Case Study of Comedian Hannibal Buress and Humor as Change Agent by Frankie Campisano — 25
Keywords: Hannibal Buress, Comedy, Humor, Social Change, Public Opinion
Email: [email protected]
This undergraduate project was conducted as a partial requirement of a research course in communications.
A Case Study of Comedian Hannibal Buress
and Humor as an Agent for Change
Frankie Campisano
Media Arts & Entertainment
Elon University
Abstract
Comedian Hannibal Buress was launched into the national spotlight after a YouTube clip of his stand-up
routine went viral in October 2014. In the clip, Buress addressed the sexual assault allegations against Bill
Cosby, fueling renewed interest in the case in the public eye, leading to Cosby’s arrest in December 2015.
This case study examined the material in Buress’ stand-up comedy specials to contextualize the clip and
determine which classical theories of humor his work employs, as well as persuasive methods used to
engage audiences and address sociopolitical subject matter.
I. Introduction
Within the past ve years, stand-up comedian, writer, and actor Hannibal Buress has hurtled toward
the pantheon of modern comedy A-Listers, with Buress’ act being compared to critical and commercial
darlings Louis C.K. and Aziz Ansari, as well as Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, and other incisive Black comics
(Zinoman, 2011). While his resume includes stints writing for both Saturday Night Live and 30 Rock and
supporting roles on cult-television hits Broad City and The Eric Andre Show, Buress inadvertently found
himself in the national spotlight and the subject of major media scrutiny only after an online clip from a
performance in Philadelphia in October 2014 went viral (Hsu, 2015). In the clip, Buress criticizes actor
and comedian Bill Cosby for his seemingly conated image as a moralistic, elder statesman for the Black
community in light of 13 allegations of sexual assault at the time of the performance.
“Thirteen? And it’s even worse because Bill Cosby has the fucking smuggest, old Black
man public persona that I hate. Just gets on TV; ‘Pull your pants up, Black people, I was
on TV in the ’80s! I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom!’ Yeah, but
you raped women, Bill Cosby. So, brings you down a couple notches. ‘I don’t curse on
stage!’ Well, yeah, you’re a rapist, so, I’ll take you sayin’ lots of ‘motherfucker’s on Bill
Cosby: Himself if you weren’t a rapist . . . I want to just at least make it weird for you to
watch Cosby Show reruns. Dude’s image, for the most part, is public, teon image. I’ve
26 — Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, Vol. 7, No. 2 • Fall 2016
done this bit on stage, and people don’t believe it. People think I’m making it up . . . If
you didn’t know about it, trust me. You leave here and google ‘Bill Cosby rape.’ It ain’t
funny. That shit has more results than ‘Hannibal Buress’” (Eye Sight, 2014).
The joke had been a part of Buress’ act for approximately six months by the time it was lmed and
uploaded to YouTube by user ‘eye sight,’ but the clip skyrocketed Buress further into the limelight while
simultaneously reigniting the controversial Cosby case for both the media and the general public. In the wake
of the coverage of Buress’ call-out, many other accusers stepped forward, leading to Cosby being charged
and arrested for sexual assault in December 2015 (Elber). Speaking at a Television Critics Association event
in January 2016 to promote his rst special since the incident, Buress stated he was merely “doing a joke in
my show and that shouldn’t inuence public opinion. I don’t know if it should go that far. It’s weird to me that a
joke did that” (Elber).
While he downplays the role his joke had in the situation, Buress’ material undoubtedly did inuence
public opinion, eroding the very same ‘teon image’ of Cosby that the joke was deriding. One joke, which was
never formally released aside from fan recordings uploaded online, set off a chain of events that irrevocably
altered the image of Cosby in the American pop culture landscape and called into question the public’s
tendency to overlook heinous crimes when committed by beloved celebrities. Buress claims that he told the
joke without intending repercussions for Cosby, but less than two minutes of on-stage rifng permanently
shifted the zeitgeist for both Buress and Cosby alike (Raymer, 2015). The Cosby bit and its ensuing media
frenzy led some, including GQ’s Taffy Brodesser-Akner, to label Buress “a feminist hero” during an interview.
Buress does not readily embrace the label; however, he claims his only prerogative is to be funny. But as
Brodesser-Akner (2015) points out in the GQ prole piece, Buress’ “main comedic jam is parsing things
people say and do and then correcting them . . . Buress is like the smart-aleck kid brother who harps on your
every error and hyperbolic moment, and who would be insufferable if he weren’t incredibly funny.”
