At a time when sociology is reaching for a more immediate connection to the public, it seems prudent that we be open to new ways of engaging the public imagination, espe-cially those of students, as we seek to gen-erate interest in the sociological perspective. This does not mean that we take our selves, or our discipline, less seriously, but it does mean that we begin to take other social ob-servers outside of academic sociology more seriously.

Arguments for new ways of engaging the public imagination have been made previ-ously, most notably by Michael Burawoy (2004) and Charles Lemert (2005). We be-lieve Burawoy’s (2004) poignant comments about public sociology could just as well apply to many comedians: “they are read,” or in this case heard, “beyond the academy, and they become the vehicle of public dis-course about the nature of U.S. society—the nature of its values, the gap between its promise and reality, its malaise, its tenden-cies” (p. 7). Moreover, Burawoy (2004) makes the argument that “There are multi-ple public sociologies,” and “multiple ways of accessing them” (p. 7). For example, the works of Pryor, Carlin, Stewart and others have functioned as a form of public sociol-ogy whose creation, propagation and con-templation of the material take place far outside the realms of traditional academic sociology; yet, we believe the message itself is often more accessible, engaging and ef-fective in encouraging the broader public to consider issues of sociological importance.

Likewise, Charles Lemert (2005) has ar-gued that in everyday life many practical sociologists—who function outside the realms of formal sociological inquiry—possess a “sociological competence” that allows them to “stare straight in the face of social things” and imagine larger social forces by being open to realities in front of them. As Lemert states, this competence

12 LAUGHING MATTERS 349

begins “in the local and concrete” (p. 14). We believe that with their own sociological competence comedians bring to light “social things” from daily life that are worth laugh-ing at, talking about and observing. The many comedic “bits,” “schticks,” “pieces” or “sketches” that we have used in our courses bear these markings. From the ubiquitous comedic introductory line “you ever notice” to the now famous tag line that Jerry Seinfeld has made famous, “what is the deal with…” many comedians are en-gaging the public imagination and generat-ing important dialogue on social issues in a way that corresponds with discussion of public sociology taking place in various realms within academic sociology. Without using the specific terms “public sociology” or “sociological competence,” the late George Carlin actually articulated his un-derstanding of his role as one form of pub-lic sociology: "Part of what my impulse is with things I've said or done, I think it is an attempt to demystify these things, to take them out of the realm of the forbidden and the disgusting and the off-base, and to at least bring them into the discus-sion" (Payne, 2008).

We have discovered that in the classroom, laughter is often a reaction to something that resonates with students. And where there is resonance, there is usually some sense of meaning and reverberation. This tendency within comedic thought, we be-lieve, is the most valuable reason for taking the comedic viewpoint seriously in the so-ciological classroom. The sociological out-look of comedians reverberates with college students by turning such dry and abstract terms as “anomie,” “alienation” or “hegemony” into tangible, living and en-gaging concepts. Comedians provide a so-ciological venue through which to explore a range of relevant course concepts, such as social observation, social norms, mundane life experiences, and even controversial social issues. Indeed, while many comedi-ans address social problems, they do so in a manner that circumvents the doom and gloom that often mires the sociological

classroom as much as it does the six o’clock news. And though instructors of sociology may not generate the same laughter as a stand-up comedian, as social observers who unmask social life we certainly share some common ground with the “comedic eye.” If many sociologists are not comedians, many comedians are sociologists. In this project we not only came to recognize that we share many of the same vulnerabilities and chal-lenges as comedians—we are often up in front of a crowd with little else but a micro-phone, observations on social life, and an aim to interest the audience in aspects of everyday social interaction—but also that there is much to be learned about social life by exploring what we laugh at and why.

REFERENCES

Ahlkvist, Jarl. 1999. “Music and Cultural Analysis in the Classroom: Introducing Sociol-ogy through Heavy Metal.” Teaching Sociol-ogy 27(2):126-44.

Armstrong, Elizabeth. 1993. “The Rhetoric of Violence in Rap and Country Music.” Socio-logical Inquiry 63(1):64-78.

Baumgartner, Jody and Jonathan Morris. 2006. “’The Daily Show’ Effect: Candidate Evalua-tions, Efficacy, and American Youth.” Ameri-can Politics Research 34(3):341-67.

Baym, Geoffrey. 2005. “The Daily Show: Dis-cursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism.” Political Communica-tion 22(3):259-76.

