Theories of humor
Although humor is a phenomenon experienced by most humans, its exact nature is a topic of heavy debate. There are many theories of humor which attempt to explain what it is, what social functions it serves, and what would be considered humorous. Although various classical theories of humor and laughter may be found, in contemporary academic literature, three theories of humor appear repeatedly: relief theory, superiority theory, and incongruity theory. Among current humor researchers, there is yet no perfect consensus about which of these three theories of humor is most valid, though the incongruity theory is the most predominant. Some proponents of each of these most commonly known theories originally claimed that theirs and theirs alone explained all humor. There is, however, consensus that these theories, especially incongruity, have been building blocks for some later ones. Many theorists also now hold that the three main theories are of narrower focus than originally intended, and that there are examples of humor where various theories explain different aspects. Similarly, one view holds that theories have a combinative effect; Jeroen Vandaele claims that incongruity and superiority theories describe complementary mechanisms that together create humor. Another such combinative view involves incongruity and relief, that Terry Eagleton considers in his 2019 book, Humour.
Relief theory
Relief theory suggests humor is a mechanism for pent-up emotions or tension through emotional relief. In this theory, laughter serves as a homeostatic mechanism by which psychological stress is reduced. Humor may thus facilitate ease of the tension caused by one's fears, for example. Laughter and joy, according to relief theory, result from this release of excess nervous energy. According to relief theory, humor is used mainly to overcome sociocultural inhibitions and reveal suppressed desires. It is believed that this is why we laugh while being tickled, due to a buildup of tension as the tickler "strikes."From the idea of humor being a release of tension, philosophers and researchers developed a relief theory, and a notion of comic relief over time.
In the eighteenth century, Samuel Johnson argued that relief theory was to be used as a dramatic tool, and fellow English drama theorist John Dryden believed mirth and tragedy would make for the best plots.
On the other hand, Shurcliff argued that humor is a mechanism to relieve tension. When in anticipation of a negative experience, one may begin to feel some heightened arousal. According to Shurcliff, the heightened arousal is then reduced through mirth or laughter. Comparably, an English Scholar, Lucas, wrote that audiences respond better based on the "strain-rest-strain-rest" idea in which a tragic event may happen with moments of relaxation.
According to Herbert Spencer, laughter is an "economical phenomenon" whose function is to release "psychic energy" that had been wrongly mobilized by incorrect or false expectations. The latter point of view was supported also by Sigmund Freud. Immanuel Kant also emphasized the physiological release in our response to humor. Eddie Tafoya uses the idea of a physical urge tied to a psychological need for release when describing relief theory in his book The Legacy of the Wisecrack: Stand-up Comedy as the Great Literary Form. Tafoya explains "…that each human being is caught in a tug-of-war: part of us strains to live free as individuals, guided by bodily appetites and aggressive urges, while the other side yearns for conformity and acceptance. This results in every normal person being continually steeped in psychic tension, mostly due to guilt and lack of fulfillment. This tension can be relieved, albeit temporarily, through joking."
In Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious, Freud made distinctions between tendentious and non-tendentious humor. Tendentious humor is that of a victim, someone whose shortcomings are used for humor. Non-tendentious humor is victimless. Although Freud determined tendentious elements pushed individuals to potential laugh attacks, innocuous elements were still essential. Hostility alone cannot be enjoyed because society deems it wrong. In society, one cannot laugh when told a story of tragedy. The only way it is accepted is if they are embellished with jokework. Freud argued that innocent jokework was a disguise for the hostility in humor. The elements of innocuous features make such wordplay socially acceptable.
Zillmann and Bryant conducted a study to test Freud's claims and combine or separate non-tendentious and tendentious humor. The results confirmed their expectations. Amusement was high when 'good comedy' was presented. As predicted, participants laughed at instances of victimization and demise of the individuals. Zillman and Bryant proved Freud's finding to be accurate. Innocuous cues only amused to double in response to the misfortune.
Superiority theory
The superiority theory of humor traces back to Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. It is also very widely claimed to be associated with Plato and Aristotle.The general idea is that a person laughs about the misfortunes of others because they feel superior. There is a lack of consensus, however, as to exactly what the superiority theory means and the purpose of the claim it makes about humor. On the one hand, several academic specialists in humor emphasize that the theory means to define our response to humor itself in terms of feelings of superiority. Many journalists, however, and humor teachers such as Roxanna Elden, talk about the superiority theory as though it means the prescriptive, creative rule of using things in humor to which we may feel superior.