Stand-up comedy, as an art form, is in a unique rhetorical position where the rules and taboos
otherwise imposed on communication are temporarily suspended. Humor has a powerful potency as a
persuasive tool, and beyond the old adage that it is only the court jester who can get away with criticizing
a king, there is a scholastic and societal merit to understanding how humor can act as an agent for cultural
change (Martin, 2007). And while Buress may not be a comedian with an overtly sociopolitical agenda, time
and time again his material veers toward loftier subject matter, taking seemingly innocuous or outlandish
premises and addressing issues of race, sex, and gender, the American political landscape, and cultural
obsessions with drugs, alcohol, and violence. It’s only because of his comedic skill that his carefully crafted
bits can weave salient political points and poignant morality into his narratives, all the while giving off an air of
spontaneity.
Through the veil of humor, comedians like Buress are able to get on a soapbox and inuence the
masses. In order to understand Buress’ act and the inuence he may have on his audience, it is necessary
to understand the history and evolution of American stand-up comedy, particularly the subgenre known as
‘charged humor,’ as well as having operational working knowledge of the classical, sociological theories of
humor and the nuanced, persuasive techniques employed by the performing comedian.
II. Literature
In order to contextualize the works of Buress, one must rst understand the three classical theories
of humor, which explain how the material elicits the desired audience response of laughter. One must also
understand the rhetorical methods employed when humor is used as a persuasive device, as well as the
sociological role of the stand-up comedian. Then, to understand Buress’ work in the canon of American stand-
up comedy, one must understand the history and evolution of the art form, as well as having an understanding
of Buress’ comic persona.
Case Study of Comedian Hannibal Buress and Humor as Change Agent by Frankie Campisano — 27
Theories of Humor
The three primary sociological theories of humor, collectively referred to as the classical theories
of humor, suggest that comedy could be traced to three distinct types of interactions. There are other fringe
theories of humor, but the universality of the three classical theories makes them prime focuses for research.
The relief theory suggests humor is drawn from the build-up and release of tension, often as a
defense mechanism, in order for a speaker to vent or explore deeper feelings they might not otherwise be
willing to address. The relief theory accounts for exposing vulnerabilities, the way one can nd humor in
situations that might otherwise be stressful, tragic or at out unfunny (Sen, 2012). Relief theory accounts for
the old idiom that laughter is the best medicine, as well as offering an explanation, via an expression of relief
from stress, as to why one laughs when tickled (Lynch, 2002).
The superiority theory suggests humor relies on one party using ridicule, derision, or other put-
downs to raise the speaker to an elevated position while drawing attention to the weaknesses, fallacies, and
other drawbacks of a particular target or opponent (Dadlez, 2011). Self-deprecating humor can also t the
superiority theory, as one targets oneself in order to deect attention from a point of weakness before another
party targets the speaker in turn (Lynch, 2002). Superiority theory is one of the earliest humor theories, and
in order for it to be employed successfully, the target of the humor must be established as inferior according
to agreed upon (whether explicitly or implicitly) in-group/out-group social criteria (Sen, 2012). The superiority
theory was supported by the writings of Plato and Aristotle, but is most often credited in its modern form
to Hobbes, who wrote in The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic that “the passion of laughter is nothing
else but sudden glory arising from sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves by comparison with
the inrmity of others, or with our own formerly” (Hobbes, 1994). In other words, superiority theory involves
building oneself up at the expense of another, or at the expense of oneself in the case of self-effacing humor
(Dadlez, 2011).
The incongruity theory relies on contradictions and incongruences in both the content and subject
matter of the humorous message as well as the means by which that message is communicated to an
audience. This theory accounts for the notion of ridiculousness, the exasperated reaction of incredulity one
experiences in situations that seem irreconcilable with usual circumstances (Sen, 2012). The incongruity
theory plays heavily on subverting one’s expectations in the case of stand-up comedy either by the comedians
themselves doing or saying something unexpected, or by the subject of a joke initially being presented in a
particular light as one thing, and then, through the course of the joke, being revealed to be something different
than what the audience had been led to believe or expect. The inherent humor of incongruity theory relies on
the initial realization of the incongruence, or ridiculousness, as well as its resolution, typically in the form of
addressing how and why the ridiculousness is outside the norm (Lynch, 2002).
When the classical theories of humor were rst being developed and researched, scholars looked at
each independently, believing there could be a singular, comprehensive theory explaining why and how we
nd humorous material to be funny. More modern approaches look to synthesize the three different theories
as different means of approaching the same goal (Sen, 2012). In many cases, a comedian could make use of
all three classical theories in a single joke in an effort to make the audience laugh. Most often, superiority and
incongruity theories overlap and interplay in the same context (Dadlez, 2011).
Humor as a Persuasive Device
In Lynch’s study of humor in the context of communications research, humor, especially in the context
of stand-up comedy, is in its essence a message communicated from one party to another, with the implicit
psychological motivation of entertaining the receiver. But whether the message is successful is dependent on
the receiver’s understanding of the humorous message, which adds a social context and function for comedy
that cannot be dismissed.
