Humor


 * Definition**

The Oxford English Dictionary (2010) definition of “humor” can be helpful when considering the concept in relation to the field of Communication in that it notes humor is a “quality of action, speech, or writing, which excites amusement; oddity, jocularity, facetiousness, comicality, fun,” or it can be the “faculty of perceiving what is ludicrous or amusing, or of expressing it in speech, writing, or other composition; jocose imagination or treatment of a subject” (7. a.; b.). The term, deriving from the Middle French //humeur//, refers to the four humors (blood, phelgm, choler, and black bile) that the ancient Greeks and Romans believed comprised the human body and dictate one's health (OED, 1. a). We learn that humor is a social construction, one which reveals itself in writing, speech, or perhaps just in one’s own mind. However, the definition does little to illuminate how humor functions as a concept in Communication.

To remedy that shortcoming, we should first understand that “[h]umor and laughter are cultural universals” (Oring, 2003, p. x) and that it is usually “viewed as a social phenomenon” (Meyer, 2000, p.310). Furthermore, noted humor scholar John Meyer (2000) has asserted that “[c]ommunication is a key factor in nearly all theories of humor because of its resulting from a message or interaction perceived by someone” (p. 311). Noted linguist Victor Raskin (1985) has said that in engaging humor, “we are dealing with a universal human trait. Responding to humor is part of human behavior, ability, or competence, other parts of which comprise such important social and psychological manifestations of homo sapiens as language, morality, logic, faith, etc.” (p. 2). Communication, then, is integral to the concept of humor, and humor is a universal social phenomenon.

It is the fact that humor is a universal trait that leads us to our second point in recognizing humor as a concept in Communication: humor is socially paradoxical. “Humor can have both uniting and divisive effects within and between communicating parties” (Meyer, 2010, p. 317), it can be a social “lubricant” and an “abrasive” (Martineau, 1972, p. 103), and humor, and subsequently laughter, “forms a bond and simultaneously draws a line” (Lorenz, 1963, p. 253).


 * Humor and Communication Studies**

Communicatively, humor is never going to be the same thing to all people, which brings us to the third aspect of humor and Communication that is important to remember: humor, generally, functions as a form of identification. Gruner (1997) has said that, broadly, jokes in which people fail are humorous because we identify with the human condition of failing (p. 76). More pointedly, Stephen Leacock (1935) said that “Humor…grew to turn on a contrast between the thing as it is, or ought to be, and the thing smashed out of shape and as it ought not to be. We can appreciate this by remembering that broken umbrella looks ‘funny’” (p. 11). Leacock’s analogy is an umbrella, although it points to humor as a way to identify that which is “right” socially. Humor, “as a shared experience,…assumes and reveals social and psychological relations, cognitive processes, cultural norms and value judgments (Lewis, 1989, p. ix). Lewis (1989) further stated that “comedy focuses on social identity (that is, both the nature of a given society or its sub-groups and the relation of individuals to societal values)…” (p. 32) and that rhetorically, “humor influences our identification with and support of particular characters and groups” (p. 35).

Humor, as a concept in Communication, is important to study because it is socially universal, rhetorically persuasive in terms of identification and because “jokes and other forms of humorous expression [can] be meaningful and sometimes significant communications” (Oring, 2003, p. ix). “[H]umor in its highest meaning and furthest reach…becomes the contemplation and interpretation of our life” (Leacock, 1935, p. 15).


 * Theories of Humor**

While humor varies from person to person, depending on variables that range from cultural upbringing, geographical location, native language, and personal preference, there are several theories on how humor functions as a theoretical concept to produce amusement (Smith, 1993, p. 51; Meyer, 2000, p. 315). Some humor theorist argue that humor builds social cohesion and structure through the creation of social norms and maintains control through ridicule, some highlight its interpersonal importance in building family bonds even in time of crisis, while others argue that humor is as much a unifying tool as it is one to defy and subvert norms (Fine, 1983, p. 73-76; Booth-Butterfield, Bekelja Wanzer, Weil, & Krezmien, 2014, p. 439; Morreall, 1983, p. 115; 119). The ancient Romans used humor as a way to disempower their enemies, ameliorate tensions, or to arouse interest and emotions through laughter, which highlight the three key classical theories that account for why people laugh: superiority, incongruity, and relief (Waisanen, 2015, 40-41).

The theory of superiority states that people laugh either inwardly or outward as a way of feeling superior to another or having triumph over someone else (Meyer, 2000, p. 314). The superiority theory can be traced back as far as the rhetorical tradition of Plato, who argued that the target of laughter is human evil and folly, including self-ignorance (Morreall, 1983, p. 4). Hobbes also considered laughter as a form of superiority, as he contended that the human race was in constant struggle against each other, and thus laughter was a sign that a person was winning and removed power from an enemy (La Fave, Haddad, & Maesen, 1996, p. 64). Nineteenth century philosopher Alexander Bain theorized that laughter could also be a way to deal with mental illness and psychological constraints rather than social one (Morreall, 1983, p. 21). The superiority theory also accounts for laughter as a way to create and subvert social norms (Meyer, 2000, p. 315).

The theory of incongruity stipulates that certain actions are humorous because they are unexpected, illogical, or inappropriate (Meyer, 2000, p. 313). German intellectual Immanuel Kant argued that in order to be funny, the subject had to be inherently absurd, such as an expectation resulting in nothing (Morreall, 1983, p. 16). German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer posited that instead, humor resulted from receiving something unexpected or fitting into the narrative in an unexpected way and recognizing the incongruity of the situation (Morreall, 1983, p. 17). Surprise is also an important factor in the incongruity, because it catches the listener off their guard and is thus absurd since the reaction does not match the situation (Meyer, 2000, p. 313).

