Nowadays, the social function of laughter and humor is being often overlooked because the hawks of political correctness have succeeded in convincing many citizens that their natural tendency to laugh, while reacting to different emanations of people’s behavioral inadequacy, is not socially appropriate. In her article In Defense of Humor, Alleen Nilsen provides us with insight onto the fact that, the enforcers of multicultural tolerance have now gone as far as openly displaying anti-laughter slogans on university campuses: “There is no place on a university campus for sexist or ethnic humor” (Nilsen, p. 230). Nevertheless, despite what particularly ‘progressive’ educators and political activists want citizens to believe, people’s ability to assess surrounding reality through the lenses of their sense of humor is one of the main preconditions for ensuring society’s structural integrity. The reason for this is simple – the comic subtleties of an individual’s behavior reflect his or her failure to function as a productive member of society, due to such an individual’s inability to evolve, in an intellectual sense of this word.
As it was rightly pointed out by Henri Bergson in his work Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of Comic: “The comic is that side of a person which reveals his likeness to a thing, that aspect of human events which, through its peculiar inelasticity, conveys the impression of pure mechanism, of automatism, of movement without life” (Bergson, p. 295). In her book Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology, Mary Douglas provides us with further insight into semiotic significance of ‘funniness’: “It is funny when persons behave as if they were inanimate things. So, a person caught in a repetitive routine, such as stammering or dancing after the music has stopped, is funny” (Douglas 148). When a particular individual appears, being incapable of applying an analytical approach to dealing with life’s challenges while opting for a mechanistic one instead, he or she reveals its existential mode as being related more to that of animals – thus becoming the subject of jokes.
For example, when a bear injures itself against some pointy tree-branch, it usually begins hitting this branch with both of its paws, as if it wanted to punish it – in bear’s simple mind; this branch is being impersonated into some malicious creature. As a result, the more bear gets injured, the harder it continues to hit the ‘evil’ branch. In a similar manner, when intellectually primitive people experience setbacks, while striving to tackle a particular problem, it does not result in them considering the utilization of a different approach to dealing with the problem. Just like earlier mentioned bear, they continue trying to resolve it mechanistically, despite the fact that such their approach had already been proven highly ineffective. In its turn, this causes unengaged observers to laugh, while being exposed to the spectacle – by revealing the full extent of their perceptional inflexibility, intellectually primitive individuals expose their relation to the rest of humanity as utterly superficial. Even though they appear fully human on the outside, people who inspire laughter in others relate more to animals, in the psychological sense of this word – it is namely the absurdist subtleties of juxtaposition of intellectual flexibility vs. mechanistic automatization, which defines the essence of euro-centric understanding of comedy. In this paper, we will aim to explore such Bergson’s thesis even further, in relation to The Frogs by Aristophanes, The Rover by Aphra Behn and Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett.
Given the fact that the species of Homo Sapiens evolved out of primates, it makes perfectly good sense that most people think of attaining social prominence as their primary goal in life – after having gained such a prominence, they would be able to secure their dominant position within a society. After all, the continuous ensuring of their dominance within the pack of apes, represents alpha-males’ full time occupation. However, unlike apes, humans employ a rationale-based approach, while trying to gain social prominence. Yet, there are still many anthropologically and intellectually atavistic individuals in the world who go about trying to win their place under the sun by exposing others to the strength of their irrational beliefs. In its turn, this explains the true nature of the psychological phenomenon of vanity – a behavioral reflection of people’s inability to strive towards dominance by relying on their sense of rationale. And, the fact that is it specifically the inclusion of arrogant characters in the comedy, which increases such comedy’s comic appeal, confirms the validity of Bergson’s idea as to laughter as such that serves a social function: “Vanity, though it is a natural product of social life, is an inconvenience to society… the specific remedy for vanity is laughter” (Bergson, p. 536). The reading of Aristophanes’ play The Frogs leaves very little doubt as to the fact that, Aristophanes believed that comedy’s eventual staging would serve the purpose of increasing the extent of social cohesiveness within ancient Greek city-policies, as the motif of vanity and pretentiousness defines comedy’s actual plot – thus strengthening its absurd-based comic appeal:
‘Men of worth and rank and mettle, men of honorable fame,
Trained in every liberal science, choral dance and manly game,
These we treat with scorn and insult, but the strangers newliest come,
Worthless sons of worthless fathers, pinchbeck townsmen, yellowy scum,
Whom in earlier days the city hardly would have stooped to use
Even for her scapegoat victims, these for every task we choose’ (Act 3).
As we have implied earlier, people endowed with strong but irrational sense of pride, are quite incapable of adjusting their act to correspond to the notion of common sense, which means that they have stopped evolving intellectually. This is exactly what qualifies them as the legitimate subjects for jokes – one’s behavioral inadequacy simply reflects the extent of his or her existential inferiority.