Lyttle’s (2001) research into humor as a persuasive device found three methods of persuasion theory
utilizing humor to convey a message and achieve a desired outcome with an intended audience. Lyttle’s
research found that humor can create a positive mood for the audience, making them less likely to disagree
with the content of a persuasive message, that humor in the form of ironic wisecracks and sarcasm can
distract from potential counterarguments to the persuasion, and that self-effacing humor can improve the
credibility of its source by suggesting the source is being more honest by exposing vulnerabilities, thereby
improving the persuasive effects of the message.
28 — Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, Vol. 7, No. 2 • Fall 2016
In Nabi et al.’s (2007) study of the persuasive effect of humorous messages pertaining to social
issues, it was found that past studies have attempted to quantify “humor’s potentially unique ability to
encourage consideration of positions that might otherwise be dismissed or ignored were humor not present
to capture attention” (p. 31). But the scientic nature of the results is strenuous, considering the subjective
nature of comedy. The study also found that the more naturalistic and conversational the context humor is
presented in, the more effective its persuasive message can be. This is because the humor not only hooks
the audience, but also keeps the audience enthralled longer. Nabi’s study noted that past research often
found that humorous messages can be a double-edged sword, with the humorous message’s persuasive
effect diminished by its potential to be dismissed as merely a joke. To counteract this potential pitfall, Nabi
suggests, “The conclusion of a humorous message should reestablish serious intent. This would short-circuit
the minimizing effect of discounting while still maintaining the benet of the close information processing
generated by entertaining messages” (pp. 50-51). Nabi also found that audience members who dismiss a
message as a joke in the moment may retain the information, and after a gestation period it could potentially
inuence or alter their views after having had more time to process the message’s content. The research
found that “humor may have paved the way for attitude change by indirectly reducing counterargument and
enhancing argument quality perceptions” (p. 39).
The Role of the Comedian and the Sociology of Humor
Stand-up comedy is an essential, though often overlooked, part of society. Mintz (1985) believes that
stand-up “is arguably the oldest, most universal, basic and deeply signicant form of humorous expression . . .
performing essentially the same social and cultural roles in practically every known society, past, and present”
and its roots can be traced back to more primitive forms as part of live theatrical performances, circuses,
vaudeville, and burlesque. It is only in recent history that stand-up has come to take on a more immediately
recognizable form, but even that has developed and changed with each passing generation of comedians.
Eras in stand-up are dened by the biggest working comedians, who set the tone, and inuence those who
come after. (Mintz, 1985). The comedian takes on a role with a grander purpose than to simply re off punch
lines; the comedian is, as Mintz puts it, “our comic spokesperson [and] mediator, an ‘articulator’ of our culture,
and as our contemporary anthropologist” (p. 75).
Mintz (1985) attests that humor is the most revealing facet of a society, a cultural cornerstone that
can be placed under sociological and anthropological lenses to tell us about the values, traditions, opinions,
and contradictions of a particular people. Humor can reafrm public opinion or reinforce common beliefs
or accepted societal norms, but it can also take those same standardizations and shine a fresh light on
them, surprising audiences by opening new lines of inquiry on seemingly familiar material. Jokes can be
agents of chaos, using hyperbolic distortions of truth and reality to foster a ctionalized narrative for pure
entertainment purposes, or they can be used to unite an audience under a shared notion, viewpoint, or in-
group. Subconsciously grouping the individual members of the audience together as a cohesive collective is
the reason comedians often begin their sets by working the room, addressing the crowd as a unied entity
and testing the waters through the audience response and interactions to the comedian’s opening statements.
(Mintz, 1985).
A History of American Stand-Up Comedy
The earliest inklings of stand-up comedy in America, at least in a form recognizable when compared
to its present-day incarnation, can be traced to late 19th century forms of entertainment including vaudeville,
minstrel shows, circus clowns, and humorous speeches and monologues from clever performers. These
performers were branded as “humorists” rather than comedians, notably including Mark Twain, whose works
have stood the test of time more so than any of his contemporaries. In these early forms, these precursors to
comedians, including “jugglers, contortionists, regurgitators, tumblers, ventriloquists, animal acts, minstrels,
sketch artists, and musicians,” performed a myriad of performances as part of variety shows (Krefting, 2014,
p. 38).
By the 1950s, stand-up had begun “moving away from traditional jokes both in formula and content.
