Concerning Jokes

What makes a joke? The question is a tricky one, there is probably no single answer, but there is fun and profit in attempting to find some baseline characteristics. My own theory, the one I am believing at least contingently, at least during the instant I am writing this, is that a joke is a logical argument, an argument that seems plausible on the surface but is actually absurd. For a moment, when we hear the comedian's joke, we are persuaded by a line of faulty reasoning, but only for a moment; then, when we suddenly realize that the logic is specious, we laugh, and by doing so assert our membership of the comedian's community. We know he is saying something ridiculous; we are 'in' on the joke. We are together with the comedian on the other side of language. Humor is the nihilistic flip side of reason. If all rational argument is really just rhetoric, as I believe, jokes, which are logical arguments often of the reductio ad absurdum variety, are rhetoric no less and employ the same devices, devices such as irony, analogy, metaphor and simile. A good joke can puncture bombast, conceit and pretension and speak truth to power, but equally well can also often reinforce prejudice and intolerance. Like all rhetoric, a joke can go either way.

A couple of days ago I saw John Cleese and Eric Idle perform at the Civic in Auckland. Cleese told a number of jokes that made fun of non-english nationalities, among them the Swedes and the Greeks. His point was, perhaps, that we have become too politically correct. An example of one of his jokes? "Why do the French fight so many civil wars? So that they can win one."

Another joke he told satirizes the Jews:

"Two old Jews, Abraham and Solomon, are walking through Miami when they pass by a Catholic church. Outside the church is a sign saying, 'Convert today and we'll give you a thousand dollars!' Solomon ask his friend to excuse him and hastens inside. Half an hour later, he returns. Abraham asks him, 'Did they give you the thousand dollars?' Solomon replies, 'Is that all you people ever think about?'

This joke is patently absurd but the reason why it is absurd is not obvious. It is, after all, based on a logical argument, an argument consisting of three premises and a conclusion. The argument seems initially persuasive. We can set it out schematically as follows:

1. All Jews are avaricious.

2. Catholics are all non-avaricious.

3. A Jew can convert to Catholicism.

Therefore:

By converting to Catholicism, a Jew can become non-avaricious.

This argument is valid (in the technical meaning of the word, that the conclusion follows logically from the premises), so, if it is specious, as it seems to be, this must be because at least one of the premises is false. Either the stereotype that all Jews are obsessed by money must be false, or the idea that a Jew can turn into a Catholic must be false. The joke does not specify precisely which premise is incorrect but when we hear the joke we sense that there is something wrong with it somewhere, and this is why we laugh.

Another joke, this one not attributable to Cleese but to an aunt of mine, takes as its target the Catholics instead. It is, just to warn you, a little risqué but I think still quite funny.

"In a Catholic seminary, novice priests are told they are going to be given a final test before they can be admitted to the priesthood. It is required that the pupils will be capable of maintaining the Vow of Celibacy. The young novitiates are lined up, asked to take off their pants and to tie bells to their wieners, which being dutiful, the novitiates duly do. The seminary teacher brings in a beautiful young woman in a bikini. Rudolpho's bell jingles. The teacher takes Rudopho aside. "I'm sorry Rudolpho but you simply can't be admitted to the clergy. It's obvious that you can't resist the Temptations of the Flesh." Rudolph goes to collect his clothes. When he bends over to pick up his pants, all of the other bells in the room jingle."

Again, this joke plays with a logical argument. The form of the argument is as follows.

1. Catholic priests must take a Vow of Celibacy.

2. The only people willing to take a vow of celibacy must be gay.

Therefore:

The Catholic church must be full of homosexuals.

To the absurdity of this argument, the joke adds another absurdity, the idea that the only way to tell if a man is gay or not is by attaching a bell to his dick. The territory of the joke is the uncomfortable. Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person believes two contradictory ideas at once and both of these jokes, the Jewish joke and the Catholic joke, inhabit spaces of general confusion. Is Jewish-ness a religion or an ethnicity? Is Gay-ness a lack of sexual desire or a desire for people of the same gender? Recent psychological research suggests that a sense of humor is related to the ability to think abstractly, a theory borne out by the fact that (I think) many of the Monty Python boys studied philosophy at Cambridge before embarking on careers in comedy. Good comedians are all too well aware that most of the things people believe are ridiculous. The is why comic talent is so often also associated with depression - as Robin Williams demonstrated. It's understandable. Thinking about these kinds of things too much is surely enough to make anyone depressed.