By
Madeleine Kando
'Perhaps I know best why it is man alone who laughs;
he alone suffers so deeply that he had to invent laughter."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Greek philosopher Democritus, known as the “laughing philosopher” had a tendency to laugh at the stupidity of his fellow citizens. He felt it was better to laugh at the world than become depressed by it.
But laughter predates the Greeks. One of the best scenes in the movie ‘Quest for Fire’, is man’s discovery of laughter. When a primitive tribesman is hit on the head by a small falling stone, a woman from an advanced tribe starts to laugh. The less advanced tribesmen haven't heard such a noise before, but when one of the tribesmen deliberately drops a small stone on his friend’s head, everybody laughs. The woman taught the tribesmen how to laugh.
So if humor is universal, why doesn’t everybody have an equal sense of humor? Or is humor like beauty? Is it in the eyes of the beholder?
This is what author Dannagal Goldthwaite Young argues in her book ‘Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States’. She explains why progressives watch late night comedy shows like Steven Colbert and John Stewart and why conservatives prefer Fox News’ prime-time political talk shows such as Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.
According to Young, an individual’s affinity for a particular genre of humor is determined by a set of psychological traits. She defines these traits as:
• A high need for cognition is a psychological term used to describe the enjoyment of thinking and analyzing problems.
• A threat salience is being acutely susceptible to signs of threats.
Her conclusion is that conservatives prefer the “outrage” genre of comedy and liberals prefer irony.*
The Dictionary’s definition of irony is ‘a state of affairs that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result’. (When you find out that your lung doctor smokes, for example.)
People who enjoy satire and irony have a higher need for cognition. The need for cognition could help explain the differences in humor appreciation between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals are also tolerant of ambiguity, which is a fancy term for “operating in the dark.”, i.e. being comfortable with novelty and uncertainty. Like the time I took a job selling apartments on the Costa del Sol. I did not speak a word of Spanish and was comfortable knowing that I would not sell a single one, being unable to communicate with the potential buyer. Needless to say my employment did not last long.
Liberals have a lower need for closure, whereas conservatives have a desire for a clear, firm answer to problems to avert ambiguity. ‘It is God’s will’ a conservative will say. End of story.
Someone once said:‘Satire is supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable’. Conservatives don’t usually afflict the comfortable, since they want the status quo to continue. Satire's job, on the other hand, is to make fun of people in power.
I was advised to tone down this article for fear of sounding prejudiced, so I watched some Conservative Comedy like Joe Rogan’s ‘Burn the Boat’ movie on Netflix. Rogan IS funny. But his obsession with the trans-gender culture gets a bit stale.
Then I watched Chat Daniels and realized the errors of my ways. He is neither conservative nor liberal and is a genius at making fun of both sides. Regardless of what is argued by Young, humor is not the domain of the liberal mind. Political humor might be more populated by liberals, but that doesn't mean that conservatives lack a funny bone.
Political humor in a divided society forces one to choose sides. But 'truth to power' humor instinctively makes the powerless poke fun at the powerful. Isn't this what it has done throughout history? leave comment here
* Young traces back the origins of outrage programming to the anti-New Deal movement of the 50s. The forebears of John Stewart and co are the satirists of the San Francisco counterculture like Mort Sahl and Lenny Bruce.
