May 8, 2020

Jaden Ellman

Capstone Draft 2 Cover Letter

The following essay is the culmination of my detailed research on humor and the various

methods of its classification in terms of culture, history, psychology, and philosophy. In essence,

my research and ideas are organized into two distinct parts: part one discusses the various

obstacles that prevent individual instances of humor from being universally functional between

different cultures, and part two highlights the more general aspects of humor which are

universally accepted. For the original blueprint of this project, my intended artifact would have

compiled various examples of humor from a wide array of languages and cultural backgrounds,

presenting them in a way which would demonstrate the strict context specificity of comedy.

However, due to the unfortunate circumstances over the past several months, I ultimately chose

to scrap the artifact in favor of the essay since I felt it would best allow me to convey my

thoughts to their full scope. Working with a topic as abstract and prevalent as humor was a

challenging yet ultimately rewarding experience, and I found the information that I gathered

through research to be very interesting and relevant to my own life.

 Ellman 1

Jaden Ellman

Dr. Holt

Bard - 2

8 May 2020

The Cultural Complexity of Humor

Humor, by nature, is an incredibly difficult concept to define in concrete terms. It is hard

to deny that humor is a fundamental component of human communication and social cognition,

for its traceable origins date back as distant as four million years ago with primitive people and

apes (Jackson). However, like any form of artistic or social expression, comedy is also entirely

subjective, and our senses of humor can vary drastically from person to person due to any

number of possible factors. Nevertheless, within this subjectivity, there are a number of patterns

in the ways humans understand, experience, and respond to humor, regardless of the particular

form it may take. We experience these patterns on a small scale in our daily lives, but examining

the complexities of humor’s determined truths and variable qualities on a larger, global scale

brings about an even greater paradox. To what extent can humor truly be considered a universal

trait of the human experience, especially considering the differences in its manifestation across

cultures? The answer, while not a simple one to uncover, can be found through the convergence

of humor research in the fields of psychology, philosophy, history, and linguistics. In essence,

while historical circumstances and traditions have caused humor’s usage and public reputation to

differ across cultures and communities, its importance and its role in social psychology are

universal components of human life.

In order to fully grasp the significance of comedy’s variation between cultures, an

understanding of what these differences entail and the historical factors that caused them must be
 Ellman 2

firmly established. Generally speaking, the particular cultural divide that is most commonly

associated with the development of humor is the divide between eastern and western societies

(Jiang et al.). Due to numerous circumstances in early civilizations that influenced the

development of what would become the modern world as we know it, the two hemispheres

perceive comedy's purpose and general tonal implications quite differently. In the western world,

comedy has typically been associated with more positive concepts and connotations, such as

amusement or attractiveness (Jiang et al.). However, in eastern cultures, particularly that of

China and its many former dynasties and empires, societal norms are rooted in a long history of

valuing seriousness and praising individuals with a professional demeanor in all corners of life

(Jiang et al.). As a result, humor has historically been viewed as a somewhat undesirable trait for

the average civilian (Jiang et al.), something that would only ever be truly accepted and smiled

upon if one was an exceptionally skilled comedian (Jiang et al.). In comparison to European and

American cultures where humor is frequently used in everyday socialization and is even viewed

as an effective coping mechanism (Jiang et al.), the two regions regard humor in vastly different

ways—if often on a mostly subconscious level—and in turn employ equally distinct uses.

Beyond the more abstract cultural barriers that humor faces, there is one concrete

obstacle that is critical in preventing humor from being truly and wholly universal: language. No

matter the comedic style or audience, two massive components of humor and its inner workings

are wordplay and referential punchlines (Blauvelt), both tools that depend almost entirely on the

language and dialect of origin. This concept is seen not just in humor but in art, literature, and

media as a whole. Most if not all modern media, whether it be film, television, video games, or

print publications, experiences a process of localization rather than simple translation when

brought to a new cultural market. Certain ideas, jokes, colloquialisms, and cultural norms simply
 Ellman 3

do not make any sense when translated literally or do not align with the accepted values of

certain territories. Thus, certain elements and phrases must be altered or removed entirely in

order to fit the new language and its respective audience. These difficulties in cross-lingual

expression perhaps apply to humor more than anything else. In fact, western philosophers have

been widely discouraged from studying humor for years for the sole reason that it is often even

greater of a challenge to be funny in a foreign language than it is to be philosophically profound

(Kasulis). Philosophy, while applicable to everyone, is not necessarily brought into everyday

conversation in the same manner that humor is; thus, due to its frequency and far more accessible

nature, errors in humor are much easier for the average person to detect (Kasulis).

