Sometimes called the “Tension Release Theory,” this is Freud’s (and others’) view that humor is derived from a release of pent up energy.
More about the theory:
Hydraulic Model
John Morreall traces this theory back to Lord Shaftesbury’s 1709 “hydraulic” model, which held that men (sic) had “natural, free [“animal”] spirits” that required release or they would “vent” in undesirable ways. Apparently, we’re all seething cauldrons of fluid and gas, trying to get out and making us wacky. Variations of this theory come from John Dewey, Herbert Spencer and Sigmund Freud.
Desire and Taboos
Perhaps most popular is Freud’s notion that people laugh when they satisfy “an instinct (whether lustful or hostile) in the face of an obstacle that stands in its way” (101). Freud relates those instincts to his theory of unconscious desire, particularly for aggression and sex, though this has been expanded to all taboos (including scatological [potty humor] or breaches in decorum [like obscenity]). The obstacle in these cases is most frequently the conscious, an effect of socialization. Humor occurs as a release of tension when we realize that we are allowed to delight in (previously) taboo matters (again, primarily violence and sex).
This explains why we like fart and poop jokes – the only ones that consistently make my wife laugh. It explains why some like dick jokes, and why people laugh explosively at certain “taboo” words, or when they’re in uncomfortable situations. It purports to explain why nervous people seemingly laugh at anything.
Usage
Morreall holds that no scholar in philosophy or psychology expresses this theory anymore. For one thing, it does not always apply – but then, none of these theories do. For another, other theories explain the same phenomenon – and yes, there is a LOT of overlap. Also, if comics consciously write jokes, then at least part of the process is not “unconscious”; the audience must “get it.” But perhaps it’s calculated to play on the unconscious processes of the audience – and perhaps the comic doesn’t even know why it works. Further – and most telling – is that those who repress the most should laugh the hardest, but they don’t; people who express these tensions do.
Nevertheless, my interest here is in how people talk about humor, and people frequently talk about (or talk around) concepts central to Relief Theory when they write and analyze jokes.
Sarah Silverman references relief/release explicitly in her 2017 Netflix special, A Speck of Dust. She builds a scene in which a girl is puking so hard she can’t stop and then she thinks she is about to get raped, but it turns out, she was just also crapping her pants. There’s a lot of silence as the story builds, but when the trick is revealed, the audience laughs, and Silverman acknowledges that this release is exactly what she was trying to do.
Safety Valves and Political Potential
People taking this position view humor as a safety valve; they see a problem in the situation or society, and the humor merely serves as catharsis for that need. Humor thus has no social force; it simply relieves a force resulting from a situation that pre-exists it. However, a safety valve still might serve a political function as it may mollify a public, or obscure or trivialize an issue.
The theory holds, if we agree that racism is a problem, then jokes about systemic racism don’t actually solve the problem, but bleed off our discomfort or anger, making us at best more calm for a time, and at worst less likely to do anything but to continue to joke. This is the premise of such works as Neil Postman’s, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985). On the other hand, if nothing can be done, relief doesn’t seem like a bad thing, and it may just keep the issue in the public eye – we’re still here, and we’re still not happy.
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Extensions? Applications?
References:
Dewey, John. “The Theory of Emotion,” Psychological Review 1 (1894): 553–569.
Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. 1905. Trans. James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton, 1963.
Morreall, John. “Philosophy of Humor.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy available at http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html, 2016.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. 1985. New York: Penguin.
Shaftesbury, Lord. “Sensus Communis: An Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour,” Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, 1st ed., London (1709, republished in 1711, 4th edition in 1727).
Spencer, H. “On the Physiology of Laughter,” Essays on Education, Etc. 1911. London: Dent.
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.
