What is "Comic Relief"?

 

  Philosopher Herbert Spencer offers another explanation for humor called the "Relief Theory." He believes that laughter is the release of nervous energy through muscular movement--providing a "comic relief" of sorts. Like Kant, he believes that this physiological release produces positive feelings. However, like Descartes, Spencer mentions that laughter can come from sources other than joy--like hatred or self-elevation. This intellectual exploration of these philosophers, Sedaris, and myself left me with a complex definition of comic relief. Are we merely expending nervous energy, or relieving ourselves of our internal pain? 

Spencer critiques the incongruity theory because it states that only feelings of self-elevation produces laughter. He states, "But this theory, whatever portion of the truth it may contain, is, in the first place, open to fatal objection that there are various humiliations to other which produce in us anything but laughter; and, in the second place, it does not apply to the many instances in which no one's dignity is implicated: as when we laugh at a good pun" (99). I find this explanation problematic because it believes that we respond to certain things without laughter, but if others respond to a joke we perceive as unjust, would that not mean that those who did laugh are laughing at the other person's pain? This would mean that the person's dignity is implicated, and therefore humor is evil. Spencer contradicts himself on this matter later in the essay when he states, "Among the spectators of an awkward tumble, those who preserve their gravity are those in whom there is excited a degree of sympathy with the sufferer, sufficiently great to serve as an outlet for the feeling which the occurrence had turned out of its previous course. Sometimes anger carries off the arrested current; and so prevents laughter" (107).  If we laugh at someone falling, we are unethical because their dignity is implicated. Also, Spencer talks about suppressing this nervous energy and finding alternative channels to express it. Like he states, people who do not express these feelings will feel them more intensely. If anger is preventing laughter, is this unhealthy? Should they express their anger? Further, is sarcasm a form of repressed anger? Is that healthy?

As you probably noticed, this reading left me with a lot of questions. I find myself exploring the reasons for my own laughter, trying to feel my lungs fill up with blood or my nervous energy release. It's a little pathetic, and I think I'm resentful towards these philosophers for tarnishing the joy of laughter. On the flip side, it's interesting to observe certain situations in real life and examine why they are funny. For example, while we participated in ice breakers in awkward silence for Bridges, I laughed. Did I laugh because of tension, a broken expectation, or another person's pain? I think I laughed out of embarrassment, but it's still fun to explore. Also, as someone with a sarcastic and sometimes dark sense of humor, I empathized with Sedaris, but also found myself questioning my own ethics after reading these philosophers. If sarcasm is repressed anger, what am I angry about? What do I feel indignant about? Is critiquing others in a biting way--like Sedaris--an unhealthy expression of anger? I had an existential crisis. But, in conclusion, I think sarcasm is a way to relieve pain of the past. Or laughing at someone else relieves our insecurity. However, if that is the case, then humor is unethical.