Dark Humor – Multifaceted Nature of Comedy in the Social Context Surrounding Death

In this essay the main subject of inquiry will be humor and its relation to death. Specifically I am interested to investigate “How is the subject of death discussed and understood in the social context of ‘dark humor’? what makes a joke funny, and what does it reveal about modern conceptions of death?”. By first understanding the sociological function of humor as a unique yet overlooked form of expression, new facets of death’s socio-cultural meaning may become clearer. Therefore a review of the literature on the role, meaning and function of modern humor is in order, with an appreciation of the classic theories of humor and their varying mediums of cultural expression. Thus, a clearer picture of the relationship between death and humor within the social sphere may emerge.

Introduction

Humor is arguably one of the most integral bedrocks of daily interaction. It is found in the office small-talk, with friends or family, as well as the in the vast majority of film, television, and the different online social platforms where people spend a majority of their time (Knight-McCord et al., 2016). Perhaps because of its anti-hierarchical nature, humor is often perceived as being a rather trivial subject for intellectual pursuit, one which mat at first glance not seem to warrant a rigorous in-depth investigation in the formal settings of academia (Watson, 2015). I argue that there is much value in re-examining humor, not only as a form of pleasurable entertainment but also seriously considering its different intricate, multilayered, and often conflicting meanings. This complex intersection is seen in humor’s aesthetic yet often vulgar qualities and its function in both preserving social structures in certain cases, while criticizing and undermining them in others (Douglas, 1999; Smith, 2018). These complex and differing uses of humor will be exemplified in the discussion of death-humor. This is because the unique nature of “dark humor” may best demonstrate the manner in which humor, and it’s deconstruction via humor-analysis, may help in revealing taboo or troublesome sentiments that are collectively experienced, yet cannot always find an alternative adequate expression in the social context.

My intention is to continue the project of establishing the building-blocks for a working theory for dissecting humor. By relying on previous theories of humor, it may be possible to undertake a new direction for developing a working humor-analysis framework. Thus inevitably, the question “what makes certain jokes funny” must be dealt with in a sufficient manner, as well as delving into the sociological, anthropological, philosophical, and psychological aspects of the role of comedy. Yet it is my conviction that this allegedly obscure and trivial interest in jokes may prove uniquely illuminating as to the manner in which modern values and belief find expression in social interaction and the construction of meaning.

Previous Theories on Humor

Though western tradition and scholarship were not much interested in humor as a subject for inquiry (Feltmate, 2013), the first serious discussion on humor may be traced back as far as Plato and Aristotle (Cohen ,1994). Yet it is perhaps only in the turn of the 20th century, that more comprehensive theories of humor have been laid-out by Freud (1905/1976) and Bergson (1900/1911), drawing more attention to the subject. Since then, the literature on humor has continued mainly in the disciplines of philosophy, psychology, and sociology (Tavory, 2014). The “classic” division of theories on humor is: superiority theory, relief theory and incongruity theory (Quirk, 2015; Watson, 2015). For the purpose of this essay, the modern extension of superiority theory known as disposition theory will be included as well and briefly mentioned for its contribution and merits (Purcell, Brown, & Gokmen 2010).

Superiority Theory

According to the first, superiority theory, humor is derived from the defects find in others (Quirk, 2015). Despite the multi-varied forms of humor, at its essence, humor celebrates one’s excellence over another. This notion of reinforcing dominant norms by punishing those who fail to confirm is a notion echoed in the writings of both Cicero and Hobbs (Quirk, 2015). In Bergson’s (1900/1911) foundational formulation of humor-theory, laughter is derived from the exposing of the atomization character within the living person. For example, we find imitations funny because the imitation reveals that automated quality of the person being imitated. It is this demonstration of the rigid personality, the commonplace unadaptable lack of elasticity which is the source of the humorous element. Bergson’s theory may be construed as an integral part of superiority theory since the laughter of the spectator results, at least partly, from the sense of superiority in observing the rigid personality from the side. However, Bergson’s theory is so influential in the study of humor, reducing it into superiority theory alone does it a disservice, as it influenced incongruity theory as well, as we shall later see.

A major quality of superiority theory is that humor functions as a stabilizing force, favoring the statues-quo, fortifying distinctions between one individual to another, or alternatively, between an ingroup and an outgroup. The modern extension of this theory is known as disposition theory, as presented by Purcell et al. (2010). It may be understood as a framework for understanding what is considered funny or not according to one’s identity within or outside a given social group. This theory of humor is specifically useful in the context of understanding the political potential of satire in influencing public opinion (Purcell et al., 2010; Quirk, 2015).