Instead of the standard set-up and punch line, then repeat,” trends shifted in favor of comedians who told
narratives with humor woven throughout, a style that allowed performers to build a rapport with their audience
members, who were given the impression that the comedian’s act was a window into their personal lives
(Krefting, 2014). As the art form developed, it began to take on features that, while staples of today’s stand-up
Case Study of Comedian Hannibal Buress and Humor as Change Agent by Frankie Campisano — 29
comedy, were quite novel in the 1950s, particularly comedians who would directly address members of the
audience in conversation, using brief question-and-answer sessions as grounds for improvisational humor
(Krefting, 2014).
In the 1950s and 1960s, comedy began to become an outlet for some to satirize culture and society,
lampooning, at its core, the social contracts adopted in one way or another by most, if not all, members of
society. Some comedians pushed more boundaries in regards to subject matter and adult language, with
comedian Lenny Bruce garnering a reputation for being arrested for performing his raunchy material (Maslon,
2008). This trend continued into the 1970s, with some of the most successful comedians, like George Carlin
and Richard Pryor, becoming stars in their own right by doubling down on the obscenity-ridden style of Bruce.
The antithesis to these more vulgar comics were family-friendly names like Bill Cosby and Steve Martin, who
were able to use their wider appeal to successfully crossover into other art forms, particularly television and
lm (Krefting, 2014).
But outside of the biggest names in the business, stand-up comedians were struggling to make
ends meet. In the late 1970s, most mid-level and rookie comedians performed solely for exposure, rather
than pay. Comedian Tom Dreesen took action in March 1979 and formed a union, the Comedians for
Compensation, with other working comedians, to protest The Comedy Store in Los Angeles, California.
Dreesen’s union went on strike for six weeks, and garnered support from many of the biggest names in the
business, which ultimately led Comedy Store owner Mitzi Shore to agree to pay $25 for each performance.
Despite the settlement, this new standard was not regularly enforced, which opened the door for other
venues to standardize their wages and attract performers (Krefting, 2014). There were typically three levels
of comedians: an opener, a feature, and the headliner. These newfound standards led to a proliferation of
comedy clubs, even some chains, which spread across the United States.
By the mid 1980s, stand-up comedy had gone from being a career with little-to-no stability or chance
at upward mobility to one where working comedians could support themselves and make a living telling jokes.
By the 1990s, live comedy performances were a staple of entertainment across the country; Comedy Central
gave stand-up comedy a regular home on television; and premium cable networks like HBO and Showtime
provided an additional platform for comedians in the form of hour-long specials, which became a new mark
of prestige. In contrast with appearances on the late-night talk show circuit on network television, these cable
specials allowed comedians to perform their material without having to censor themselves (Krefting, 2014).
The downside to the advent of Comedy Central and HBO comedy specials was that fans now had
a number of alternatives to brick-and-mortar comedy clubs, which led to a slight downturn for clubs after the
boom of the 1980s. By the turn of the century, particularly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
comedy entered “the age of the ironic and the age of the awkward, wherein the public nds humor in the
exploration of tragedy and in moments of heightened self-consciousness” (Krefting, 2014, p. 73). This gave
rise to alternative comedy, a form of humor that “was more intellectual, satirical, and even charged at times,
requiring a knowledge base from audiences” and featured an “anecdotal and stream-of-consciousness style
of delivery,” which allowed comedians to experiment with form, content, and style in a way that was inventive,
fresh, and perhaps most importantly, nding a mainstream audience (Krefting, 2014, p. 74).
The Comedy Stylings of Hannibal Buress
“Charged humor,” dened by Krefting (2014) as “humor-challenging social inequality and cultural
exclusion” (p. 2), challenges and subverts elements of society that the masses may take for granted at face
value. As Krefting (2014) puts it, “Jokesters unmask inequality by identifying the legal arrangements and
cultural attitudes and beliefs contributing to their subordinated status—joking about it, challenging that which
has become normalized and compulsory, and offering new solutions and strategies” (p. 2). The challenge for
comedians employing charged humor, historically, has been nding and maintaining mainstream success
among audiences who often don’t want the dissonance in their worldviews called into question. In order to
make a living telling jokes, comedians often had to curtail more challenging subject matter in order to appeal
to wider demographics and position themselves as more marketable talents. Krefting (2014) found that
comedians who preferred charged humor could instead “throw in a charged zinger here and there [and] have
better chances of success than others whose material is charged throughout an entire show” (p. 4).
It’s to that extent that Buress makes use of charged humor, carefully and precisely choosing when
to punctuate his jokes with sociopolitical subtext. In the April/May 2015 cover story of The Fader, Buress’
infamous Bill Cosby bit is described as exemplary of his approach to comedy. “To those familiar with
30 — Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, Vol. 7, No. 2 • Fall 2016
Hannibal’s work, the bit captured something essential about his point of view as a comic, the way his jokes
rely on bemusement, skepticism, a kind of made-you-think discomfort,” proled Hua Hsu (2015, para. 9).
