This page is referenced by:

• 1 2024-02-06T13:21:06-08:00 Blog Post 2 3 Over-Identification, Subversive Affirmation, Styob plain 2024-02-23T19:22:21-08:00 With his serious and scholarly tone, Sergei Kurekhin convinced, confused, and entertained many people who had tuned into the broadcast in which he made the firm declaration that "Lenin was a mushroom". The fast-paced nature of his commentary accompanied by rapid-fire evidence led to a confused reaction, with many not realizing that what Kurekhin had said was ironic. The topic itself was one of such taboo that viewers assumed it must be the truth: "But Lenin! How could one joke about Lenin? (Yurchak 309). This piece of the context of the current time meant that not everyone to recognize the "extreme irony of stiob" (309). 
  
  Over-identification proved a particularly effective tactic in this scenario. Lenin had been such an off-limit topic in humor that the majority of the audience assumed Kurekhin must be presenting the facts in an honest and genuinely informative way. Media had been so tightly controlled prior to the lead up of this broadcast that the loosening of censorship allowed the piece to sneak under the radar. The choice of topic and medium in combination with Kurekhin's object of imitation, which was "the popular new genre of investigatory journalism", led the piece to be a success (313). And the realization that people had put blind faith in what appeared on the surface to be such a ridiculous claim set off a reckoning for many. But why does over-identification strike a chord with so many?
  
  By explaining the legitimacy of each piece of his evidence, Kurekhin drew focus away from his own central claim. The evidence gave basis, although utterly untrue, to his claim of Lenin's true identity as a mushroom. All of this forced ideology chief for the Leningrad Regional Party Committee Galina Barinova to state that "This is untrue [...] Because a mammal cannot be a plant" (310). In necessitating a statement so fundamental as that which Barinova made, Kurekhin's strategy of evidence-focused argumentation was clearly effective. Hearing Barinova's statement seems overly explanatory, which just shows the difference experiencing Kurekhin's broadcast live vs. out of context makes. Stating something so fundamental in order to reassure a group of people after over-identification has been used illustrates just why over-identification was an effective, and needed, tactic.
  
  Over-identification makes the audience question how they ever put their belief in the object of over-identification. By initially coming off as normal, scenarios in which over-identification is utilized trick the audience into viewing whatever is happening as normal. While coaxing the audience to listen, the scenarios heighten, expecting the audience to realize what is happening. It is naturally incredibly jarring to find out that one did not realize the utter ridiculous nature of the situation until after the fact. It exposes just how malleable our thoughts are and just how far we will stretch our definition of "normal" in order to fit the information we are being presented with. In this way, the technique of over-identification goes beyond what we saw with satire and parody. While parody points out the absurdity of a situation or text through mimicry of a form, over-identification points out the absurdity in the audience's behavior in response to a situation or text. Both employ mimicry as a key tactic. But over-identification reveals something deeper about the audience itself. The result is a much more frightening questioning of one's self, rather than simply the world around them. This is, of course, bound to have a bigger splash in the collective thinking.