Is Comedy Good for Us?

At a glance it would appear that the question ‘is comedy good for us?’ can be answered with a straightforward ‘yes’; it provides us with entertainment and with a form of escapism from our everyday lives that leaves us feeling positive. However, to consider whether comedy is good for us one must also question why we perceive certain things as funny but not others and whether there are possibly more deep routed motives behind our laughter. The following paper will explore whether comedy and the laughter it creates is good for us in relation to the main philosophical theories of Superiority, Relief and Incongruity that attempt to explain why we laugh. Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and the popular sitcom The Office are both works that not only attempt to make us laugh but explore the concept of laughter itself. These will be used to discuss each of the three theories and the possible impact comedy can have both on ourselves, others and the way we perceive the world.

Superiority theory originates as far back as Aristotle and Plato who shared the idea that ‘laughter is derision, or the expression of superiority’ (Terry Eagleton, Art, Criticism and Laughter: Terry Eagleton on Aesthetics). Thomas Hobbes describes ‘the passion of laughter [as] nothing else but [a] sudden glory’ (Thomas Hobbes, Of Human Nature) that the individual feels. Evidently ‘to think the infirmity of another sufficient matter for [one’s own] triumph’ (Hobbes) may be good for someone’s self-esteem in the moment, however it not only highlights deep routed insecurity but also is deeply damaging for the person being laughed at as ‘the feelings of superiority and degradation work hand-in-hand’ (James P. T. Fatt, Why do we laugh)

In Pride and Prejudice, the reader is not only ‘invited to laugh at the ironies of human perception and expectations’ (Elvira Casal, Laughing at Mr. Darcy: Wit and Sexuality in Pride and Prejudice) within the novel in a superior manner, but the story itself offers characters that laugh at others through feelings of superiority. One of the most predominant examples of a character that the reader is expected to laugh at is Mrs Bennet, who is presented as foolish and described as a woman of ‘mean understanding, little information and uncertain temper […whose sole] business of her life was to get her daughters married’ (Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, Ch.1, p.3), this description immediately leads the reader to feel superior to the character and thus find the character humorous. The protagonist of the story, Elizabeth, also laughs through superiority at ‘the idea of Mr Collins […] being run away with by his feelings’ (Ch.19, p.93) and thus encourages the reader to find his character comedic also. In both these two instances, the elements that a reader would find comic being embedded in superiority can be seen as good for us as long as the laughter does not come purely from the feeling of superiority but also from the awareness of why we feel superior to these characters: the fact they are both presented as too socially constructed and lacking in self-awareness. If the awareness of why we find these characters inferior to ourselves is present, this element of comedy in the novel can be good for us as it enables us to question whether we ourselves possess these qualities that have been exaggerated for comedic effect. 

The Office also exploits feelings of superiority for comic effect. The protagonist of the series, David Brent, is constantly portrayed to have a complete lack of awareness and as viewing himself as superior to what he really is in reality; the audience laughs in these moments as they then feel superior to him, seeing his folly. One critic has stated that it is David Brent’s ‘desperation that makes the character appealing and, at times, even relatable’ (Morgan Jeffery, ‘The Office’: Tube Talk Gold). It is perhaps the relatable nature of his character which leads the audience further to find this character comic as according to Superiority theory, laughter ‘is the cry of pleasure at recognizing one's sanity [and] one's accuracy of judgment’ (C.M Diserens, Recent theories of laughter); by laughing at Brent we can assure ourselves that we are more aware than he is and thus superior to him. Similarly to Pride and Prejudice, this type of laughter could be a positive reaction to the comedy as long as the person laughing is aware of why they are finding David Brent funny. Finding something comedic through superiority and feeling better about oneself through the downfall of another can be damaging to both the person laughing, as they gain a false sense of inflated ego, and the person being laughed at; it is fine to laugh at such situations in the context of a comedy but if David Brent was a real person he would not like to be the subject of others laughter. 

Relief theory also attempts to explain why humans laugh. This theory attempts to portray laughter as ‘a way of releasing nervous energy […providing] relief and self-gratification and renders potentially damaging conflicts harmless’ (Fatt). This theory is advocated by Freud who states that it is the ‘super-ego […] in humour, [which] speaks kindly words of comfort to the intimidated ego’ (S. Freud, Humour) thus allowing us to deal with situations and circumstances that we do not want to face. As with Superiority theory, laughter again is explained to be an egotistical act, in this case as it ‘lies in the triumph of narcissism [and] the victorious assertion of the ego’s invulnerability’ (Freud); if this is seen to be true, this form of laughter could be seen as a negative occurrence as it not only promotes egotism but also hides the truth about ourselves from us.

