Back to Syllabi Directory
Back to Dixie OWL
There was a couple that had been married for about 20 years, and the husband was beginning to have some health problems. They were not life threatening, but they did remind him that life is fragile. One day, somewhat depressed, he asked his wife, "Honey, if I were to die, would you remarry?" She replied, "Oh, don’t be silly. Don’t start thinking about dying. You are going to be fine." But he pressed her, "I know, but really, do you think you would remarry?" She said, "I think this is silly to talk about, but I guess I might. But I don’t think we should be talking like this." He reflected a moment, "Maybe its silly, but I’ve been wondering. If you remarried, would you live with him here–in our house?" Again she protested, "Don’t you think this kind of talk will just make you more depressed?" "Please tell me," he urged. "Well," she said, "its kind of hard to say, but I love our home, so I suppose we would live here." He pressed on, "Do you think you would even sleep in our bed, where we have slept together?" She replied, "Honey, I guess we would. I love that bed, and I am not sure I would want to throw it out. I probably would." The husband asked, "Would you let him just take over; would you let him use my golf clubs?" "No," the wife replied, "I wouldn’t do that." "Why not?" "Because he’s left handed."
I have been teaching about jokes and riddles in folklore classes for over 20 years, but I always had the feeling that I was never getting closer to an understanding of some basic questions. Why do humans create and enjoy humor? What is it that makes something funny? What causes the physiological experience of laughter? When I was asked if I would prepare this faculty lecture, I decided to research and see if I could find some answers for myself. I hope to share my discoveries with you while telling and poking into some bits of humor. I cannot pretend that I have found exhaustive, certain answers to my questions. I feel now as a student did as he finished my ethics class a few years ago. After the final, he thanked me for the class and gave me a xeroxed sheet that read: "I am much more confused as I leave this course than I was when I came in, but I feel that I am confused about more important things than I used to be." In some of my research, I found answers that satisfy me–for now. But in other areas, I have become convinced that those who are sure of their answers do not have answers that satisfy me. I must be content with knowing some of the important questions and knowing that the answers are complex and slippery.
I want to share some bits of humor with you, humor of various types, not merely jokes. In the time that follows, I hope to discover what makes them funny, and perhaps a little of the purposes of humor to us humans. The first occurred in 1967, while I was sitting in a final exam in Orson Spencer Hall, scratching my head and trying to say something brilliant about T.S. Eliot’s "The Wasteland," or at least give the impression that I had understood it. The class, the building, was absolutely silent. Suddenly, in the hallway outside the door a young man with a nice voice began singing loudly, "We shall overcome, We shall overcome, We shall overcome, someday . . . " As the singing began, we all looked up and turned our heads to the door in astonishment. Then the entire class burst into simultaneous laughter. Why? What was so amusing about hearing that song that we had only heard in connection with the grief and courage of those in the serious struggle for civil rights?
Another occasion of humor came for me two years later, a couple days after I had landed in Viet Nam. Since I was and infantryman, a grunt, I was waiting for my assignment to a combat unit. The army, like my mother, abhors idleness, so I was on KP while I waited. There were two of us washing the huge stainless steel pots and pans: I and a tiny wrinkled Vietnamese mama-san, as we called the older women. She was tiny, but I was frightened of her. I had been told many times of friendly-looking civilians who would plant a booby-trap or toss a grenade and run. As I scrutinized her, trying to guess her potential for harm, she would turn on me a garish grin, straight out of a Halloween spook alley. She chewed beetle-nut, which had turned her teeth into black spikes, with the red stains of beetle-nut packed between. That chilling smile was no assurance of peaceful intent.
We pushed a big table into a corner of a screened army hut, and began placing the washed pots and pans on it upside down, to drain. Our stack got to be three, and then four feet high. Suddenly the bottom started to slide out, pushed by the weight of the pots on top. It was a little like the effect of taking out a bottom orange from a nicely stacked display in a store. I grabbed a large pan at the bottom and pushed it back in; the stack then started to slide out in another spot, so I put a leg against that. Then it started to slide off the other end of the table, where the mama-san quickly positioned herself with both hands and her body holding the pans from squirting out. We looked like two mimes, pretending to push against a wall, but this wall was slippery, unstable and real. Our eyes met over the huge stack of dishes as our contorted bodies and limbs struggled against the inevitable. A spark of something deeply human came from those tiny black eyes above the horrifying grin; then, as though we were following a script, we stepped back–and let it all go, clattering and banging all over the floor. She took my hand and we sat on the floor, laughing till tears came. As the cook rushed out and looked in horror at his pans strewn over the floor and us in hysterics, we only laughed the more. At that moment of uncontrollable laughter, I crossed over into an acceptance of the humanity of the Vietnamese; I knew she was my sister and that I would love those people. In some important way, shared humor brought us close.
Well, there is something serious about that humor. But now let’s look at a couple of jokes made at the expense of blondes. So, why do you marry a blonde? So you can park in the handicap parking space. But, of course, it is a silly stereotype that blondes are airheads. My niece is a blonde. One day we had traveled through Zion National Park and were passing some wheat fields as we neared Kanab. Out in a wheat field there were two blondes sitting in a rowboat, actually trying to row across the field. My blonde niece, in disgust, said "You know, it is blondes like that who give us blondes a bad name. I would like to go out and give them a talking too, if I could swim."
And lastly, a riddle: When is a door not a door? When it’s ajar.
All of these bits are or could be humorous, depending on a set of factors. With the first two examples, you almost had to be there for the effect. For the third, some may not like the promotion of blonde stereotypes. Lastly, with the pun, you have to get it and think it was worth the while to get it.
In researching, I found an early reference to jokes by St. Augustine, writing in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. Jokes do not aim at precise accuracy, as a Christian thinker such as St. Augustine might wish. But jokes are like other artistic expressions that, as Picasso says, are lies that reveal the truth. St. Augustine says, "‘Jokes should never be accounted lies, seeing they bear with them in the tone of voice, and in the very mood of the joker, a most evident indication that he means no deceit, although the thing he utters be not true. . . .A person should not be thought to lie, who lieth not’" (qtd. in Sanders 92). More than ten centuries later, Thomas Hobbes, in his Leviathan, was one of the first to define and characterize humor. In 1651 he wrote, "Sudden glory is the passion which makes those grimaces called laughter, and is caused either by some sudden act of their own that pleases them or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves" (57). So, for example, we might run faster than the other kids in the 5th grade or put together a puzzle faster and burst into joyous laughter. Or as he seems to suggest, we might take delight in seeing a blind, deformed, or lame person. And Hobbes is not kind to those of us who take pride in having a good sense of humor. He continues: "And it is incident most to them that are conscious of the fewest abilities in themselves, who are forced to keep themselves in their own favor by observing the imperfections of other men. And therefore much laughter at the defects of others is a sign of pusillanimity" (Hobbes 57). At some level, there is a ring of truth here. From my own experience, I suspect that his two sources of laughter, seeing ourselves superior or another deformed or deficient, are not a complete account or the sources of laughter. However, when I apply his theory about those who are conscious of defects in themselves trying to "keep themselves in their own favor" by finding imperfection in others, it seems to account for a lot of what we see happening among elementary children and adolescents. Many children spend time teasing, humiliating and applying epithets to others such as "sissy," "dumbbell," "fatty," "gay," and worse; I suspect, in some way, such behavior is an attempt to bolster weak self images. I have had many conversations with my own children (as I am sure many parents have) about the insecurities of those who must call others names, tease, or bully them; I have also encouraged them never to build their own self esteem by laughing at the deficiencies of others. In short, while I have to recognize that Hobbes describes a reality we all can recognize, I was not satisfied that he accounted for all occasions of humor.
Elsewhere, Hobbes gives another account of humor in much the same way: "[Hobbes] states in his Treatise on Human Nature the following: ‘Men laugh at mischances and indecencies, wherein there lies not wit or jest at all. . . . Also men laugh at the infirmities of others. . .I may therefore conclude that the passion of laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from a sudden conception of some eminence in ourselves by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly: for men laugh at the follies of themselves past, when they come suddenly to remembrance, except they bring with them any present dishonor’"(qtd. in Gruner 13). This does not add to much to his definition, except to point out that we might also laugh at our former self, if we see our present condition as superior or advanced.
Hobbes view of humor must proceed from his estimate of the nature of man, a judgment that is doleful and pessimistic: "So that in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence [that is unconfident and distrustful]; thirdly, glory. The first makes men invade for gain, the second for safety, and the third for reputation. The first use violence to make themselves masters of other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name"[emphasis mine] (Hobbes 106). Hobbes argued that without a strong leader to force us all into compliance with law, we would be in a state of perpetual war. We will behave only out of fear of punishment. His theory of humor, then, fits what he thinks is human nature: through our competitiveness and desire for glory, we rejoice in any thing that shows our superiority or another’s inferiority.
