V t l
VOL. XLI
PORTLAND, OREGON, SUNDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 19, 1923
NO. ' 8
f pe: Nesi;:lheory About Laugnina:
i r v Psychologists Now I k
Mn' ' W ' HoldThatLauhtcf
-f'ifrv ' - vfej ' ptr' Is -Caused by Lack - "." v-
Ip: " yTA .' of Sympathy,, and
f1?- f ;j V ' Sk ''(: That ( the.; Comic. ' . Jw
y . , - ' Does Not Exist 7 a, V
A: K- fk -j A A ' i Outside of the
;l'f4 '' V'" :;'Human,Family. : : WfM
; ' -v f , . - y2 '
I v. It,:. , W:. W"
' :
WHl ,d,o . human beings laugh?
What . delicate mechanism of
the. mind has to be touched
before a person is stirred to mirth?
What is the. origin' of this phenom-
enon? ,What physiological or psycho-
logical processes areinvolved?
These questions arcs aa old as man
kind. And no complete or satisfying
answer has ever been given in all the
years that men have been laughing.'
The comic artist has learned by a
patient study, of his public's reactions
Just what he must make his charac
ters do, In order to provoke a guffaw
at the nd-of -the. strip. The profesr
clonal clown knows by. a sort of in-,
stinct .what , gestures or situations
will invariably bring a laugh. The
humorous writer .learns., by long trial
and much experimentation to juggle
words in a way to cause a few.inter
mittent chuckles.- But none of these
funmakers can tell you scientifically
why people are induced to laugh at
bim. , . ... ;
Dr. David Orr Edson, well-known
psycho-analysist, now advances a few
theories of his own regarding laugh
ter and Illustrates them w'th certain
well-known comic figures. Dr. Edson
takes' certain bits of popular panto
mime and shows how it manages to
make a direct thrust at the risible.
The search for humor's origin be
gan with the first orderly thinking of
mankind. We find Aristotle speculat
ing on laughter in his "Poetics." He
said In one place: "Comedy Is an imi
tation of characters of a lower type
not, however, in the full sense of, the
word bad." And again he declared
that the essence of the1 comic was
"some defect or ugliness which is not
painful or destructive."
Later on in hiBtory Thomas Hobbes
declared: "The passion of laughter is
nothing else but sudden glory aris
ing from some sudden conception of
some eminency in ourselves by com
parison with the inferiority of others
or with our own formerly." Some
what the same thought was expressed
!n other words by Professor Alex
ander Bain, who thought that "the
occasion of the ludicrous"is the degra
dation of some person or Interest pos
sessing dignity in circumstances that
excite no other strong emot on.'
These definitions of laughter have
been grouped under what has been
called "The Theory of Degradation"
the theory that eome sort of percep-
tion of debasement was necessary to
mirth. Many thinkers have support
ed this belief in spite of the fact that
it presupposes In humanity a rather
disgusting sort of meanness. George
El"ot, the novelist, went so far as to
say that "laughter probably originat
ed. in the cruel mockery of a savage
at the writhinga of a suffering
enemy." .
But Immanuel Kant, the German
philosopher, challenged this theory
boldly and offered new definitions.
Kant originated the "Theory of Con
trariety or Incongruity." One is used
to seeing a man wear a top hat and a
frock coat,
this . garb,
When a child appears in
the incongruity excites
mirth. .
Kant spoke of laughter as "an af
fection arising from, the sudden
transfiguration of a strained expec
tation into nothing." Schopenhauer
spoke of laughter as "the sudden per
ception of an incongruity between a
conception and a real object." Scho
penhauer's illustration was an old
story: Two soldiers make prisoner of
a man and engage him in 'a game of
cards to while away the time. They
catch him cheating and become so
incensed a.t his knavery that they
kick him but of jail.
In the following article Dr. Edson
gives a full analysis of certain funda
mental appeals to humanity's feeling
for humor.
BY DAVID ORR EDSON, M. D.
(Noted Psychologist and Author of
"Getting What We Want.")
The answer to the question, "Why
do We .laugh?" can probably best be
brought home to the great majority
by putting it in this fashion:
"Why do we laugh at Charlie Chap
lin?" ,
By what magic does he create that
grotesque picture personality which
is better known over the world than
that of any other man, living or dead?
Wherein does he differ from other
comedians, who, while doing practi
cally the same kind of thing that he
does, never arouses more than a faint
Eml'.e? .... .
The psychology of laughter has in
terested philosophers since man first
, began to think in an orderly, connect -
ed way and at the same time began
to laugh at the little incongruities of
their lives. iThe basic element of. the
comic has proved to be a most subtle
A 47 !- L,.,,.. ,.K.,. h.-. cai $ i v. ' 1 ' 1
and elusive quantity- Its definitions
have varied widely. , . ,
The comic does not exist outside of
humanity. When we laugh at an ani
mal, it is because he . suggests human
attributes. Then, again, an analysis
of the human reaction during laugh'
ter has invariably shown that the
person laughing is, for the time, de
void of what we call sympathetic feel
ing. -- - - ' .