However, there are moments in Pride and Prejudice that indicate laughter born out of relief may be a positive, both for the reader and the character in the story. It can be seen that ‘laughter is the great equaliser in Jane Austen's novels’ (James Sherry, Pride and Prejudice: The Limits of Society); it enables characters, and thus the reader, to question social constructs and redefines how they see themselves in the context of society. One important example of relief laughter within the novel is Elizabeth’s ability to find Mr Darcy comedic in his arrogance; she looks forward to being able to ‘laugh at […her] acquaintance with spirit’ (Ch.11, p.46), which allows Elizabeth to protect her ego from her perceived rejection by Mr Darcy but at the same time liberates her socially. Elizabeth’s ‘laughter allows her to take control over the incident and redefine it’ (Casal), providing her a feeling of relief from her lower social position as a woman from a lesser class which is empowering and positive. Elizabeth’s is also a character who is often aware of her laughter and the reasons behind it; she knows moments when it has been ‘necessary to laugh, when she would rather have cried’ (Ch.57, p.315), highlighting how relief laughter does not have to be done in complete unawareness and that one can protect themselves in the moment without completely disregarding the truth. This contradicts Bergson’s theory that ‘laughter occurs only in an absence of feeling’ (Henry Alonzo Myers, The Analysis of Laughter) and shows in fact how laughter can happen in a moment of despair in an attempt to alleviate some of the emotional burden.

Throughout The Office there are moments when the viewer needs to laugh to dispel feelings brought on by the show and examples of characters themselves turning to laughter to avoid a situation. There are constantly situations that the audience feel the need to laugh nervously at, thus avoiding feeling awkward showing they are disaffected by the circumstance as they watch the characters sit there uncomfortably. David Brent after pretending to fire another character and upsetting her is told by the character that he is unpleasant; he then attempts to make the situation comedic by laughing and responding ‘am I? I didn’t know that’. In this situation, both Brent and the audience effectively shield themselves from the woman’s emotional state in their laughter, showing ‘such traumas are no more than occasions for [the ego] to gain pleasure’ (Freud); in this instance the laughter is positive for no one as it enables both the character of Brent and the viewer to become detached from the situation and lacking in empathy for the woman. However, there are moments in The Office where relief laughter is more positive. Tim and Dawn often laugh during scenes together to ‘discharge built-up energy that can't be used because of socially imposed inhibitions’ (Fatt); they find each other attractive and do not know how to communicate with each other in the given situation. In The Office, comedic situations that spring from a feeling of relief are positive and negative, similarly to Superiority theory it is the ability to reflect on why one is laughing and the specific reason behind the laughter that is the indicator as to whether the laughter good or bad for us.

Incongruity theory attempts to explain how we find scenes comic due to ‘the sudden perception of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects’ (Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea). If this is seen to be the case and ‘all laughter… is occasioned by a paradox’ (Schopenhauer), then out of the three main theories that explain why we may laugh, it is the only one that is routed outside the psychology of the laughing individual and based on constructions of the society we live in; thus there must be ‘permanent conditions of laughter since any departure from social standards is incongruous’ (Diserens). It could perhaps be argued that if laughter is caused by incongruous situations, then this is the most positive reason for laughter not only due to the fact that it revolves around no hiding of the truth or inflation of our egos but can also help us become more aware of and question the very structure of the society in which we live.

In Pride and Prejudice, there are many scenes that diverge from societal expectations of the time and thus become comic for the reader with ‘the most common kinds of incongruity still involv[ing] differences in social rank’(Eagleton). Mrs Bennet is an example of creating incongruous comedy as she behaves in socially peculiar ways; her actions are shown to be too overt and not calculated enough, often embarrassing her family, for example when she ‘fancied she had gained a complete victory over [Mr Darcy, and] continued her triumph’ (Ch.9, p.37), with all in the room ‘surprized’ (Ch.9, p.37) at her speaking so out of place. Elizabeth’s younger sister, Lydia, also crosses the social boundaries of would have been seen as acceptable and creates comic scenes as she is ‘always unguarded’ (Ch.23, p.112) in her behaviour. These transgressions away from the social norms, though exaggerated for comedic effect, would make the reader laugh but also contemplate the ridiculous nature of the lack of honesty in the society in which the story is set and how in some aspects the subversive behaviour of these two characters makes more sense than the constructed behaviour of others and thus reflect on constructions in their own societal circumstance.

