Humor Theory. One might think that
almost nothing sounds less funny. One might think that to analyze laughter and
its motives is to condemn oneself to a life of straight faces. This is quite
untrue. Sometimes the analysis itself is funny (as when Kant chalks the
pleasure of humor up to frustrated organs jumping around inside of us), but even
when the analysis is not particularly diverting, questioning humor and
its motives is important and relevant. Kierkegaard tells us that people are
prone to think seriousness the same as harmony, and laughter the same as
uncomfortable incongruity. Humor can, therefore, be a formidable advocate for
social change when it illuminates the previously unquestioned, yet entirely
inharmonious, ways of the world.
No one is more concerned about achieving
social harmony than the Jesuits. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach explains that Jesuit
universities hope to encourage the students in their charge to become aware of these
unquestioned, iniquitous ways of the world, and to go about working for their
abolishment. While Kolvenbach makes no references to humor as a means to this
end, his ideas align quite well with those of Kierkegaard. Humor involves
identifying an incongruity, and Kolvenbach points to this as the first step
toward change.
Mark Twain alludes to a distinction
of humors when he draws a line between the comic story, which “makes one want
to renounce joking and live a better life,” and the humorous story, which is an
achievement of American art. The difference between the two is that the first
beats its audience over the head with the reason for the laughter, while the
second innocently rambles, pretending to be ignorant of anything funny. This
latter brand of humor forces its audience either to think or to be excluded from
the joke. When the audience thinks, it has identified an incongruity, and the first
motion toward change has begun.
Obviously
Jesuits should tell more jokes.
No comments:
Post a Comment