Buress uses primarily storytelling jokes rather than directly addressing social issues. Hsu describes Buress’
role as a moralistic comedian, one who is “more of a witness than a critic. His humor doesn’t depict a larger
social world so much as it xates on how that world occasionally intersects with the strange contours of his
own life” (Hsu, 2015, para. 27). Much like the GQ prole explains that it’s the wit of Buress’ on-stage persona
that lends him the goodwill to point out uncomfortable truths, Hsu notes Buress “always maintains a quality of
bafed incredulousness” (para. 27).
In a New York Times prole piece published three years prior to the Cosby incident, Zinoman (2011)
praises Buress’ subtle use of sociopolitical themes, particularly race, which in Buress’ act, “is more of an
implicit theme, emerging satirically . . . Mr. Buress approaches race the same way he does most subjects:
from the side, with a hint of the absurd” (para. 13). Zinoman (2011) also connects Buress’ success to “his
distinctive delivery, which manages to sound laid back and propulsive at the same time, like a mellow stoner
who speaks in the cadences of a Baptist preacher” (para. 13). In his own words, Buress describes his joke
writing method as observational and procedural, explaining, “I look at stuff like a math problem and try to
gure out how it works and why people do certain things and what things mean” (Raymer, 2015, para. 9).
Sometimes those subjects are hyper-specic to Buress’ personal life, and other times those topics have
sweeping ramications for society and pop culture at large.
III. Methods
To examine how Buress employs the classical theories of humor to inuence the audience and
address sociopolitical subject matter, this case study employed a content analysis based on coding material
presented in Buress’ stand-up routines across four major releases.
The material examined in this study includes Buress’ four major stand-up specials including 2010’s
My Name is Hannibal comedy album, 2012’s album and Comedy Central special Animal Furnace, 2014’s
album and Comedy Central special Live from Chicago and 2016’s Netix special Comedy Camisado,
alongside the viral clip of Buress’ bit on Bill Cosby from October 2014. With the exception of the Bill Cosby
clip, which was evaluated rst, the rest of Buress’ material was analyzed in chronological order in an effort to
analyze his career trajectory and development of his onstage persona and craft.
The content was coded under three separate critical lenses, rst looking at each joke and determining
which classical theories of humor it utilized: relief theory, superiority theory, and incongruity theory. Jokes
could be categorized into more than one theory or no theory, as any individual joke could utilize any of the
three theories, a combination of the three, or hypothetically none at all. Jokes were analyzed based on the
narrative content and the observed relationship between the comedian and the audience. Jokes using relief
theory eased tension, either between the audience and the comedian, or the comedian and the subject of
the joke. Jokes using superiority theory position the comedian into a high ground position, in opposition to
either the audience or another gure in the narrative. Jokes using incongruity theory target contradictions and
incongruences in society at large, or within the context of specic narratives.
Next, each joke was examined to determine which uses of humor and persuasion theories were being
utilized, as exemplied in Lyttle’s (2001) research: building rapport with the audience in order to increase the
comedian’s likeability; using ironic wisecracks to distract or discredit a counterargument; and/or the use of
self-effacing humor to improve the comedian’s credibility.
Lastly, the content was coded by sociopolitical subject matter, namely race relations, sex/gender/
relationships, deance of authority/police, American politics, violence, drugs/alcohol, and two broader,
comprehensive categories: deance of social norms/etiquette and the application of social norms/etiquette
to the absurd. These categories emerged naturally when the author reviewed the material in each routine,
with subsequent categories and themes emerging in later works, which then required returning to the older
material to further code its content.
Each joke for the coding heuristic was drawn from the album track lists, since the distinctions for
each bit was pre-determined by Buress, the ultimate authority on his own routines. In the case of Comedy
Camisado, which is only available as a streaming special on Netix, the names of each bit and the divisions
Case Study of Comedian Hannibal Buress and Humor as Change Agent by Frankie Campisano — 31
between any two bits were determined by the researcher by following the formatting of the previous three
albums and by taking verbal cues and segues from the performer as ways to divide the material in a manner
reective of the album track listings.
IV. Findings/Results
The study found that incongruity theory was employed by 59 jokes (81.9% of 72 in total), followed
by superiority theory (80.6%) and relief theory (63.9%). Forty-six jokes employed superiority and incongruity
theories, and 34 jokes employed all three theories, as shown by Table 1.