While this view of humor may seem grim and not all-encompassing, it has fathered–or grandfathered– much of what is held to be true today about humor. One of his modern day supporters says, "I tend to agree with author Anthony Ludovici, who stated in his book Secret of Laughter (1932) that all of these theories [about humor] can be classified into two groups: those that do, and those that do not agree with the theory of seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes. I further agree with Ludovici that those theories that don’t agree with that of Hobbes can be consigned to oblivion"(Gruner 13). This is a forceful confirmation of Hobbes’ views.
One reason that Hobbes’ views are held so strongly is that their essence was reiterated in more recent time by none other than Sigmund Freud. His lyrics were a little different, but the tune was the same. A modern folklorist and humor scholar has observed, "two major theories have held sway in the conceptualization and analysis of humor. The better known is psychoanalytic theory that was first formulated by Sigmund Freud in his 1905 classic, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. Psychoanalysis [ . . . ]" (Oring 1). "Freud’s emphasis on the aggressiveness of jokes conveniently corralled earlier notions that laughter depends upon a sense of superiority or the expression of malice"( Oring 1).
And Elliott Oring continues in his summation of Freud’s theory of humor: "In 1905, humor was decidedly removed from the domain of the trivial when Sigmund Freud set forth his theory of jokes: ‘There are only two purposes that it (a joke) may serve. . . . It is either a hostile joke (serving the purposes of aggressiveness, satire or defense) or an obscene joke (serving the purpose of exposure)’" (Oring 16). What Hobbes had spoken of as the "sudden glory" of sensing one’s own superiority or another’s inferiority is captured in Freud’s theory of the aggressive nature of humor. As Freud concluded: "By making our enemy small, inferior, despicable or comic, we achieve in a roundabout way the enjoyment of overcoming him--to which the third person [the one listening to the joke], who has made no efforts, bears witness by his laughter"(qtd. in Ryan and Kanjorski).
Freud had also spoken of another type of joke, an obscene one, but as Elliott Oring observes, the obscene jokes tend to slide into the aggressive, "In the case of jokes [in Freud’s theory], these motives are invariably aggressive or sexual, although aggression is the more pervasive of the two; for even sexual motives are transformed into aggressive ones as they are inhibited by particular social conditions and circumstances"(Oring 1). Later, I want to devote specific attention to the uses of sexual humor, but for now, it is well to note Freud’s accounting for both as aggressive. A casual survey of much modern humor supports Freud’s view. Many of us take delight in watching the pratfalls of comedians from Charlie Chaplin to the three stooges to Jerry Lewis to the mishaps from George’s social ineptness in Seinfeld. And a variety of shows have sprung up to show us home videos of common folk falling in mud, wrecking bikes, ripping clothes, and so on. Add to this cruel stereotypes portrayed in jokes about Mexicans, Jews, Poles, Italians, blacks, blondes, and so on.
Or we could look at the myriad expressions we have to insult, with humor, someone’s intelligence, such as: He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. He’s so dense, light bends around him. She’s got an IQ of about room temperature. He is a few bricks shy of a full load. She doesn’t have the brain power to toast a crouton. Or an example growing out of Internet use, I don’t think his URL allows outside access. These humorous insults seem to go down a little more easily, than the "dumbbell" and "hey, stupid" epithets many of us heard and used while young. And there is hostility, albeit dressed in humor in jokes told by Utes and Cougars about each other. For example: How do you get a U. of U. grad off your front porch? Pay him for the pizza. Or, What do you call a Cougar with half a brain? Gifted. Or The engineer who graduated from Utah State asks, "How does that work?" The BYU engineering graduate asks, "How can I make that work better?" The engineer who graduated from the U. of U. asks "Would you like fries with that?" How many BYU freshmen does it take to change a light bulb. None, it’s a sophomore course. And of course, there are multitudes of BYU coed jokes, most of which I collected from BYU coeds. For example, why do BYU coeds wear high heels? To keep their knuckles from dragging on the ground. How can you tell if a BYU coed is level headed? She drools out of both sides of her mouth. And of course, BYU students and fans have jokes intended to get right back at such joke-tellers, especially if they are Utes. What did the U. of U. student get on his SAT. Drool. Or the riddle, What is the difference between Frank Sinatra, a rooster, a patriot, and a BYU coed? Frank Sinatra says, "Do-be-do-be-do"; a rooster says, "cock-a-doodle do"; the patriot says, "Yankee-doodle-do"; and the BYU coed says, "Any dude’ll do." But that barb is answered. What is the difference between a BYU coed and a U. of U. coed. A BYU coed is looking for a husband, and the U. of U. coed is looking for the father. That wonderful joke bites back at those who stereotype BYU coeds as husband hunting.
There is also the story of the three BYU graduates that were riding in a pickup while three U. of U. grads were riding in the back. The pickup went off the road into a lake and sank. The BYU grads rolled down the windows, got out and swam to safety. The Utes drowned because they could not get the tailgate down. And there is the sad story of LaHurl, the BYU student who had gone to the Y for six years (even with no mission) and still had not enough credits to graduate. But at graduation, the whole student body began chanting, "Let LaHurl graduate! Let LaHurl graduate!"The BYU president, fearing a possible riot and not being too excited at having LaHurl for a seventh year, asked LaHurl to come to the stand. He told the crowd that if LaHurl could answer a question, He would be given a diploma and allowed to graduate. "You have one chance, LaHurl, What is 9 times 9?" La Hurl Beamed and blurted out 81. There was a stunned silence for a moment, and then the crowd began chanting, "Give him another chance! Give him another chance!" I suppose the amount of hostility embedded within these jokes would vary from person to person and vary in different situations. But they are clearly examples of Hobbes’ view that jokes are intended to be aggressive and express hostility.
Within a few days of the revelation of Clinton’s shameful and embarrassing interludes with Monica Lewinsky, I had collected over eight pages of Clinton jokes circulating on the Internet–most of them unfit for an audience. But some that can pass here are as follows: Bill Clinton looked up from some papers on his desk to see and aide nervously approaching him. What is it, he asked. It’s the abortion bill, sir. What do you want to do about it? Just pay it, Bill replied. Q. What does Teddy Kennedy have that Bill Clinton wishes he did? A. A dead girlfriend. Q: How does Clinton keep Monica Lewinsky away from the White House? A: He keeps offering to send Ted Kennedy over to give her a ride! Q: What is the title of Hillary Clinton's new book? A: It takes a village to watch my husband.
Or look at the aggression in some lawyer jokes. Q. What do you have when 100 lawyers are buried up to the necks in sand? A. Not enough sand. Q. What’s the difference between a female lawyer and a pit bull? A. Lipstick. Q. What do you call 20 lawyers skydiving from and airplane? A. Skeet. Q. What’s the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead lawyer in the middle of the road. A. There are skid marks in front of the skunk. And one that manages to offend a lot of people. Q. What do you get when you cross a bad politician with a crooked lawyer? A. Chelsea Clinton.
And hundreds of jokes have emerged about Jeffery Dahmer, the cannibalistic serial murderer some years back. Q. Why did all the students in the Thespian club dislike Jeffery when he was in high school? A. He always got all the meaty parts.
Clearly, many jokes which circulate are mean-spirited, hostile barbs. They may very well be attempts to bolster our own self esteem by demeaning the failings and disasters that have happened to others (‘Failings,’ of course, is a bit of an understatement for Dahmer’s murders and cannibalism.). But why are there jokes about Christa Mcauliffe, who died in the Challenger disaster, a woman who is something of a hero for us common folks. Her failures apparently were being a good teacher and having a lot of courage, yet many of the Challenger disaster jokes figure her name prominently in them.
It is because of the overwhelming occurrence of jokes like these that Hobbes and Freud have many supporters among modern students of humor. Oring tells us that "Henri Bergson also saw laughter as an unconscious form of ridicule designed to humiliate and correct others" (qtd. in Oring 1). And in a work by Zillman, Bryant, and Cantor (1974), they assert "‘In various conceptions of the motivational bases of humor appreciation, the expression of aggression has been considered to be an important component of humor responses, if not the most critical component’" (qtd. in Gruner 14). And Oring quotes Legman, a collector and publisher of "dirty jokes," "‘Under the mask of humor, our society allows infinite aggressions, by everyone against everyone. In the culminating laugh, by the listener or observer . . . the teller of the joke betrays his hidden hostility and signals his victory.’ Jokes, then, are assaults against real individual and groups in the social world. They serve the emotions by allowing the expression of aggression safely ‘masked’ as play" (qtd. in Oring 16). And writer Arthur Koestler agrees, arguing that the aggression is the necessary ingredient of humor, "‘The more sophisticated forms of humour evoke mixed, and sometimes contradictory, feelings; but whatever the mixture, it must contain one ingredient whose presence is indispensable: an impulse, however faint, of aggression of apprehension. It may be manifested in the guise of malice, derision, the veiled cruelty of condescension, or merely as an absence of sympathy with the victim of the joke [ . . ..] I propose to call this common ingredient the aggressive-defensive or self-asserting tendency’" (qtd. in Gruner 14).
