Incongruity Theory is based on Aristotle’s (and Cicero’s and others’) view of humor as derived from expectancy violation. Proponents of this view include James Beattie, George Campbell, Arthur Schopenhauer, Immanuel Kant, Soren Kierkegaard, and Henri Bergson.
More about the theory:
Expectancy Violations
Aristotle also thought humor occurred with one creates an expectation in the audience and then violates it (3, 2; Morreal). The Roman teacher Cicero similarly said, “The most common kind of joke is that in which we expect one thing and another is said; here our own disappointed expectation makes us laugh.” (ch. 63; Morreal).
John Morreal notes that,
This approach to joking is similar to techniques of stand-up comedians today. They speak of the set-up and the punch (line). The set-up is the first part of the joke: it creates the expectation. The punch (line) is the last part that violates that expectation. In the language of the Incongruity Theory, the joke’s ending is incongruous with the beginning.
Although, some, like Kenneth Burke argue that it’s not the violation per se that provokes a laugh, but an ironic satisfaction. We laugh because we really should have seen that coming. This is also the basis of verbal irony, and Victor Raskin’s Script Theory. This is also the basis of verbal irony, and also parody, that both scripts were possible, but we usually don’t see the second one until the punch line reveals it.
Paradox
These “expectancy violations” also work when a situation cannot be reconciled, or is paradoxical. In these cases, we laugh as a sign that we have given up on reconciling the incongruous. As Immanuel Kant puts it, “In everything that is to excite a lively convulsive laugh there must be something absurd (in which the understanding, therefore, can find no satisfaction). Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing” (First Part, sec. 54; Morreal).
Wit and Judgment
A more modern take is that incongruity is a surprising relationship between two things thought to be disparate (an exercise of wit), or a distinction between two things thought to be the same (an exercise of judgment); in both cases, a “difference between what one expects and what one gets, a lack of consistency and harmony” (Berger, 8).
Usage
Incongruity theory is the reigning “champion” of the three major theories, as it explains many more diverse forms of humor than the other two (Superiority and Tension Release), including puns and word play. More recently, some authors have labeled the convergence in humor of two possible interpretive frameworks bisociation, and use it to discuss a distinct spatialization of humor, the space of paradox (Koestler; Mulkay). However, theoretical popularity isn’t my concern; usage is, and people do talk about jokes and comics like they know this theory.
Political Potential?
Things like puns and wordplay may not have deep political overtones. However, Kenneth Burke’s “perspective by incongruity” also might productively fit here, which allows for the possibility that by placing two disparate ideas in conversation (wit), new aspects of both come to light. By the same token, judgement can bring up differences in things thought to be similar. Thus humor may be used to provoke thought.
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions? Applications?
References:
Aristotle, The Rhetoric.
Berger, Arthur Asa. “Humor: An Introduction.” American Behavioral Scientist 30.1 (1987): 6-15
Bergson, Henri. Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. New York: Macmillan, 1911.
Beattie, J., 1779, “Essay on Laughter and Ludicrous Composition,” in Essays, 3rd ed., London.
Burke, Kenneth. “Comedy, Humor and the Ode.” Attitudes Toward History. Berkeley: University of California, 1939/1984.
Campbell, George? [I’ll chase this one down].
Cicero, On the Orator (De Oratore)
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment. (esp. I, I, 54). Trans. J. H. Bernard. New York: Hafner, 1790/1951.
Kierkegaard, S., 1846 [1941], Concluding Unscientific Postscript, D. Swenson and W. Lowrie (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941.
–––, [JP], Journals and Papers, Vol. 2, H. Hong and E. Hong (eds. and trs.), Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970.
Koestler? [I’ll chase this one down: nearly certain it’s from American Behavioral Scientist 30.1 (1987): ]
Morreal, John. “Philosophy of Humor.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy available at http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html. 2016.
Mulkay, Michael. On Humor: Its Nature and Its Place in Modern Society. New York: Basil, 1988.
Schopenhauer, A., 1818/1844 [1907], The World as Will and Idea (Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung), tr. R. B. Haldane and J. Kemp, 6th ed., London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Wilson, Nathan. Was That Supposed to be Funny? A Rhetorical Analysis of Politics, Problems and Contradictions in Contemporary Stand-Up Comedy. Dissertation in partial completion of the Ph.D. August, 2008.
