“Killing Ourselves Laughing” — Why We Laugh Anyway, Even When We Know We Shouldn’t

Abstract

Humans, as William Hazlitt (1819, 11) explains, “are the only animal that laughs and weeps; for [we are] the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are, and what they ought to be”. In the case of unethical laughter — when we laugh even though the propos is better suited to anger or shock — we know that things are not what they should be. But spontaneous, tension-relieving laughter is such an exceptional experience, the pleasure afforded usually seems worth the risk. This dimension of risk is in fact central to the whole realm of laughter and humor. As Robert Mankoff, who was cartoon editor for the New Yorker, explains: humor is like a roller coaster ride. For it to work, there must be the element of danger that the roller coaster ride ensures, but at the same time the riders must be guaranteed that they won’t fall off (Mankoff 2013). Without the assurance of this safety net, we are out of our zone of comfort, and we don’t laugh. This paper proposes to study two different aspects of humor: failed humor and the guilty laugh – laughing against our better judgment but laughing anyway. I will examine why and how this is possible through the study of the 2001-2003 British sitcom, The Office, and the American stand-up comedian, Louis C.K. Working notably with recent theory specifically geared to sitcoms and standup, my paper will demonstrate the specificity of comedy and the role of the audience in the production of humor. I will show how voice, gesture and silence combine to provide at least some sort of safety net. This does not mean that there is nothing wrong in the quality of our laughter, but it helps to explain how we make exceptions to our own personal code of ethics.