Philosopher David Shoemaker writes in his new book:
* The funniness in jokes is found primarily in their logical or semantic structure. Many writers like to point to the incongruity of jokes as the source of their funniness, perhaps involving the introduction of some unexpected mismatch, the exploitation of some ambiguity in the language, or a switcheroo in how ordinary scripts might go.
* Wisecracks, by contrast, are intentional bits of humor whose funniness is found not just in their formal features but also in their interpersonal features. When we tease others, for instance, often what’s funny isn’t found just in our quips themselves but in the reactions of those we are teasing. When I pull your leg, its funniness isn’t going to come simply from the false remarks I make; it will come, in addition, from the fact that I fooled you for a bit with those remarks, that I “got you.” When two people of shared ethnicity make a crack that exploits some stereotype about their group, its funniness may come only from their shared disdain for that stereotype or for the people who believe that stereotype. These are all contextual, interpersonal matters… Wisecracks are the kinds of witticisms we make with each other.
* Wisecracking, as we all know, can have many dark sides. First, some wisecracks are exclusionary. Humor among members of in-groups about members of out-groups often seals the borders between them. Private jokes do this by speaking a language deliberately obscure to outsiders. Mockery may do this by presenting those outsiders as lower, as lesser, than insiders.
Second, sometimes there are asymmetrical relationships in which only one side gets to engage in teasing or mockery of the other, and this hardens hierarchy. We see this phenomenon most clearly in studies of organizations in which bosses tease or mock their employees, and the employees (for fear of losing their jobs) have to “take it” and can’t tease or mock their bosses back.
Third, some humor just plain hurts. Mockery, in particular, when it’s done by insiders to outsiders (to those who are “different,” socially excluded, nerds, the disabled, etc.) can reinforce exclusion, difference, and the pain of being an outsider. This is the kind of humor that involves “laughing at” someone, and we all know how painful being laughed at can be.
Fourth, some hurtful humor has “next-generation” bad effects, shaping otherwise innocent people in ways that cause them to become hurtful to others down the line.
Fifth, certain kinds of identity-based humor, wisecracks directed at people that reference their group membership (e.g., their gender, class, ethnicity, or race) can generate what’s known as a “social identity threat,” where what’s communicated to the targeted person is “that they are at risk of being devalued, rejected, or of becoming the target of discrimination because of their group membership.”5 It also just plain hurts, as it reminds people of their oppressed or marginalized status.
Sixth, because of their context dependence, occasional reliance on hard-to-read intentions, or serious subtlety, lots of wisecracks may be easily misunderstood, and that can fracture relationships.
Seventh, some wisecracks are deceptive, involving pulling the wool over someone’s eyes, deliberately preventing them from seeing some truth that everyone around them can see.
…First, those who make you feel amusement’s pleasure are going to be people you’re likely to gravitate toward, to want to hang around. Amusing people are likable, they’re fun, and they make you feel good. Humor brings people together. Debbie Downer doesn’t have any friends.
Second, many wisecracks involve self-deprecating anecdotes. In telling these, you invite listeners’ sympathy and protective warmth. A self-deprecating humor style generally also seems to increase one’s emotional and psychological well-being, better enabling one to cope with various setbacks.7 And other people are obviously drawn to emotionally healthy
people.Third, in making wisecracks about your experiences, you create or reinforce enjoyable bonds with those who also have had similar experiences, inviting empathy and identification. Wisecracking between close friends assumes lots of shared background and knowledge, generating or buttressing intimacy between wisecrackers.
Fourth, wisecracking signals, and can bring about, reconciliation. As John Morreall insightfully notes: “When two people are quarreling, one of the first things they stop doing together is laughing; they refuse to laugh at each other’s attempts at humor, and refuse to laugh together at something incongruous happening to them. As soon as they begin to laugh once more, we know that the end of the quarrel is at hand.”
Fifth, between those who aren’t yet in a personal relationship, humor can reduce uncertainty and social distance, increase cooperation, and generate trust. In general, a good sense of humor is strongly correlated with social competence. Humorous people are more cheerful, and so, again, are more likely to attract friends. They are better able to manage their emotions, so they seem far less volatile and more inviting.10 Sixth, wisecracks of various kinds also serve to create and reinforce group boundaries.
* We are more fearful when our ideological biases are threatened than we are when our more clearly and solidly grounded beliefs are threatened, and so we tend to be more defensive and inclined to lash out, or lash out more vociferously, against perceived attacks on them. When we know full well the clear-cut rational or evidential grounds of our other beliefs, attacks on them pose no such threat. …If you get angry when your beliefs are mocked, that’s typically a sign of defensiveness, a sign that you may have
some kind of ideological bias at work, and such bias is precisely the sort of thing that can prevent you from seeing any funny in the mock. For you to see that funny, you’ve got to identify and eliminate—or at least detach yourself momentarily from—your ideological biases…* Emotions in general are urgently attention-grabbing, action-readying, affectively-laden evaluative responses to the world around us. Fear evaluates things as threatening or dangerous (as fearsome), admiration evaluates something as having gone well above and beyond some standard (as admirable), and shame evaluates something about you or yours as worth hiding (as shameful). These evaluative responses include action tendencies: fear includes a motivational impulse to avoid the threat (either by fleeing, fighting, or freezing), admiration (of people) includes an impulse to emulate them, and shame includes the impulse to hide (or to cover your metaphorical or literal nakedness).
* Amusement is a lean-in emotion: it’s delicious, it feels good, and when we experience that particular form of enjoyment, we want to roll it around in our mouths, as it were, soaking in all its particular flavors.
* Amusement feels good. Those who have a heightened facility for amusing people are themselves extremely likable, as is anyone who makes others feel good. People want to be around them. They make gatherings fun and easy. In addition, those who are amused are fun to be around. Causing them to be amused is enjoyable as well. When they enjoy your wisecrack, they are enjoying you, and that feels good in its own way. They make gatherings fun and easy too.
