Humor Studies Comparative Review on

Humor Studies Comparative Review on the Study of Humor by Peter Berger and Simon Critchley Communication and language is one of the most distinct features of humanity that sets it apart from other animals. While other animals use sounds and vibrations to communicate with each other, humans are equipped with the physical and cognitive abilities to articulate their thoughts and be able to express these thoughts verbally and nonverbally.

Further into the ability to communicate, humans are also capable of cognitively creating, understanding, and reacting to humor as a form of communicative intent. Indeed, humor as a communicative intent has been researched through various perspectives, just to understand how people are able to create humor and react to it. Humor is a communication phenomenon that can be interpreted through different perspectives, and each perspective allows researchers to delve deeper into the nature and dynamics contained within this concept.

The 'enigmatic' nature of humor as a form of communication is explored, in fact, by social and natural scientists alike. However, recent explorations into this communication phenomenon demonstrated a fusion of the biological roots and social dynamics surrounding humor. This interplay of the natural and social aspects of humor as a form of communication is highlighted in the books Redeeming Laughter by Peter Berger and on Humour by Simon Critchley.

The discussion that follows highlights the critical findings of each author on humor, particularly centering on the different perspectives utilized by each. This paper posits that the authors shared similarities and also treated their discussion of humor differently in their respective works. While the authors both subsisted to the historical narrative style of discourse in their analysis of humor, they are more different in their approach to understanding humor as a communication phenomenon.

Berger and Critchley's points of departure on the study of humor include the former's usage of the socio-political perspective in studying humor, while Critchley made use of physical anthropology (i.e., biology/physical environment and culture) as his basis of understanding the nature and dynamics of the humor 'concept.' The first critical element found in Berger's and Critchley's books is by using history as their aid in providing an in-depth look into humor over time.

Berger, in fact, used history in each chapter of his book as an opportunity to use it as a 'background' or context for readers to understand how a specific 'type' of humor has been used for years, and how this humor type has evolved and came to be known as it exists in today's communication practices. This specific format was also observed in Critchley's analysis and discussion of humor in his book, on Humour.

However, unlike Berger, the historical narrative is mainly anecdotal in its purpose in Critchley's book rather than using the history as a context. Indeed, while both used history to provide further details on humor, Berger takes this style further as he sought to remain consistent with the premises he posited in the book.

Of particular interest was his claim that humor is "time bound": he showed consistency in illustrating examples, through anecdotes from different time periods, and how these examples of humor over time have indeed been significant only at these specific points in time (158). Apart from this similarity in the discussion style of the authors, they mainly differed in the kind of analysis and interpretation they performed in their study of humor.

Each author subsisted to two (2) different kinds of perspectives, which make up the second and third critical elements of the comparative analysis component of this paper. Berger analyzed humor based on social and political perspectives. Usage of these perspectives was most useful in discussing the two typologies of humor he thoroughly discussed in the book: satire and folly. Satire as a type of humor drew upon important concept that makes up its core: "militant irony" (158-9).

Folly, meanwhile, was best characterized through the concepts "absurd" and "reality in a looking glass" (176). Satire gives humor a political aspect to it, as illustrated in the term "military irony," which Berger defined as "a term derived from war, it is an attitude of attack that is part of a campaign against someone or something." Interestingly, the author qualified that satire need not have the 'brutality' that comes with military irony; however, he also claimed that "satire that is overly gentle liquidates itself" (156-7).

As a political vehicle to be used for or against an individual, group, or ideology, satire draws power from its directness and brutality. This is the reason why satire is best applied in the political arena: no other types of humor persuades people more effectively than satire, since it contains all the necessary elements needed to communicate correctly and effectively, such as wit, persuasiveness (level of persuasion), and 'truth' in the form of an expose or newfound information.

Folly, meanwhile, takes its origins from the concept of absurdity -- a deviation from reality, which made Berger term this type of humor as similar to viewing 'reality in a looking glass.' While satire's strength comes from its high level of persuasion through information, folly through absurdity is best communicated visually or through scenarios. Moreover, folly is oftentimes best expressed in the nonsensical form, unlike satire, which is best communicated through the no-nonsensical approach (178). Satire differs from folly in that the.