Humor is a dynamic word that can be defined and understood in various ways. Some define humor as a comic or an incongruous quality that is likely to amuse while others view humor as a faculty of comprehending what entertainment is. The dynamism of the perception of the word humor presents difficulties in explaining the meaning of the word. How do we define a word that means something different to all of us? At this point, theories of humor become handy.
Theories of humor attempt to demonstrate precisely how humor should be defined and perceived, and the social role that humor plays in our lives. The combination of the various theories of humor, as explained by Leon Rappaport in “What makes us laugh," enables one to take a stab at comprehensively understanding what humor is and what makes it work. Rappaport discusses the theories of humor with the intention of illustrating the mechanics of humor as opposed to its social meaning (Rappaport 13). Significant theories that have been discussed by Rappaport include Superiority, Incongruity, and Cognitive Theories.
Superiority Theory’s universal idea is that a person laughs about the woes of another person because these issues affirm the superior nature of the person (Rappaport 15). . In other words, the misfortunes of one person assert the superiority of another person hence making the seemingly superior person to be amused by the woes of the other. Rappaport notes that under superiority theory, “…all of the many variations on the theme of laughter” are used “ as an expression of pleasure at feeling superior to those who appear uglier, stupider…” (15). Superiority theory is one of the oldest theories of humor, dating back to the time of Plato and Aristotle (Rappaport 15). The theory explains why inasmuch as a person slipping and falling off ripe banana peel hurts, most of us find it funny.
Another theory that explains why people laugh is the Incongruity Theory. The theory states that humor is sensed when a person realizes that there is a discrepancy between a concept involved in a given scenario and the exact object. That is, humor is perceived at the point when a person discovers that a particular aspect of the situation is not the way it is expected to be. For instance, “A tack on the chair or snake in the bed is essentially a contradiction to the normal function of the chairs and beds, and suddenly plunges the victim into…incongruity” (Rappaport 16). Rappaport notes that the most straightforward way of differentiating between Superiority Theory and Incongruity Theory is that the former generates feelings that raises an individual ego while the latter refers to scenarios outside an individual (Rappaport 16).
Lastly, we have the Cognitive Theory. This theory embraces the intellectual aspect of humor as opposed to emphasizing emotions. In this case, laughter is viewed as an expression of the intellectual side of humor. In Cognitive Theory, laughter is as a result of processing some information or mentally manipulating concepts, symbols or ideas. Consequently, Cognitive Theory demands an intellectual understanding of the topic, object or case under discussion to bring out humor. Rapport gives an example of a humorous statement that requires knowledge about the situation to laugh. “… Moses is coming down from Mount Sinai and announcing to the waiting crowd, "I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I got Him down to ten. The bad news is adultery is still in"(Rapport 18).
In conclusion, a more profound understanding of the theories of humor can simplify the mechanics of humor as well as its social meaning.
Work Cited
Rappaport, Leon. "What Makes Us Laugh." Boyle, Kirk. The Rhetoric of Humor. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2016. 13-24. Print.
