The Meme as an Example of Carnivalized Internet Communication

• Authors: Górka Marek

Title variants

Mem jako przykład skarnawalizowanej komunikacji internetowej

• Languages of publication: EN PL

Abstracts

EN

A “meme" is a picture with a short caption which is a caricature illustration of current political, sports, and cultural events. “Memes" usually depict common, current situations which are retold in the carnival fashion, giving them a new context. “Memes" have become a tool for presenting all kinds of normal as well as unfortunate political events. They have become mocking comments which not only provoke but also induce laughter. Communication carnivalization relies mainly on creating parodies of events sanctioned by the Lukashenko regime. Cyberspace carnival shows how the Internet shapes the way the society perceives the political reality. It also initiates art that mocks and destabilises the regime.

PL

„Mem” to nic innego jak zdjęcie ze słownym komentarzem będącym karykaturalną ilustracją bieżących wydarzeń politycznych, sportowych, kulturalnych. Tematem ironicznych żartów są zazwyczaj znane, powszechnie obecne historie opowiedziane ponownie w konwencji karnawału, w ten sposób zyskujące nowy kontekst. Karnawalizacja komunikacji polega przede wszystkim na parodiowaniu oficjalnych i sankcjonowanych przez reżim wydarzeń. Cybernetyczne wcielenie karnawału pokazuje jak Internet może kształtować sposób myślenia społeczeństwa na temat rzeczywistości politycznej, a tym samym inicjować prześmiewczą i destabilizującą system twórczość.

Keywords

EN

political communicatio; carnival; carnivalization of politics; "memes" satire; parody

• Publisher: Ośrodek Analiz Politologicznych UW
• Journal: Kwartalnik Naukowy OAP UW "e-Politikon"
• Year: 2014
• Issue: 9
• Pages: 215-242

Contributors

author

Górka Marek

• Politechnika Koszalińska Instytut Polityki Społecznej i Stosunków Międzynarodowych ul. Kwiatkowskiego 6E 75-343 Koszalin

References

• Bachtin M., The work of Francis Rabelais and the folk culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Kraków 1975.
• Bakhtin M., Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics and Works of Francis Rabelais and the folk culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Kraków 1975.
• Bełkot A., Carnivalizationas the concept of ludic, “Homo Communicativus”, Vol. 2 2008.
• Collinson D., Managing humor, “Journal of Management Studies”, 2002, Vol. 29(3).
• Davis R., Politics Online: Blogs, Chatrooms, and Discussion Groups in American Democracy, New York: Routledge, 2005, http:/ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/download/35/6‎, 02.02.2014.
• Dennett D. C., The evolution of culture, “Monist”. 2001, Vol. 84(3).
• Doyle B., Memography and the Memetic Web, “EContent”,2006, Vol. 29(1).
• Dudzik W., Carnivals - holidays, fun, spectacle, “Polish Folk Art – Contexts”, 2002,
• Vol.56 (3/4).
• Dudzik W., Carnivals in culture, Warszawa 2005.
• Eco U., Humor, freedom, carnival, “Polish Folk Art - Contexts", nr 3/4 2002.
• Endres D., B. Warnick, Text-based interactivity in candidate campaign web sites: A case study from the 2002 elections, “Western Journal of Communication”, 2004, Vol. 68.
• Fung A., One city, two systems: Democracy in an electronic chat room in Hong Kong, “E-Networks and Democracy”, 2002, Vol. 9.
• Gatherer D., Meme pools, World 3, and Averroes's vision of immortality, “Zygon: Journal of Religion&Science”, 1998, Vol. 33(2).
• Grafen A., Ridley M., Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think, Oxford University Press 2006.
• Grugulis I., Nothing serious? Candidates’ use of humour in management training, “Human Relations”, 2002, Vol. 55(4).
• Hacker K. L., Missing links in the evolution of electronic democratization. “Media, Culture & Society”, 1996, Vol. 18.
• Hariman R., Political parody and public culture, “Quarterly Journal of Speech”, 2008,
• Vol. 94(3).
• Hill D. T., Sen K., The Internet in Indonesia’s new democracy [in:] P. Ferdinand (ed.), The Internet, Democracy And Democratization, Frank Cass Publishers, London 2000.
• Hodgson D., Putting on a professional performance: Performativity, subversion and project management, “Organization”, 2005, Vol. 12(1).
• Kavanagh D., O’Sullivan D., Advertising: The organizational production of humour, [in:]
• Westwood R., Rhodes C. (eds.). Humour, work and organization, Abingdon, UK 2007.
• Keogh G., Reading Richard Dawkins: A Theological Dialogue with New Atheism, Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2014.
• Kulikova S. V. , Perlmutter D. D., Blogging down the dictator? The Kyrgyz revolution and Samizdat websites, “International Communication Gazette” 2007, Vol. 69.
• Langrish J. Z., Darwinian Design: The Memetic Evolution of Design Ideas, “Design Issues”, 2004, Vol. 20(4).
• McKenna K. Y. A., Bargh J. A., Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity >>demarginalization<< through virtual group participation, “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”, 1998, Vol. 75.
• McMillan S. J., J. S. Hwang, Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity, “Journal of Advertising”, 2002, Vol. 31.
• O’Doherty D. P., Heidegger’s unfunny and the academic text: Organization analysis on the blink, [in:] R. Westwood, C. Rhodes, (eds.). Humour, work and organization, Abingdon, UK 2007.
• Parker M., The little book of management bollocks and the culture of organization, [in:] Westwood R., Rhodes C., (eds.). Humour, work and organization, Abingdon, UK 2007.
• Rhodes C., Coffee and the business of pleasure: The case of Harbucks vs. Mr. Tweek, “Culture and Organization” 2002, Vol. 8(4).
• Shifman L., MIT Press Essential Knowledge: Memes in Digital Culture, Cambridge 2013.
• Stanley J. W., Weare C., Musso J., Participation, deliberative democracy and the Internet: Lessons from a National Forum on Commercial Vehicle Safety,[in:] Shane P. M. (ed.), Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet, New York 2004.
• Stoff A., Skubaczewska-Pniewska A. (eds.), Theory carnivalesque. Contexts and interpretations, Toruń 2011.
• Stromer-Galley J., Foot K. A., Citizens perceptions of online interactivity and implications for political campaign communication, “Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication”, 2002, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00161.x/full, 02.02.2014.
• Stromer-Galley J., Diversity and political conversations on the Internet: Users perspectives, “Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication”, 2002, http:/jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/stromergalley.html,02.02.2014.
• Stromer-Galley J., Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process, “The Information Society”, 2004, Vol. 20.
• Stromer-Galley J., On-line interaction and why candidates avoid it, “Journal of Communication”, 2000, Vol. 50.
• Sundar S., Kalyanaraman S., Brown J., Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites, “Communication Research”, 2003, Vol. 30.
• Trammell K. D., Keshelashvili A., Examining the new influencers: A selfpresentation study of A-list blogs, “Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly”, 2005, Vol. 82.
• Westwood R., Comic relief: Subversion and catharsis in organisational comedic theatre, “Organisation Studies”,2004, Vol. 25(5).
• Wynn E., Katz J. E., Hyperbole over cyberspace: Self-presentation and social boundaries in Internet home pages and discourse, “The Information Society”, 1997, Vol. 13.