As it was rightly noted by Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen in his article The Laughter of Being: “Laughter in general, and the laughter of being, to the highest degree, express the joy of being superior, of having more being than an inferior being, as when the inhabitants of a capital make fun of provincials” (Borch-Jacobsen, p. 748). While reading The Frogs, we get to laugh on the account of the play’s main characters’ lessened ability to adapt to continuously changing social and environmental circumstances.
The same suggestion applies to the essences of humorous motifs, contained in Aphra Behn’s The Rover. Even a brief analysis of these motifs reveals them as being concerned with the exposal of intellectual inflexibility, on the part of most of play’s non-English male-characters. For example, when Hellena tells Don Pedro that by marrying Don Vincentio, she would end up being completely deprived of her freedom as an individual, Don Pedro does not seem to understand what she was referring to: “Pedro: The girl’s mad – is it a confinement to be carried into the country, to an antient Villa belonging to the Family of the Vincentio’s these five hundred years?” (Behn Act 1, Scene 1). Apparently, Don Pedro did not think that there was a need for anyone to even doubt the validity of a ‘tradition’, within the context of marital relationship. This is exactly the reason why Hellena’s reluctance to stick to his advice, as to what would be the best way for her to deal with a situation, did not make any sense in Pedro’s eyes, whatsoever – thus, rendering him as a particularly comical character in the eyes of viewing audiences.
In her article Cannibalizing and Carnivalizing: Reviving Aphra Behn’s “The Rover”, Susan Carlson had come up with perfectly legitimate suggestion, while stating: “The fancy footwork of Callis, Don Antonio, and Don Pedro is, of course, comic, part of the farcical treatment of Spanish culture throughout the production” (Carlson, p. 538). The semantic context of The Rover implies the counter-productive essence of people’s willingness to adjust their act to the set of outdated religious and social notions, simply because such willingness serves as the ultimate proof of their reduced intellectual capacity. And, it is namely not overly bright but idealistically minded individuals, which have traditionally been exploited as laughter-inspiring characters in comedies.
As Bergson had put it: “The comic person is unconscious. As though wearing the ring of Gyges with reverse effect, he becomes invisible to himself while remaining visible to all the world” (Bergson, p. 86). In The Rover, the validity of this statement is being illustrated repeatedly – whereas; most play’s male-characters never doubted the objective subtleties of their own virtuousness, it never occurred to them to consider a probability that others might not necessarily be sharing their idealistic perception of themselves. In its turn, this explains the essence of Behn play’s comics as such that is being primarily concerned with its male-characters trying to adjust surrounding reality to their largely irrational beliefs, as opposed to revising these beliefs, in order for them to correlate with objectively existing reality.
For example, despite the fact that, throughout play’s entirety, Antonio had many chances to learn that his outlook onto the rules of etiquette, as such that should be observed at all times, was not shared by others, he nevertheless continued to profess his adherence to these rules, every time opportunity presented itself. In Act 4, Antonio refers to his sworn enemy Bellville in the following manner: “Sir, I come to know what injuries I have done you that could provoke you to so mean an action, as to attack me basely, without allowing time for my defense” (Behn Act 4, Scene 1). Just as it was the case with the character of Don Quixote, Antonio never ceased believing in the reality of essentially imaginary concepts. And, the harder Antonio tried imposing his worldview upon others, the more people were willing to ridicule him, on the account of his perceptional inflexibility. Such our observation is being consistent with the foremost thesis of Bergson’s essay: “Automatism, inelasticity, habit that has been contracted and maintained, are clearly the causes why face makes us laugh” (Bergson, p. 106). Those who cannot adapt cannot evolve. And, given the fact that the continuous existence, on the part of those who cannot evolve, does not make much of a rational sense, such existence appears being automatically endowed with clearly absurdist subtleties. And, it is namely when we recognize an absurdist essence of a particular socio-political or behavioral phenomenon, which allows us to refer to it as amusing.
Apparently, the author of tragicomedy Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett was well aware of this fact, which is why in his play, he made a point in exploiting comical values of absurd as ‘thing in itself’. Throughout the play, its two main characters Estragon and Vladimir preoccupy themselves with waiting for someone named Godot, who actually never makes an appearance on the stage: “We wait. We are bored. No, don’t protest, we are bored to death, there’s no denying it. Good. A diversion comes along and what do we do? We let it go to waste” (Beckett, p. 28). Nevertheless, despite the fact that it is being absolutely clear to both characters that Godot is never going to show up, they nevertheless never cease waiting for him – thus, proving their inability to understand what defines an essence of dialectical relationship between causes and effects.
