Eng | Rus
Login


Registration for authors
RPS article spotlight
Eng | Rus
ISSN 2079-6617
eISSN 2309-9828
Joke as psychotechnical tool of narrative understanding of the interpersonal relations

Joke as psychotechnical tool of narrative understanding of the interpersonal relations

PDF (Rus)

Recieved: 01/24/2018

Accepted: 09/05/2018

Published: 04/30/2019

Pages: 59-67

DOI: 10.11621/npj.2019.0106

Keywords: interpersonal relations ; humor; laugh; narrative; psychosemantics ; psychotechnics

Available online: 30.04.2019

To cite this article:

Elfimova Mariya M. (2019). Joke as psychotechnical tool of narrative understanding of the interpersonal relations. National Psychological Journal, (1) , 59-67. https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2019.0106

Copied to Clipboard

Copy
Issue 1, 2019

Elfimova Mariya M. Orenburg State Pedagogical University

Abstract

Background. The address to facilitating practice means granting to the person of a possibility of constructing individual sense and searching for such instruments of work by the consultant which allow the clients “to go and keep the relations with others”. The issue of searching for psychotechnical means adequate to correspondent ones, and to dialogue relations, turns us to humour and one of its forms, i.e. a joke. 

Objective. Guided by the cultural and historical concept and narrative approach in psychology and also by the ideas of systematic and stage-by-stage action development we are to prove joke as a tool of narrative understanding of the interpersonal relations. 

Design. The concept of ‘interpersonal relationship’ is clarified. The features of the ‘understanding interpersonal relations’ are specified. A review of ‘laughing’ as behaviour leading to an understanding of interpersonal relations, and a joke as a psycho-technical tool mediating the therapeutic relationship between a client and a consultant, is conducted. 

Results. ‘Understanding interpersonal relationships’ is coined as highlighting a method (scheme) that leads to a judgment about the developing relationship. Humor is considered as an attitude and understanding (orientation) in interpersonal communication whose purpose occurs through a sign-symbolic construction, i.e. a joke. Considering joke in the focus of the narrative approach provides an opportunity to see additional features of it as a tool, which can be included in the outline of the indicative basis of a communicative process. 

Conclusions. Using joke in advisory interaction as psychotechnical tool allows us to make certain statements, or to call for certain behaviour from the equality position without limiting individual freedom of the person. Due to joking the consultant’s intensions, interests, valuable and semantic orientations are getting more transparent and, the client’s judgments and behavior can be corrected easily.

Reference

  1. Aarseth E.J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 

  2. Aarseth E.J. (2001). Allegories of Space. The Question of Spatiality in Computer Games. Cybertext Yearbook 2000 (ed. R.Koskimaa). Saarijärvi: Research Centre for Contemporary Culture, 152–171. 

  3. Aarseth E.J. (2001). Computer Game Studies, Year One. Game Studies, 1(1). Retrieved from: http://gamestudies.org/0101/editorial.html. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  4. Arjoranta J. (2011). Do We Need Real-Time Hermeneutics? Structures of Meaning in Games. DiGRA ‘11—Proceedings of the 2011DiGRA International Conference: Think Design Play, vol. 6. URL: http://digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/11310. 17396.pdf. (accessed10.12.2018).

  5. Biryukova E.V., & Popova L.G. (2015). On the development trends of modern comparative historical, typological, comparative linguistics. [Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki]. 11–3 (53),40–43.

  6. Bogost I. (2011). How to Do Things with Videogames. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. doi: 10.5749/minnesota/9780816676460.001.0001

  7. Bolter D., & Gruzin R. A. (1999). Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  8. Demjankov V. (2013) Implied reference to audience: on organizational rhetoric of mass media. Mediensprache und Medienkommunikation im interdisziplinären und interkulturellen Vergleich: Mit einem einleitenden Beitrag von Ludwig M. Eichinger. Mannheim, Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 73–84. 

  9. Dybovskii N. (2012) Enemy Behind My Back! The Importance of Time in the Gaming Experience. GameStudies.ru. Retrieved from: http://gamestudies.ru/ post/443. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  10. Frasca G. (2003). Simulation vs Narrative: Introduction to Ludology. The Video Game Theory Reader. London, New York, Routledge, 221–236. Retrieved from: http://ludology.org/articles/ VGT_final.pdf. 

  11. Frasca G. (2014). Ludologists Love Stories, Too: Notes from a Debate that Never Took Place. DiGRA ‘03—Proceedings of the 2003DiGRA International Conference: Level Up, vol. 2.Retrieved from:http://digra.org/digital-library/publications/ludologists-love-stories-toonotes-from-a-debate-that-never-tookplace/. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  12. Harvey A., & Samyn M. (2006). Realtime Art Manifesto. Gaming Realities: the Challenge of Digital Culture (ed. M. Santorineos). Athens: FOURNOS Centre for the Digital Culture. Retrieved from:http://tale-of-tales.com/tales/RAM.html.(accessed 10.12.2018).