The most outspoken theorist siding with Hobbes and Freud is Charles R. Gruner, who has written widely on the subject and is willing to take Freud on for being too soft in his theories. He points out that Freud had "postulated that there were two kinds of hit (humor), ‘tendency wit’ and ‘harmless wit.’ ‘Tendency wit’ is the common humor directed at a butt, making fun or someone or some institution. ‘Harmless wit’ was best described as humor directed at no one or thing but which merely relies for its laughter-evoking on its verbal form. The important point here is that Freud was unable to provide a single example of ‘harmless wit’" (Gruner 11). In a recent book, Gruner has a chapter entitled "The Mirage of ‘Innocent’ Humor." There he concedes the harshness of his Hobbesian theories: "I can understand the desire of writers who continue to persist in arguing for the existence of ‘harmless,’ ‘innocent,’ ‘neutral,’ humor without ‘tendency.’ The very idea that the precious joy of laughter stems from a basically mean and ‘antisocial’ psychological characteristic can disappoint the nobility of human spirit we all think we strive for. To ascribe degradation to humor ‘dehumanizes’ us. People want to believe that we are fallen angels, not risen brutes. We prefer not to see the truth in the anthropology volumes" (Gruner 148).
What is the truth that Gruner thinks we have overlooked in the ‘anthropology volumes?’ Gruner argues that in humans’ struggle for survival, they so often went through a "tension/win/tension-release behavior release reaction" that "homo sapiens absorbed the ‘win syndrome’ into its genes. Laughing became the natural reaction to ‘winning,’ especially if that ‘win’ came suddenly, and after a mighty struggle" (Gruner 16-17). Gruner does better when he sticks to examples of vicious humor to support his theories. His notion that as early humans repeatedly went through a "tension/win/tension-release behavior release reaction" that the "win syndrome" was "absorbed into its genes" has not been in anthropology books since Darwinian evolutionary theory replaced Lamarck. We do not "absorb" behavior into our genes and pass it on to future generations. The children of accomplished violinists or doctors must start at the beginning and learn the basics from the beginning.
His second claim that "laughing became the natural reaction to ‘winning,’ especially if that ‘win’ came suddenly, and after a mighty struggle" is also not self-evident. We can perhaps imagine our distant ancestors giving a shout of joy when, after a long hunt, a sharp stick brought down the evening’s meal. And as even more highly evolved descendants of those early homo sapiens, we do cheer and hurrah after a basketball or football game. But we see those as games, as fun (hockey games may be the exception). I saw no laughter after firefights in Viet Nam; I suspect that for most of us, laughter was not the response to the quickly ended battles with Iraq over Kuwait. While a bomber may feel exhilaration at a direct hit, there is too much apparently contradictory evidence to accept all Gruner claims about the evolution of a ‘laughter’ gene.
Gruner echoes Hobbesian descriptions of humans as competitive, diffident, and seeking glory when he says humans’ evolved nature is "acquisitive, competitive, and explorative." We want to win in any conflict. If we win gradually, we have feelings of "well-being, satisfaction, relaxation," etc. If we win suddenly, we "smile, squeal, laugh, [ . . .] jump for joy, sing, etc." (Gruner 39). That explains our reactions to jokes. Gruner continues his analysis of human nature: "But why must we experience sudden superiority in order to laugh? It’s because of the kind of animal we humans have become. How did Man (and Man, capitalized, includes Woman) rise to the top of the food chain and become the masters of the earth? Simply by the most successful combination of aggression, competitiveness, curiosity, and resourcefulness of any of the planet’s living species" (Gruner 16). Gruner quotes another author to show our primitive enjoyment of death and suffering: "‘The most primitive form of humour is that of sheer brutality in which degradation of the recipient is achieved by his anxiety, anguish or agony. [ . . .] it is a kind of humour enjoyed by all those who perpetrate terror and torture . . . . After all, there is a narrow boundary between sarcasm and sadism, between bantering and bestiality’" (qtd. in Gruner 43). And Gruner furnishes proof from a story told about an incident during the Holocaust, "After being forced to stack bodies of men who had been clubbed to death, Moshe Garbarz reported that ‘When our task was finished we went back to the barracks. Baybich [the supervisor] was laughing: "What the hell have you been wallowing in? You must have been killing pigs, right?" . . . . He rejoiced to see us in such a deplorable state.’ The wish for the death of others can be made socially acceptable by the joke format" (Gruner 43). I respond to this"joke" with horror. I suspect that we all do. Here, I suspect that Gruner has made the fundamental error that Freud himself has been sometimes accused of. When one looks at people that most of would label as sick and antisocial, one must be very cautious in generalizing from the sick to the whole population. I do not see myself as letting out the same horrifying, grotesque emotions as the Nazi supervisor by telling blonde jokes, BYU coed jokes, or even lawyer jokes (although there is hostility there).
Gruner himself seems to realize he has pushed his point too far: "I do not imply that joke-tellers are potential pogrom-instigators, rioters, or warriors; but that the conflict is real and is based upon the particular kind of nervous system we have inherited from our biological ancestors over millions of years of evolution. [ . . . .] My point is that humor consists of basically two elements: one is conflict, contest, competition, aggression, hostility, or whatever synonym you wish. The other is ‘sudden perception’ of the result of the contest, a ‘win’ and a ‘loss.’ And that the subtraction of the first element from the test of a so-called humorous incident or story makes the humor vanish, whereas the loss of ‘suddenness’ can eliminate or greatly reduce the humor" (Gruner 80). As did Koestler above, Gruner identifies the aggression or hostility as the necessary ingredient to humor, if not the sufficient one. Gruner says of humor:
1. For every humorous situation, there is a winner.
2. For every humorous situation, there is a loser.
3. Finding the ‘winner’ in every humorous situation, and what that ‘winner’ wins is often not easy.
4. Finding the ‘loser’ in every humorous situation and what that ‘loser’ loses, is often even less easy.
But, that having been said,
5. Humorous situations can best be understood by knowing who wins what, and who loses what.
6. Removal from a humorous situation (joke, etc.) what is won or lost, or the suddenness with which it is won or lost, removes the essential elements of the situation and renders it humorless." (Gruner 9)
And, he continues, " And, remember, we almost always couch our ‘aggression or apprehension’ within a kind of ‘play frame’; we know ‘it’s just a joke’ and nothing ‘serious.’ Whoever we ‘laugh at’ is in a sense a ‘victim,’ but not a real, flesh-and-blood victim who actually suffers loss or pain" (Gruner 14). Within jokes, we can relish the suffering of others, but since it is play, no harm is done, by this theory.
In his theory of how we got from squealing with delight when we punctured an enemy with a spear to laughing at jokes, Gruner again builds his own evolutionary model: "Man first probably figured out that he need not actually beat up on a fellow tribesman in order to get that ‘thrill of victory’ feeling (and a hearty laugh). Just the sight of a compatriot hobbling into sight, nursing a black eye, a sore leg, and a number of bruises and contusions could set him off. His reaction: "hey, look at this poor slob. He (and, not me) got really clobbered! The laughter of ridicule is born. [. . .] today, Modern Man, can get a real kick out of perceiving his sudden superiority to another human that is lame, halt, blind, accident-prone, stupid, clumsy, illiterate, socially inept, excessively fat or skinny, ugly, embarrassed, and so on" (Gruner 18). The presumption that evolution has taken us from having to kill or maim someone to really have humor in our lives to just being able to see someone "lame, halt or blind" and break into laughter, at the very least, needs more empirical support than Gruner offers. And, Gruner continues, the invention of language has taken us one step beyond simple enjoyment of the misery of others: "Man’s newfound ability to get a laugh out of the misfortunes of others (ridicule) became greatly enhanced by his invention of language. He quickly found that he could deliberately ridicule his fellow creatures."
[ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]
Language allowed our forbears to actively utilize their competitive instincts in another manner, and without the least danger of physical harm coming to them–in contests of wit. [ . . . ] Contests of wit in general became formalized as ‘riddle contests’" (Gruner 92). My initial response is to dismiss this as unscientific, perhaps preposterous, but I must concede that his theory that jokes are a way for modern humans to unleash primitive feelings of aggression and hostility seems supported by much that we call humor. Look for example at some of the milder jokes that circulated after Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison:
Q: When they performed the autopsy today on Mr. Dahmer, do you know what they found?
A: Jimmy Hoffa!
Q: Did you hear about Dahmer's funeral?
A: Open casket, with a buffet afterwards.
They've requested he be buried in a giant lunchbox.
Q: What did the inmate say after off-ing Dahmer...
A: Hurry up boys, breakfast is gettin' cold!
Q: What question was asked of all attendees of Dahmer's funeral?
A: Will you have soup or salad with that organ?
Q: What's everyone wearing at Jeffrey Dahmer's funeral?
A: A bib.
Or Consider some of the OJ Simpson jokes that circulated during his trial.
Q:Did you hear that Mike Tyson [who was in prison at the time of the trial] has a new breakfast menu?
A: Wheaties, toast, and O.J.!
I heard today that O.J. wants to take another stab at marriage.
O.J. Simpson is the first football player to be penalized for slashing!
Q: What's the last thing O.J. said to Nicole Simpson?
A: Your waiter will be with you shortly.
There's good news and bad news today:
The bad news is that it has been reported that the Simpson jury is going to acquit O.J.
