Sweden - Stanford || Cross-Cultural Rhetoric Video Conference || October 21, 2009
Activity: Students from Helle Rytkønen’s What’s So Funny? Humor, race, class and gender at
Stanford University and Patrik Mehren’s Modern Rhetoric class at Uppsala University will meet for
a one-time videoconference. In groups, students will make their own humor being mindful of the
negotiations it takes to decide what is funny – and for whom. All will learn how to use ICT for
global communication.
I. Getting connected. 18:10 - 18:15 / 9:10- 9:15am (5 Minutes)
Location: Marratech room A (http://switchboard.stanford.edu)
Each group connects to the virtual conference room A above. Cameras should be turned on,
microphones turned off. Conversations through the chatbox, lower right hand corner.
II. Welcome and Introductory Remarks. 18:15-18:25/ 9:15-9:25am, (10 minutes)
Location: Marratech room A (http://switchboard.stanford.edu)
Presenters: Helle Rytkønen, Stanford University; Patrik Mehrens, Uppsala University.
Introduction to the purpose of today’s activities.
III. Small Group Work. 18.30-18.40/ 9.30-9.40, (10 minutes)
Location: Groups A, B, C, D: CCR Group Rooms at (http://switchboard.stanford.edu)
Activity: Introductions and discussion of Daily Show segments on Stockholm
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-22-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--2
Goal: Briefly introduce yourselves to each other and discuss the Daily Show segments where a
Daily Show writer goes to Stockholm to warn Swedes of their “socialist” nightmare.
Instructions: Use “Switching Marratech Rooms Instruction Sheet” to switch to your small group
room.
IV. Small Group Work. 18.40-19.15/ 9.40-10.15, (35 minutes)
Location: Groups A, B, C, D: CCR Group Rooms at (http://switchboard.stanford.edu)
Activity: Create a “David Letterman style” Top Ten list together
Goal: To pay attention to doxa and humor, i.e. to be aware of the negotiations of norms, values,
assumptions about class, race, ethnicity, culture, etc. that are involved in creating something we find
funny. To learn more about the rhetoric of humor.
Page 2 of 2
CCR Video Conference: October 21, 2009
Instructions:
1. In your groups, pull up the sample top ten lists, consider your audience (the rest of us) and
decide on a theme for your group’s top ten list. Make sure all of you are participating – both at
Stanford and at Uppsala. You will be presenting your top ten list at the end of this exercise. Work in
a word document.
2. Split into groups so that the students at Stanford work together on creating 3-5 points for the list,
and the students in Sweden do the same thing. Spend a maximum of 15 minutes working on this.
3. Get together with each other in front of the monitors, share your points and discuss if any of them
have to be modified. Maybe the other group doesn’t understand what’s funny about your point, and
maybe you’ll have to explain certain words or practices.
4. Decide on which 10 points should be on the top ten list and, if you have time, look for visuals to
illustrate each of the points or the list itself (go to google images, for example)
5. Email your Top ten list with possible illustrations in a word document to Christine Alfano
(alfano@stanford.edu) so that she can bring it up for your presentation.
6. Select a person from your group to present your list to all of us. All of you should be ready to
answer questions about your list.
V. Reporting back in virtual conference 19.25-19.45/ 10.25-10.45 (20 minutes)
Location: Marratech room A (http://switchboard.stanford.edu)
Each group connects to the virtual conference room A above.
Each group shares their piece of humor. Make sure you not only tell us which points made it to the
list, but also what you left out, and what you discussed when coming up with a list together. The
idea is to give all of us a sense of how you made your choices. Other groups will be asked for a
response and should make it clear if there are things they don't understand or points they find
particularly funny.
Helle and Patrik give brief concluding remarks.