Table 1. Breakdown of jokes by theories they relied on
Relief Theory
Superiority
Theory
Incongruity
Theory
Superiority
& Incongru-
ity Theories
All Three
Theories
Number of jokes with
observed characteristic
48 out of 72 58 out of 72 59 out of 72 46 out of 72 34 out of 72
Percentage of total
jokes
63.9% 80.6% 81.9% 63.9% 47.2%
The study found that ironic wisecracks were utilized by 65 jokes (90.3% of 72 in total), followed by
self-effacing humor (77.8%) and building rapport with audience (56.9%). Fifty-six jokes utilized two persuasive
strategies, and 24 jokes three persuasive strategies, as shown by Table 2.
Table 2. Breakdown of jokes by persuasive strategy they relied on
Building
Rapport with
Audience
Ironic
Wise-
cracks
Self-Effacing
Humor
Utilized Two
Persuasive
Strategies
Utilized
Three
Persuasive
Strategies
Number of jokes with
observed characteristic
41 out of 72 65 out of 72 46 out of 72 56 out of 72 24 out of 72
Percentage of total
jokes
56.9% 90.3% 63.9% 77.8% 33.3%
The study found that the thematic element of defying social norms appeared in 53 jokes (73.6%
of 72 in total); followed by applying social norms to absurdity (61.1%); violence (48.6%); sex, gender, or
relationships (47.2%); drugs or alcohol (30.1%); race relations (29.2%); deance of authority/police (29.2%);
American politics (8.3%) and religion (5.6%), as shown by Table 3.
32 — Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, Vol. 7, No. 2 • Fall 2016
Table 3: Breakdown of jokes by categorical thematic content or subject matter
Race
Relations
Sex,
Gender,
Relation-
ships
Deance
of
Authority
/ Police
U.S.
Politics
Religion Violence
Drugs /
Alcohol
Deance
of Social
Norms
Applying
Social
Norms to
Absurdity
Number
of jokes
with
observed
charac-
teristic
21 out of
72
34 out of
72
21 out of
72
6 out of
72
4 out of
72
35 out of
72
22 out
of 72
53 out of
72
44 out of
72
Percent-
age of
total
jokes
29.2% 47.2% 29.2% 8.3% 5.6% 48.6% 30.1% 73.6% 61.1%
The study also found that 16 jokes (22.2% of 72 in total) had thematic content or subject matter
pertaining to 5 or more of the categories enumerated in Table 3, followed by 47.2% pertaining to 3 or 4
categories, 27.8% pertaining to 1 or 2 categories, and 4.2% containing no sociopolitical content, as shown by
Table 4.
Table 4: Breakdown of jokes by spectrum of thematic content or subject matter
No sociopolitical
content
1 or 2
categories
3 or 4
categories
5 or more
categories
Number of jokes with
observed characteristic
3 out of 72 20 out of 72 34 out of 72 16 out of 72
Percentage of total
jokes
4.2% 27.8% 47.2% 22.2%
V. Discussion
As was to be expected, every Buress joke studied could be attributed to at least one theory of humor.
This result was unsurprising, as it is Buress’ intention to entertain and amuse his audience through humor; it
is, after all, the reason he is performing a routine on stage in the rst place. It is also unsurprising that Buress
makes the most use of superiority theory and incongruity theory, as this is in line with the typical Buress’ joke
structure. Buress builds his act around identifying the incongruences in his daily life, in American society
and pop culture, and even in hypothetical scenarios entirely of his own design, positioning himself to have a
moralistic high ground through the course of his narrative, and then setting about fundamentally dismantling
any potential opposition through ironic wisecracks, dismissing counterarguments, and projecting a sense of
victory or accomplishment.
The Cosby bit makes use of all three theories of humor at different points in the joke. Superiority
theory comes into play when Buress positions himself as having a moral high ground over Cosby, citing
the 13 existing allegations of sexual assault as reason enough to dismiss Cosby’s own preachy morals.
Case Study of Comedian Hannibal Buress and Humor as Change Agent by Frankie Campisano — 33
Incongruity theory is invoked when Buress points out that Cosby so readily lords his morality over others in
spite of the heinous crimes he’s alleged to have committed, and again when Buress points out that despite
knowledge of these accusations, Cosby had until that point escaped unscathed in the public eye. Buress
uses relief theory when he jokes that he simply wanted to make it uncomfortable for the audience to revisit
The Cosby Show after having been enlightened on the true nature of its star, humorously addressing the
elephant in the room while at the same time suggesting that in spite of these criticisms, Cosby would face no
repercussions, or so Buress anticipated at the time.
Buress made effective use of all three theories of persuasion, but 90% of his material makes use of
ironic wisecracks; as a comedian, ironic wisecracks distracting from the counterargument of his rhetorical
opposition is his bread and butter. This is the sarcastic, smart-aleck persona captured in the GQ prole.