The good news is that Susan Smith [who had just confessed to killing her two children by letting her car roll into a lake] is going to drive him home.
Q: What do Marcia Clark and Susan Smith have in common?
A: It looks like neither one of them will get the juice!!
Q: Why can't Heidi Fleiss [a woman accused of running a high-priced prostitute ring in Hollywood] and O.J. Simpson play golf together?
A: Because Heidi Fleiss is a hooker and O.J. Simpson is a slicer!!
I have earlier mentioned the torrent of Bill Clinton jokes. Nearly all of them are not fit for a public address (and perhaps not for private telling, but at the rate they spread, obviously many people are passing them on). This one manages to insult Clinton and the whole state of Arkansas: Arkansas is very proud of Mr. Clinton. All of these women confessing to having had sex with him, and none of them are [sic] his sister!
Q: How does Bill Clinton teach a woman how to play golf?
A: He starts out with the irons and ends up in the woods!
Q: What is the first thing President Clinton does in the morning?
A: Goes back to the White House.
When we add to the humor such as this the nightly roastings that public figures receive in humorous barbs from Jay Leno, David Letterman, and the myriad of other comedians, we can see a widespread pattern of aggressive, hostile jokes, in which most of the humor seems to rest on the pain and suffering (albeit some suffering is deserved) of others. Therefore, I am unable to dismiss Hobbes, Freud, or those like Gruner who see humor through the same spectacles.
In fact, perhaps the most horrific confirmation of the hostility in much humor comes from Alan Dundes, a folklorist at UC Berkeley who collected the ultimate gallows humor for this century, "Auschwitz jokes" that are circulating in Germany, among German people that we somehow hope are still feeling a collective guilt about the murder of millions of Jews. These "Auschwitz jokes," to most of us, suggest depravity on the part of those who tell and laugh at such jokes. Dundes defends his own collecting of such jokes by asking, "Do you really think it would be better not to report on the popularity of such jokes? [ . . . .] Prejudice, stereotyping, gross inhumanity, and even ethnic genocide do not seem to be on the wane. Folklorists with a sense of social responsibility have an obligation to do what they can to fight injustice" (Dundes 38). I agree. These jokes are not jokes that I would tell, that my friends would tell me, and only occasionally would I use them in a folklore class to demonstrate some of the uses (or abuses) of humor. Here are some samples: "How many Jews can you fit in a Volkswagen? Fourteen. Two in front, two in back, ten in the ashtray. [ . . . . ] What were Jews used for in connection with the 1936 Olympics [held in Berlin under Hitler’s direction]? For the cindertrack and the Olympic flame" (Dundes 20-21). Other jokes are as follows: "What is the difference between a ton of coal and a thousand Jews? Jews burn longer. [ . . . .] Two (Jewish) children are sitting on top of a roof near a chimney. A passerby asks, ‘What are you doing there?’ ‘We are waiting for our parents. [ . . . .] Why did so many Jews go to Auschwitz? The fare was free" (Dundes 22-23). There is no doubt that at the heart of this sort of humor there is a frightening level of aggression and hostility. Much humor tends that way.
Gruner claims in a recent book, "In this book I expect to ‘prove’ that the laugh/win theory can explain all occasions for laughter" (Gruner 79). As I read his work, looking at the examples he provided, his theory seemed convincing. But I have concluded that his theory is not adequate to account for all humor; in fact, it is inadequate to cover most of the humor that I personally see and enjoy.
The epiphany that revealed the failings of Gruner’s aggression/hostility/game theory came at a recent birthday for a family member. The humor was simple and unremarkable. Three families were seated around a table laden with Korean dishes, many of which are spicy. My wife was sitting next to Alex, a two-year old who is the youngest of the clan, a beautiful little boy whom my wife often cares for. As we were looking for a food that might not be too spicy for him, I suggested to my wife, " Why don’t you give him some chicken; he could eat that." As she was putting little tiny chunks of honey-sesame coated chicken on his plate, my wife and I realized that Alex was saying, "Cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck." We glanced at each other and broke into laughter. What made that funny? Gruner would argue that we are laughing at his innocence or "stupidity." In his naivete, Alex only thinks of chicken as the animal that goes "cluck, cluck"; we, older and wiser, laugh at him for not knowing that chicken can also be food on his plate. We win; he loses, Gruner would say. In fact, Gruner even accounts for babies laughing while playing peek-a-boo or being tickled by saying they are feeling the "mock aggression" by the mother or other loved one (Gruner 91, 150-51).
However, there is another theory of humor that I think better captures why there was humor in the situation with Alex and his "cluck, cluck" response to the word "chicken." Elliott Oring, in a book called Jokes and Their Relation, says, "the perception of humor depends upon the perception of an appropriate incongruity–that is the perception of an appropriate interrelationship of elements from domains that are generally regarded as incongruous" (Oring 2) In Alex’s cases, the "cluck, cluck" was an incongruity; it apparently made no sense in the context of the little tiny chunks of honey-sesame chicken. But as my wife and I recalled the many moments sitting on the floor with picture books, teaching Alex what the dog, pig, cat, and chicken say, the sudden recognition of the appropriateness of Alex’s response sparked the humor. ( And, as many of you know, the only thing worse than a bad joke is the laborious explaining of a good one.) Ordinarily, if we don’t get it suddenly, the joke does not work for us. As we say, you had to be there.
Now let me remind you of a bit of humor I recalled from 1967, when the intense concentration of a final exam was broken by a loud voice in the hallway singing " We Shall Overcome." First we looked up in a surprised daze, then we burst into laughter. "Appropriate incongruity" theory would explain the humor of that situation by point out the apparent incongruity of the loud singing of a civil rights song in a quiet test situation. The laughter erupted, I believe, because we almost simultaneously saw the appropriateness of the particular song to our situation, mired in the anguish of final exams. The incongruity become appropriate, and in our sudden recognition of that appropriateness, humor was born. This does not mean, of course, that to enjoy a joke, one has to be able to identify the incongruity and the appropriateness. That is part of theoretical analysis, after the fact. At the time when we burst into laughter at the rendition of "We Shall Overcome," I don’t think I could have said to anyone not there why we laughed. And I am not sure I can give an adequate theoretical explanation of why an American GI from Northern Arizona and a wizened "mama-san" from South Viet Nam would suddenly share a delightful bonding laugh over a stack of shifting pots and pans. Perhaps there was an incongruity in our simultaneous decision to let it fall, that was really appropriate since it was inevitable; we could not prevent the pots falling by staying there forever. Perhaps we realized that our awkward positions, trying to hold the sliding pots at all points was out of proportion to the problem. Army pots are sturdy, stainless steel, and a little spray would have them back in sufficient cleanliness. Perhaps some moments are beyond theory.
Another joke may help us explore incongruity theory further. A couple of strangers, a man and a woman, find themselves in the same sleeping compartment on a train. After some awkward discussion, he suggests, " I’ll sleep on the top bunk, and you sleep on the bottom one. I think it will be all right." In the middle of the night, he leans over the side of the upper bunk, awakens the woman, saying, "I’m sorry to bother you, but I am really cold. Would you mind getting me another blanket?" She replies, with a gleam in her eye, "Why don’t we, just for tonight, pretend that we are married." In surprise, he smiles and says, "Okay." She says, "Fine. Get your own darn blanket." I believe the humor here is also best expressed by the "appropriate incongruity" theory. Her reply, which at first seems incongruous with her apparent seductive invitation, becomes appropriate when we reflect how quickly the honeymoon sweetness of a marriage can fade into a "Do it yourself" mentality.
Oring says of this theory, "The only perspective to rival psychoanalytic theory in its global applicability to the analysis of humor of all types and provenience is incongruity theory. Incongruity theory was already fully formulated in the early eighteenth century by poet and essayist James Beattie: ‘Laughter arises from the view of two or more inconsistent, unsuitable, or incongruous parts or circumstances, considered as united in one complex object or assemblage" (Oring 1-2). Oring’s (and Beattie’s) theory of humor is similar to those of Hobbes, Freud and Gruner in its shared emphasis upon the importance of a suddenness of recognition: "The punchline must come at the end of the joke because the abrupt and surprising revelation of an appropriate incongruity marks the end of the joke as a discourse. It is the point of the joke–its raison d’etre" (Oring 224). However, the differences are more important. For example, Gruner’s psychoanalytic theory is based on what it perceives as the function of humor, specifically the aggressive function. In contrast, Oring’s model is based on the structure of the joke; it seems to me, that makes it more comprehensive. If we look at the story of the man and woman in the sleeping compartment, it may be that Gruner could say, "Sure, that’s funny. What makes it funny to me is that the fellow gets his hopes up and they get punctured by the woman’s hostile reply. He loses; she wins. It all fits in my theory." And perhaps it does–for him. But not for me. I am more struck by the thought that pretending to be married does not always mean sweetness and cuddling–except in my own marriage, of course. And in the examples of Alex’s "cluck, cluck" and " We shall overcome" drifting in from the hallway, I am certain that I felt no aggression, hostility, or superiority towards Alex or the unknown singer. I felt delight at them and for them. In that important way, aggression theory is empirically unprovable as a theory. It must prove that everyone in every humorous situation responded in a certain way. Such a claim is beyond testing.
