Humor and Violence in U.S.

Humor and Violence in U.S. Literature and Society

Humor and violence would seem to go together about as well as onions and peanut butter. However considering that both humor and violence are two of the most popular genres of literature, movies and television in the United States, it only makes sense that combining the two would be twice as popular. Humor and violence have always been best-selling products, and, most people from around the world are aware that the American society has benefited greatly from exploiting the two. It is surprising how people can enjoy the presence of violence in their everyday lives, reading books that involve violence and watching movies that show a degrading part of their society. It is virtually impossible for one today to attempt to escape violence, since it is present in most of the media and all over the country. In contrast to violence, humor is clearly something that is less likely to affect society in a bad way, as it is pleasant and it induces a beneficial state of mind into people. In this paper, I intend to show that the reason humor and violence work so well together despite being almost polar opposites is because they both cause stimulation and pleasure to the reader or viewer.

From the beginning of time, humankind has been addicted to certain matters that they considered to be stimulating. Humor and violence had been just two of the factors that brought enjoyment to people. Humor influences the brain in ordering the body to make chemical reactions that make people happy. What is curious is that in spite of the fact that humor is apparently inoffensive, it tends to link to violence when it is exaggerated. Even slave narratives such as those penned by Frederick Douglass have been known to inject humor into their traumatizing tales. Granville Ganter describes one of Frederick Douglass' anecdotes as "characteristic of the dialectic between violence and humor that animates much of Douglass's rhetoric: The affectionate and benevolent term my friend hardly belongs in the same sentence with the word nigger. This contrast between pain and pleasure characterizes many Douglass anecdotes. At his best, Douglass could win his enemies' admiration by making them smile with him" (538).

Making someone smile or laugh is exactly what humor is supposed to do. Of course, jokes can also be offensive, in spite of their cheerful character, and, moreover, humor can have side-effects, appearing to be insulting to some people even with the fact that it is satisfying to others. Jokes are harmful in situations when they are directed against certain people or groups, and, in those cases, their intended purpose presumably is to increase the superiority of the people telling them.

Humor needs to be analyzed on a social level, in order for its effects to be exclusively beneficial. One needs to consider all of the factors involved in a situation in which he or she would involve humor. Also, they would have to make sure that such an action would not seem offensive towards others. Erica Scharrer and colleagues recognize the stimulation factor that occurs with the humor/violence combination and they are concerned about these effects: "Media effects studies have indicated that exposure to humor in an aggressive portrayal can increase an arousal response, which in turn can facilitate aggression in the viewer ...Violent media depictions with humor also tend to be perceived as less aggressive and brutal than similarly violent depictions without humor, thereby supporting a desensitization effect...There is reason for concern, therefore, when aggressive acts are presented in a humorous context in the media" (622).

Although it is intended to refer to society and its misdemeanor, satire cannot be considered to be offensive, since there is a small probability that it will produce any resentment in people. A good example of the American society giving birth to something that is funny and enjoyable, despite its satirical character, is Charlie Chaplin. In times when movies were something new to the American public, the English actor succeeded in making it addicted to him and to his movies. His merit is also largely owed to the scriptwriters and to the movie directors that invested hard work in making the respective movies. Even with his obvious success among the American public, there still are a number of critics believing that the characters played by Charlie Chaplin had been too vulgar for the period.

Satirical movies did not only go at condemning society in general, as movies have gone against great leaders, with no regard to the effects that they will have. The Great Dictator (1940) is but an example of Chaplin's movies criticizing an entire regime. While the U.S. government had been reluctant when concerning their entering the war, The Great Dictator (1940) had a strong influence on destabilizing the balance between Nazi Germany and the U.S., which were then at peace.

Humor seems to be more appealing when it is used in movies than when it is used in books and articles. This is believed to be occurring because of the fact that the ordinary man finds satire and parodies to be more amusing than the normally harder to understand humor found in books and articles. Society's problems are the issues by and large being presented by humorists, and, in spite of the fact that a lot of people are not interested in analyzing the respective problems, they can't help letting out a smile when they come across such writings. There is a biological basis to this as well. According to Robert Storey "Theorist Paul E. McGhee points out that data from the limited number of humor studies completed with individuals with right- or left-hemisphere damage are consistent with the view that it is the right hemisphere that performs the insightful integration of the key elements of information that must be meaningfully linked before the humor can be understood and appreciated" (425)