How to See Humor--Charitably

“I believe we should accept and try to understand it in a friendly manner. Our policy should be to admit the liberal interpretation of words that are susceptible of more than one meaning. It is unbefitting a reader or listener to gnash his teeth at every figure of speech…” John of Salsbury The Metalogicon Book 2

Apparently even in the deep of the Middle Ages, offense and getting up in arms over something someone said was an issue. So, while it may feel that today’s offense, outrage, and rage at all things socio-political is at an all time high, it seems that there’s good historical precedent for what we’re seeing. And this brings us to the above quote. Even John of Salsbury knew that we ought not to immediately interpret someone in the worst possible way. In trying to have a civil and helpful discourse, it’s beneficial to use the principle of charity. Interpreting someone, at the outset, in the friendliest of ways is good practice. The point of good discussion is not to win a debate, but to educate and enlighten. Unless one knows everything, new points of view and new approaches can be helpful. This isn’t always the case, but to approach a conversation, discussion, or debate, amicably is beneficial. Many thinkers have noted this throughout the years, so it should come as no surprise.

But what has this to do with humor you might ask? In the quote above, John notes that we mustn’t “gnash our teeth at every figure of speech.” Humor often requires that we figure our speech so that the immediate interpretation is not the correct one. “Why do penguins walk softly? Cause they can’t walk hardly.” This little play on words requires that you interpret the last word not as a description of walking in a fashion opposite softly, but as a description of difficulty. Now not much rides on this interpretation and no social outrage will come if you “misinterpret” the play on words. Well, you may be accused of being humorless.

The interpretation of jokes, humor, wit, etc. turns out to be a funny thing: funny strange really. Interpreting humor, like any form of communication requires a host of things. We have to know the language for one. But humor often plays on language, requiring a deeper understanding of language meaning, use, and pragmatics. We also can have varying degrees of knowledge of the speaker. Are they a close friend, family member, stranger, or even comic. One thing to remind ourselves when we try to interpret humor, is the context. Some of the most shocking and brutal humor can be found at roasts. Things even I wouldn’t say to another person in the normal course of events are fair game in a roast. In fact, it’s often seen as a failure not to go “all-in” when roasting. Part of the roast’s allure is that these sorts of things are supposed to be said. This is the space where it can all be let go. Cultures have had these sorts of play/comic spaces for centuries. The middle ages had the carnival; we have roasts and comedy clubs to an extent. The dozens is another, example.

But not all humor can be given a pass and even some humor needs correction. Take for example Samantha Bee’s use of the word ‘c#nt’ in her TV show. She was, rightly so, harshly criticized for her use of that word against Ivanka Trump. In her apology, an apology that in my opinion, was direct and contrite, she noted that in that moment, that moment when she uttered the word, she was not simply being humorous. She was deploying the word as a weapon. She was trying to be hurtful. Most who saw this, could see how she slipped from the comic, play mode, into a serious, mean-spirited mode. There is no need to try and interpret her words there in a “liberal” fashion as John would have us. We rightly condemn her for her harshness.

If we’re going to apply John of Salsbury’s advice, then we need to work to look at what was said or communicated in as positive a light as we can. And this isn’t simply for cases of humor. We should charitably interpret people as a default setting. This doesn’t mean that people won’t say mean-spirited things. We will, and we do. But when we’re submitting someone to a moral judgement, we need to make sure it’s a judgement made from well evidenced base. Bias can make us be less than charitable.

It’s also important to remember that humor, in most cases if I may say, is often about sharing levity and joy. So when you encounter humor, it’s important that we begin in a place of fun. Now I’ve no emprical evidence that most humor is offered in a convivial way, but it’s actually hard for me to recall times when people were using humor in a negative way. Yes it happens, but it seems to be the minority of the time. So maybe, and especially with humor, we should really aim for a charitable interpretation rather than a negative one.