an aesthetic experience of comedy: dewey and incongruity
TRANSCRIPT
An Aesthetic Experience of Comedy: Dewey and Incongruity Theory
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Arts
Jacob W. Coleman
April 2021
© 2021 Jacob W. Coleman. All Rights Reserved.
2
This thesis titled
An Aesthetic Experience of Comedy: Dewey and Incongruity Theory
by
JACOB W. COLEMAN
has been approved for
the Department of Philosophy
and the College of Arts and Sciences by
Yoichi Ishida
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Florenz Plassmann
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
3
Abstract
COLEMAN, JACOB W., M.A., April 2021, Philosophy
An Aesthetic Experience of Comedy: Dewey and Incongruity Theory
Director of Thesis: Yoichi Ishida
Dewey’s aesthetic theory as described in Art as Experience provides a unique lens
through which many kinds of non-traditional art can explored. In this thesis, I present an
account of relevant parts of Dewey’s theory as they apply to stand-up comedy,
highlighting the characteristics of an experience and the natural tendency to move from
disorder to order. I then detail key components of incongruity theory of humor, including
but not limited to the emphasis on the necessity of incongruity for humor rather than its
sufficiency. I show how the incongruity theory applies to a particular sub-genre of stand-
up comedy, dark humor. I then argue that the creation or appreciation of dark humor can
be aesthetic in Dewey’s sense. I conclude by responding to two potential criticisms of my
argument.
4
Dedication
For my mother, sister, and grandparents, to whom I owe everything. Also, in loving
memory of Dr. Robert Hull, who first introduced me to philosophy and left us far too
soon.
5
Acknowledgments
I would extend thanks to the philosophy department of Ohio University. In
particular, my fellow graduate students, both past and present, the members of my thesis
committee, Dr. Robert Briscoe and Dr. Christoph Hanisch, my ever-patient thesis advisor,
Dr. Yoichi Ishida, and Dr. James Petrik, department chair as well as the man who opened
the door to the path I currently walk.
6
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3
Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 5
1: Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7
2: Dewey’s Art as Experience............................................................................................. 8
2.1 Experience as an Experience .................................................................................. 8
2.2 An Aesthetic Experience....................................................................................... 10
2.3 The Artist’s Experience ........................................................................................ 13
3: Incongruity Theory of Humor ....................................................................................... 15
3.1 Humor in the Incongruous .................................................................................... 15
3.2 Examples in Stand-Up Comedy ............................................................................ 16
4: An Aesthetic Experience of the Comedian ................................................................... 20
4.1 Gathering Raw Material ........................................................................................ 20
4.2 Refining the Material ............................................................................................ 21
4.3 The End of a Joke ................................................................................................. 22 5: Dewey and Incongnruity Theory .................................................................................. 24
5.1 Aesthetics of Dark Comedy .................................................................................. 24
5.2 Misunderstanding Incongruity Theory ................................................................. 28
5.3 Narrowness of Scope ............................................................................................ 29 6: Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 31
References ......................................................................................................................... 32
7
1. Introduction
Philosophical analyses of comedy center around theories of humor (e.g., Morreall
2009, Oring 2016, Roberts 2019). Consider this joke by Mitch Hedberg:
Acid was my favorite drug. It opened up my mind. It expanded my mind. Because
of acid, I now know that butter is way better than margarine. I saw through the
bullshit. (Comedy Central Presents, “Mitch Hedberg.”)
If we find this joke funny, what is it that amuses us? According to the incongruity theory
of humor, we are amused because we find incongruity in this joke, that is, something that
violates our expectations.1
Understanding what amuses us is important for understanding comedy, but of
course there are other things we need to understand. For example, theories of humor
focus on how listeners appreciate jokes, but there has been little analysis of humor from
the perspective of the maker of humor: the comedian. Thus, in this thesis, I explore an
aesthetic experience of a comedian. In particular, drawing on Dewey’s concept of
aesthetic experience (Section 2), I argue that the comedian’s joke writing qualifies as a
Deweyan aesthetic experience (Section 4). I also argue that a Deweyan analysis of joke
writing and performance is consistent with the incongruity theory of humor (Section 5).
1 I will discuss this joke and the incongruity theory in Section 3. For other theories of
humor, see Morreall (2009).
8
2. Dewey’s Art as Experience
To understand an aesthetic experience of a comedian, we need to understand what
it is to have an experience for Dewey. He distinguishes between what it is to experience
something and what it is to have an experience, and he illustrates how an experience can
be aesthetic.2
2.1 Experience and An Experience
Dewey distinguishes between experience in general and an experience.
