Response to Drewe's Post #1

I think that Drewe clearly has an understanding of what Carlin is doing in his act. Pointing out the audience’s own insecurities with language is a way of making the audience both extremely tense because of the taboo nature of the discussion and also extremely relieved that someone is pointing out an obvious flaw with the fact that this is in fact taboo. While Drewe has summarized Carlin’s argument well, Drewe has failed to explain the type of humor used and why it is so effective. My own argument as to why Carlin is so effective is that his entire act releases societal tension. Imagine a stereotypical sixty year-old librarian with her hair in a tight bun spontaneously laughing at the release offered by Carlin’s act. The reason this act is so successful is because it takes our social contract (as it pertains to language) and throws it completely out the window. It allows people to experience unbridled language, without having to deal with societal norms. The argument here is that this type of restriction is useless. By making fun of it and using naughty language, Carlin desensitizes the audience, joke by joke. This continued assault, done properly, plays directly into the Freudian theory of humor being the mention of the taboo. Where other comedians often use humor without argument, Carlin clearly has an argument. The interesting part about this entry and Carlin’s routine is that while the audience laughs and realizes the fallacy of euphemisms, as soon as the audience members return to a different environment they revert to the old social contract to behave in an appropriate manner, Thus, Carlin’s argument is unsuccessful as an argument. Still, as a piece of humor, it is hilarious.