Who "Invented" Comedy? The Ancient Candidates for the Origins of Comedy and the Visual Evidence
The formal beginning of comedy is firmly dated to the Dionysia of 486 B.C.E.1 For what preceded it there were at least three ancient candidates: phallic processions, Doric comedy and Susarion. Each is supported by visual evidence of the sixth century B.C.E., each explains certain features of Old Comedy, but all have some anomalies as well. Striking is how many forms of performance attested in the sixth century contained comic elements. All these other forms ceased with the introduction of comedies to the Dionysia in 486 B.C.E., which coincides with the ascendancy of the demos; yet it was not until forty years later that comedy becomes unabashedly political.
Humor in organization: From function to resistance
Abstract The paper discusses the current state of research and thinking about humor in organizations and the workplace. Perhaps constrained by rationalist assumptions and conceptions of work and organization as domains of the serious, humor in organizations has received relatively little attention in management and organization studies. Such relative neglect notwithstanding, there has been a steady stream of work over the last 50 years, increasing somewhat latterly. The paper reflects, firstly, on this neglect in the face of the pervasiveness and significance of humor in life and in organizations. Next it considers more orthodox, functionalist research on humor in organizations, noting that this is the dominant stream of work. Whilst of value, this work offers a limited and partial perspective: we therefore address alternative, non-functionalist approaches that have emerged latterly, some of which take us towards a more radical view of humor in the workplace as resistance and subversion. This work is a caution against adopting a narrow functionalist view of humor and its appropriation for a managerialist agenda. In this critical evaluation of the literature humor is shown to be heterogeneous, both in its forms and effects and there is a need of better theorization that acknowledges that and which properly contextualizes humor in relation to the specific dynamics and complexities of work and organizations.
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.