Verified by 
Key points
- Humor is an activity shared among every human culture, but crafting a comprehensive definition has been exceedingly difficult.
- Even those who study humor and laughter tend to avoid this issue as no single characterization seems to satisfy a clear majority of scholars.
- Now, with a more comprehensive understanding of why we laugh, we can begin to define humor in a much less ambiguous way.
Humor is such an important source of happiness and well-being that you’d think its definition would generally be agreed upon. In fact, this has not been case. Even laughter and humor researchers tend to refrain from defining humor, as no single interpretation has proved acceptable to a majority of the community’s members (Apte, 1985).
A search for any definition brings most people to a dictionary. Various online entries for humor include terms like “ludicrous,” “absurd,” “comical,” “incongruous,” “joking,” “mirth,” “amusing,” and “funny.” If one follows through and searches out the definitions of those words, one eventually converges on some combination of “laugh,” “laughing” or “laughter.” This is helpful, of course, only if one has available to them a clear understanding of laughter’s function. Unfortunately, in the view of many, this is still a work in progress. Theorist Joyce Hertzler (1970, p14) reminds us of why such uncertainty prevails:
Human beings tend to respond with laughter when they are confronted with the incongruous, the contradictory, the inharmonious, the unfitting, the inappropriate, the imperfect or crude; the accidental, the disorderly, or unusual; the unexpected, unaccustomed, or unconventional; the startling, the mischievous, the awkward; the ironical, the ludicrous, the ridiculous, or absurd; the pretentious, inflated, humbug, or masquerading; the eccentric or queer; the clever and exceptional; the exaggerated, the miscarried, or mishappened; the logically incoherent or implausible; the irrational, the nonsensical, the stupid or idiotic; the monstrous, the indecent, the deformed, the deviate, the grotesque.
It’s not surprising that a formal description of humor, despite its familiarity, has been hard to pin down. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary proposes definitions that align with most other online sources. It approaches the topic from several perspectives, suggesting humor is:
a: that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous : a funny or amusing quality
Try to appreciate the humor of the situation.
b: the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous : the ability to be funny or to be amused by things that are funny
A woman with a great sense of humor
c: something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing
The book is a collection of American humor. Not a fan of the comedian's brand of humor.
Definitions a and b above suggest humor is a “quality” that some thing or situation possesses, and one that relates, ultimately, to laughter. When one looks up laughter in the same reference, however, the confusion returns.
Laughter is a pleasant physical reaction consisting usually of rhythmical, often audible contractions of the diaphragm and other parts of the respiratory system. It is a response to certain external or internal stimuli. Laughter can arise from such activities as being tickled (Sterns, 1974), or from humorous stories or thoughts (my emphasis; Schultz, 1972).
So, humor leads to ludicrous or absurdity, which leads to funny or amusing, then to laugh or laughter, and finally from laughter back to humorous or funny or amusing. A bit circular.
Begin at the beginning
This is why I chose to focus on laughter for most of my prior posts in this blog series. I defined (and later expounded upon) laughter as being a vocal affirmation of mutual vulnerability, and amusement as, basically, the emotion which, above a certain threshold, inspires one to express this sentiment.
With those terms firmly rooted, we can ignore definitions a and b, and instead hone in on the third definition of humor proposed above: “something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing,” which I would argue is better and more succinctly stated as simply something designed to be amusing. Spontaneous happenings can rightly be described as “funny,” but in my opinion, the quintessential constituent of humor is conscious intent. Here is the best, least circular definition I’ve been able to muster: Humor is a deliberate attempt to inspire a feeling of amusement by creating, manipulating, or highlighting the vulnerability of characters with whom one can identify.
What about the term humorous? Or comical (which M-W defines as “causing laughter especially because of a startlingly or unexpectedly humorous impact”)? These are both commonly used as synonyms of funny, but I would suggest they are better restricted to those traits and actions that lend themselves to humor creation, something professional comedians will attest isn’t the case for everything that inspires laughter in the moment.
Is there a universal go-to adjective for anything, unprompted or purposeful, that (again, above a certain threshold intensity) inspires one to laugh? I would suggest the catch-all term amusing is the one best suited.
I’ve conveyed in past articles something that bears repeating. The degree to which something might be described as amusing, humorous, funny, comical, or witty is highly subjective. Humor may be a conscious attempt to amuse, but as in other areas of human endeavor, efforts can either be successful in varying measures or altogether not. So, in addition to marginal humor, good humor, and amazing humor, there will also be failed humor, unappreciated and unrecognized humor (to say nothing of inappropriate and untimely humor, sick and depraved humor, and cruel and callous humor).
What’s more, while the intent to amuse is an essential element, it need not be the only or, indeed even the primary, motivation for its creation. Humor can serve a hundred different social functions, some positive and some negative. How these various outcomes are manifested, and scores of related topics, are subjects I’ll be exploring in the weeks ahead.
© John Charles Simon
References
Apte, M. 1985. Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hertzler, J. O. 1970. Laughter: A Socio-scientific Analysis. New York: Expedition Press.
Shultz, T. R. and Horibe, F. 1974. "Development of the Appreciation of Verbal Jokes". Developmental Psychology. 10: 13–20. doi:10.1037/h0035549.
Stearns, F. R. 1972. Laughing: Physiology, Pathology, Psychology, Pathopsychology and Development. Springfield, Ill., Thomas. pp. 59–65. ISBN 978-0398024208.