Despite the glaring inability to translate much of our humor to other languages or cultural

expectations, there are still a handful of commonalities in the way jokes and humorous

experiences are structured in any context. Aside from the aforementioned omnipresence of

wordplay and pop cultural references in humor (Blauvelt), one of the most popular and widely

accepted patterns of humor is the incongruity-resolution theory (Jackson). Originally conceived

by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the latter years of the 18th century (Jackson), the

incongruity-resolution theory essentially boils down to the basis of all laughter being prompted

by two factors: something unexpected or absurd, followed by a resolution that is either extremely

elegant or extremely inelegant (Jackson). While this premise does not explain every instance of

humor, it is a beautifully simple and accurate description of a very large portion of everyday

encounters with humor (Jackson). Another common characteristic of humor in a general sense is

the notion of “psychological distance” (Michel). This is a concept that frequently functions in

tandem with referential humor, and it is relatively self-explanatory; an audience’s distance from

a referential punchline, whether that distance is in terms of physical space, time, or otherwise,
 Ellman 4

can greatly influence the comedic value and emotional responses evoked by any given joke

(Michel). This pattern is most often found in darker styles of comedy (Michel)—jokes about

more sensitive or controversial topics can be hysterical to one audience and insulting to another

—but traces of its effects are present in all types of humor. With just a handful of recurring

patterns in comedic structure, the vast majority of humor and its mechanics can be explained

thoroughly, and the concepts listed above only scratch the surface of the multitude of theories

and classifications regarding jokes.

Furthermore, regardless of the variation in how humor is generally intended to be brought

about in the eastern and western worlds, its cognitive and emotional effects on humans remain

constant around the globe, making it an equally important social tool for all communities. As

discussed previously, humor’s use as a coping mechanism is only widely accepted and integrated

in western societies (Jiang et al.), but a similar function of humor that is seen on a global scale is

as an energy source of sorts for the mind (Michel). Psychologists have cited humor to provide

the human brain with a genuine, scientific “mental break” (Michel), enabling people to spend

more time on tedious or mentally strenuous tasks (Michel). In addition to the personal, internal

impacts on the human mind, humor also has positive implications on a public, external level.

Comedy’s effects as a communal, team-building experience can be traced back as early as the

ancient teachings of Confucianist and Taoist philosophers (Kasulis), and it is a quality that has

stood the test of time and can be seen in just about every modern community (Kasulis). Its

inherently communal nature makes humor a vital tool in the unification of any group or

classification of people—especially groups that have historically been victimized—both within

and outside of their societal groupings (Kasulis). Finally, on a more basic level, humans are

scientifically more likely to laugh when in the presence of other human laughter (Michel),
 Ellman 5

offering an immediate sense of relatability to the rest of the audience no matter who that

audience is made of.

On a surface level, humor fails to achieve true universality when carried over cultural or

lingual borderlines. However, underneath these obstacles, the construct of humor itself has a set

of common effects on the human brain that can be found anywhere in the world. In other words,

individuals of different backgrounds may find different things to be funny or consider different

circumstances to be appropriate for the telling of a joke, but regardless, all humor results in the

same cognitive and emotional experience that gives humans a common ground to relate to. Of

course, these ideas judge humor in its broadest big-picture form, and a nearly infinite array of

smaller scale complexities muddle humor’s manifestation in everyday life even further. Factors

such as age, level of education, and social status (Michel) can make the classification of humor

on a local, subcultural level operate fairly differently. Examining how these traits impact our

perception of humor warrants an entirely separate analysis in itself, but the constant nature of its

psychological impacts remains regardless. Recognizing humor’s specific impacts can lead to a

greater appreciation and understanding of its sheer importance in human life, and keeping in

mind its shortcomings and variations on a global scale can offer a stronger insight on the lives of

others and the perspective from which they experience the world. WORD COUNT = 1500
 Ellman 6

Works Cited

Blauvelt, Christian. "Why Comedy Is Not Universal." BBC Culture, BBC, 22 Aug. 2017,

www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170821-why-comedy-is-not-universal. Accessed 11 Feb.

2020.

Jackson, Steven B. "What's Funny?" Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 18 May 2012,

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culture-conscious/201205/whats-funny. Accessed 10

Feb. 2020.

Jiang, Tonglin, et al. "Cultural Differences in Humor Perception, Usage, and Implications."

Frontiers in Psychology, 29 Jan. 2019, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00123. Accessed 9 Feb.

2020.

Kasulis, Thomas P. "Introduction." Philosophy East and West, vol. 39, no. 3, 1989, pp. 239–241.

JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1399446. Accessed 12 Feb. 2020.

Michel, Alexandra. "The Science of Humor Is No Laughing Matter." Observer, vol. 30, no. 4,

Apr. 2017. Association for Psychological Sciences,

www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-science-of-humor-is-no-laughing-matter.

Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.