Interestingly, in My Name is Hannibal, Buress eases into the ironic wisecracks as the set progresses, but in
all three following specials, the ironic wisecracks are unrelenting, appearing in nearly every joke. In his rst
two specials, Buress was less willing to use self-effacing humor, only rarely positioning himself as the butt of
a joke, but in his later two specials, self-effacing humor works itself into almost every bit, allowing Buress to
laugh at himself and relate more to audiences. It is understandable that his least used method of persuasion
was rapport building, as once he has established his comic persona, he has already predisposed the audience
to like him and be on his side. It is noteworthy that in his rst two specials, much of the rapport building occurs
toward the beginning of his routines, while in Live from Chicago there was more rapport building toward the
back half of his set and in Comedy Camisado he builds a rapport throughout the entire set.
The Cosby joke, understandably, exclusively makes use of ironic wisecracks as a persuasive theory.
Of note, however, is that at the end of the bit, Buress assures his audience that what he’s discussing is, in
fact, not hyperbolic at all, imploring the audience to conduct their own research and to take the issue he’s
raising seriously. This is exactly the action Nabi’s research suggests comedians take in order to reafrm the
seriousness of a persuasive message and to counteract those in the audience that might dismiss a message
as just another joke.
My Name is Hannibal featured by far the least amount of sociopolitical content, with no jokes covering
more than four categories, but the material covered more ground in the second half of the album. In contrast,
his second special, Animal Furnace, addresses the most sociopolitical topics by a solid margin, nearly
doubling that of My Name is Hannibal. Animal Furnace also includes signicantly more jokes addressing
sex, gender, and relationships, a trend that continued with Live from Chicago and Comedy Camisado as
well. Both of his later two specials had signicantly more sociopolitical content than My Name is Hannibal,
although neither quite reaches the frequency with which Animal Furnace addresses such topics. Both of the
later two specials also tend to feature more sociopolitical content in the back half of the set list. Interestingly,
Comedy Camisado includes more jokes that only address a single sociopolitical topic than previous specials,
as well as two jokes that do not cover any sociopolitical subject matter. Prior to the material on Comedy
Camisado, the only other joke that did not cover any sociopolitical material was the opening joke to My Name
is Hannibal, which strictly functioned as a means of establishing a rapport with the audience. It is worth noting
that this was the only special in which the distinction from joke-to-joke was dened by the researcher, as
Comedy Camisado is a Netix-exclusive special and does not have an accompanying album or track listing.
The Cosby joke material covered four different categories of sociopolitical content, all while adhering
closely to a singular subject. It is set apart from Buress’ other material by how directly and aggressively
he targets his subject. Buress holds nothing back, and the blunt fearlessness and directness with which
he addresses such controversial sociopolitical issues, including rape culture and the notion that American
celebrities are somehow above the law, is uncommon compared to the rest of his body of work. As Krefting
noted, charged humor is most effective when deployed sparingly. Perhaps because in some ways the Cosby
bit both stands out among Buress’ comedic repertoire and exemplies his comic persona and sensibilities, the
infamous joke managed to both boost Hannibal Buress’ public prole to the A-List of stand-up comedy and
spur the takedown of the seemingly untouchable Cosby (Krefting, 2014, p. 2).
34 — Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, Vol. 7, No. 2 • Fall 2016
V. Conclusions
The comedy of Buress frequently employs incongruity theory and superiority theory, as exemplied in
the way he positions himself against his rhetorical targets, drawing attention to the contradictions of daily life
and the inherent ridiculousness of his interactions with others. Buress employs persuasive theories in order to
keep the audience on his side in the scenarios described in his narrative comedy, utilizing ironic wisecracks
in nearly every joke in order to dismiss any counterarguments to his positions. This is a key component of his
on-stage persona.
While Buress doesn’t consider his material primarily sociopolitical, nearly 96% of the material studied
addressed a sociopolitical topic in some way, shape, or form, with 69.4% of the material studied addressing
three or more sociopolitical subjects. While this material is not always as controversial as his infamous
Cosby bit, Buress makes effective use of persuasive techniques throughout his routines. Given the right
circumstances, it would not be inconceivable for another Buress joke to go viral and have the widespread
ramications and inuence on public opinion that his jokes targeting Bill Cosby did.
Tracing back to the old adage “a lot of truth is said in jest,” or even further back to the era when court
jesters were the only people who could get away with criticizing the king to his face, comedy has been one of
the most powerful forms of communication. Just as the title of his most recent release, Comedy Camisado,
suggests, Buress engages his audience with a surprise attack: not just with unpredictable punch lines, but by
raising salient sociopolitical points and sparking discussion. Buress is a comedian who understands the power
of the platform he has, and rather than being an overtly political comedian and risk bisecting his audience, he
peppers his sociopolitical comedy into his set at just the right moments. It’s not just about getting the audience
to laugh at what he says, it’s about getting them to engage with what he has to say on a higher level. Just like
in the viral clip where he targets Cosby, Buress is hyper-aware that his audience can and will Google anything
he tells them to.
