Theory of Humor Series, part 17, Hutcheson, Bergson, Koestler, Spencer: How many theories of humor are there?

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 had only just laid out the theory of humor I am using to frame the analysis. In early 2018, I was 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 social functions including especially disparagement, which is 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 from others.

In preparing my current book chapter, I have been going back and reading the original text of various humor theorists through the years. Earlier, I had been relying on modern historians of the theory of humor to distill for me the wisdom of the earlier humor theorists. In those histories, each theorist is given a few sentences. Hobbes: sudden glory of superiority. Bergson: human as automaton. Etc. Then the historian laments that there are such a multiplicity of theories, none of them has fully capture humor, UNTIL NOW. Hurley, Dennett, and Adams make this claim. Others have also. And I cannot deny that I am to a certain degree in the same business.

Reading the original theorists has given me a surprise. Many of them largely agree with each other. They might have slightly different takes on the same basic ideas, but the commonalities are much greater than the differences. And that makes sense: they are all talking about basically the same phenomenon. They might plug it into different philosophical systems or theories of the function of the mind, but it is basically the same thing.

For example, Francis Hutcheson is described as the earliest philosopher to discuss the incongruity theory of humor. He was in fact directly refuting Hobbes, who was as good at devising a theory of humor as he was at squaring the circle (which is to say, not good). Yes, Hutcheson does put forward incongruity, which is my first aspect of humor, but then in part three of his treatise, he also talks about the social functions of humor, which is my second fundamental aspect.

Likewise, Bergson is known for saying that laughter is generated when we see a human acting like a mechanism. The ultimate would be Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times. However, his definition of being an automaton was broad, including absent-mindedness for example. And he argued that humor always has a social aspect. He saw laughter as a signal from the viewer to the person acting comical to snap out of it and be mindful or to conform to group norms. One can see the automaton as a form of incongruity. So Bergson also saw humor as incongruity plus a social function.

Arthur Koestler is best known for the word "bisociation," which means an event is connected to two associations. In other words, an incongruity. But he saw that in order to have a jolt of humor, there needs to be at least a trace of aggression. He then defined aggression so broadly that it covers a number of social functions. To me, humor's most common social function is to lower social status tension within a group, which would fall under Koestler's definition of aggression.

I have not read Herbert Spencer yet, but I think the situation will be similar. He is known for the hydraulic theory in which nervous energy builds up and through hydraulic pressure has to have an outlet. Laughter is the overflow valve. This theory influenced Freud's first theory of humor. But Spencer's briefest phrase is "descending incongruity." Although he meant descending more broadly than social status reduction, it certainly includes that as a major portion of the cases. So I would put Spencer in with the others about the two fundamental aspects of humor.

So in the histories of humor theory, these four thinkers are treated as though their ideas are much different, and much different than the theory I use. I now see them as largely the same. I guess I am a lumper, not a splitter. Call me a Lumper Kerl.

Bibliography

Hutcheson, Francis. "Reflections upon Laughter," in Reflections upon Laughter and Remarks upon the Fable of the Bees. Originally published in a magazine in Dublin in 1725, then compiled Glasgow: Baxter, 1750. Reprinted New York: Garland, 1971.

Bergson, Henri. “Laughter,” in Comedy: An Essay on Comedy. Ed. by Wylie Sypher. Originally published in 1900. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956.

Koestler, Arthur. The Act of Creation. London: Hutchinson, 1964.

Spencer, Herbert. "The Physiology of Laughter," Macmillan's Magazine, 1 (1860): 395-402.