The
root word mock traces to the
Old French mocquer (later
moquer), meaning to scoff at, laugh at, deride, or fool, although the origin of
mocquer is itself unknown. Labeling a person or thing as a mockery may also be used to imply that it or they are a poor quality or
counterfeit version of some genuine other, such as the case in the usages: "mockery of man" or "the trial was a mockery of justice".
Mockery in psychology Australian linguistics professor Michael Haugh differentiated between
teasing and mockery by emphasizing that, while the two do have substantial overlap in meaning, mockery does not connote repeated provocation or the intentional withholding of desires, and instead implies a type of imitation or impersonation where a key element is that the nature of the act places a central importance on the expectation that it not be taken seriously. Specifically in examining non-serious forms of jocular mockery, Haugh summarized the literature on the features of mockery as consisting of the following: • Laughter, especially on the part of the speaker, acting as a cue that others are invited to laugh also • Phonetic practices, such as a "smile voice" and modulating "sing-song" pitch which mark actions "as laughable", denote an exaggerated level of animation, and indicate irony • Facial cues, such as smiling, winking or other intentionally exaggerated expressions which mark actions as laughable, ironic, and non-serious • Bodily cues, such as covering the face, or clapping • Exaggeration, emphasizing extreme cases and making claims obviously above or below what is reasonable • Incongruity through allusions and presuppositions to create implicit contrast • Formulaicity and "topic shift markers" to indicate an end to non-seriousness and a return to serious interaction In turn, the audience of the mockery may reply with a number of additional cues to indicate that the actions are understood as non-serious, including laughter, explicit agreement, or a continuation or elaboration of the mockery. Jayne Raisborough and Matt Adams alternatively identified mockery as a type of disparagement humour mainly available as a tool of
privileged groups, which ensures
normative responses from non-privileged groups. They emphasize that mockery may be used ironically and comedically, to identify moral stigma and signal moral superiority, but also as a form of social encouragement, allowing those who are providing
social cues, to do so in a way that provides a level of
social distance between the criticism and critic through use of
parody and
satire. In this way, mockery can function as a "more superficially 'respectable', morally sensitive way of doing class-based distinction than less civil disgust."
Mockery in philosophy The philosopher
Baruch Spinoza took a dim view of mockery, contending that it rests "upon a false opinion and proclaim[s] the imperfection of the mocker". He reasoned that either the object of the mockery is not ridiculous, in which case the mocker is wrong in treating it in such a way, or it is ridiculous, in which case mockery is not an effective tool for improvement. Though the mocker reveals that they recognize the imperfection, they do nothing to resolve it using good reason. Writing in his
Tractatus Politicus, Spinoza declared that mockery was a form of hatred and sadness "which can never be converted into joy". This was a view echoed by
René Descartes, who saw mockery as a "trait of a good man" which "bears witness to the cheerfulness of his temper ... tranquility of his soul ... [and] the ingenuity of his mind." In philosophical argument, the
appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery,
ab absurdo, or the horse laugh) is an
informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as
absurd,
ridiculous, or
humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration. Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of
appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any
counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to
common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an
uncharitable and oversimplified way.
Mockery in the arts , here as depicted by
Matthias Grünewald, is an historically popular theme for artists. Mockery is one form of the
literary genre of
satire, and it has been noted that "[t]he mock genres and the practice of literary mockery goes back at least as far as the sixth century BCE". Mockery, as a genre, can also be directed towards other artistic genres: The English comedy troupe,
Monty Python, was considered to be particularly adept at the mockery of both authority figures and people making a pretense to competence beyond their abilities. One such sketch, involving a nearly-deaf hearing aid salesman and a nearly-blind contact lens salesman, depicts them as "both desperately unsuccessful, and exceedingly hilarious. The comicality of such characters is largely due to the fact that the objects of mockery themselves create a specific context in which we find that they deserve being ridiculed". In the United States, the television show,
Saturday Night Live has been noted as having "a history of political mockery", and it has been proposed that "[h]istorical and rhetorical analyses argue that this mockery matters" with respect to political outcomes. ==Development in humans==