Let’s look at another joke, one supplied by Gruner. There is a man who has been shipwrecked alone on a desert island for ten years. One day a beautiful, naked young woman is washed ashore, clinging to a barrel. The man rescues her from the pounding surf, carries her to safety and revives her. When she feels better, she says, "Now that you’ve been so good to me, I am going to give you something you haven’t had in ten years." "You mean to tell me," the man says, "that there’s some beer in that barrel?" (Gruner 116). Gruner says this fits his aggressive, winner/loser theory because the man is clearly the loser, not realizing the intent of the woman. (Perhaps the woman is the loser, too, by his theory, since her offerings don’t measure up to the same attraction as a bit of beer.) But the joke also fits appropriate incongruity theory, since his response at first seem incongruous (at least with the response we would expect), but it may be appropriate to what he has missed most while on this desert island. Or, depending on your personal response to the man and the joke, both theories may be correct.
Oring, I believe, also points to another weakness in aggression theory. He points out that all expressive forms allow people to disguise "forbidden impulses" in a way that can be expressed in a socially acceptable way. So aggression theory does not adequately distinguish humor from other forms of expression that might express aggression or hostility(Oring 16). Further, I would suspect that those who would tell Jeffrey Dahmer jokes or Auschwitz jokes, for example, might be apt to express their hostility and aggression directly. So how do we account for the use of jokes by such people, if they feel no need to hide their aggression? For example, during the brief war with Iraq, a wave of riddle jokes circulated which certainly displayed a widespread hostility towards Iraq. For example, one riddle joke asks, "Why did Iraquis have sex-ed and driver’s ed on alternate days? Because they only had one camel." Aggression theory can certainly apply to this joke, but it does not explain why we would tell jokes to express such hostility. Most of us, at that time, as innocent people in Kuwait were being killed and our own American soldiers were in harm’s way, felt no hesitation in expression our burning dislike for the invading Iraquis and especially their leader, Saddam Hussein. Why use humor? The creative interplay in the "appropriate incongruity’ theory does a better job of showing how jokes can be used to express hostility but at the same time appeal to a creative, playful part of human nature. Oring also observes that jokes seem to have emerged from one of the earliest forms of humor and word play: the riddle. Many riddles and jokes depend on a primary meaning that is somehow overridden by our recognition of a secondary, also appropriate interpretation. He gives the example of a doctor, leaving the bedside of a sick woman, shaking his head and saying to the husband, "I don’t like her looks." The husband agrees, saying, " I’ve not liked her looks for a long time." The humor captured here is in the first meaning, a simple agreement with the doctor that his wife looks ill. But his addition of the words "for a long time" suggests a secondary meaning of his distaste for her appearance. Again, the incongruity of the two meanings could be appropriate; that flash of insight brings the humor.
I want to explore for a few minutes one aspect of using jokes aggressively that is pertinent to most of us, both in school, parties, and in workplaces. That concerns sexist jokes. One researcher named Raskin has noted that having strong feelings about a subject prevents us from enjoying it, He says, "‘Such a situation removes certain scripts from humor circulation for a person, and thus partially handicaps this person’s sense of humor, sometimes temporarily’" (qtd. in Gruner 91). The word "handicap" suggests that not being able to enjoy all humor is unfortunate, that we are losing out. Charles Gruner continues in the same vein, criticizing "Political Correctness" that makes us too sensitive to some humor and too offended by what should be taken as merely play. He says, "It would certainly be a different and more pleasant world to live in if everyone could and would find mirth in every human concept imaginable; of course, such a situation is quite improbable, given man’s basic nature" (Gruner 89-91). Gruner continues, "The PC critics, it seems to me, would do themselves and their fellows more lasting good if they would preach, not censorship, but accommodation. It is unfortunately true that humor bristles with sharp barbs. [ . . . .]We all learn, as we grow up, that, being human, we have to take a certain amount of kidding, for faults and mistakes. We must become, at least to some degree, ‘good sports’" (Gruner 90). This sounds like good advice: lighten up; don’t take things so seriously.
However, this encouragement to lighten up is shocking when we read what Gruner and others have to say about sexist humor. Gruner notes that "[t]elling sexual jokes and expressing appreciation for them in the presence of females may be rooted in the (conscious or unconscious) attempt of the male to enhance opportunity for sexual activity" (Gruner 128). He even quotes Camille Paglia to show how sex and aggression are inextricably mingled: "‘Modern feminism’s most naive formulation is its assertion that rape is a crime of violence but not of sex,, that it is merely power masquerading as sex. But sex is power, and all power is inherently aggressive’" (qtd. in Gruner 112). Is it really a good idea to accept all forms of humor? Ryan and Kanjorski, who did extensive studies of the uses of sexist humor, speculate that
. . . cultures where women and their sexuality are a joke may be cultures that foster rape. The current study showed a significant relationship between the enjoyment of sexist humor in men and their self-reported likelihood of forcing sex and use of psychological, physical, and sexual aggression against their partners. One avenue for reducing sexual and physical relationship violence may be in expressing intolerance for sexist humor and rape-supportive beliefs. This may be difficult, but it also may be effective. (Ryan and Kanjorski)
The same study argues that what Freud called "tendentious" humor, that is humor that was hostile or sexist, could be used to "test the waters with potential sex partners. Or they may be used in a hostile manner" (Ryan and Kanjorski).
There is some evidence that accepting such humor, as Gruner had suggested might allow a cartharsis of aggressive or sexual moods. One study done by Prerost in 1976, concluded, "The sexual humor did produce a reduction or catharsis of the aggressive mood state. [ . . . .] This was particularly true of the females . . . . The fact that sexual humor produced a cathartic reaction in this study supports the contention that the aggressive and sexual mood states are similar" (qtd. in Gruner 113-14). However, the Ryan and Kanjorski study found "the results of [their] study argue against a cartharsis hypothesis that would suggest an inverse relation between the enjoyment of hostile humor and hostile beliefs and behaviors. Instead, it supports previous research that found a direct relationship between anger arousal and hostile humor" (Ryan and Kanjorski). And Legman, a collector of dirty jokes,
insists that the telling of dirty jokes has another function other than just enjoyment: a functional one, as far as the male is concerned. He likens telling sexual jokes in the presence of females to ‘verbal rape.’ It the women don’t laugh, they can be teased as ‘poor sports.’ It the do laugh (even if against their will) they show positive affect in the presence of words that create pictures in the mind of sexual activity. By forcing females, thus, to show pleasure in the presence of symbolic sexual behavior, the male joke-teller batters away at the female’s natural reluctance to engage in actual promiscuous sex. (qtd. in Gruner 127-28)
While Legman’s views are given without extensive research data, other studies support the same view. Fine says, "By laughing, the audience affirms the point of view expressed in the joke. Obscene jokes can reinforce the norms of a group. [ . . . .and Pryor notes that] sexual teasing, jokes, and remarks are the most common form of sexual harassment" (qtd. in Ryan and Kanjorski). Perhaps the most alarming discovery was that the enjoyment of sexist humor (in men) was positively correlated with acceptance of the "Rape Myth," the idea that women want to be forced into sex; with the acceptance of "Adversarial Sexual Beliefs"; and the "Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence and the self-reported likelihood of forcing sex." Further while women who enjoyed sexist humor did not generally accept the Rape Myth, there was a significant correlation with "Adversarial Sexual Beliefs [the idea that women are ‘sly, manipulative, and self-centered’ in their personal relationships] and Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence (the belief that violence against women is acceptable)"(Ryan and Kanjorski).
All of these studies suggest that rather than forgetting Political Correctness and just loosening up and enjoying all forms of humor, all of us should be on guard against the potentially seductive motives behind some jokes, as well as the misogynist views that may be held by men and women who show a pattern of enjoying and telling sexist jokes.
Another area of interest explores how humor is used among ethnic and religious groups. As I discuss some of these uses, I will rely heavily on jokes told about and within the L. D. S. or Mormon culture. Ethnic and religious jokes help us define ourselves by characterizing the group that we belong to and identifying the boundaries between us and others. For example, lets look at this riddle joke: How do you know if you are at a Mormon wedding. The bride is not pregnant, but her mother is. This joke does poke fun at the Mormon tendency to have large families, with one old enough to be married while the mother continues bearing children; however, within the Mormon community, having large families is generally looked at favorably, so the jest is slight. The first part of the joke, suggesting that Mormon brides are more apt to be chaste than "outties," people outside of the culture, is self praising, taking pride in the (supposedly unique) emphasis upon chastity. A similar bit of humor, part of a "You might be a Mormon if . . ." list, says " You might be a Mormon if you are an aunt or uncle by age three." This identifies the Mormon characteristics of having large families, extending the bearing years over 2 or 3 decades, and perhaps, of having women marry at a young age. Mormon humor can shift with the tide also. Over ten years ago I collected this joke: What do you get when you cross a Mormon with a Mexican? A year’s supply of stolen hubcaps. That manages to praise the "innies" and insult the "outties." But the number of Hispanics in the area and in the LDS. church has made that joke more likely to offend. A more recent version of this joke simply says, What do you get when you cross a Mormon with a thief? A year’s supply of stolen hubcaps. That is less likely to offend.
