The Complexities of Humor

 In "American Humor," author Ralph Ellison discusses the origins and reasons for certain types of humor. He concludes that humor is both a uniter and divider. Further, he states that humor is necessary to sustain life. In all its complexity, humor is a way to cope with certain events, people, and things. 

Something that struck me in this essay was Ellison's discussion of humor among different ethnicities. He states in the beginning that stereotyping and categorizing the "other" during the colonial period helped others cope with diversity. By projecting an image onto others, we process the "unexpected." He states, "But this kind of humor, for in all its crudeness, in some instances allowed the American people to come together on some sort of workable basis" (148). Ellison seems to suggest that categorization created structure in this new, unfamiliar society. By making these assumptions, we knew what to expect and how to deal with this new reality. However, I find this conclusion problematic. Projecting an image onto someone else in order to comfort yourself aligns with Hobbes's idea of unethical, belittling humor. Gbadegesin states that this "othering" in humor creates a deep social divide and an "us-vs-them" mentality. By manufacturing an identity for a group of people, you negate their humanity. You fail to accept their difference from you and instead find it uncomfortable. A more modern solution to this coping mechanism would be to acknowledge the difference, accept the difference, and then live in mutual respect of the difference. 

Ellison later argues that this projection was a way to survive. Without these defenses, society would be forced to face difference. We would fight to gain a spot on top. He states, "But what was overlooked was the fact that when Americans no longer laugh at one another, then they have to fight with one another. The humanizing factor gets lost, and we lose our resiliency, our ability to bend a little bit and to adapt" (153). I agree with his statement in the sense that seeing difference as a threat will inevitably lead to chaos. However, I'm not sure if projection and stereotyping creates tolerance or "adaptability"--as he states. Ellison argues that this device creates a societal hierarchy in which one is somehow "better" than the other. This is not adapting or bending. It stems from fear and confusion. To "other" someone is to distance yourself from a potential threat. So, it makes sense that having no barrier would creates chaos. However, accepting others for who they are--realizing that someone different from you does not increase or decrease your won sense of worth--will create a common ground. Instead of hierarchy and tension, we create acceptance, adaptability, and equality. 

Ellison states that humor is essentially a coping mechanism to process events that seem bigger than us. For example, Gurba talks about her sexual assault in terms of humor and metaphors to give us a more concrete example of the experience. What is most interesting about Ellison's conclusion, however, is how this mechanism can either divide or unite. We can stereotype and other in an attempt to gain security, or we can joke about heavy topics to create an accepting, understanding community. I think that shows how truly complex and abstract humor is. It also shows how deeply psychological humor is. We can understand someone fully if you analyze their motive for telling the joke. In the grand scheme of things, humor really isn't as funny as it appears.