Experience is continuous throughout our life. Our senses continuously take information
from the world, and our engagement with that information also falls under the banner of
experience. Our reacting to the ebb and flow of life constitutes the continuum of
experience. Consider, for example, someone who says that she had an uneventful day.
What she means is this: she was conscious and engaged with her environment throughout
the day. She made decisions based on information gathered by her senses. But she didn’t
find anything particularly worthy of mentioning. Of course, her experience on that day
has beginnings and ends, but they are not intended or well defined. Instead, external
forces or internal lethargy bring an end to action and thought (Dewey 1987 [1934], 42).
That is, she experienced her day without having what Dewey calls an experience.
2 For my purpose, a simplified version of Dewey’s theory of an aesthetic experience is
sufficient. For a more thorough discussion, see, e.g., Alexander (1987), Haskins (1992),
Sawyer (2000), and Shusterman (2002).
9 According to Dewey, an experience is something discrete in the continuum of
experience. An experience has a relatively well-defined beginning, and it ends when we
complete the events or actions constituting that experience. Upon coming to an end, we
can look back and reflect on an experience as something with a name: that fight with a
loved one, that dance at a wedding, that roller coaster ride (Dewey 1987 [1934], 43).
Moreover, an experience has a unifying structure: parts of the experience may be
intellectual, emotional, or practical, but they all belong to the same experience. He can
characterize his experience as that unpleasant fight, that beautiful dance, that fun roller
coaster ride, etc. In other words, after the fact we ascribe the qualities that give unity to
our experiences (Dewey 1987 [1934], 44).
One important aspect of the structure of an experience is temporal cohesiveness.
Parts of an experience are ordered sequentially. But the sequence need not be continuous.
Things that happen within the time frame of the experience but do not contribute to the
experience are not part of the experience. Consider, for example, workers constructing a
skyscraper. Working raw material into such a structure is certainly an experience. It has a
beginning where raw material arrives at the site; a middle where workers lay foundation,
raise beams, put up walls, etc.; and an end where the building stands complete. If the
workers were asked about the construction of the building, what would they say? Would
they go over every detail of every day of the construction? Would they describe every
lunch break or conversation that they had while working? Probably not. Not everything
they did would be part of their experience of constructing the skyscraper. It is in the work
10 done where the experience lies. Thus, various pieces of the work they did come together
to form their unified, discrete experience: the construction of the skyscraper.
2.2 An Aesthetic Experience
What does it mean for an experience to be aesthetic? For Dewey, “fine art” is
hoisted high on a pedestal far away from the experience surrounding the creation of said
art. He thinks this is a mistake, and I agree. For Dewey, a work of art is not the object
created, but rather how that object affects experience (Dewey 1987 [1934], 9).
Commonplace items and occurrences can be described as aesthetic if they have values
that catch our perception and hold attention or bring amusement. One such value, and one
close to Dewey’s heart, is the establishment of order from the chaos of the natural world.
When the naturally chaotic environment is forced into equilibrium, “every living creature
that attains sensibility” (Dewey 1987 [1934], 20) desires to maintain that equilibrium.
That is, order is welcomed over disorder by the rational creature. It is in the natural
rhythms both physical and intellectual that move creatures from disorder to order that the
seeds of the aesthetic are found (Dewey 1987 [1934], 20).
Regarding order and the tendency of sensible creatures to seek it, Dewey says:
There is in nature, even below the level of life, something more than mere flux
and change. Form is arrived at whenever a stable, even though moving,
equilibrium is reached. Changes interlock and sustain one another. Whenever
there is coherence, there is endurance. Order is not imposed from without but is
made out of the harmonious interactions that energies bear to one another.
11
Because it is active…order itself develops. It comes to include within its balanced
movement a greater variety of changes. (Dewey 1987 [1934], 20)
I take this to mean that the relevant kind of order for Dewey is an order that is not
effortlessly or automatically occurring in the world. That is, the relevant order is
something that is actively sustained, like a dynamical equilibrium. I believe that the
sustainability component is of particular importance, especially in terms of contemporary
society. I will make reference to this later in Section 5. These qualities of sustainability,
balance, and order are integral to the development of the aesthetic.