The relief theory argues laughter results from a noticeable release or decrease in tension or stress or as a physiological response to nerves (Meyer, 2000, p. 312). This can also be the case if a person is forbidden from laughing or smiling for an extended period of time (Morreall, 1983, p. 21). A joke can also be the reason why tensions are decreased in a situation, even if the content of the joke is not particularly humorous (Meyer, 2000, p. 312). Schopenhauer argued that laughter was a way to find relief from logical reality, which he explained as a metaphorical figure known as Dame Reason (Amir, 2014, p. 1490).

Humor can also be self-referential, wherein a person laughs at themselves rather than directing it at others that falls out of the three classical theories (Amir, 2014, p. 1487). French poet Charles Baudelaire (1956) argued that laughter at oneself allowed for a moment of true philosophical consciousness (p. 117). This tradition extends back to ancient Greek philosophy, from Democritus in the fifth century BC, and was used by Aristotle, Seneca, and philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and George Santayana (Amir, 2014, p. 1488).

Humor scholar John Meyer created an alternative to the three classical theories of humor called the four functions of humor, which include identification, clarification, enforcement, and differentiation (Meyer, 2000, p. 315). He created the theory in order to gauge humor further from the audience on the joke communicatively and how it helps the joke teller rhetorically (Meyer, 2000, p. 316). Identification is the type of humor wherein the joke teller builds support and credibility by identifying with the group’s norms or beliefs, thus enhancing cohesiveness and social bonding (Meyer, 2000, p. 318). Clarification are jokes that make clear certain issues, social norms, or positions, and is best described as a one-liner or catchphrase, and rely on a mutual understanding of perceptions and word-play (Meyer, 2000, p. 319-320). Enforcement refers to humor that teaches and enforces social norms, often by leveling criticism at the subject but not enough to loose identification with the audience (Meyer, 2000, p. 320). Differentiation humor is when the joke teller makes a distinction of him or herself (or the group they are identifying with) in order to strength specific bonds and create clear identifying positions (Meyer, 2000, p. 322).

Raskin (1985) created a Script-based Semantic Theory of Humor (SSTH) in his book //Semantic Mechanisms of Humor,// which laid out a model by which a single-joke text would be considered humorous (p. 51). He posited that the joke must first must be compatible with two social scripts, and those two scripts must be opposites (Raskin, 1985, p. 99). This theory was later revisited and revised by Raskin and Salvatore Attardo to the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) (Attardo & Raskin, 1991, p. 295). GTVH states is based on semantic and pragmatic aspects of text/narratives of verbally-told jokes, humor is rooted in six different knowledge resources, so when one of these resources are tapped, the listener finds the joke humorous (Attardo & Raskin, 1991, p. 339). The knowledge resources include logic, script opposition, language, narrative strategy/organization, target (victim of the joke), and situation (Attardo & Raskin, 1991, p. 343).

Neal Norrick’s work focuses on the non-verbal humor deals primarily with the performative aspects of humor and how it relates to the linguistic content of a joke (Norrick, 2004, p. 404). Norrick postulates that non-verbal performance is as integral to a good joke as the linguistic content, including shifts in dialect, hand gestures and movements (Norrick, 2004, p. 405). It is through these performances that humor is able to further defy social scripts outside of text, but these aspects are often overlooked in humor scholarship (Norrick, 2004, p. 407-408).

include component="comments" page="page:Humor" limit="10"


 * References**

Amir, L. (2014). Homo Risibilis. //Philosophical Practice, 9//(3), 1487-1497.

Attardo, S., & Raskin, V. (1991). Script Theory Revis(it)ed: Joke Similarity and Joke Representation Model Author. //Humor, 4//(3-4), 293-347.

Baudelaire, C. (1956) //The essence of laughter, and other essays, journals, and letter//s, New York: Meridian Books.

Booth-Butterfield, M., Bekelja Wanzer, M., Weil, N., & Krezmien, E. (2014). Communication of Humor During Bereavement: Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Emotion Management Strategies. //Communication Quarterly, 62//(4), 436-454.

Fine, G. A. (1983). Sociological Approaches to the Study of Humor. In P. E. McGhee and. J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of Humor Research. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gruner, C.R. (1997). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Humor. (2015). The Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved (2015, July 28) from http://dictionary.oed.com

La Fave, L., Haddad, J., & Maesen, W. A. (1996). Superiority, Enhance Self Esteem, and Perceived Incongruity Humor Theory. In A. J. C. a. H. C. Foot (Ed.), //Humor and Laughter: Theory, Research, and Applications.// New Brunswick: Transaction Publisher.

Leacock, S. (1935). Humor: Its theory and technique. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Co.

Lewis, P. (1989). Comic effects: interdisciplinary approaches to humor in literature. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Lorenz, K. (1963). On aggression. New York, NY: Harcourt.

Martineau, W.H. (1972). A model of social functions of humor. In J.H. Goldstein &P.E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor (pp. 101-125). New York, NY: Academic.

Meyer, J.C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10, 310-331.

Miczo, N. (2014). Analyzing structure and function in humor: Preliminary sketch of a message-centered model. //Humor,// 27(3), 461-480.

Morreall, J. (1983). //Taking Laughter Seriously//. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Norrick, N. R. (2004). Non-verbal humor and joke performance. //Humor//, 17(4), 401-409.

Oring, E. (2003). Engaging humor. Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.

Smith, S. A. (1993). Humor as Rhetoric and Cultural Argument. //Journal of American Culture, 16//(2), 51-64.

Waisanen, D. (2015). A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Decorum: Quintilian's Reflections on Rhetorical Humor. //Advances in the History of Rhetoric, 18//(1), 29-52.