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 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 (1668) believed mirth and tragedy would make for the best plots. On the other hand, Shurcliff (1968) 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 (1958), 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 (innocent) features make such wordplay socially acceptable. Zillmann and Bryant (1980) 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.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