Thus, Dewey’s examples of aesthetic experience include seemingly mundane
activities done by ordinary people. One example is someone who performs a task in a
particular, passionate manner. Dewey says:
The intelligent mechanic engaged in his job, interested in doing well and finding
satisfaction in his handiwork, caring for his tools with genuine affection, is
artistically engaged. (Dewey 1987 [1934], 11)
That is to say, one who takes pride in one’s work, whether or not one’s work is creative
in the traditional sense, is working aesthetically. Another example is someone who pokes
at a fire in a hearth and derives satisfaction from the results.3 Dewey says:
3 A contemporary example of the same or at least similar phenomena is a recently
emerged fascination with activities described as “oddly satisfying.” Examples include the
crushing of various objects by a hydraulic press, destroying objects using an industrial
shredder, and shaving layers from a scored bar of soap. These “oddly satisfying”
12
The man who poked the sticks of burning wood would say he did it to make the
fire burn better; but he is none the less fascinated by the colorful drama of change
enacted before his eyes and imaginatively takes part in it. He does not remain a
cold spectator. (Dewey 1987 [1934], 11)
While actions may have a practical origin, they may just as well result in something
aesthetic. When one takes this view, the range of those things that are aesthetic widens
greatly. A flash of lightning or a motorcycle driving having its engine revved can be as
aesthetic as typical works of art (Dewey 1987 [1934], 11).
Thus, an experience is aesthetic if it has values that catch our perception and hold
attention or bring amusement. In fact, it is plausible that given Dewey’s concept of an
experience, every experience is aesthetic at least to some extent. As we saw, an
experience has a unifying structure that allows us to reflect on it as this or that
experience. An experience can hold our attention, and our reflection on it can bring out
other values that catch our perception and hold attention or bring amusement. For
example, consider Dewey’s example of two people meeting for a job interview. The
process is mechanical, consisting of a back and forth of questions and answers, and the
process itself is not an experience. But it becomes an experience for these people—as job
interviews typically do—when parts of this process are organized into a characteristic
activities capture a similar essence as Dewey’s person poking the fire which goes to show
that Dewey’s aesthetic theory continues to be explored by the common person even
today, even if unconsciously.
13 structure of an experience. Crucially, this structure can be aesthetic. Thus, at the
beginning, the applicant was hopeful for the future; the middle of the interview carried
drama and suspense; and the elation or despair come at the end (Dewey 1987 [1934],
49–50).
Moreover, an experience can be, and often is, aesthetic for both those who
intentionally (or unintentionally) bring about an aesthetic experience as well as those who
are experiencing the aesthetic from the outside. In the following subsection, I describe
Dewey’s account of the artist’s experience. Also, in Section 4, I focus on the Deweyan
experience of the comedian. In Sections 4 and 5, I make reference to aesthetic experience
from the perspectives of both the performer and the consumer.
2.3 The Artist’s Experience
Dewey’s notion of an aesthetic experience enables us to recognize the artist’s
labor—not just her product—as aesthetic. Dewey says that all complete experiences
begin with impulsions that “proceed from need; from a hunger and demand that belongs
to the organism as a whole and what can be supplied only by instating definite
relations…with the environment” (Dewey 1987 [1934], 64). Actions taken in pursuit of
impulsions are met with resistance from nature, and resistance that does not wholly stimy
the acting creature breeds curiosity and innovation. Creatures learn from their actions and
the ensuing results, and actions that were made blindly at first but bore positive results
are recreated with intention. Nature becomes a means to or material for overcoming
resistance. When intentional act is brought together with a medium, the act can be said to
be an act of expression. From acts of expression spring art (Dewey 1987 [1934], 66–69).
14 Raw material is an important part of Dewey’s theory. There is no act of expression (and
therefore no art) without material to be manipulated. “Even the Almighty took seven days
to create the heaven and the earth, and, if the record were complete, we should also learn
that it was only at the end of the period which he was aware of just what He set out to do
with the raw material of chaos that confronted Him” (Dewey 1987 [1934], 71). In other
words, even God needs raw materials to create. Thus, an object of expression does not
occur naturally; manipulation of naturally occurring media is necessary. Dewey makes
sure to specify that intellectual endeavors are also liable to be aesthetic.
