This series of blog posts began as an analysis of the comic quality of the novel
A Confederacy of Dunces (
Confederacy), by John Kennedy Toole. After about ten posts, I only just laid out the theory of humor I am using to frame the analysis. I have now been invited to write a book chapter on Toole and
Confederacy, so now I will only use this series of blog posts to more fully articulate that theory of humor.
For a quick recap, humor has IMHO two fundamental aspects: incongruity, a contrast that causes the brain to try to resolve a puzzle of interpretation, and disparagement, a non-violent way to adjust the dynamics of a group status hierarchy, an adjustment which can be either gentle or aggressive. I will try to refrain from calling it MY theory of humor, as the theory is largely pieced together from various strands of the long tradition of trying to define humor.
In the last blog post, I affirmed the fact that, in a mass culture, stereotype humor is common and is used to assert the prestige hierarchy among different groups and classes within the society. In the book Jokes and Targets by Christie Davies (Indiana, 2011), he puts forth a theory regarding jokes about stupidity. Stupidity jokes are, according to Davies, far and away the most common jokes in the folklore collections available. Davies even has a chart, showing for many nations which other nationality or regional group tends to be the target of their stupidity jokes. (He could have also had a chart of the states in the United States and of the neighboring state targeted within each of them.)
Davies rejects the idea that stupidity jokes are strictly about superiority and power within the society, because some occupational groups which are targeted for stupidity jokes are in fact high status. His theory is that the targets of stupidity humor are more likely to be seen as working more closely than others with physical objects and the soil rather that mental activities. So a theoretical physicist will have stupidity jokes about engineers. Neurosurgeons will joke about orthopedic surgeons, who use hammers and saws on bones. Davies theory seems to disprove my theory.
Naturally, I don't see this as disproof. Within the small social group, higher status individuals are more likely to be concerned with the political dynamics of the group, to maintain their status. The leader has to use a broad intelligence to assess not only the immediate situation but its long-term implications for the leadership and the group. So an individual who is an expert at handling the material basis for the group's survival is necessary for the group, but that individual might not be awarded the highest status by other group members. One joke Davies tells is of the engineer who dies in the electric chair because he points out the faulty wiring before he sits down. The engineer is focused on the immediate physical problem but does not see the long-term implications of having an electric chair that works.
So I see these stupidity jokes about occupations as still being about adjusting status within a social group. Another group I have noticed that my own society finds worthy of being a gentle target are dentists. Two of the comic strips in my daily newspaper have a family whose patriarch is a dentist. Again, we need dentists, but they make their living by sticking their hands in other people's mouths, which has a natural element of physical comedy. They are given wealth and a secure place in the economic hierarchy, but they don't have to compete politically within the broader society to earn that place. So there is a tension between their secure status and their lack of stress over fighting to maintain that status. Joking about them brings them down a peg and reasserts the dominance of those who have status due to their political skills and social intelligence. Within the household of the dentist, there are no financial worries, so it is a safe environment where one can afford playfulness and joking. But the head of the household cannot be described as heroic, and that leader can be portrayed as goofy without losing the status inherent in his or her profession.
On a side note, I am not a student of Davies, only having dipped into one of his books, but I have read elsewhere that he rejects the claim that jokes themselves can be tools in social action. He has claimed that a joke is a thermometer, taking the temperature of the masses, rather than a thermostat, which can manipulate the crowd. I completely reject that position. I see humor as fundamentally about status dynamics within social groups. The play of children is often in a make-believe world, disconnected from the adult status hierarchy, but with its own play hierarchy. The absurd humor of youth can be an escape from the unitary worldview of the dominant forces within the adult group. Ridicule and satire can challenge the status position of members of the adult group. Those in power can use humor to delegitimize others who are trying to claim some dignity within the group. (One reason so much humor about African Americans is now so toxic is because it was used to promote a culture in which that segment of the population was belittled to the point of being dehumanized.)
So no, humor can be part of the toolkit of social action, for good or ill.