Berger, Peter. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Berk, Ronald. 2000. “Does Humor in Course Tests Reduce Anxiety and Improve Perform-ance?” College Teaching 48(4):151-8.

Botkin, Joseph and Joseph Dorinson. 1985. “Ethnic Humor: Subversion and Survival.” American Quarterly 37(1):81-97.

Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “For Public Sociol-ogy.” American Sociological Review 70:4-28.

Burton, Emory. 1988. “Sociology and the Fea-ture Film.” Teaching Sociology 16(3):263-71.

Cantor, Muriel G. 1991. "The American Family on Television: From Molly Goldberg to Bill Cosby." Journal of Contemporary Family Studies 22:205-16.

Carlin, George. 2005. Life is Worth Losing. HBO Films.

12 350 TEACHING SOCIOLOGY

_____. 1992. Jammin’ In New York. HBO Films.

Collins, Ronald K. L. 2002. The Trials of Lenny Bruce: The Fall and Rise of an American Icon.

Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks MediaFusion. Davidson, Chandler. 1987. “Ethnic Jokes: An

Introduction to Race and Nationality.” Teach-ing Sociology 15(3):296-302.

Davis, Murray. 1995. “Sociology of Humor: A Stillborn Field?” Sociological Forum 10(2):327-39.

_____. 1993. What’s So Funny? The Comic Con-ception of Culture and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

DeFronzo, James. 1982. “A Film-Augmented Course on International Social Movements.”

Teaching Sociology 9(2):169-88. Douglas, William and Beth Olson. 1995. Beyond

Family Structure: The Family in Domestic Comedy.” Journal of Broadcasting and Elec-tronic Media 39:236-61.

Dwyer, Tom. 1991. “Humor, Power and Change in Organizations.” Human Relations 44(1):1-19.

Fox, Julia, Glory Koloen, and Volkan Sahin. 2007. “No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’ and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign.” Jour-nal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 51(2):213-27.

Goetz, Thomas. 2005. “Reinventing Televi-sion.” Wired, September 1994, pp. 102-5.

Gorham, Joan and Diane Christophel. 1990. “The Relationship of Teacher’s Use of Humor in the Classroom to Immediacy and Student Learning.” Communication Education 39(1):46-62.

Hall, Kelley and Betsy Lucal 1999. “Tapping into Parallel Universes: Using Superhero Comic Books in Sociology Cources.” Teach-ing Sociology 27(1):60-66.

Hannon, Jim and Sam Marullo. 1988. “Education for Survival: Using Films to Teach War as a Social Problem." Teaching Sociology 16(3):245-55.

Hellman, Stuart. 2006. “Online Humor: Oxymo-ron or Strategic Teaching Tool?” Annual Meeting of the Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing and Commu-nity Education, St. Louis, MO.

Hurwitz, Lee. 2006. "'Daily Show' News Equal to Networks." Indiana Daily Student. Re-trieved November 1, 2006 (http://www. i d snews . com/news / s t o ry . a spx?id=49843).

Hynes, Eugene. 1989. “To See Ourselves as Others See Us: Using Humor to Teach Sociol-ogy." Teaching Sociology 17(4):476-9.

Johnson, Brett. 2005. “Overcoming ‘Doom and Gloom’: Empowering Students in Courses on Social Problems, Injustices and Inequality.” Teaching Sociology 33(1):44-58.

Kaplan, Robert and Gregory Pascoe. 1977. “Humorous Lectures and Humorous Exam-ples: Some Effects Upon Comprehension and Retention.” Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy 69:61-5.

Kher, Neelam, Susan Molstad, and Roberta Donahue. 1999. “Using Humor in the College Classroom to Enhance Teaching Effectiveness in ‘Dreaded Courses.’” College Student

Journal 33(3):400-5. Kirman, Joseph M. 1993. “Using Satire to Study

Current Events.” Social Education 57(3):139-41.

Koller, Marvin. 1988. Humor and Society: Ex-plorations in the Sociology of Humor. Hous-ton, TX: Cap and Gown Press.

Koziski, Stephanie. 1984. “The Stand Up Come-dian as Anthropologist.” The Journal of Popular Culture 18:57-76.

Learmonth, Michael. 2005. “‘Nightline’ future on the line again.” Variety, April 2005, pp. 20-xx.