Relief Theory

Relief theory, on the other hand, underlines the disruptive practice of joking (Quirk, 2015). Derived from Freud’s (1905/1976) influential Jokes and their relation to the unconscious, the explanation given to jokes is that they serve as a means for temporarily suppressing social-expectations and influences while still allowing the expression of hostile or unpleasant notions. Similar to superiority theory, for a saying or action to be considered humorous, it must take into account what is collectively considered normal and expected. In other words, what is the boundaries of what is accepted are a necessary prerequisite for the making of the joke. Yet, unlike superiority theory, humor plays a subversive role rather than a reinforcing one, while nonetheless refraining from explicitly undermining social expectations entirely.

Incongruity Theory

It is rather incongruity theory that offers the most complex explanation for humor’s disruptive elements, drawing on both the work of both relief and superiority theory (Douglas, 1999). According to it, the joke emerges from the clash of two or more incompatible ideas (Quirk, 2015). One compelling version of this theory argues that the joke results from a socially constructed ideal type juxtaposed with the failures of lived reality (Fletmate, 2013). This theory emphasizes the rebelliousness of humor, where a new alternative norm is suggested to replace the old (Quirk, 2015). Similarly, Douglas (1999) furthers the theory, viewing humor as a means of revealing the arbitrary and subjective nature of accepted social patterns. Yet this rebelliousness is not necessarily commonplace, as often comedy serves to reinforce consensus despite a joke being “potentially subversive” (Douglas, 1999, p. 152). The summary she offers of the similarities between Freud’s (1905/1976) and Bergson’s (1900/1911) work is insightful in understanding how they both contributed to establishing incongruity theory. She claims that both recognized that the essence of the joke is the attack of the formal by the informal, something organized and controlled, by something vital and spirited.

These classical theories of humor have formed much of the basis for both the individualistic-psychological research on humor (Lynch, 2002), as well as much modern sociological theories of humor. Yet the sociological literature of humor tends to focus more on the social dynamics of humor, specifically interested in the way humor is used for identification and differentiation (Lambert South, Elton, & Lietzenmayer, 2020). Lynch (2002) offers an integrative communication focused perspective, where humor is understood as a message stemming from psychological motivations but is governed and dependent on the interpretations of the sociological context. Consequently, it follows that in order to sketch wider generalizations, mass-consumed mediums of entertainment such as stand-up and television should be investigated. This is due to the fact that their comedic and artistic styles both influence and are influenced by common social norms found day-to-day. Hence, we may attempt to codify their use of humor (Lambert South et al., 2020) and treat them as modern cultural texts (Karimova, 2010).

Mediums of Humor

Humor comes in many different mediums and forms, attending to the differences between mediums is of no less importance than the content of the jokes themselves. This is due to humor’s context-dependent nature (Bergson, 1900/1911), where the same joke told by a friend or stranger, on a birthday or at funeral, will often have a very different meaning and produce different reactions. For our purposes, the main mediums where humor analysis may be of interest is Stand-up and Television.

Stand-Up

According to Fletmate (2013), the comic plays a critical rule in revealing something substantial about human beings in their socially constructed world. The joke, therefore, allows to transcend into another realm where normative limitations are overcome. This argument seems to echo the same notions of “incongruity theory” and “relief theory”, where it is the comic that allows one to point to the absurd contradictions of the social world, opening-up a temporary enjoyable escape, or according to Fletmate’s (2013) religious terminology – transcend life. This notion seems to have intuitive merit, as well as draw on a solid theoretical foundation. Yet it may be noted that even in the stand-up performance where the comic and the audience escape to an alternate world, they are still bound by social norms, albeit different ones than those used day-to-day (Quirk, 2015).

Smith (2018), in his work Comedy and Critique attempts an impressively in-depth analysis of the comedian and his peculiar and contradictory role in society. He argues that the comic, similar to the shaman or a magician, is in a paradoxical position of being both a trickster on one hand, but a confidant on the other. As a con-artist working in the margins of social life, the comic is an intimate stranger, that works for peddled laughter. The modern stand-up comedian style resembles that of a heightened awareness confession, where the laughter results from the excavation of the self, while at the same time commodifying the self to please the audience. He argues that it is the comic’s “intra-personality” that allows him to reveal the uncertain gap we all face between “who we are” in reality and “what we appear to be”. This reminds Goffman’s (1963/1997) work on the concept of stigma, where a person is perceived as deviant as a result of the gap between one’s “actual social identity” and his virtual social identity – his characterization “in effect”. Thus, it seems that a comic’s joke stems partly from his ability to switch constantly between the deviant stigmatized personality to the normal relatable personality the audience identifies with. This confessional style of the modern comic allows him to reveal the incongruity between a difficult social reality and an idealized unrealistic expectation set by social norms.