15
3. Incongruity Theory of Humor
We behave and form expectations based on learned patterns. So, when we see
something incongruous with those patterns, we can feel such emotions as puzzlement,
anger, and sadness. But we can also find humor in the incongruity, as emphasized by the
incongruity theories of humor.4 In this section, following Michael Clark’s (1970)
incongruity theory of humor, I show how the incongruity theory can make sense of
humor in stand-up comedy.5
3.1 Humor in the Incongruous
The incongruity theory says that what amuses us is incongruity. But of course not
all violations of our expectations are funny. So if we find incongruity funny, what does
our amusement consist in? According to Clark, when we enjoy incongruity, our
amusement is
the enjoyment of (perceiving or thinking of or indulging in) what is seen as
incongruous, partly at least because it is seen as incongruous. (Clark 1970, 28;
original emphasis)
On this account, when we enjoy incongruity, we do so at least partly for incongruity’s
own sake. Moreover, Clark adds a qualification:
4 These theories have a long history. For early accounts, see, e.g., Schopenhauer (1907
[1818]) and Kierkegaard (1941 [1846]).
5 For a critical discussion of the early and recent versions of the incongruity theory, see
Morreall (2009), who also compares stand-up comedy to philosophy.
16
The apparent incongruity is not enjoyed just for some ulterior reason. (Clark
1970, 29; original emphasis)
This qualification is meant to exclude cases where incongruity is not at all enjoyed for its
own sake such as when we enjoy incongruity because doing so is fashionable.
Clark’s incongruity theory specifies the nature of our enjoyment of incongruity
when we do enjoy it. This is an attractive theory because it avoids the common objection
that not all instances of incongruity are funny. Moreover, as I show below, Clark’s theory
helps us understand how incongruity is used in jokes, thereby illuminating how we, at
least sometimes, enjoy stand-up comedy.
3.2 Examples in Stand-Up Comedy
Successful comics have used incongruity in their jokes. Recall, for example,
Mitch Hedberg’s joke:
Acid was my favorite drug. It opened up my mind. It expanded my mind. Because
of acid, I now know that butter is way better than margarine. I saw through the
bullshit. (Comedy Central Presents, “Mitch Hedberg.”)
Incongruity can be found in several layers in this joke. Some might perceive the use of
acid to “open the mind” as humorous incongruity. For most people, I think, what is
humorously incongruous is the claim that the opening of the mind led to the discovery
that butter is superior to margarine. When we hear someone saying that his mind has
opened, we expect a grand revelation, a religious experience, or a profound moment of
clarity. But Hedberg violates our expectation by saying what he discovered—what we
expect to be a life changing discovery—was that butter is better than margarine.
17 Moreover, the last line of the joke implies that there may be some conspiracy to deceive
people in believing that margarine is superior to butter. Such an effort to support
something so nonsensical is incongruous with the typical notion of a conspiracy. If you
chuckled at such an idea, I argue that it is due, in part at least, to that incongruity.
Consider another example, this time from George Carlin. In one of his many
famous bits satirizing American culture, he says the following about monetizing capital
punishment in an attempt to help balance the national budget:
And don’t forget, the polls show the American people want capital punishment,
and they want a balanced budget. And I think even in a fake democracy, people
ought to get what they want once in a while... Not only do I recommend
crucifixions, I’d be in favor of bringing back beheadings! Huh? Beheadings on
TV, slow-motion, instant replay? And maybe you could let the heads roll down a
little hill. And fall into one of five numbered holes. Let the people at home
gamble on which hole the head is going to fall into. And you do it in a stadium so
the mob can gamble on it too. Raise a little more money. And if you want to
expand the violence a little longer to sell a few more commercials, instead of
using an axe, you do the beheadings with a hand saw!...You want something a
little more delicate, we’ll do the beheadings with an olive fork. (George Carlin:
Back in Town.)
Carlin references polls that suggest that the American public at the time of the special
were in favor of capital punishment as well as efforts to balance the budget. However,
taking that information and concluding that the American public would be in support of
18 using the former to achieve the latter is obviously ludicrous. Doubling down as he often
did, Carlin pushes his suggestion over the top by insinuating that those being executed
should be tortured before they die to allow for more advertising space. To say that his
suggestion is incongruous with common ideas for balancing the national budget goes
without saying. Moreover, I struggle to believe that rational supporters of capital
punishment would get behind torturing those sentenced to death. It may even be the case
for some that the idea of capital punishment is incongruous with the idea of a properly
functioning legal system, in which case the overall incongruity of Carlin’s proposal is
even greater.6
Clark’s incongruity theory helps us understand both of the jokes above. Whether
it be the ongoing battle between butter and margarine or supporting torture in the name of
profit, incongruity with common expectations abounds. To me, it is ridiculous to think
that there is a war going on behind the scenes between the butter manufacturers and the
margarine manufacturers. To me, it is absurd to suggest that criminal should be tortured
on television in an effort to make money. I find amusement in the ridiculousness and
absurdity, and, therefore find the jokes funny. You may not find either situation
incongruous or you may find them incongruous but not funny. But that is consistent with
Clark’s theory because his theory is about the nature of enjoyment we find in incongruity
6 Carlin’s bit here is quite similar to Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal, a prime
example of satirical hyperbole being used for social criticism.
