Last month, I posted a discussion of the book The Elephant in the Brain, by Simler and Hanson, comparing its treatment of self-deception to Freud's theory of self-deception. The book has a chapter applying their ideas about self-deception to laughter and humor. Because I have been posting a series on the theory of humor, I offer here an in-depth look at their humor chapter. All unattributed page references below are to this text.
Like other books in evolutionary psychology--such as those by Trivers and Kurzban--The Elephant in the Brain focuses on self-deception. The basic point made by these books is that we humans may have some motives for our behavior that are concealed from our conscious minds. Because human societies have behavioral norms against taking actions for selfish reasons, our brains may hide selfish motives our conscious minds, so that we do not involuntarily betray those motives to people around us. As I explained last month, Simler and Hanson borrow a concept from earlier theorists that the conscious mind is less like the Commander-in-Chief of the brain and more like the brain's Press Secretary, offering socially acceptable rationalizations for the brain's behavior.
One aspect of The Elephant that I appreciate is the open acknowledgement that humans naturally form social status hierarchies. If you put two people in a room and ask them to cooperate on a task, they will almost immediately sort themselves into a leader and a follower. Because status hierarchies are fraught with social tension, much of the negotiation over status takes place outside of the realm of conscious awareness. Assertive body language will signal status, for example. For those of you who have followed my blog entries on the theory of humor, you will know that I consider humor to be an important form of social communication which can adjust a group's social hierarchy. For an extreme example, if most of the group laughs at one member in derision, that member is likely to be humiliated and lowered in social standing within the group. Conversely, when a comedian attempts a joke and the audience is dead silent, the jokster is said to "die" on-stage.
The Elephant has a chapter on humor. The authors' point is that laughter is an involuntary social behavior which can act as an honest signal. That signal is often not consciously received and processed. The authors take their history of the theory of humor from John Morreall, reviewing theories of humor such as the superiority theory, the release theory, and the incongruity theory. They cite Gregory Bateson and emphasize that laughter is a signal that the person laughing is in a non-serious mode of play. They then dive into Robert Provine's findings about the social nature of laughter. They quote Provine that "Laughter is a powerful probe into social relationships." In short, they have a command of the topic. Thumbs up.
Simler and Hanson argue that there are two important factors in how humor is used socially: first, humor explores the boundaries of social norms; second, humor signals psychological distance. With social norms, what counts as a norm and what counts as a violation are regularly renegotiated and revised, often without explicit discussion. With psychological distance, the group regularly revises who has high status and great respect in the group and who has low status and less respect.
All human societies adopt some set of cultural norms as guidelines for the behavior of members of the social group. When we violate a norm, we have to worry about getting caught and punished. Using the play mode, we can feint across the boundary of a norm and then retreat with the claim that we were "just kidding." If we are across a perceived border and realize it is safe, we may be able to redraw the border defining where the norm is enforced. Those who police social norms may discourage certain topics of humor because laughing at norm violations may weaken the norm in question.
Social groups also establish and reinforce psychological distance. Some members of society, such as inmates in a prison, are often considered fair game for ridicule (don't drop the soap). One nation may be in competition with another nation, and the people in that other nation may be targets of stereotype humor. Joking about someone else gives an honest signal of how we feel about the target of the humor. When a comedian fails to get a laugh and asks, "Too soon?" the comedian is asking if an event is still so psychologically close that laughing about it is disrespectful. Again, there are edge cases in which psychological distance is changing, and humor can probe that border.
Simler and Hanson argue that laughter has two properties that make it a good tool for exploring sensitive topics. First, because it is involuntary, it is a relatively honest signal. They quote James Joyce's Latin bon mot: In risu veritas, or, In laughter, there is truth. Second, laughter is deniable. "We can deliver these denials with great conviction because [our conscious minds] really don't have a clear understanding of what our laughter means ..." (147).
They give the example of comedian Bill Burr. On the one hand, he has defended his boundary-pushing humor by claiming that he wasn't being serious. On the other hand, his fans say that they embrace his humor because he is honest. Which is it? Is he joking, or is he honest? As Simler and Hanson argue, the beauty of laughter is that a jokster can be both.
I consider this investigation of humor through evolutionary psychology to be an excellent approach to humor, and it is consistent with my own ideas about the nature of humor ... even if I do say that with conscious intent.