In a study of ethnic humor by Lois Leveen, she concluded that "humor may be used by the dominant culture in an attempt to control the behavior of ethnic sub-groups, particularly to emphasize the need for members of these sub-groups to conform to the norms of the dominant culture." She notes that ethnic joke cycles [such as those about Italians, Irishmen, Chinese, or Mexicans] often appear after a large immigrant population arrives in such numbers that it is difficult to assimilate them. Jokes told about them "promote conformity to the norms of the dominant culture" (Leveen). The weakness in this theory is that it is not likely that such jokes would be heard by the minority or "outties"; it is more likely they would be shared among the ethnic majority, the "innies," as Hobbes says, to express our own superiority. As sociologist Christie Davies says, "‘By making fun of peripheral and ambiguous groups they reduce ambiguity and clarify boundaries or at least make ambiguity appear less threatening’" (qtd. in Leveen).
Ethnic humor is not only shared within groups to establish the superiority of the members of a group, however. As Leveen points out, "four basic combination of joke relationships exist: 1) a group member telling a joke to another member; 2) a member telling a joke to a non-member; 3) a nonmember telling a joke to a member; and 4) a non-member telling a joke to a non-member" (Leveen). Each of those four relationships may regulate which jokes are told, and it may change the purpose and the effect of the joke. Non-members telling jokes to non-members have the highest chance of expressing hostility and criticism; members telling jokes to other members have the highest chance of being self-laudatory or only mildly critical. The same joke may be told in different settings with different effects. Consider the following joke collected in the South before the civil rights movement changed voter registration requirements that were often contrived to prevent blacks from voting. A black man is attempting to register to vote in Mississippi. He quickly passed the literacy test which the registrars give him. So the registrars confer for a moment and give him a Chinese newspaper, asking him if he knows what the headline means. "Yeah, I know what it means," he replies, "It means niggers don’t vote in Mississippi again this year" (Leveen). If that joke is told among whites, it might be told with pride at the successful ruse which kept undesirables from voting. If the joke is told among African-Americans, it would express bitterness and hopelessness; in fact, I think the joke told by a black to a black is a way of grieving.
There are a number of other explanations for how ethnic humor may be used. Hobbes explains that I may not only use a joke to show myself superior to others; I can also tell a joke to show I an superior to my former self. Gruner explains in several places in The Game of Humor that I may tell or laugh at a joke that is directed toward my own group or profession, thinking that the label doesn’t quite fit me. As examples, let’s look at jokes that were shared within the Mormon community: How many Mormons does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Five. One to screw it in and four to bring casseroles. How many RMS [returned missionaries] does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One. He just stands under it and expects the world to revolve around him. What is the pushiest thing in the world? A Mormon missionary with an Amway distributorship on the side. Why do Mormon women stop having children at 35? Because 36 is too many. Or there is the story of the tour group in heaven who are looking at the many sights there. As they approach one community, the guide asks them to pass quietly past that spot. After they pass, someone asks why they had to be quiet. The guide replies, " Oh those are the Mormons; we don’t want to bother them. They think they are the only ones up here." In each of these jokes we poke fun at some aspect of Mormon culture, perhaps thinking at the same time, "This doesn’t fit me." Further, we might choose carefully to whom we tell the jokes. As Elliott Oring points out, "An emotional tie to a particular topic may produce the feeling that the subject should not be joked about at all . . . " (Oring 12). I may not tell the joke about large families to my brother’s sister-in-law who just had her thirteen child. I may not tell the RM joke to a missionary freshly returned. But with an appropriate target listener, these jokes might be told among "innies" to laugh at our stereotypical cultural tendencies, while feeling that we ourselves may be aware of and above some of those tendencies. Likewise, BYU coeds and lawyers often pass on the jokes aimed at them, thinking they do not apply to themselves.
At times jokes aimed at ethnic or religious stereotypes may be told to refute or scoff at such stereotypes. For example Mormons often jokingly comment about the old outsider stereotypes of Mormons as all having horns and several wives. As Lois Leveen says, "Ethnic jokes may indicate that it is not the ethnic individual who is laughable, but rather the stereotype–and those who believe the stereotype to be truthful and accurate–at which the joke teller and the joke listener laugh together" (Leveen). An example. "Phil Nee, a Chinese-American comic, challenges stereotypes of Asians" who are stereotypically assumed to all look alike, even to themselves. He says "‘It’s not always fun being Chinese. My girlfriend left me last week, for a guy who looks exactly like me’" (Leveen). Such humor may not only deflate stereotypes, but being able to joke about our own culture can be a way of making us appear more approachable or less likely to be too offended. My wife and I listened to a Korean comic who said he would explain to the crowd, nearly all Caucasians, how to tell Koreans, Chinese and Japanese apart. Grabbing the skin on his temples he pulled it up and back. "Koreans have eyes that slant up, see." Next, he stretched the skin downward. "Chinese have eyes that slant down, see." Then he stretched open his right eyelids. "Japanese have one eye that slants straight back; the other one is very open from taking so many photographs." This has the effect of puncturing some stereotypes while acknowledging some truth to them and saying, "Hey, I’m a regular guy. I can laugh at myself and at stereotypes." Another example concerns stereotypes of Puerto Ricans (similar to the stereotype of Mexicans in the Southwest). Joey Vega, a Puerto Rican comedian said, "‘Yeah, make a joke about how Puerto Ricans steal your hubcaps, everybody laughs. C’mon that’s not true. We’ll steal your whole car’" (qtd. in Leveen). Such humor deflates stereotypes and confirms the humanness of the ethnic group. Leveen says, "Humor is a means of ingratiation one’s self earning acceptance of one’s self and –through collective identity–one’s group within the established culture" (Leveen).
As a note, some theorists argue that such humor which attributes characteristics to a group should not be taken seriously, should not be seen as spreading stereotypes. Rather, they claim that in jokes we use "comic scripts." They argue that we all know that all blondes, "pollocks," and Norwegians are not stupid. We know that all lawyers are not greedy and deceitful. Rather, when we hear a joke, beginning, "there were these two pollocks, see . . . .," we are just prepared for the kind of joke it will be (Gruner 78-88; Oring 126). They argue that such jokes should not be taken seriously, that they do not promote prejudice and stereotypes. I think that may be true for sophisticated joke-tellers, but for joke-tellers and listeners who have limited or no association with some of the groups so scripted, I am sure that they begin to accept some of the stereotypes.
Turning more closely to Mormon humor, we see jokes that do laugh at parts of our culture here without much self praise woven in. For example, Bert Wilson, a folklorist working at BYU tells of a young girl who comes back home after her first semester at BYU pregnant and planning to drop out of school. The parents try to make the best of a bad situation, asking if the girl could marry the father. The girl replies, "Oh, I couldn’t marry him. He smokes!" (Wilson, "Seriousness" 11-12). This mocks the cultural tendency to place conformity to the Word of Wisdom above more serious moral infractions, such as pre-marital sex. There is also the story of the Mormon group on a tour in the former Soviet Union. A Relief Society president, a bishop, and a high councilor were all arrested for spying and told they would be executed. The Relief Society president, as a last wish, asked to listen to her tape of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir one last time. The high councilor explained that he was preparing a talk and asked to live until he could deliver the talk on the upcoming Sabbath. The bishop, after hearing the requests of the other two, asked, "I would just like to be killed before I have to listen to that high councilor on Sunday" (Wilson, "Seriousness" 12). Lastly, there is the moving story of an LDS soldier in Viet Nam who was shot directly in the chest. The medic crawled over to where he lay, assuming he was dead. However he soon revived. The bullet had hit his small service edition of the Book of Mormon that he carried in his pocket. It seems the bullet just couldn’t get through 2nd Nephi.
For those who have struggled to read through the Book of Mormon, this apparent miraculous sparing of life because of a religious icon turns into a joke about the "chloroform in print" as someone (was it Mark Twain?) characterized it. These jokes rely on inside perspective so they are likely to be told by "innies" to "innies." There is also the riddle joke, one that might be told by those within or without the Mormon community, What do you get when you play Mormon Tabernacle Choir records backwards? Jello salad recipes. Why do you always take two Mormons fishing (or hunting) with you? Because if you only take one, he’ll drink on the beer. This jokes at the supposed hypocrisy of Mormons, who may sin if they are not watched. But Leonard Arrington, the former LDS Church Historian observes, "‘Revelatory self-directed humor concerning the weaknesses and special difficulties of Mormons is rare’" (Wilson, "Suffering" 7). And Richard Cracroft, a former LDS Stake President and English Department chair at BYU, says "The question of whether and where and whither Mormon humor is, for some, oxymoronic–like ‘funny stake president,’ ‘underworked bishop,’ or ‘exciting high priest group leader’"(15) Cracroft points out that the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants admonishes members to "‘solemnity of heart’ (D&C 86:41) and reminds us to conduct our lives ‘not with much laughter, for this is sin.’ (D&C 59:15, 88:69)" (15). Cracroft also recalls that now-deceased Mormon President and Prophet Harold B. Lee chastened a general conference congregation for laughing at the humorous remarks of one of the brethren and noted that Elder Mark E. Petersen had written in a Church News editorial that humor should be avoided in the sacrament meetings of the church (15). Eloise Bell, a humorist and retired BYU professor says of Mormon humor, "‘The essence of really good humor is a kind of surprise. Well, I think culturally Mormons don’t like surprises in outward things. I mean, look at the architecture’"(qtd. in Anderson A1).