Television

Television, and specifically the modern sitcom also plays an interesting medium of exploring the role and effects of humor on behavior. For example, Rhodes & Ellithorpe (2016) found that the use of laugh-tracks in a sitcom or lack thereof was predictive of notions on driving-safety. After showing 2 groups of participants a clip of the sitcom friends where the characters engage in risky driving behavior, they measured perceived norms of driving-safety. One group watched the clip with the laugh-track intact, while the other clip with the laugh-track edited out. The results showed that those who saw the clip with the laugh track, reinforced reckless social norms, that in turn made safety-driving norms less of a priority. Therefore it may be said that the laugh-track in television serves as the manufactured replacement of the audience laughter, so though intellectually “not real”, ultimately serves the same function of defining normal as opposed to deviant, accepted from unaccepted. It may be added that despite being a sitcom, the characters in the show are, like the stand-up comedian, relatable yet deviant (Smith, 2018). The laughter resulting from the realization of that incongruity. The characters, like the comedian, carefully explore the gray area of social norms. This exploration allows the audience to contrast the idealization of acting perfectly according to known social norms with the reality of never-ending social uncertainty and the inevitable failures of human nature (Fletmate, 2013).

Subsequently it seems that sitcom television follows the same patterns of humor laid down by the “classical” theories. Despite being less limited than the stand-up comedian, essentially humor in television is a product of a combination of multiple contradictions, liberating the viewers from the hierarchal structure while at the same time reproducing them (Karimova, 2010). That is the reason humor-analysis of tv-shows as cultural texts may be a worth-while practice when dealing with abstract and multifaceted subjects such as the connection between humor and death.

Humor and Death

While the psychological and sociological literature of humor, in general, is fairly vast, the literature of humor in the context of death is an understudied phenomenon (Lambert South et al., 2020). Yet the connection between humor in the context of death is not only natural but is uniquely illuminating. Death of a loved one may be one of the hardest experiences of life, and the modern conception of death makes it a source of grave anxiety and rarely spoken of, functioning almost as a semi-social taboo. Discussing the subject in polite conversation is a source of deep discomfort, perhaps because death is both a certain outcome expected for all, yet forever alluding an intellectual and experiential understanding. That is why humor appears to be in this context a uniquely useful social tool to express complicated sentiments concerning the subject.

According to superiority theory, it may be said that joking about death works to undermine death itself (Thorson, 1993). According to relief theory, a death-joke allows one to express uncomfortable notions while remaining socially acceptable (Freud, 1905/1976). As for incongruity theory, humor allows both the teller and listener of a death-joke to simultaneous inhabit two realms of meanings (Quirk, 2015; Smith, 2018). Humor helps reveal incongruities between thoughts and reality (Fletmate, 2013), and death, being such a common source of existential dread may often be disproportionately feared.

One recent study attempted to code 6 different humor types by observing friends and family discussing death (Lambert South et al., 2020). Those humor-types are, from most to least common: entertainment humor, gallows humor, tension-relieving humor, confused/awkward laughter, group humor/narrative chaining, and self-deprecating humor. According to it, humor of death was used in different ways: to “save face”, pivot or delay from the seriousness of the subject, indicate support, increase likability and affinity with others, minimize uncomfortable situations and to communicate difficult honesty. This study is limited by the relatively young sample of participants, the inability to analyze non-verbal humor and that these humorous remarks may not transfer to different settings and mediums where death-humor is discussed, such as in television or stand-up. That is due to the social norms governing dinner conversations amongst friends and families, yet this study does much in the way of opening a path for further investigation in the intersection and communication of humor and death. Thus, furthering the study of death and humor to popular entertainment may draw support or differ from the findings of these study, but certainly provide with a fuller and clearer picture of death and humor in modern culture.

Final Discussion

Thanks to its multifaceted nature, humor is an undervalued key source of insight for the sociologist, and a working theory of useful humor analysis is not only possible, but distinctively useful in the inquiry of socio-cultural sentiments on death. An interesting example for further investigation may be looking at one of these tv-shows: “Fleabag”, “BoJack-Horseman” and “Rick and Morty” for they are popular world-wide distinguishable by their stand-up-like script, as well as the explicit and implicit utilization of dark humor in dealing with the subject of death. These shows’ protagonists, like the stand-up comedian, embody the interplay between relatability and deviancy, occupying 2 simultaneous worlds of meaning that drive the humorous narrative of each show. This study’s contribution is in that there has yet to be a thorough study of examining these shows as cultural-texts, codifying their use of humor and its relation to death. By relying on the aforementioned classical and modern theories of humor, it may be possible to conduct an informative analysis of humor and death, thus revealing how grim sentiments are expressed in modern television today.