As Paul Corcoran had put it in his article Godot Is Waiting Too: Endings in Thought and History: “Di Di (Vladimir) and Go Go (Estragon) argue about who should go hang himself first, but neither does, lacking the proper equipment. Nothing is going to happen. And nothing does. They have learned nothing, and drawn no lesson. What they are doing, what they are capable of, is waiting” (Corcoran, p. 514). The context of the play implies that the actual reason why neither Vladimir nor Estragon were able to reconsider the purposefulness of their ‘waiting’ is that they both got trapped within deterministic patterns of thought – that is, these two characters had lost their ability to rationalize surrounding reality, and to say the least – bending it according to their wishes. And, the reason why Vladimir and Estragon had been deprived of such their former ability is because they have wrongly concluded that, by indulging in highly mechanistic/ritualistic activities, one can realize its existential potential: “What are we doing here, that is the question. And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come” (Beckett, p. 28). Thus, by exposing Vladimir and Estragon as nothing less of robots, clearly deprived of a will power to act, instead of simply discussing action as something they are potentially capable of being associated with, Becket strived to emphasize both: tragic and comic aspects of his dramaturgic work. However, the reason why Waiting for Godot can be referred to as anything but funny, is that author portrayed the play’s main characters as individuals fully aware of the fact that their willingness to indulge in a meaningless routine of waiting could not win them anything but disgust, on the part of viewers.
People who cannot break out of the vicious circle of inaction, certainly do deserve a pity. However, while being exposed to the sight of mentally corrupted characters trying to make sense out of life, viewers often have a particularly hard time while trying not to laugh. The reason for this has been outlined in earlier parts of our paper – given the fact that mechanistically minded people represent the dead end of human evolution (due to their inability to evolve intellectually), the observation of how they go about addressing life’s challenges causes viewers to experience a cognitive dissonance. On one hand, there can be little doubt as to these individuals’ affiliation with humankind, but on the other, such affiliation appears utterly artificial: “Something mechanical in something living, in fact, is something comic” (Bergson, p. 26). And, once we admit the lessened extent of humanity, on the part of ‘automatons’, we cannot help but to laugh in a rather politically incorrect manner. As Bergson had put it: “In laughter we always find an unavowed intention to humiliate, and consequently to correct our neighbor, if not in his will, at least in his deed” (Bergson, p. 42). Apparently, laughter should be referred to as the ultimate instrument of addressing existential inconsistencies, which explains why the utilization of a so-called ‘sick frontline humor’ has always been particularly popular among soldiers during the time of war.
The conclusions, deriving from our analysis of the essence of humorous motifs, contained in The Frogs, The Rover, and Waiting for Godot, appear to be consistent with this paper’s initial hypothesis, as they support the validity of Bergson’s view onto laughter as essentially a social function. These conclusions can be summarized as follows:
Laughter is best described as a cognitively emotional reaction towards emanations of existential inadequacy, on the part of people with lessened capacity for rationalization. Therefore, it is namely the specifics of a social situation within the context of which the phenomenon of laughter and the concept of comedy should be discussed. In the book from which we have already quoted, Mary Douglas came up with essentially the same conclusion: “The joke form rarely lies in the utterance alone, but… can be identified in the totality of a social situation” (Douglas, p. 262). It is needless to mention, of course, that such an outlook on the social significance of laughter can only be recognized as valid within the boundaries of euro-centric political/social discourse.
By addressing one’s inability to adapt to newly emerged circumstances with the mean of laughter, people reconfirm their existential superiority in their own eyes – after all, the correlation between the rate of an individual’s IQ and the qualitative properties of his or her sense of humor was established long ago. Therefore, for as long as socio-political realities in this world will continue to be defined by the shortage on natural resources, on one hand, and by the process of Earth becoming increasingly overpopulated, on the other, the social necessity of laughter is going to be recognized by more and more people that consider themselves superior. Dialectically predetermined laws of history support the validity of such our claim.
Given the fact that laughter appears the ultimate tool of dehumanization, the attempts to ban politically incorrect humor are doomed to failure – as descendants of primates, it is in people’s innermost nature to seek the humiliation of others as the means of ensuring their dominance within the ‘pack’. By turning less intellectually advanced individuals into the subjects of jokes, ‘jokers’ simply facilitate the process of biological evolution as such that is being solely concerned with the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’.
Bibliography
- Aristophanes. The Frogs. 405 B.C. (2000). Web. The Internet Classics Archive. Web.
- Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. 1952 (2001). PrariePride.Org.
- Behn, Aphra. The Rover or The Banish’d Cavaliers. 1677 (2001). Project Guttenberg.
- Bergson, Henri.Laughter: An Essay of the Meaning of Comic. 1911 (2003). Temple of Earth Publishing. Web.
- Borch-Jacobsen, Mikkel “The Laughter of Being”, MLN 102.4 (1987): 737-760. Print.
- Carlson, Susan “Cannibalizing and Carnivalizing: Reviving Aphra Behn’s “The Rover” Theatre Journal 47.4 (1995): 517-539. Print.
- Corcoran, Paul “Godot Is Waiting Too: Endings in Thought and History”, Theory and Society 18.4 (1989): 495-529. Print.
- Douglas, Mary. Meanings: Selected Essays in Anthropology. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print.
- Nilsen, Alleen “In Defense of Humor”, College English 56.8 (1994): 928-933. Print.