Within The Office, much of the comedy does derive from ‘taking the madness of the corporate world and adding just a dash of the bizarre’ (Matt Cale, The Office (UK)). Situations throughout the programme combine a serious situation with something that seems out of place, this is done in both subtle and overt ways. There are subtle humorous remarks that seem out of place in what should be a serious work environment, one example of this is David Brent’s answer phone message that states the person should leave a ‘massage’; this would be funny to the viewer as it seems inappropriate for the boss of a company to be unprofessional in this way. A more overt example of comedy that comes from incongruity is when David Brent is fired whilst wearing an ostrich costume, which not only seems out of place in the work environment of The Office but means it is also impossible to take him seriously. As with the incongruous comedic scenes in Pride and Prejudice, both of these comedic situations can be seen as positive due to the fact they have the capability in their subversion to make the viewer aware of the social constructs of our society and question why it is that these things seem abnormal.

Many philosophers who have different notions on why we laugh have agreed with a concept that has been thought of as far back as Aristotle: ‘laughter should be kept within bounds, since laughing too much at what is ridiculous or unbecoming starts to put your own dignity on the line’ (Eagleton). This view is also the case in both the comedic works discussed as they explore the concept of excessive laughter in a way which portrays it as foolish and unwise. In Pride and Prejudice, ‘Lydia Bennet’s laughter is a sign both of foolishness and of lack of reflection’(Casal); her laughter seems self-indulgent, ill thought through and embarrassing for both herself and others around her. Similarly in The Office, moments of excessive laughter by David Brent are portrayed to be isolating and thoughtless, expressing negative character traits such as unchecked ego and insensitivity to others.

In conclusion, after exploring the three theories behind why we laugh of Relief, Superiority and Incongruity it can be seen that comedy itself is neither good nor bad for us; it is the reasons behind why we are laughing that can be seen as positive or negative for both ourselves and others around us. Both of the works discussed are incredibly self-aware comedies that not only attempt to make us laugh, but explore the reasons why we are laughing through the characters themselves within the pieces. In many instances during these two pieces of work, the comedy created ‘not only corrects the rigidities of social life but also manages to keep people in line for fear of being laughed at’ (Anton C. Zijderveld, Laughter: The Language of Humour). The Office and Pride and Prejudice not only attempt to create comedy by subverting social constructs but highlight many of the constructions behind why we laugh making us more aware of the negative effects that our laughter can have. Within Pride and Prejudice ‘though it may vary in profundity from the vulgar "fun" of Lydia to the sociable playfulness of Elizabeth […] laughter is there as an eternal reminder that we are all part of one community’ (Sherry), and this sense of a community united in laughter is also present in The Office as we journey together with the characters through moments of shared laughter and shared vulnerability discovering more about ourselves while we laugh

Bibliography

Austen, Jane, Pride and Prejudice, 1, (London: J.M Dent & Sons LTD, 1942)

Cale, Matt, ‘The Office (UK)’, Ruthless Reviews, (2006), <https://www.ruthlessreviews.com/1777/the-office-uk/>

Casal, Elvira, ‘Laughing at Mr. Darcy: Wit and Sexuality in Pride and Prejudice’, Jane Austen Society of North America, 22 (2001), <https://www.jasna.org/persuasions/on-line/vol22no1/casal.html>

Diserens, C.M, ‘Recent theories of laughter’, Psychological Bulletin, 23 (1926), 247-255

Eagleton, Terry, ‘Art, Criticism and Laughter: Terry Eagleton on Aesthetics’, 1998, <https://www.stevenconnor.com/artlaugh.htm>

Fatt, James P. T., ‘Why do we laugh?’, Communication World, 15 (1998), 12-14

 Freud, S., ‘Humour’, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XXI (1927-1931): The Future of an Illusion, Civilization and its Discontents, and Other Works, ed. James Strachey, 427-433

Hobbes, Thomas, ‘Of Human Nature’, in British Moralists, being Selections from Writers principally of the Eighteenth Century, ed. Shelby-Bigge, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897) <https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/2077/157743>

Jeffery, Morgan, ’'The Office': Tube Talk Gold’, Digital Spy, <https://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/tubetalk/a367713/the-office-tube-talk-gold.html>

Myers, Henry Alonzo, ‘The Analysis of Laughter’, The Sewanee Review, 43 (1935), 452-463

Sherry, James, ‘Pride and Prejudice: The Limits of Society’, Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, 19 (1979), 609-622

Schopenhauer, Arthur, The World as Will and Idea, trans. by R. B. Haldane and John Kemp, <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation/First_Book>

Zijderveld, Anton C., ‘Laughter: The Language of Humour’, Current Sociology, 31 (1983) 26-37