At the same time, concedes Cracroft,
Humor is a great blessing, especially for Latter-Day Saints. Recognizing the irony of the gap between the solemn and heartfelt profession of belief and the reality of his life, the lay member must shatter or flex, repent or rationalize. Most of us flex and rationalize, and the best means of doing both is to lessen the burden of guilt by laughing at ourselves instead of crying, by gently bring our leaders (and our ideals) down from their pedestals. (15-16)
Calvin Grondahl, political cartoonist at the Ogden Standard Examiner, agrees, "‘Humor eases the tension, the stress people feel. There’s a big difference between what people want to be and how they turn out. I think Mormon humor acknowledges that and say it’s OK’" (qtd. in Anderson A1). Much of this humor, I have observed, is not only in joke form. Much of it is in true narratives, narratives which show that in a church with lay leaders, not all will go well. I grew up attending LDS congregations in which many of the members were dairy farmers, men who had been up at 4:00 A.M. and done a full day’s work before attending church services. Naps were to be expected. Ferlin Hunt, who was sleeping quite soundly, was nudged by his neighbor in the middle of a service, during a song before the main speaker was to speak, and told that the bishop had just asked him to come up and give the benediction. Well, he did. The congregation looked about for a moment, then got up and went home, I suspect thinking it was one of the best meetings they had had. And a colleague has shared with me the delightful incident during a "testimony meeting," in which members arise from the congregation, give thanks or express love or appreciation for their testimonies and blessings. The last speaker of the day, Sister Jones, had cried a great deal as she spoke of the blessings in her life. I am sorry I am such a boob, she lamented. As the bishop stood up to close the meeting, He tried to comfort her, "Sister Jones, we are sure the Lord loves big boobs just as much as everybody else." The ambiguity there sparks humor. A folklorist from Logan told of an elderly gentleman, hard of hearing, who stopped the bishop before the meeting, asking him to announce in the beginning of the meeting, that his cow had gotten out of the corral and couldn’t be found. During the meeting, while the bishop was announcing the upcoming wedding of a young woman in the ward, the elderly brother arose, mistakenly thinking he was speaking of the missing cow. "You can’t miss her," he hollered from his seat, "She’s kind of dish-faced and one teat is frizzed off." There is also the story of the young girl, perhaps of 7 or 8, bearing her testimony about how thankful she was for her parents and of how thankful she was that her father had taken her along on the deer hunt. She told of how early in the morning, they heard a noise outside their tent. Her father looked out, saw a large buck and grabbed for his gun. But she concluded, "Before daddy could get back outside with his gun, that son-of-a-bitch had gone over the ridge." With a lay church, there is humor all about, not only in jokes, but in the wonderful stories of ordinary people seeking to perfect themselves, while having very human weaknesses. My uncle Bill welcomed me back home to a church service after I had been away some time at college. He pulled on my new mustache, saying loudly enough for all the congregation to hear, "I see you got one of those little sons-a-bitches under your nose." But that was just Uncle Bill. And that is just what we often get in a lay church. I also received some e-mail humor which spoofs some Moron stereotypes. It says than in celebration of Barbie’s 40th birthday, Mattel has created a Mormon Barbie for the folks in Utah. The most popular, Celestial Barbie, comes with 8.4 children. She wears a mid-calf flower print Laura Ashley dress with conservative flats (no heels), a bow in her flowing shoulder-length hair with puffy bangs. Barbie wear a permanent smile, knows how to bake bread, store wheat feed a family of 12 on less than $200.00 a week, make casseroles and Jell-O salads (without a recipe), and still finds time to read her scriptures. She comes with a MAV, Mormon Assault Vehicle (Dodge, Ford, Nissan mini-van). When you pull the cord in her back, she becomes emotional, teary, and says things like, "You have such a sweet spirit, Sister Jones," or "Love ya." Occasionally you can find one that says "Oh my heck!" but be warned: this is a manufacturer’s defect. Celestial Barbie would never say "heck" because it is a swear word. Whoever has time to make up and promulgate jokes like these probably does not have 8.4 kids. It is likely that the teller of this sort of joke is an "innie," but one that can laugh at the truth hidden therein and perhaps think she is not quite the one described.
Cracroft concludes, however, that "as I observe Mormon jokelore, and my evidence is anecdotal and not systematic, it seems to me that most of our humor is self-congratulatory and thus very acceptable [apparently, pride is not a mortal sin in Mormondom]" (16). One of the first such jokes that I recall is the story of some folks from heaven who had been down touring hell. They reported back to St. Peter that things were not so bad. Everywhere they looked, there were orchards, wheat and corn fields, and wonderful gardens. St. Peter shakes his head, "Those damned Mormons have been irrigating again." This reinforces the pride Mormons take in having made "the desert bloom like a rose." There is also the joke about the Pope going in to speak to the college of cardinals. "I have some good news and some bad news," says the Pope. "I just received a call from the Lord telling me that He has returned and the millennium is set to begin. The bad news is that the call came from Salt Lake City." Another joke tells how President Godon B. Hinckley, president of the LDS church, noticed that his chauffeur was nodding a bit. President Hinckley told the driver to stop, get in the back, and relax for a while, adding that he enjoys driving but doesn’t get to do it much. Soon after, a UHP officer pulled over the car for speeding. After going up to the car and seeing the driver, the officer went back to his car and radioed headquarters. "I have just stopped the most important person in the world, and I don’t know if I should give them a ticket." They ask if it is President Clinton. He replies that it is not. Who is it they ask. " I don’t know," says the officer, "but he has President Hinckley as a chauffeur." Such humor is laden with self praise, of course.
There are other examples that do not show Mormons as necessarily superior in spirit, but as rather clever. One story tells of a couple of Mormon elders who bear silently the many abuses heaped on them by a Catholic priest as they pass his church on the way to tract. Every day he would heap some fresh abuse on them which they silently ignored. One morning as they passed, he came out the door and thundered, "Hello sons of the devil!" They replied, "Hello, Father." Or there were the two Baptist ministers who approached the Mormon elders with a small vial of poison. They say, "If you are believers in the true God, then you can drink this poison and it will not hurt you. Let’s see how much faith you have." One of the elders replies, "Why don’t you drink it, and we’ll raise you from the dead." That joke puts the burden of proof on the "outtie" accusers and assumes their faith will not save them. Most self-laudatory jokes would be told among members; they might be seen as full of pride or offensive to outsiders. These jokes, too, show Mormons in a good light. Mormons can laugh proudly at such characterizations of themselves.
In summary, ethnic and religious jokes can serve many purposes, depending on who is the joke-teller and the listener. A more serious use of ethnic humor can come from people who are feeling oppressed or marginalized. "Ethnic joke tellers use humor to challenge playfully and penetrate gradually the discourse relations of the dominant culture within which they are marginalized. Humor serves as an outlet through which repressed feelings can safely be released" (Leveen). "George Orwell called political jokes ‘tiny revolutions.’ Under tyranny, humor is a form of coping . . . ." (Qtd. in Will). For example, during the Soviet crackdown in Poland some years ago, a Warsaw sociologist (who did not want his name known) said, "‘Jokes are the one relatively safe way of saying you hate the Soviets or the government [ . . . .] The only weapons most of us have left are our wit and sense of humor’" (qtd. in Kempe). For example, there were many jokes about the ZOMO, the much feared Polish riot police. "Why do ZOMO’s travel in three’s? One reads, one writes, and the other keeps an eye on the two intellectuals" (Kempe).
Similar jokes circulated in the former Soviet Union. According to one joke, when Gorbachev first addressed the nation, he said, "‘ When I came to power the economy stood on the edge of an abyss. I am proud to say that since then we have taken a bold step forward’" (qtd. in Will). Another goes, "‘After the revolution everyone will have strawberries and cream.’ ‘But I don’t like strawberries and cream.’ ‘After the revolution, everyone will like strawberries and cream’" (Will). This sinister joke suggests that any who do not agree with the party will be brain-washed or dead. Or, "What is 150 yards long and eats potatoes? A Moscow queue waiting to buy meat. [ . . . .] A boy asks, ‘What will communism be like when perfected?’ His father replies, ‘Everyone will have what he needs.’ The boy asks, ‘But what if there is a shortage of meat?’ The father replies, ‘There will be a sign in the butcher shop saying, "No one needs meat today"’" (Will). Those are minorities with whom we in the West have much sympathy. But in our own country they have been minorities who resisted the civil rights movement for example. Following are two racist jokes collected in the South during the Civil Rights movement: What do they call a Negro with a Ph. D.? Nigger. Or What’s black and has a red cape? Super nigger (qtd. in Oring 18). These are jokes, as Orwell says, that are ‘tiny revolutions’ against changes that caused some people anxiety. Expressing anxieties in the form of humor makes them seem less reproachable, less offensive, less harmful.
