Posts made by Sandra McKenzie

as usual. It's time (and past time) to wrap up what has been, for me, a thought-provoking discussion about humour in the classroom (virtual or actual).

So, what have we learned? That humour is both a tool and a weapon; that the element of surprise is essential; that there are formulae that can be applied (though I suspect there is more alchemy than mathematics to humour. The best jokes defy analysis, and no formula, however precise, can save a lame joke); that emoticons can mitigate the potential sting of a joke; and that humour, can enliven the learning process, and open the mind to new possibilities. Teaching online (via webcasting) is a lot like stand-up comedy, it appears. Passion, preparedness, and the imagination to see beyond the obvious are the critical elements both of successful comedy and effective pedagogy.

Special thanks to Corrie for reminding me to beware the easy target - that one person's joke is another person's assault and that satire always has a bite. And thanks to Les, for sharing his student's research in finding the (truly inspirational!) end of the story of the marijuana smuggler. Kudos to his students for taking the appropriate lesson from this example.

Finally, if there is one lesson to take away from all this discussion, it must be that humour is risky business.

Thanks to all who have participated. ^-)
"Assume good intentions unless demonstrated otherwise, and cut the other person some slack."

I can only add a heartfelt "Amen" to that!

"The overly-callous response is to dismiss the offended as thin-skinned. An overly cautious response might be to simply expunge all attempts at being humorous. A better response IMO is to use the opportunity to question our assumptions. "

That brings my mind around to one of my pet peeves - the dismissal of another person's discomfort or offense as "politically correctness" - as though consideration of another's concerns or beliefs is a sign of weakness or worse, evidence of an inability to laugh at oneself. V-. (I hope that brings up the "thoughtful" emoticon! See, Sylvia, Liz, et al., I really can learn a new trick. Or at least attempt it!)

Personally, and here I reveal my own not-too-subtle bias, I don't find anything objectionable in the fish with feet - in my perspective, it's simply a graphical statement of conviction. While my car doesn't sport such a bumper sticker, if it did, and if I were to be questioned about it, I would expect a respectful dialogue of what it means to believe that creation and evolution are not mutually-exclusive concepts. I would no more expect another person to be offended by it than I am offended by the more conventional, footless, fish graphic. :-D

Similarly, with the Pastafarian issue, I find it no more offensive than I find the exclusion of other, more time-honoured creation mythologies from the Intelligent Design discussion. (Side note: I don't use the word "myth", or "mythology" to mean an untruth here - I use it to mean a metaphor that is traditional within a culture.) To my mind, it's a poke in the ribs (gentle or pointed, you decide!) at how much is excluded from the discussion.

Here in the midst of Vancouver's extended rainy season, for example, I have been thinking for the past several days of the Haida creation story, specifically about how Raven stole the sun -- and if you've ever dealt with ravens in the PNW, you have no trouble at all with recognizing how and why Raven became such a powerful figure in coastal mythology.