Humor Theories

    Each of the theorist have their own view on how and if humor should be used. For Plato and Hobbes, humor is a vice that is used to put others down. The ridiculous is only found in the mockery of ignorance or the glee at besting another. They both state that because of this, laughter is always wrong. However, I think we can all agree that this view of humor is incredibly simplified. While humor can be malicious (when it is directed at people who have less power than you) it can also be used to reveal injustices in our own society. When people use humor (as Irby does) to point out the flaws in society, she is more attacking a system or set of norms as opposed to a specific person. While most people are made uncomfortable by the topics that Irby wants to discuss, finding humor in the situation makes people more comfortable engaging in the conversation. Therefore, humor has value outside of just mockery, it provides people a way of critiquing the current power structures in a way people will listen to.

    I will now fully admit that Kant kind of lost me and maybe Kierkegaard did too. BUT I will make a valiant (though perhaps misguided) attempt at applying Kierkegaard’s view of humor. He gives many examples of the different ways that contradictions can arise and cause something to be comical. Someone’s inability to meet the norms/expectations we have for them causes a situation to be comical, but only when one can see the “way out” of the painless incongruity. While I do like the more positive view of humor, think it still leaves an important facet of why we laugh unresolved. Irby’s work deals with topics that aren’t painless. She is mistreated/not believed by doctors, has debilitating health issues, and talks about her experience growing up in poverty. I think the part that makes her book able to be laughed at is that she mocks the situation she finds herself in because of those parts of her life.