<<

An Aesthetic of : Dewey and Incongruity Theory

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of 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

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 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 ...... 20 4.1 Gathering Raw Material ...... 20 4.2 Refining the Material ...... 21 4.3 The End of a ...... 22 5: Dewey and Incongnruity Theory ...... 24 5.1 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 (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. (, “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 , 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 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 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 (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 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 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 . 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 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 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 , 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 ] 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 , 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 responds, whether that audience be the patrons in a 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 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 which is common in the heritage of English letters

and, as a matter of fact, in the heritage of world . (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 , George Carlin, , 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 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 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 , 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). 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. : 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). 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 ! !