Leblanc, L. 1998. “Observing Reel Life: Using Feature Films to Teach Ethnographic Meth-ods.” Teaching Sociology 26(1):62-8.

Lemert, Charles. 2005. Social Things: An Intro-duction to the Sociological Life. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield. Martinez, Theresa. A. 1995. “Where Popular

Culture Meets Deviant Behavior: Classroom Experiences with Music.” Teaching Sociology 23(4):413-8.

_____. 1994. “Popular Music in the Classroom: Teaching Race, Class, and Gender with Popu-lar Culture.” Teaching Sociology 22(3):260-5.

McKain, Aaron. 2005. “Not Necessarily Not the News: Gatekeeping, Remediation, and ‘The Daily Show.’” Journal of American & Com-parative Cultures 28(4):415-30.

Mills, Charles Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. London, England: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Mintz, Lawrence. 1985. “Stand Up Comedy as Social and Cultural Meditation.” American Quarterly 37(1):71-80.

National Annenberg Election Survey. 2004. "Daily Show Viewers Knowledgeable About Presidential Campaign." Annenberg Public Policy Center. Retrieved July 9, 2007 (http://


www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/NewsDetails.aspx?myId=90).

Olson, Beth and William Douglas. 1997. “The Family on Television: Evaluation of Gender Roles in Situation Comedy.” Sex Roles 36:409-27.

The Onion. 2007. “Myspace Outage Leaves Millions Friendless.” Retrieved July 9, 2007 (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/myspace_outage_leaves_millions).

Payne, Edward. 2008. “Award-winning Come-dian George Carlin Dies.” CNN Online. Re-tr ieved June 23, 2008. (h t tp: / /www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/06/23/carlin.obit/index.html).

Pescosolido, Bernice A. 1990. “Teaching Medi-cal Sociology through Film: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Tools.” Teaching Sociology 18(3):337-46.

Prendergast, Christopher. 1986. “Cinema Soci-ology: Cultivating the Sociological Imagina-tion through Popular Film.” Teaching Sociol-ogy 14(4):243-48.

Reeves, Carol. 1996. “Students as Satirists: Encouraging Critique and Comic Release.” Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Nashville, TN.

Scanlan, Stephen J. and Seth L. Feinberg. 2000. “The Cartoon Society: Using ‘The Simpsons’ to Teach and Learn Sociology.” Teaching Sociology 28(2):127-39.

Schacht, Steven and Brad J. Stewart. 1990. “What’s Funny about Statistics? A Technique for Reducing Student Anxiety.” Teaching Sociology 18(1):52-6.

Snow, Robert. P. 1983. “Teaching Sociology Through Existing Television Programs.” Teaching Sociology 10(3):353-9.

Snyder, Eldon E. 1997. “Teaching the Sociology of Sport: Using a Comic Strip in the Class-room.” Teaching Sociology 25(3):239-43.

Southam, Marti and Kathleen Schwartz. 2004. “Laugh and Learn: Humor as Teaching Strat-egy in Occupational Therapy Education.” Occupational Therapy in Healthcare 18(1):57-70.

Tipton, Diane and Kathleen Tiemann. 1993. “Using the Feature Film to Facilitate Socio-logical Thinking.” Teaching Sociology 21(2):187-91.

Yoels, William and Jeffrey Clair. 1995. “Laughter in the Clinic: Humor as Social Or-ganization.” Symbolic Interaction 18(1):39-58.

Walczak, David and Monika Reuter. 1994. “Using Popular Music to Teach Sociology: An

Evaluation by Students.” Teaching Sociology 22(3):266-9.

Warnock, Peter. 1989. “Humor as Didactic Tool in Adult Education.” Lifelong Learning 12(8):22-4.

Zijderveld, Anton. 1995. “Humor, Laughter and Sociological Theory.” Sociological Forum 10(2):341-5.

Shawn Bingham, PhD, is Director of the Interdisci-

plinary Social Sciences program at the University of South Florida. His research focuses on the intersec-tions between sociology and other areas, especially the sociological ideas of individuals not formally trained in academic sociology. He is the author of Thoreau and the Sociological Imagination: The Wilds of Society, published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2008.

Alexander A. Hernandez received his MA from

the University of South Florida. His research interests include teaching pedagogy, the sociology of technology and the sociology of knowledge. He is currently work-ing on his PhD at Boston College.


Teaching Sociology ARTICLES NOTES - American Sociological Association

Documents