19 when we do so. Thus, even if our reactions to both jokes may be different, they are
consistent with Clark’s theory.
20
4. An Aesthetic Experience of the Comedian
Out of all the examples Dewey gives of an experience, I find the experience of
building a skyscraper parallels best the aesthetic experience of the comedian crafting a
joke. Both are temporally disjoint, yet the experience is cohesive, there is a well-defined
beginning and end for both, and the work done in between the beginning and end follows
a similar pattern of large-scale change leading to detail oriented fine tuning. In this
section, I use the skyscraper example to help describe the process of joke writing,
development, and, ultimately, retirement to demonstrate that the experience of the
comedian is, indeed, aesthetic in a Deweyan sense. I begin with the gathering of material
from which the joke is crafted. I then move to the bringing together of that material into a
joke and the process of refining that joke into a finished product. I conclude by describing
the end of a joke’s life and how a joke reaches its end.
4.1 Gathering Raw Material
Writing a joke, just like any other aesthetic process, begins with the gathering of
material from which the object will be crafted. For the comedian, that material is
experience itself. The comedian analyzes life as it is lived, both by himself as well as
those around him, and pulls from that general experience pieces to put together an
experience. When discussing initially crafting a joke, Louis CK says:
Thinking about our acts, that’s what we do. We [CK and Jerry Seinfeld] take a
subject and don’t leave it alone until there’s nothing left of it. For you, it’s like
whatever. If it’s soap or shampoo, you’re going to put the shampoo bottle there
and just poke it and bludgeon it. (Talking Funny)
21 And Seinfeld replies, “If there’s something about it that initially got you. You go ‘there’s
something there’” (Talking Funny).
That “something” to which Seinfeld refers is a common phrase used not just by
comedians, but by many when they describe something which they find funny when
pressed for an explanation: there is just something funny about it. Starting with this
something, the comedian can begin to craft his art. If the goal is to write a one- or two-
line joke, there is likely only need for one such something to provide adequate material. It
may even be the case that one amusing premise can be stretched into five minutes of
material. If the goal is to craft a longer set, multiple amusing somethings will have to be
found in order to provide adequate premises for punchlines. Likening back to one of
Dewey’s examples, sifting through experience for things that have that something, which
I argue is Dewey’s unifying quality of an experience, is like the gathering of all the
necessary materials for building the skyscraper. Once all the pieces are in place, work
toward the end goal can begin.
4.2 Refining the Material
The skilled comedian (as with any skilled performer) tells a joke as if it is easy
and comes naturally. However, like other works of art, there is a process by which the
raw material is converted into a product. Commenting on refining jokes, Seinfeld says,
“[In] the first month, you know it’s not going to be as good as after six months” (Talking
Funny). In other words, the comedian gets better at telling a joke over time. But it is not
the case that simply telling the joke over and over in a mirror is sufficient; there must be
something else involved.
22
The only way for a comedian to work on a joke is to tell it and see how the
audience responds, whether that audience be the patrons in a comedy club or a friend to
whom the comedian first pitches the joke. The first telling of a joke is like the first piece
of the foundation of the skyscraper being lain. Based on the reaction of the audience, the
comedian has the option of changing the actual words constituting the joke, the rhythm
and timing with which the joke is spoken, the accompanying bodily movements while the
joke is being told, etc. The then revised joke is told again to an audience, be it the same or
not. Notes are taken regarding the audience response to the first revision compared to the
original. The comedian keeps those changes that were helpful, discards those that seemed
to be hinderances, and goes back to the drawing board in search of other changes to make
to enhance audience response further. Every change to the joke is like another beam
being raised or bolt being tightened on the skyscraper. As the joke becomes more and
more refined, the changes become more and more minute. The changes to the skyscraper
move from being huge and structural to subtle and of finer detail. Both finished products,
the skyscraper and the joke, are built over a collection of discrete periods of time.
Builders are not constantly working on the skyscraper just as the comedian is not
constantly punching up a joke. However, both parties, the comedian and the builders, will
be able to look back on the time spent on the project as a unified experience. Crafting the
joke. Raising the skyscraper.