When we laugh our . pity is not
stirred, nor our feelings shocked at
all. Our intelligence is assaulted, we
feel a certain superiority to the ob
ject of our laughter, we feel a joyous
relief that we are not so deficient "
as he. - . , . . ,
Other hypotheses are advanced,
which are, approximately, the same
thing in different word?. But we get
well along our wy by considering
Charlie Chaplin and finding that he
gets at our risibles by the device of
representing himself as an automaton,
with rigid posture or set expression
that contrasts violently with the nor
mal human expression; by getting
into various uncomfortable situa
tions, thus arousing an observer's
self-congratulatory instinct; by bring
ing about the belittlement of some
body who is posing as an august and
dignified personage; by giving his
audience one result when It has 'been
expecting another one totally: di
ferent. ' .
He uses these devices singly and
in combination. . But in all his eccen
tricities you can always find the ele
ment of surprise and the element of
shock to one's intelligence.
There is nothing funny in the fact
that a man slips on a banana peel
and falls to the street. What makes
us laugh Is the shock which our in
telligence receives when it perceives
that the man, in question,- was - not
looking where he was going. When
the average slap-stick comedian imi
tates this act,. Jie so plainly signals
his intention to the audience and so
plainly labels the act itself that
laughter is not spontaneous. When
Chaplin slips and falls he does . it
with an air of reality, because he has
already submerged his personality in
the strangely incongruous little fel
low with the swagger, the cane, the
trick mustache and the splay shoes.
' Again, Charlie goes to sea. Out on
the briny he is seen hanging over the
rail. He heaves and shakes, convul
sive'. He seems sick. - The audience
laughs. 'Then suddenly he straight
ens up. He has a fish. ' He has been
fishing when . . .. : The audience
roars! .....
He enters high society. -He arrives
with all the swells at their golf club
destination, the only difference being
that they step down from the interior
of a Pullman while he crawls out of
a tool box' beneath' the car. Never
theless, he arrives with them just
tthe same.
In a gesture Charlie Chaplin seems
to say that class distinctions are spu
rious; that the difference between
high and low are more apparent thaa
real. - The greatness that we have
envied seems no .longer a desirable
thing. Ordinary men now feel that
according to real values they are as
good if not better than these preten
tious, dressed-up people. Such is the
magic of' Chaplin.
In a double exposure film Chaplin
plays the dual role of the tramp and
the bibulous husband of the society
leader,, who is the tramp's double.
As the' fashionable husband he is
seen putting the finishing touches to
his toilet in front of a dressing table.
He appears In a frock coat and tall
hat, apparently groomed with immac
ulate care. Only the upper part of
his body is shown. When he appears
In full view it is discovered that he
has forgotten to put on his trousers.
Civilized, audfences the world over
will laugh at this. The laugh is re
peated and doubled when he discov
ers his ptlfeht in the foyer of a fash
ionable hotel..
Farther along in the film Charlie,
as the bibulous husband, receives a
letter which says: "Unless you will
promise to stop drinking, I will leave
you."
Charlie, seems, uvercunte, by., grief.
He turns his back and his whole
frame quivers. His shoulders move
up and down in spasms. He turns
around and he has a cocktail shaker
in his hands in, which he is vigor
ously rectifying.
The surprise element here has dou
ble strength. In the language of the
profession it Js a "knockout." Every
body naturally thought he was weep
ing. Then, for husbands, there is
another kick. They know something
about quarrels with wives and like to
feel that they are superior to being
dominated. This is the basis for the
extra chuckle they get when they wit
ness this scene.
, Charlie the .tramp wanders into .the
place where a masquerade ball is
being given and is mistaken for the
Chaplin consistently panders. He is
master of the house. Again Chaplin's
genius for creating an effect of real
ity saves a stereotyped situation."
Humor is ted through the ego.
There is a subconscious craving for
eminence in all persons. This can be
achieved either by their own elevation
or the desdent of somebody else. A
human weakness which only an ex
treme type of self-development can
overcome is the weakness which de
mands that one of our fellows be
pulled down.
It is to this weakness that Charlie
eternally calling upon us , to, witness
the fact that the greatness of some
individual or other is rather hollow,
after all: . . '
And, considered more broadly, he is,
in microcosm, a perfect study of man
making his way through an uncer
tain and" somewhat terrifying world.
He never knows exactly' what 'is go
ing5 to happen to him and feels that
he may be brought down at any mo
ment. Yet he is ever trying' to per
suade hiriiself to the contrary.
Cog I Slipped Somewhere.
Everybody's.
William Lawrence, bishop of Massa
chusetts, told this story at a recent
reunion of the class of '71, at Harvard
college:
"Once when there was a vacancy in
the Massachusetts bishopric, Phillips
Brooks was the most likely candidate.
I was walking with President Eliot
one day and; in the course of con
versation, I said to him, 'Do you think
Brooks will be elected?'
" 'Well, no,' said Dr. Eliot, 'a sec
ond or third rate man would do as
well.' -
"Phillips Brooks was elected and a
short time afterward Dr. Eliot and I
were walking again. 'Glad Brooks
was elected, aren't you?' I asaed.
"'I suppose so,' returned Dr. Eliot,
'but to tell the truth, William. 'ou
were my man." "
Preacher Creates Curiosity.
Birmingham (Ala.) Age-Herald.
"Is the Rev. Hi Roarer making
much progress w'th his revival in;
Chiggersville?"
"Well," replied Squire Witherbee,
"he's laid down th' proposition that
Chiggersville is a hotbed of wicked
ness, and a cesspool of sin. If he
keeps on whoopln' an' yellln' th' way
he's been doing for a week longer
he'll make me so dad-blamed curious
I may set up some night to find out
what I've been missin' by goin' to
bed at 9 o'clock for th" past 33 years."
Irvl 1 CA. O