Have you ever wondered why do we laugh on farts? Well, I know that's not the best question to begin a niche with but afterall we all fart, right? It is as natural as sunset and as fundamental as gravity. Yet if you are in public and you slip a fart, you know you'd be facing a very awkward and embarrassing moment of your life which I wish rather not happens to anyone. If that induced rapid cognition then let this sink in too: why do we laugh when we get tickled?
This whole notion of humour, or to be precise, why do we find things funny is in itself a quite perplexing one. Even a quite humourous one too. Afterall humour is itself a way to chill and relax yet the idea of why we find things funny is something so perplexing. Irony.
Today we'll embark on an endeavour to decrypt the ambiguity of humour with the help of psychology, evolutionary biology, comic analysis, neuroscience, or you know, all that scientific stuff. Phew.😅
Before we dive in, I would like to give a huge gratitude to Joel Warner and Peter McGraw, the authors of the book "THE HUMOR CODE" from which this manuscript concords a lot of resonance.
Anyways, in the name of science, let's commence.
WHY DO WE FIND THINGS FUNNY
However the suffering must not be too precarious or intimidating. For instance, if the person slips off the stair and gets smashed onto the floor face first and starts bleeding inordinately. At that moment, the severity of the suffering would be too dire for us to find it funny (unless you are a fucking sadist) and would only trigger grief.
Perhaps that is the reason a lot of cartoons are so funny for us when the characters get smashed like an omelette and squeezed like lemons. Think Tom and Jerry, think Oggy and the Cockroaches, Tiny Toons, Dexter's Adventure, you name it. Remember how those characters used to get smashed into the walls or even used to get blown up by explosives? Had it happened for real to any person, trust me that wouldn't have been funny. But since neither the aroma limned any bloodshed nor did it emblazon any sort of intimidation, it was damn funny.
The Superiority Theory commands influence over laughter in a whole miscellany of settings. Like how we laugh on someone getting butt hurt by balancing off a chair. When we someone replicate that by intentionally pulling the chair surreptitiously, that's called a "prank" and everyone laughs while the victim pampers his butt( I personally do these a lot!). This reinforces our belief in the theory that we laugh in other's misery. But be cautious, the suffering or misery must not be over the perceived limits of th audience. Because grief and guilt would take over otherwise.
However the superiority theory is astronomically limited in an array of humour settings. It would spurn to expound a lot of puns, punchlines and even memes.
So the question is what is that gospel that answers it all? What is enigmatic enough to unravel and decrypt the humour code? Mysteriously, there's none( at least to this date). There's more to humour that we currently comprehend. But there's one principle that's close. Nigh there to decrypt the humour code. And we shall descant about it.
THE BENIGN VIOLATION THEORY
The Humour Reaserch Lab or HuRL needs the Benign Violation or B+V theory as its theoretical foundation for humour research. And trust me "B+V" is nothing apropos algebra but a utilitarian approach to crack the humour code. In the theory, the word "benign" implies the situation or setting to ev gentle, not harmful or unorthodox in any way or just not to be out of the box. The word "violation" implies a slight disruption or threat to the orthodoxy nature and perception.
According to the theory, a violation refers to anything that threatens one’s beliefs about how the world should be. That is, something seems threatening, unsettling, or wrong. From an evolutionary perspective, humorous violations likely originated as threats to physical well-being (e.g., the attacks that make up tickling, play fighting), but expanded to include threats to psychological well-being (e.g., insults, sarcasm), including behaviors that break social norms (e.g., strange behaviors, flatulence), cultural norms (e.g., unusual accents, most scenes from the movie Borat), linguistic norms (e.g., puns, malapropisms), logic norms (e.g., absurdities, non-sequiturs), and moral norms (e.g., disrespectful behavior, bestiality).
Hence humour occurs only when these 3 requirements are met: 1.) a situation is a violation, 2.) the situation is benign and 3.) both perceptions occur simultaneously. Perhaps this answers our question about tickling in humans and other primates as it is a benign violation because they are physically threatening but harmless attacks.
The reason that vouchsafe this theory an upper hand is that unlike its counterparts, it also delineates when things spurn to be funny because it manifests a violation that does not simultaneously seem to be benign or manifests a situation that has no violation. For example, tickling cease to elicit laughter either when the attack stops( strictly benign) or becomes toxically aggressive (malign violation). Jokes similarly spurn to be funny when either they are too lame or too risque.
