I watched 2 episodes of Two and a Half men to analyse the trades of Hegemony used in the Episodes.
Season 10 Episode 14 - Run, Stevan Staven!
In this episode I analysed Hegemony Ideologies used in the minority the episode portraits as "Men who have troubled Relationships". The comedy was hilarious but interestingly most of the humor was surrounded around these men who are having a hard time with their relationships. Their situations are shown as common yet situations that carry certain ideologies.
One of the guys in the episode has trouble with the relationship because of an argument over the house key, which the girl takes serious enough to date another guy the next day. Its is a situation with humor but regardless it implies the man is no use to the lady if he can't keep up with the demands of her needs, starting as simple as a key. The guy is pictured as a helpless being. Hegemony is implied in this situation conveying even the smallest need of a woman is more important than the needs of a man in a relationship.
In another situation one of the male characters explains why his girlfriend left him. He says he got caught cheating with his secretary. The person who was listening says that it was an unfaithful move cheating on his girlfriend but later changes his mind after seeing a picture of the secretary, implying that she is sexually attractive. This is a really funny situation, still it implies a ruling class ideology. An ideology that, up to some point, justifies that it is ok to cheat on a relationship if the girl is sexually attractive (hot). Hegemony is the tool that justifies this fact in context of humor.
Season 10 Episode 15 -Paint It, Pierce It or Plug It
This is an episode that has a story of a 19 year old kid dating a 36 year old woman who has 3 children. I decided to to analyse the couple as the minority and look at the portrayed Ideologies.
The first impression of the elderly lady is pictured to be wild and crazy. She has tattoos all over her body, she owns a tattoo shop as well. It is clear that the directors wanted to make the woman look uneducated yet attractive. As the story goes along more about her family background is revealed. Her 17 year old daughter used to date a 32 year old guy, her son was trialed in a court room and her ex-husband is prison. All this are points of humor in the episode, but clearly shines out the point that she is from a very complicated background. I believe this is another way of portraying a ruling class Ideology, that most of the elderly women who dates young men have complicated backgrounds.
At some point of the episode she also agrees that she is with the young man only for sexual pleasure. Hegemony is used at this point to convey it is more exciting for elder women to date young men.
Also the young man is rendered as an irresponsible, immature and some times stupid character. This is clearly shown when the young man plans to take the lady to Las Vegas to get married the next day. Also implies that young adults would take a lot of immature decisions in the name of love and its the mistake of the age not the person. All these situations suggest humor even though they are based on ruling class Ideologies.
In conclusion, I have noticed that Hegemony is used very often in humor. The Ideology is hiding in plain sight as a part of the joke but it is hardly noticeable to some people without giving a thought about it.
Hi Nuzair!
ReplyDeleteYou have clearly analyzed the episodes you watched, and I'm glad that you picked up on how humor can often be used as a tool of hegemony. We talked about it as a rhetorical tool as well, and that is because both of those concepts are very closely linked.
I wish you would have taken your observations a step further though--hegemony does function because of these dominant ideologies, but you don't really address who is benefiting from promoting these ideologies. The first episode you discuss talks about this representation of acceptable ideas of masculinity--where did those ideas come from? Why are they so popular? Who benefits when the world conceives of men this way; for that matter, who benefits when we paint women as demanding gold diggers? Who benefits from ideas about what ages are socially acceptable for dating? Where do these ideologies (that, as you very rightfully note, hide in plain sight) come from?