Comedy Theories: A Battle or Collaboration?

Trying to decipher which theory of comedy reigns supreme is like trying to choose between a hot fudge sundae and a triple chocolate brownie. This is an extremely simplified analogy, which might just be stemming from the fact that I'm hungry - but like any statement, it will make sense after some elaboration. As Zupančič states in the introduction of The Odd One In, the "irresistible motion" of comedy is the essence of what makes it so difficult to pin down and analyze. Not only are comedy, laughter and humor very broad and differing concepts, but the world in which they live in is evolving at all times. Deciding what is funny is endlessly subjective among entire cultures down to each individual. From Aristotle to Freud, every great mind has pondered the idea of what constitutes funniness and what creates the biological reaction of laughter. Every theory that has been extensively explored by scholars has validity, therefore there will never be one general consensus of the "best" explanation.

That being said, I can only provide my current subjective view on which theory makes the most sense, which will inevitably change with time and cultural exposure - much like the definition of comedy itself. Hobbes defends the superiority theory, saying that laughter arises “from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly”. Initially, I disagreed the most with this theory because although it is valid in certain cases, superiority did not seem like an instinctive reason to laugh. But upon further introspection, I realized that much of my comedic palette involves observing those in unfortunate or awkward situations, or more specifically, those who live unfortunate or awkward lives. Liz Lemon from 30 Rock is probably my favorite character in existence, and the core reason of why I find her funny is because she reflects certain aspects of myself. While her life is certainly a privileged one in every sense of the word, she is constantly hindered by her own personal afflictions and habits. The reason for my amusement comes from my feeling of superiority in that moment. Meaning, I have experienced similar situations in the past, but since I am not currently experiencing them, I feel superior. This correlates to Stott's idea of a "division of consciousness" present in comedy. In other words, we separate our egocentric view of the world and all other perspectives, making it easy to laugh at anything we are not currently experiencing.

Stott also proposes that “comedy is a force outside the guiding authority of reason that exerts a powerful anti-rational allure”. Sometimes it cannot be precisely explained why a certain observation strikes an individual as funny. The other day, I was looking at the shower-head and noticed there were three different settings: spray, massage and niagara - for some reason, I burst out laughing. My best explanation for why I found this funny would probably correlate with the incongruity theory. Thinking about the largeness of Niagara Falls in comparison to the tiny shower-head was comical. Also, perhaps my mood at that moment was a factor that played into it. Although this was certainly an example of incongruity, I think the funniness of it was amplified by the fact that I had a long day and felt stressed out. Perhaps the relief theory is also applicable here, given that I had built up negative energy that was released through finding something to laugh at. 

So - back to the sundae/brownie analogy. I think that the theories of comedy are all justified and incomparable, and sometimes they even compliment each other. One day I could be craving ice cream, while on another day a brownie could sound better. Or maybe I feel like having a hot fudge sundae on top of a brownie, that works too. I'm mostly going back to this analogy just because I promised I would in the beginning, but it also makes decent sense. Now I'm going to get a snack.