Further research into the persuasive effects of humor, particularly sociopolitical subject matter, and its
inuence on audiences could expand upon this case study by including the bodies of work of other stand-up
comedians, rst by cross-examining the works of Buress with his contemporaries and their direct inuences.
Expanding further, additional research may study the most inuential comedians of each era and tracing a
“comedic lineage” of charged humor to further contextualize the inuence of sociopolitical stand-up routines.
When studying comedians of different eras, research must account for the cultural and societal differences
and ensure that the performances are rooted in the historical and social contexts of the time period they were
performed.
Additional research on Buress’ comedy, particularly an entire tour of sets would make for a larger,
more insightful case study. Research could analyze how a larger sample size of vastly different audiences,
when they are made up of different demographics and engaging the material in different settings, are more or
less persuaded by the comedy routine. Studying the effect of humor in persuasion theory could be furthered
by examining the differences in audience engagement and reactions between live audiences witnessing a
stand-up comedy routine performed in real time and those listening to recorded material through a digital
platform where material could be paused, replayed, fact-checked, and researched by a motivated audience
member.
Acknowledgments
The author is thankful to Don Grady, associate professor and associate dean at Elon University, for
his supervision and advice, without which the article could not be published. The author also appreciates
numerous reviewers who have helped revise this article.
Bibliography
Brodesser-Akner, T. (2015, July 22). Hannibal Buress Was Funny Long Before Bill Cosby Wasn’t. Retrieved
April 26, 2016, from http://www.gq.com/story/hannibal-buress-bill-cosby-comedy-central
Case Study of Comedian Hannibal Buress and Humor as Change Agent by Frankie Campisano — 35
Hannibal Buress. (2010). My Name Is Hannibal [CD]. Chicago: Stand Up! Records.
Hannibal Buress. (2012). Animal Furnace [CD]. New York: Comedy Central Records.
Hannibal Buress. (2014). Live from Chicago [MP3]. Chicago: Comedy Central Records.
Bangs, L. (Director). (2016, February 5). Comedy Camisado [Video le]. In Netix. Retrieved April 26, 2016,
from https://www.netix.com/title/80059410
Dadlez, E. M. (2011). Truly Funny: Humor, Irony, and Satire as Moral Criticism.The Journal of Aesthetic
Education, 45(1), 1-17. doi:10.1353/jae.2011.0003
Elber, L. (2016, January 17). Buress calls impact of his Cosby joke ‘weird,’ unexpected. AP Online. Retrieved
April 26, 2016, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1A1-84122aca8c14476dbc5495864ef0fbcb.
html?red=easy_hf
Eye sight. (2014, October 29). Hannibal Buress Called Bill Cosby a Rapist During a Stand up. Retrieved April
26, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzB8dTVALQI
Hobbes, T., & Gaskin, J. C. (1994). The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hsu, H. (2015, April/May). Rambling Man: On the Road with Hannibal Buress, Comedy’s Most Feared
Slacker. The Fader, (97).
Krefting, R. (2014). All Joking Aside: American Humor and its Discontents. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
University Press.
Lynch, O. H. (2002). Humorous Communication: Finding a Place for Humor in Communication
Research. Communication Theory, 12(4), 423-445. doi:10.1093/ct/12.4.423
Lyttle, J. (2001). The Effectiveness of Humor in Persuasion: The Case of Business Ethics Training. The
Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 206-216. doi:10.1080/00221300109598908
Martin, R. A. (2007). The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic
Press.
Maslon, L., & Kantor, M. (2008). Make ‘em laugh: The funny business of America. New York: Twelve.
Mintz, L. E. (1985). Standup Comedy as Social and Cultural Mediation. American Quarterly, 37(1), 71-80.
doi:10.2307/2712763
Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Gusé, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All Joking Aside: A Serious Investigation into the
Persuasive Effect of Funny Social Issue Messages.Communication Monographs, 74(1), 29-54.
doi:10.1080/03637750701196896
Raymer, M. (2015, July 07). Hannibal Buress on his New Show and Newfound Celebrity. Retrieved April
26, 2016, from http://www.avclub.com/article/hannibal-buress-his-new-show-and-newfound-
celebrit-221732
Sen, A. (2012, Summer). Humour Analysis and Qualitative Research. Social Research Update, 63, 1-4.
Retrieved April 26, 2016, from sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU63.pdf.
Zinoman, J. (2011, November 3). Off-Kilter, Laid-Back Stand-Up. The New York Times. Retrieved April 26,
2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/arts/hannibal-buress-approaches-comedy-from-the-
side.html