Now let us ponder over some examples:-
"My wife is an excellent housekeeper. When we got divorced, that bitch kept the house."
If the odds stand veracious, you probably would have found that funny. The logic behind the above joke to be funny can be delineated by the B+V theory. Firstly, it attributes the wife excellence in housekeeping which is nothing novel or unorthodox because many wives handle the domestic household (benign situation). But then there's the twist. It turns into a sardony as the wife is despised for getting the house in the divorce settlement (violation). And this eventuated simultaneously sustaining the integrity of the circumstances, making it funny.
Ponder this one too:-
"Can a woman make you a millionaire? Yes, if your are a billionaire."
The above one liner abides by the same science. At first it was a benign speculation. Had the answer been in a binary, it would have been simply too benign or too lame to be funny or even bothering. Had it been a sexist barb or calumniation, it typically would have been outright offensive. But the slight violation of a splendid rhetoric made it funny.
WHAT DO WE FIND FUNNY
Before we tackle the WHATs of the humour, there's something worth pondering. We now conceive that we laugh when we descry something slightly violating the predisposed norms for a benign situation( as per the B+V theory). But why do we only laugh? Why not any different emotion emanates? An evolutionary perspective might vouchsafe the logic. Our primate ancestors lived in groups and had to be adept at sensing danger nearby or approaching. Since adrenaline is the fight or flight hormone, it accelerated their blood flow in to body and nearby the fist region to brace themselves to strike a punch👊🏻 or also to the foot region to aid then in running for their lives at maximum capacity, which gives us a probable explanation that why those emotions are not associated with humour as they were cardinal for other functions in the forager days( they still are now).
Also the crying emotions allowed our primate ancestors to loosen up their emotions and express pain which made them a little sluggish and "vulnerable." This further explains the absence of this emotion in humour.
Because the laughter and humour emotion triggers hormones and endorphins that manifest a bellwether of intimacy and demonstrate that everything is "okay", therefore laughter is a gesture of security and comfort. Or that's what evolutionary biologists argue.
But there's a bounty of evidence that backs it. Several research studies heed the evolutionary perspective and embolden us to laugh more to palliate the discomfort and stress of life. They foster the old school view that laughter connects us in our relationships, palliates stress, boosts self esteem and confidence and makes our overall health better.
And this is not my radical claim. An average child laughs as much as every 4 mins he/she is awake while the average for an adult is just 18 times a day. And I don't need to mention why I write this. Stress and worrying is a legitimate problem. But they can be surmounted. And maybe you can commence by just laughing more often. It doesn't take a whole bursted-out eccentric laughter or a whole blatant one that would impress Steve Harvey or make Tanmay Bhatt you arch nemesis. A smooth chuckle or giggle or even a broad smile will be fair enough to get the job done.
Coming back, what do we find funny is as much of a diverse yet correlating matter as we individually are. Because everyone is different and have their own preferences and biases, so we all find different things funny or to say it in other terms, we have different types of humour. While we ponder over them, try to yourself decrypt how these humour types abide by either of the humour theories.
1.) Slapstick: This humour involves physicality. It can b everything from clowns to funny facial expressions to someone falling off a chair. Or in the other words, the entirety of Oggy and the Cockroaches.
2.) Self-depriciating: This kind of humour is a favourite among stand up comedians in which they basically make themselves the butt of the joke. It's also a style that has been futher popularized by the internet, particularly with memes.
3.) Surreal: As suggested by the name, this style of humour can be pretty grotesque featuring illogical events, absurd situations or non sensical themes. Or in other words, just plain silly. The bizzare and absurd the situation, the funnier it is, until and unless it surpasses the threshold of the audience (it becomes too much of a violation). For example, a person monkey dancing in a formal setting.
4.) Improvisational: This style involves a person crafting up the joke on the spot which makes it even funnier amid authenticity. Remember the natural, outta nowhere jokes that happens in friend circle. That's what I am talking about here.
5.) Wit Wordplay: This humour involves twisting language and exploiting multiple meanings of a term or similar sounding words. Or to say in a more familiar tone, double meanings( Yeah, we all are exceptional at it). Many television shoes embrace then as a way to mitigate the risk of getting censored.
6.) Topical: This style of humour is formed around a specific topic apropos current events that acclaim importance or are currently popular which often involves satire (like pop culture, cinema, politics, news, etc.). The humour around the topic fades away with time as the public appeal around it ages.