Within the LDS community, there was a similar outcropping of revolutionary humor after the 1978 revelation which declared the priesthood was to be given to African-Americans. "According to Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton, the announcement of the priesthood revelation ‘was received, almost universally, with elation’" (Wilson and Poulsen 11). However, William Wilson and Richard Poulsen, two BYU folklorists, collected a cycle of racist jokes which they claimed were "ubiquitous" along the Wasatch Front (Wilson and Poulsen 11). These jokes reflect the same kinds of anxiety about change and rebelliousness against authority as do the southern jokes during the Civil Rights movement. Following are some: "Knock, knock. Who’s there? Isa. Isa who? Isa yo new home teacher. Have you heard there taking down the statue of Moroni from the temple? Yeah. They are replacing it with one of Louis Armstrong. Do you know why President Kimball received his revelation? He was doing his genealogy and he found one name Kunta Kinta Kimball. Do you know how President Kimball received the revelation? In the form of a subpoena. Have you heard they are digging up the rose bushes at the temple? They’re replanting the area with watermelons (Wilson and Poulsen 12). And many more. The use of humor in the LDS community was also a covert way for some to express anxiety and frustration with changes they did not like.
Another joke which perhaps expresses frustration with the status quo is as follows: Do you know how bishops are chosen? "The stake leaders find the most righteous, spiritual, most loved person in the ward–and then they call her husband" (qtd. in Anderson A1) While this joke may not affect us as being as offensive as the racial jokes, undoubtedly many who hear or tell this joke may feel a touch of bitterness at the unswerving nature of LDS male patriarchy, in spite of the tremendous advances made by women in other areas.
Humor, I believe, is a way of grieving. In Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro, Figaro is asked, "Why do you laugh all the time." Figaro replies, "I laugh so may not cry." A Jewish writer described growing up in a home in which his mother wept often about the Holocaust and his father refused to ever speak of it: "Between his father’s silence and his mother’s pain, Waldoks faced a choice: laugh a lot or cry a lot. These two lie close to each other on the emotional spectrum–sobs and guffaws even sound alike, he says. ‘I decided laughing is better’" (qtd. in Oster). Another Jew describes the hidden pain of growing up in the home of a Holocaust survivor. It was like "‘Swimming in a sea of skeletons.’ Humor, she says, is the lifeboat that has carried them to sanity" ( qtd. in Oster) A writer who has studied Jewish Holocaust humor says, "Even in the camps there was laughter. Hannelore Eisinger remembers toiling the the potatofield at the Westerbork transit camp in Holland. She and her friends invented elaborate recipes or told jokes. It was a case of laugh or cry, she says" (Oster). One joke is about "Two Jews [who] are about to enter the gas chamber in Auschwitz. One of them turns to the SS guard to make a last request for a glass of water. ‘Sha, Moshe,’ says his friend. ‘Don’t make a fuss’" (qtd. in Oster). This joke plays upon the stereotype of the long suffering chosen people. It may seem incongruous to think that even in the face of death, Jews would worry about making a fuss. But it is appropriate to the well-known stereotype. A Jewish professor from the East told me a lightbulb joke that uses the same motif. How many Jewish mothers does it take to change a lightbulb. Answer: Oh it’s all right I’ll just sit here in the dark. A daughter of a Holocaust survivor, from London, talked about humor in her youth, "‘Looking back it was a way of dealing with something very painful and scary.’" Jokes she told as a child included, "‘Why did Hitler commit suicide?’ she asks. ‘Because the got the gas bill.’ or ‘What’s the difference between a loaf of bread and a Jew? A loaf of bread doesn’t scream when you put it in the oven’" (qtd. in Oster). Jokes such as these, told among Holocaust survivors or their ethnic group are shared grievings, having a very different effect that if they were told by Neo-Nazis, for example. "‘It may be that to laugh in the face of death is possible courageous,’ Waldoks, a rabbi, lecturer, and co-editor of The Big Book of Jewish Humor, says [ . . . ] ‘But to laugh in the face of life is absolutely heroic." As Hans Christian Anderson wrote, "‘He who takes the serious only seriously and the humorous only humorously has understood everything only very poorly’" (qtd. in Cracroft). Such bits of humor shared within the Jewish community must be taken very seriously. Within the LDS culture, one example of shared grieving through humor comes to mind. It is the song written in St. George by George A. Hicks, "I Was Called to Dixie." It is full of wry, mournful humor.
A couple of jokes collected during the suppression of democratic reforms in Poland share the same qualities. "Did you hear that Soviet scientists have developed a new animal by crossing a cow with a giraffe? It can graze in Poland while being milked in the Soviet Union" (Kempe). And "President Reagan goes to God and inquires, ‘Tell me, Father, how long until my people are happy.’ God replies: ‘One hundred years.’ Reagan weeps and leaves. Helmut Schmidt of West Germany goes to God and asks, ‘Tell me, Father how long until my people are happy?’ ‘Two hundred years,’ says God. Schmidt weeps and leaves. The Jarulzelski goes to God and asks the same question, ‘How long until my people are happy?’ God weeps and leaves" (Kempe). Is it possible to weep while telling a joke. Yes.
In Umberto Eco’s famous novel, The Name of The Rose, William who has discovered that the old blind monk, Jorge, has committed some murders, while intent on destroying Aristotle’s writings on humor lest they introduce lightheartedness in to the church. William says that the writing on humor are not the danger; rather, he says to Jorge, "You are the Devil. . . .The Devil is not the Prince of matter; the Devil is the arrogance of the spirit, faith without smile, truth that is never seized by doubt" (Eco 581).
My mother reminds me sometimes of how I came home one day as a child, musing on the oddities of animals and our neighbors, say, "You know, Mom, God must have a great sense of humor." As I look at the suffering in the world, and as I look at the difference between the person I would like to be and the person I am, I too must weep or laugh. In fact, I do both. Richard Cracroft, in his speaking of the value of humor to those in the LDS community, quotes Mark Twain: " Mark Twain was right when he wrote, ‘Humor is the great thing, the saving thing at last. The minute it crops up all our hardnesses yield, all our irritations and resentments slip away, and a sunny spirit takes their place" (qtd. in Cracroft 17).
Works Cited
Anderson, Vern. "Oh My Heck! Who Says Latter-day Saints Are Always Serious." Color Country Spectrum 3 April 1999: A1&A4.
Cracroft, Richard. "The Humor of Mormon Seriousness." Sunstone 10.1 (1985): 14-17.
Dundes, Alan. Cracking Jokes: Studies of Sick Humor Cycles and Stereotypes. Berkeley, CA, Ten Speed Press, 1987.
Eco, Umberto. The Name of the Rose. New York: Harvest, 1994.
Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. New York: W. W. Norton, 1963.
Gruner, Charles R. The Game of Humor: A Comprehensive Theory of Why We Laugh. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1997.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: Parts One and Two. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958.
Kempe, Frederick. "Warsaw Wit Shows the Poles Aren’t Yet Totally Disarmed." Wall Street Journal 24 Sept. 1982.
Kontorovich, E.V."Personalized Jokes: When It Comes to Offending People, Nothing Fits the Bill Like Ethnic Jokes." National Review 29 Sep. 1997. 12 July 1999<http:// web3.searchbank.com/itw/session/324/516/31864791w3/29!xrn_1_0_A19863134>.
Leveen, Lois. "Only When I Laugh: Textual Dynamics of Ethnic Humor." MELUS 21.4 (1996). 12 July 1999 <http:// web3.searchbank.com/itw/session/324/516/31864791w3/ 33!xrn_3_0_A19448589>.
Oring, Elliott. Jokes and Their Relations. Lexington, KY: Univ. Press or Kentucky, 1992.
Oster, Shai. "Dark Laughter." Moment April 1999. 5 Sep. 1999 < http://researcher.sirs.com/
cgi-bin/hst-a...r_AND_Oster&source+Y&summary=N&graphic=N>.
Ryan, Kathryn, and Jeanne Kanjorski. "The Enjoyment of Sexist Humor, Rape Attitudes, and Relationship Aggression [sic] in College Students." Sex Roles: A Journal of Research May 1998. 12 July 1999 <http://web3.searchbank.com/itw/session/324/516/3186479w3/ 18!xrn_1_0_A20914088>.
Sanders, Barry. A Is for Ox. New York: Vintage, 1995.
Will, George F. "Jokes as Tiny Revolutions." Newsweek 5 June 1989. 80.
Wilson, William A. "The Seriousness of Mormon Humor." Sunstone 10.1 (1985): 6-13.
Wilson, William A., and Richard C. Poulsen. "The Curse of Cain and Other Stories: Blacks in Mormon Folklore." Sunstone Nov./Dec. 1980: 9-13.