Catlin Castan
Dr. Ellis
EN 409
16 September 2014
The Punch Line
After
completing all of the readings, I noticed a strong correlation between issues
of social injustice and humor. While King and Kolvenbach shed light on areas within
our societal sphere where we seem to be falling short of our ideals, earlier
thinkers such as Plato, Hobbes, Kant, and Kierkegaard aim to discuss the ways
in which humor often conveys this same notion of “falling short”.
In Hobbes’
interpretation of humor, he explains: “laughter is nothing but an expression of
our sudden glory when we realize that in some way we are superior to someone
else”(19). Here, we see that Hobbes’ is suggesting that humor is evil—he
explains that humor is used as a way to assert power over another human being
to feel better about one’s self, or, in other words: to win. Also equating
humor to evil, Plato explains that humor is “a mixture of pain and
pleasure”(10). Plato suggests—once again—that, “man is somehow pleased at his
neighbor’s misfortunes”(10). Kolvenbach and King would argue that using humor
for this purpose is unjust in that it represents a more deeply rooted social
issue that may exist beneath laughter’s surface.
On the
other hand, Kant and Kierkegaard offer a milder interpretation of humor—one
that leaves fewer victims of laughter behind. Specifically, Kant describes
laughter as a bodily sensation that restores our health; he explains that the
“punch line” of a joke is the “animation of our intestines and internal
organs”(45). Here, we notice that a joke is made as an effort to spark a sense
of vitality—the humor exists in the punch line and not at the expense of
someone else. Kierkegaard also illustrates humor as a series of contradictions.
He points out that laughter is derived from the point at which two things
contradict one another. Laughter via contradiction works to deflect any harm
made by the joke away from the parties involved and, instead, allows it to
dwell in the space where the verbal discontinuities exist.
Twain,
Hurston, and Allen also adopt similar interpretations of humor within their
texts—they, too, use humor in a lighter sense. Specifically, Twain argues, “the
humorous story depends for its effect upon the manner of the telling”(239).
Twain is suggesting that someone’s delivery of a joke and intent are the
deciding factors when qualifying humor as malice or “bubbly”. Here, we notice
that—like Kierkegaard—Twain values the function of the punch line; he assigns
laughter to his story’s punch line, which serves as an essential component of understanding
the nature of the humor he uses.
Similarly,
in Allen’s text, we find humor at the point at which our expectation meets our
reality. Just as Kant explains in his piece, “as the understanding stops
suddenly short”… we find humor when we, “do not find what it expected”(47). This
re-routing within his narrative allows us to not only laugh at the absurdity of
the plot itself but at our own assumptions as well.
Ultimately,
as we become aware of the different functions of humor, it becomes quite clear
that just as humor can be used as a destructive force, it can also be used as a
constructive force. Here, we notice that humor—used in the correct “manner”—has
the capacity to bring about awareness and act as a social buffer when
addressing issues of social injustice. Humor, then, serves as a tool for breaking
down malignant social structures, while also facilitating the construction of new
structures—positive structures that can inspire social change within society.
No comments:
Post a Comment