The Superiority Theory of humor states that we laugh at the misfortunes, foolishness, or inferiorities of others because it gives us a sudden rush of triumph or dominance. According to this concept, laughter is an expression of feeling superior to the "butt" of the joke compared to our current selves.
Plato and Aristotle didn't have the best sense of humor. They viewed comedic laughter as a form of malicious mockery. Of course, Socrates's experience with the cloud might have ultimely impressed upon Plato that humor was indeed dangerous because it can swap public opinion. In the case of Socrates, there's no doubt that ancient Athenians were influenced by The Clouds (423 BCE), the satire of Socrates by Aristophanes. In this play, Aristophanes totally dissed on Socrates by unfairly painting him as a deceptive, godless sophist who runs a school to teach people how to lie and cheat their way out of debt. This caricature famously contributed to the real-life charges that led to Socrates' execution decades later.
At the time, Socrates laughed - because he did have a good sense of humor. And Socrates was no sophist; the latter group were professionals who preoccupied themselves with utilizing humor to control and manipulate vs exploring the human psyche and exposing our weakness in judgment. Not for mockery, but for self-improvement.
But the lesson here is that humor does have real-world consequences. In the case of the comic above, I am using an episode from my own life when I went to the pharmacy to fill a prescription, only to be denied only on the basis that my name "Laughing" was not real. In some ways, the pharmacist was right to question. It is a rare surname and in my case it is a chosen one for my philosophical humor experiment. However, Laughing is a real surname that traces back to medieval England as a nickname. It was derived from the Old English world laehtre or laughter, and was used to describe someone who was jovial, cheerful, or known for their light-hearted character. It's also grouped historically alongside similar sounding surnames like Laughner, Laughry, and Laughlin.
Funny enough I did have to show multiple forms of ID to get my prescription filled and that pharmacist had zero sense of humor. But it also informed my research into how people react to humor, which I've long since learned to be cautious about wielding.
One of my former mentors was a retired politician and highly guarded for the remainder of his life. After a nice mid-day meal, we were at the entrance saying our goodbyes when all of a sudden my sense of humor got the best of me. I saw a lovely loaf of cake sitting on the guards table that had just been delivered from the wife of a member of congress. I commented on how delicious it looked, and then pointed to the distance saying "Look!" - in my mind, they'd look the other way and I'd grab the cake and run, which is precisely what I did. Only... I wasn't expecting the guards to jump on top of my then 80-year-old mentor, knocking him to the ground. Meanwhile, I'm already out in the parking lot laughing.
Well, the joke was on me and I never did that again. Fortunately, my mentor thought it was funny (he also had a good sense of humor) but told me that next time, I should exercise more judgment.
The two situations are different because of intent, power dynamics, and the direction of the superiority.
1. The Nature of the Target (The "Butt" of the Joke)
The pharmacist is the one holding the institutional power (withholding my medication). By maintaining a rigid, humorless stance, he was trying to enforce a rule. The humor here arose from the absurdity of reality (my name actually being real/legal). I wasn't mocking him; rather, his lack of humor highlighted his rigid societal views.
My mentor - an 80-year-old man - becae the physical "butt" of the joke due to a miscalculation. The Superiority Theory applies directly here, but in a chaotic way: I laughed from the parking lot because of the sudden, absurd "inferiority" and vulnerability of a highly guarded politician tackled over a loaf of cake. Well, I laughed before I realized they tackled him. I was already out the door before I realized and felt awful when I realized he could have actually gotten hurt.
2. Intent: Social Correction vs. Playful Prank
The pharmacist situation aligns with Socrates' view of humor. I mentioned this awkward real-life interaction as a philosophical tool for "self-improvement" and research. It exposes a flaw in human judgment (assuming something rare must be fake) to better understand human behavior.
The politician situation was a pure prank that accidentally crossed into physical danger. My intent was harmless and playful (stealing the cake), but the real-world consequence was a suddent flash of dominance/chaos where the guards overracted.
3. The Direction of Danger
The danger with the pharmacist was bureaucrating and existential (not getting my prescription because of my chosen name, similar to Socrates being unfairly judged by a rigid public).
The danger with the politician was immediate and physical. The joke wasn't funny because I felt superior to the guard's intellect (that I could trick them into looking the other way); it became a "Superiority Theory" moment because a powerful, guarded figure was instantly brought down to the ground by a silly trick, creating a sudden rush of chaotic triumph before the guilt set in.
Ultimately, there were some changes at my mentor's house in terms of how guards were to respond to immediate-seeming danger (not by jumping on him to guard him).
While the first situation is about humor as an intellectual shield against a rigid world, the second was more about humor as an unpredictable weapon that can physically backfire when you misjudge your audience.
Further Research
If you'd like to explore this further, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers a comprehensive foundational overview of how Incongruity Theory evolved, while the American Philosophical Association (APA) and the World Congress of Philosophy host major international conferences and run specialized roundtable groups on the topic.
At the same time, the International Association for the Philosophy of Humor (IAPH), founded in 2014, is the primary global entity explicitly dedicated to tracking the epistemological, ethical, and aesthetic roles of laghter.
The Philosophy of Humor Yearbook published via De Gruyter, features rigorous peer-reviewed scholarship blended with clever, witty arguments designed to advance the field.
For a more lighthearted or spirited approach, delve deeper into this blog, HTTF, or check out the Lighthearted Philosopher's Society. What began as a clever spoof event evolved into an academic society for the study of the comic.
And finally, the International Society for Humor Studies (ISHS), while not exclusively restricted to philosophers, is the massive "umbrella" organization for all academic humor research. It bridgest the gap between philosophers, linguistics, neuroscientists, and psychologists.
No comments:
Post a Comment