4.3 The End of a Joke
If the joke is good and the audience is not filled with people who have seen the
comedian’s performance before, the comedian’s performance will bring amusement to
23 that newest audience. But from the comedian’s point of view, a joke does have an end.
According to Louis CK, “There’s a weird, almost fruit like cycle to it. Like it gets ripe
and then starts rotting a little bit for me, sometimes” (Talking Funny). In other words, a
joke is finished when the comedian judges that it ceases to do its job: get a laugh. People
are no stranger to a joke overstaying its welcome. With repetition, even the funniest joke
loses its luster. Unlike more permanent works of art—painting, sculpture, even novels
and other written work—the nature of stand-up comedy dictates that a joke is done when
it has run its course and the comedian feels that he can stop performing that joke.7
From the gathering of material to the hammering out of material into workable
jokes and to the joke reaching its zenith and earning retirement, the experience of the
comedian I just sketched shows that it is an aesthetic experience in Dewey’s sense. The
experience has a unifying structure characterized by the comedian’s desire and hope to
bring amusement to an audience.
7 It may seem counterintuitive to say that a joke is finished when it fades away from
being performed, and it is not a universally agreed upon view in the comedy community.
But this conclusion coheres with how comedy is distributed and consumed.
24
5. Dewey and Incongruity Theory
As incongruity theory relies on recognizing apparent incongruity and enjoying
said incongruity for its own sake, it seems, on the surface, that comedy should not fit into
Dewey’s aesthetic theory. After all, aesthetic experiences are, for Dewey, a movement
from chaotic naturally occurring material to an orderly, harmonious conclusion.
However, here, I argue that the comedian’s manipulation of incongruous material, even
that material, which is difficult to navigate in non-humorous settings, is aesthetic in
Dewey’s sense. Moreover, comedians can play an important role in moving towards
societal order by being on the front lines of maintaining open communication about
incongruity in society as well as by being a constant reminder of behavior that is
incongruous with general societal beliefs. Such open avenues of communication as well
as reminders are vital for progress towards a sustainable society. For both purposes, I
focus on so-called dark comedy, a genre of comedy which uses subject matter that is
often considered too serious or otherwise taboo to be a laughing matter.
5.1 Aesthetics of Dark Comedy
Dark comedy is often profane and almost exclusively centers on subject matter
that is taboo or commonly considered too serious or painful to be spoken about, let alone
joked about. Such subjects include tragic events, the more sinister parts of the human
condition, and parts of society that do not seem to be consistent with what is professed to
be believed by that society. Even the notion of taboo itself is among the targets of the
dark comedian. The dark comedian’s question, in short, is: Why is it unacceptable, at the
very least socially, to make light of war, murder, homelessness, mass hunger, the
25 ineptitude of government, and so on, especially since these things are part of human
experience? A natural and common response to the dark comedian’s question is this:
Why would somebody appreciate such subject matters being the butt of a joke? I first
answer this question by describing what would be appreciated by an audience consuming
a performance of such taboo material. I then move on to the contribution of dark
comedians in the movement from incongruity to sustainable equilibrium in a societal
setting.
Jokes with taboo subject matter get laughs from audiences worldwide, but why?
When discussing why a joke of CK’s is successful, Seinfeld says, “He just tap danced
over six laser beams. That’s what we like about that joke” (Talking Funny). In other
words, CK has chosen not merely raw experience as discussed in Section 4, but rather
experience which has proven to be a sensitive topic of non-humorous discussion and
presented it in such a way that the audience, rather than being offended, finds amusing.
How can this be done? The answer lies in the structure of the joke itself. The comedian is
able to impose order on the chaotic, incongruous raw experience in such a way that an
experience which and audience appreciates is formed. Thus, not only was the experience
aesthetic for the comedian as described in the previous section, but it was also made into
something aesthetic for the audience.
Moving now to the societal contributions of the dark comedian, subjects of dark
comedy often appear to be deeply incongruous with what some people believe to be right
or understand the way the world should be. Why is incongruity subject matter of dark
comedy? I propose two reasons. One is that dark comedians are often concerned with free
26 speech. For example, below is an excerpt from the opening statement in defense of Lenny
Bruce in the first of several trials beginning in 1962 in which he was charged with, among
other things, obscenity:
I [Al Bendich, Bruce’s attorney] am going to prove through the testimony of
several witnesses who will take the stand before you, ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, that Mr. Bruce gave a performance in the Jazz Workshop on the night of
October fourth last year which was a show based on the themes of social
criticism, based upon analysis of various forms of conventional hypocrisy, based
upon the technique of satire which is common in the heritage of English letters
and, as a matter of fact, in the heritage of world literature. (Bruce 1992, 111.)