Plato described the laughable as being both a pleasure and pain in the soul. One may experience these mixed emotions during the malicious person's happiness at the victim's misfortune. For Aristotle, we laugh at inferior or ugly individuals. Aristotle observed that many jokes relied on a combination of incongruity and hostility. He explained that jokes are funny because they catch the listener off guard, introducing a surprising and unexpected twist that amuses them. However, this incongruity alone does not entirely explain the mechanics of laughter. There also appears to be a component of hostility from both the comedian and the audience. What makes something funny often involves ridiculous features, such as a physical deformity or a slip-up. Therefore, whether through jokes, situations, or physical characteristics, while humor's laughter-inducing quality primarily stems from incongruity, aggression is also intertwined with it.
In the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes described superiority theory in two pieces, Human Nature and Leviathan, which have very similar views. Hobbes describes laughter as the sudden glory one feels that one is better than the target of the humorous narrative. The sense of glory comes from the recognition of power. Hobbes also mentions the theory of passion in which laughter is not passion; however, laughter is how the body manifests a particular emphasis. Hobbes proposed there are several which typically evoke this feeling of glory:
- Success in one's actions beyond one's expectations.
- The perception of infirmities and defects in others.
- The perception of infirmities and defects in one's past.
- The conception of some absurdity is abstracted from individual persons.
While Kant is not usually recognized as a superiority theorist, there are elements of superiority theory in his account. Kant thinks that there is a place for harmless teasing. In addition, philosopher of humor Noël Carroll observes that even the structure of a narrative joke, on Kant's view, requires the joke teller to "take in" or outdo the joke receiver, even if only momentarily. Because such joking is recognized as joking and it is carried out in a playful way, it does not imply that the joker feels or thinks they are actually superior.
Criticisms of superiority theory
Philosophers, beginning with James Beattie in response to Thomas Hobbes, have objected that there are many types of humor that do not, in themselves, have anything to do with feelings of superiority. More recently and broadly, it is argued that even in humor directly accompanied by feelings of superiority, those feelings are in fact always distinct from the humor itself and they are never identical with it.Affective disposition theory
Feelings of superiority in humor are examined closely in Zillmann and Cantor's affective disposition theory, which states that in media and entertainment, audiences make moral judgments, and the attitude towards a person can affect the audience's experience of humor. Audiences enjoy the attempts of humor more when good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. Thus, for good characters, good fortune is hoped, or tragedy is feared—while characters who are disliked are the complete opposite. If what the audience hopes for is achieved, then they may feel a sense of enjoyment or, in this case, humor. Similarly, audiences may find a comedian's jokes more humorous if they like the person delivering jokes.However, when good things happen to people who deserve it, very little amusement is experienced by the audience. Thus, it is more beneficial to mirth in situations of misfortune rather than instances of fortune.
Disposition toward victim
- The more intense the negative affective disposition toward the disparaged agent or entity, the greater the magnitude of mirth.
- The more intense the positive affective disposition toward the disparaged agent or entity, the smaller the magnitude of mirth.
- The more intense the negative affective disposition toward the disparaging agent or entity, the smaller the magnitude of mirth.
- The more intense the positive affective disposition toward the disparaging agent or entity, the greater the magnitude of mirth.
However, it is not in every instance of disparagement that humans experience mirth and laughter. In some cases, the comment or act of disparagement can be too much of a tragedy for such a reaction. Aristotle mentioned the emotions that come with instances of death, serious harm, or tragedy overpower laughter and instead evoke pity.
Superiority theory and disposition theory also play into the idea of punching up or punching down in comedy. Making jokes about someone who is superior to us is considered "punching up," while making jokes about someone who is inferior to us is considered "punching down". Due to these power imbalances, punching up is seen as ethical whereas punching down is the opposite.
Humor is complex, and different theories attempt to explain its various aspects. The disposition theory adds a psychological perspective by suggesting that individual differences play a crucial role in determining what people find funny.