  13. Jones M. (2011). Ludology “Versus” Narratology. Procedural Creativity. Retrieved from: http://proceduralcreativity.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/mcc232e1-ludology-versusnarratology-matth... 10.12.2018).

  14. Juul J. (2000).What Computer Games Can and Can’t Do. Paper presented at the Digital Arts and Culture Conference. JesperJuul.net.Bergen. Retrieved from: http://jesperjuul.net/ text/wcgcacd.html. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  15. Juul J. (2003). The Game, the Player, the World: Looking for a Heart of Gameness. Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference Proceedings (eds M. Copier, J.Raessens). Utrecht: Utrecht University, 30–45. Retrieved from: http://jesperjuul.net/text/gameplayerworld/. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  16. Juul J. (2008). What Pac-Man really looks like. JesperJuul.net.Retrieved from: http://jesperjuul.net/ludologist/what-pac-man-really-looks-like. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  17. Malygina L.E. (2011). Modern TV announcement: information or manipulation? National Psychological Joiurnal,2, 60–64.

  18. Manovich L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 

  19. Mateas M., & Stern A. (2005). Build It to Understand It: Ludology Meets Narratology in Game Design Space. DiGRA ’05 — Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play, vol. 3. Retrieved from: http://digra.org/digital-library/ publications/build-it-to-understand-itludology-meets-narratology-in-gamedesign-space/.(accessed 10.12.2018).

  20. Mayra F. (2008). An Introduction to Game Studies: Games in Culture. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications. 

  21. McManus A., & Fenstein A. (2006). Narratology and Ludology: Competing Paradigms or Complementary Theories in Simulation. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, vol. 33. Retrieved from: https://journals. tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/ article/view/546/515.  (accessed 10.12.2018).

  22. Montfort N., Bogost I. (2009). Racing the Beam: the Atari Video Computer System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/7588.001.0001

  23. Murray J. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: the Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: Free Press. 

  24. Osipovskaya E.A. (2016). Game media space of English-language multimedia: new trends in genre education. Ph.D in Philology.M.

  25. Ostrikova G.N., Zheltukhina M.R., Zyubina I.A., & Sidorova I.G. (2018). Learning Via Visualization at the Present Stage of Teaching a Foreign Language. Astra Salvensis, VI, 1,601-607.

  26. Pearce C. (2005). Theory Wars: an Argument Against Argument in the So-Called Ludology. Narratology Debate. DiGRA ‘05—Proceedings of the 2005 DiGRA International Conference: Changing Views: Worlds in Play, Vol. 3. Retrieved from: http://digra.org/ digital-library/publications/theorywars-an-argument-againstarguments-in-the-so-calledludologynarratology-debate/.(accessed 10.12.2018).

  27. Pinchbeck D. (2010). I Build to Study: A Manifesto for Development Led research in Games. Under the Mask. University of Bedfordshire. URL: https://yumpu.com/en/ document/view/9024697/i-build-tostudy-a-manifesto-for-developmentled-thechineseroom.

  28. Salin A. (2015). Gamification: how does it work? Thezis.ru Gumanitarnye diskussii.Retrieved from: http://thezis.ru/author/aleksej-salin(accessed 10.12.2018).

  29. Samyn M. (2010) Not a Manifesto. NotGames.org.URL: http://notgames.org/blog/2010/03/ 19/not-a-manifesto/. 

  30. Trammell A., & Sinnreich A. (2014). Visualizing Game Studies: Materiality and Sociality from Chessboard to Circuit Board. Journal of Games Criticism, 1(1). Retrieved from: http://gamescriticism.org/articles/trammellsinnreich‑1-1. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  31. Vigrajzer A. (2016). “I want to play a game with you.” Like Spielberg and the mystic lovers blur the line between the Internet and reality. Retrieved from: https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/06/27/argplay. (accessed10.12.2018).

  32. Volkova I.I. (2015). Game as a systemic screen phenomenon is communicative. Doctor of Philology Thesis. M. 

  33. Werbach K. (2014). Gemification defined. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e79Iw6Q8pTY. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  34. Zaitsev O. (2014). “If People Like to Attach Labels, Let’s Talk About It”: Interview with Independent Developers. IGN Russia.Retrieved from: http://ru.ign.com/vse/65871/ feature/indi-iarlyk-marketingovyitriuk-ili-stil-zhizni. (accessed 10.12.2018).

  35. Zheltukhina M.R., Klushina N.I., Ponomarenko E.B., Vasilkova N.N. & & Dzyubenko A.I. (2017). Modern Media Influence: Mass Culture – Mass Consciousness – Mass Communication.X Linguae Journal, 10(4), 96–105. doi: 10.18355/XL.2017.10.04.09

To cite this article:

Elfimova Mariya M.. Joke as psychotechnical tool of narrative understanding of the interpersonal relations. // National Psychological Journal 2019. 1. Pages59-67. doi: 10.11621/npj.2019.0106

Copied to Clipboard

Copy