Humor Theories as Lenses

The humor theorists, Plato, Hobbes, Kant, and Kierkegaard, forces one to step back and reexamine their own participation in humor and laughter. Before, this class I have been fascinated with why we laugh at certain things and whether there is a metaphorical “line” that can be crossed by comedians. Using these four theories as lenses into Samantha Irby as well as into other contemporary forms of comedy helps answer this question.  

Plato’s theory of the soul experiencing a mixture of pain and pleasure as well as the element of self-ignorance refer to when one laughs at another’s foolishness. It reminds me of sitcoms in which there are characters who exists merely to be laughed at. For example, Kramer on Seinfeld, or either Phoebe or Joey on Friends. In these instances, the viewer and even other characters in the shows often laugh at the follies or idiosyncrasies of these “ridiculous” people. Plato would conclude that this laughter comes from a place of mixing pleasure with pain (malice). I would agree that one should be wary in engaging with this kind of laughter because amusement is as Plato writes, “an emotion in which we lose rational control over ourselves” (10). It’s important to acknowledge when one laughs others who are weaker because inherent malice is related.  

Similar to Plato, Hobbes theorizes about power and superiority. wow, no thank you can be analyzed through the combination of Plato and Hobbes’ theories. One angle to take is from that of the reader. As readers, Plato and Hobbes would say that we are laughing at Irby’s inferior nature and the mistakes that she makes. In reading about her struggles, we feel a sense of superiority and power which causes us to laugh. But, from the viewpoint of Irby, it could be argued that she is writing from a superior position in relation to her past self. When Hobbes writes, “for men laugh at follies of themselves past, when they come suddenly to remembrance, except they bring with them any present dishonor” (20) there is an element that suggests laughing at oneself occurs because of this same power dynamic which Irby would fall victim to given that her humor is self-deprecating at times.  

Kant and Kierkgaard, theorize about incongruence. Both theories have more optimistic perspectives about humor and laughter. While reading Irby, I laughed out loud, so these two theories offer an explanation as to why that happens. Kant writes about expectations transforming into nothing. An example from wow, no thank you is in the chapter, “are you familiar with my work?” when Irby tells the story of becoming friends with Emily. Irby sets up the scene of being out to eat with Emily and offering to pay the bill with copious amount of internal monologue filler that keeps the reader on the edge of their seat. Irby strings the reader along making them think (as she did) that her card was going to bounce and then thinking that the waiter recognized her from her work when really he knew she was from Chicago because of the skyline on her credit card. Overall, this kind of punchline is exactly what Kant and Kierkgaard wrote about in their theories of incongruence and reveal the expectations we have to laugh at something.