7.) Observational: This style of humour is based on the commonplace of everyday life. It incorporates making an observation from the backwaters of life that is sporadically noticed or discussed. It is hinged on the premise of "Have you ever noticed". Stand up comedians are brand ambassadors of this style.
8.) Bodily: And ya, the type of humour which we all crave, ya those dirty ones. This includes everything to do with farts or other bodily functions. This is perhaps the most popular among our peers. And we do it a lot, like associating every day mundane moments and objects with just "sex".
"When I was persuing medical, I took an entrance exam where we were asked to rearrange the letters
'PNEIS'
and form the name of an important body part which most useful when erect. Those who answered 'SPINE' are now doctors."
9.) Dark: This style of humour picks on a subject of matter that is generally considered taboo, particularly subjects that are considered insensitive to discuss. For example, death, crime, poverty, suicide, war, violence, terrorism, politics, communalism, discrimination, disease, racism, sexism and human sexuality.
SENSE OF HUMOUR
There is no straight forward or universal answer to the subject of humour because humour is itself a tremendously subjective topic. What may be funny to one, might be lame to the second or even offensive to the third.
So in the presence of such ambiguity, how to do we construe how funny something is? As we have conceived, humour is a perceptive notion and has diversity round the globe. For example, homosexuality might be natural and just fine for some people or cultures (among the more liberal and progressive ones) ; while being outright blasphemous to others (probably the more closed minded ones), and so the likeliness of people finding jokes on homosexuality funny will be majorly governed by the same factor. The same is veracious apropos other sensitive or controversial aspects too.
But what about logic and ethics? Some jokes are just not jokes though, they are a sheer calumny and are bound to deliver ignominy, right? Well as we perceived, it's all perceptuous. By telling so, I don't intent to proffer justification for any racist, sexist or extremist types of rants in the alibi of sheer humour. What I am divulging is the wiring of human mind and human mind is not an upshot of logic or ethics but rather the by-product of the hegemony of evolution.
For example:- "I was at an ATM and this old lady asked me to help check her balance so I pushed her over."
The logical counter for this simply might be that of course the word "balance" was associated with bank balance. While apropos ethics, one might argue that it is definitely not funny and also very insensitive to laugh on pushing an old woman. But again that's how humour emanates in us, as we conceived. Put it simply, consecrating too much importance to logic and ethics actually ends up killing humour.
That implies, humour is hinged upon the threshold of the audience and cultural and circumstantial norms. Because if someone would joke crap about your mother or granny, I'll bet good money that wouldn't go right with you.
That can also explain why we laugh on farts but not on burps in close proximity as the smell of the burp triggers disgust. That's why generally females find sexist jokes more offensive in comparison to males. This also fosters a common misconception that males have a better sense of humour that their female counterparts. Well as per now, each and every study impugns this claim and instead debunks it. That is to say, courtesy of the patriarchal society, most of the social structures are weighed against women and thus women find the traditional humour more offensive (obviously nobody is going to like traditionally and perpetually being the butt of the joke).
For example:- "What did the boss's personal secretary first do after she woke up? She walked home."
Same is true for homosexuals, blacks in white supremacy, Asians in the western world, French in America and Americans in France, and so on.
Another factor which affects humour might draw you back to the Topical humour about which we talked about. That is knowledge or information or facts or data or figures or statistics of details or whatever you might call it. This implies that the more informed you are about the trend, circumstances or realm, the more you'll be adept at descrying the humour (or benign violations). For instance, if the joke around is about the share market, only a person who knows the market conditions is likely to grasp the joke.
Also, if you find racist, sexist or any other barbaric joke funny, that doesn't necessarily imply that you are one of such character (though chance are pretty hight but still I am no one to make such radical claims). It is just that you can apprehend the benign violations from the other standpoint.
★★★★★★★★★
Though I don't feel like so, but I suppose this ought to end now. Although there's quite a lot more which I want to share but anyways that might be the content for a later blog. Hope you loved this one and try by yourself to create your own benign violation jokes and I would love to read them in the comments section.(◠‿◕)
SOURCES AND STUDY MATERIALS
Do lemme know how was this one😃
ReplyDelete★Here the pros of this blog 🌟 (Reply ↓)
ReplyDeleteAnd here the cons🤓 (Reply↓)
ReplyDelete