Bruce was a trailblazer for the development of stand-up comedy as it is known today.
And he was also a champion of free speech.8
Another reason why dark comedy highlights seriously incongruous situations in
society is to promote social change to end such situations to occur. In other words,
standing for free speech is merely the beginning. The incongruous subject matter of dark
comedy is everywhere in human experience, but, as stated above, talking about is often
taboo. The dark comedian draws our attention to topics that, while they may be
uncomfortable, are important for general social conversation. Consider the George Carlin
8 Historically, comedians have been among those who have pushed boundaries of free
speech. Such comedians include Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Joan Rivers, and Dave
Chappelle.
27 example given in Section 3. It is not common that capital punishment is a topic of casual
conversation, but it deserves to be part of general social conversation. Carlin is clearly
attempting to point out apparent incongruity in the idea of capital punishment, using an
absurdly incongruous idea of making money from suffering (monetizing public
execution). The point is that the joke forces listeners to think, even if only for a moment,
about a potentially uncomfortable subject. In other words, the dark comedian acts as a
reminder for societal incongruities so as to begin the transition from nearly forgotten but
prevalent and damaging incongruity to more societally beneficial and sustainable
harmony.
Dark comedy, then, points out deep incongruities in society so that they can end.
Thus, in dark comedy, there is movement or striving towards order. Now, an experience
of a dark comedian is no different from that of a comedian whose material focuses on less
taboo subject matter, so the dark comedian’s experience is aesthetic from Dewey’s point
of view as discussed in Section 4. But I also want to suggest that dark comedy can be
aesthetic for listeners. Recall that for Dewey, something is aesthetic if it has values that
catch our perception and hold attention or bring amusement. One such value is the
establishment of order from chaos. Once we understand the social role of dark comedy,
we can see that it is part of our striving towards order. To the extent that this value of
dark comedy holds our attention or brings amusement, we can say that dark comedy is
aesthetic in Dewey’s sense.
If we are amused by an incongruity pointed out by dark comedy, as Clark’s theory
would suggest, we are at least partly enjoying the incongruity for its own sake. Thus,
28 when dark comedy’s striving towards order holds our attention, it is aesthetic in Dewey’s
sense, and when we enjoy dark comedy, we enjoy incongruity for its own sake.
5.2 Misunderstanding Incongruity Theory
In response to my account, an incongruity theorist might say that I have missed a
key point of incongruity theory. Recall Clark’s qualification that when we enjoy
incongruity for its own sake, we do not do so solely for some other reason (Clark 1970,
29). The objector might say that on my account, we enjoy incongruity in dark comedy
because it is a way to move towards more ordered, harmonious society. My account, so
the objection goes, thus misses the point of incongruity theory.
My response is twofold. First, I think that the idea of an ordered, harmonious
society is agreeable but not funny. Again consider Carlin’s joke about capital
punishment. Suppose we believe that a more ordered society should not have capital
punishment, and we also find incongruities in Carlin’s joke funny. Now do we find them
funny because a society without capital punishment is amusing? I think not. Rather, we
find the incongruities themselves to be funny. Second, Clark’s incongruity theory only
says that when we enjoy incongruity, we do so “partly at least” (Clark 1970, 28) for its
own sake. In other words, we can enjoy incongruity for other reasons as well. As I said,
when we enjoy incongruities of dark comedy, we must be enjoying the incongruities
themselves. But in Clark’s theory we can also enjoy the incongruities for other reasons as
well. Thus, we can enjoy incongruities of dark comedy for their role in our striving
towards more ordered, harmonious society.
29 The incongruity theorist might point out that in my response, I have shifted the
relevant incongruity. For example, in Carlin’s joke, the amusing incongruity is the
hyperbole, not the incongruity between the fact that a society has capital punishment and
the belief that such a society is undesirable. But my response focuses on the latter sort of
incongruity. Could the hyperbole be aesthetic in Dewey’s sense? I think that it can.
Consider a very young child who saw a large dog while on a walk. The child, if asked,
may report with glee that the dog was “like a giant” giant and its bark was “the loudest
thing in the world.” Such a retelling may very well illicit amusement as the wild
descriptions of the child are certainly incongruous with what an older listener would
expect the experience of seeing a dog on a walk to be. However, if the child did not
deliver her story with the wonder and excitement with which children often do, I do not
think that such amusement would be elicited. In other words, the incongruous hyperbole
must be ordered and delivered in such a way as to bring about amusement to an audience.
The same thing is true of Carlin’s satirical hyperbole. If he had not bestowed a particular
ordering on the information being conveyed, the hyperbole would merely be an
undesirable description of what he felt was the future of the American political landscape.
Thus, it is the structure and delivery of hyperbole that can make it aesthetic in Dewey’s
sense. They give hyperbole the unifying quality of humorousness which is essential for
Dewey’s aesthetic theory.
5.3 Narrowness of Scope
Another objection has to do with the scope of my account. Dark comedy is only a
small genre of comedy, so why choose it as a primary focus?
30
In my view, the benefit is in a precision or nuance we gain in understanding jokes.
Recall Hedberg’s and Carlin’s jokes from Section 3. We can understand them in terms of
the incongruity theory. But I think that the incongruity theory alone is inadequate to
understand an important difference in the subject matter of these jokes. Hedberg’s joke is
not particularly serious; let’s call it goofy. Carlin’s joke is not goofy at all: it is satirizing
capital punishment, which is a serious topic. The incongruity theory, at least in its basic
form, cannot distinguish between goofy and serious jokes, and hence in turn it cannot
distinguish between goofy jokes and dark comedy. But Dewey’s theory allows us to
make this distinction. To a first approximation, an incongruous joke is serious if it is also
aesthetic in Dewey’s sense, and it is goofy if it is not aesthetic in his sense. Thus, to
properly understand dark comedy, the incongruity theory alone is inadequate, and
Dewey’s theory provides a necessary precision.
31
6. Conclusion
Here I have given an account of an aesthetic experience of the comedian in terms
of Dewey’s aesthetic theory and the incongruity theory of humor. In particular, my
account reconciles the two theories. Using Dewey’s theory, I have shown that an
aesthetic experience of the comedian has a well-defined beginning and end and that it is
unified by the comedian’s desire and hope to bring amusement to an audience.
Furthermore, while incongruity theory relies on the enjoyment of apparent incongruity,
the comedian can use his position to help carve a path from incongruity to order. In these
two regards, comedy not only fits into Dewey’s theory, it brings incongruity theory its
breadth, at least in some context.
My account also suggests that Dewey’s theory of an aesthetic experience can be
useful for understanding non-traditional artforms like stand-up comedy. Moreover,
attempts at further integrating incongruity theory into Dewey’s theory may provide
avenues into tapping yet unexplored facets of Dewey’s aesthetics. Even if such a revival
of Dewey scholarship is not the end result of this exploration, continued probing in the
context other comedy genres or other, more recent artforms could prove fruitful.
32
References
Alexander, T. M. (1987). John Dewey’s Theory of Art, Experience, and Nature: The
Horizons of Feeling. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bruce, L. (1992). How to Talk Dirty and Influence People: An Autobiography. New
York: Fireside.
Clark, Michael (1970). Humour and Incongruity. Philosophy 45: 20–32.
Comedy Central Presents. “Mitch Hedberg.” (1999-2011). Directed by Paul Miller. Aired
January 5, 1999, on Comedy Central.
Dewey, J. (1987 [1934]). Art as Experience. In The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925-
1953 (Vol. 10), edited by Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
George Carlin: Back in Town. (1996). Directed by Urbisci. Aired March 30, 1996, on
HBO.
Haskins, C. (1992). Dewey’s “Art as Experience”: The Tension between Aesthetics and
Aestheticism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 28: 217–259.
Kierkegaard, S. (1941 [1846]). Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Trans. D. Swenson
and W. Lowrie. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Morreall, J. (2009). Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Oring, E. (2016). Joking Asides: The Theory, Analysis, and Aesthetics of Humor.
Boulder, CO: Utah State University Press.
Roberts, A. (2019). A Philosophy of Humour. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
33
Schopenhauer, A. (1907 [1818]). The World as Will and Idea. 6th ed. Trans. R. B.
Haldane and J. Kemp. London: Routledge.
Sawyer, R. K. (2000). Improvisation and the Creative Process: Dewey, Collingwood, and
the Aesthetics of Spontaneity. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58: 149–
161.
Shusterman, R. (2002). Pragmatism and Criticism: A Response to Three Critics of
Pragmatist Aesthetics. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 16: 26–38.
Talking Funny. (2011). Directed by John Moffit. Aired April 20, 2011, on HBO.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
Thesis and Dissertation Services