It's funny how I have never really explored the origins of the meaning of humor, let alone understood its importance. In her book, The Way of Woman: Awakening the Perennial Feminine, Helen M. Luke suggests that the original term humor comes from the bodily fluids that are meant to circulate in the body to generate certain kinds of moods (sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric, melancholic), and is therefore said to 'flow' throughout the body (p.72). Since early times, humor has been associated with a kind of balance or harmonizing of elements in the body. Luke goes on to suggest that many writers see humor in terms of a sense of proportion: being able to see how parts interconnect with the whole, and not being drawn into the dominance of certain kinds of logic.
Luke rightly suggests that not all humor is necessarily enlightening in this way, though many types can be. She remarks:
There are so many kinds of laughter, and it often conceals a bitterly destructive negation or contempt. When we yield to that, we are cut off altogether from the sense of humor which always strengthens the compassion in which all our pains and joys become whole. Hurt vanity, our own or another's, personal resentments or anger, humiliations or demands for some change in another...can be accepted with pain and known also as occasions for the laughter that heals. (p.74)
Humor can either serve the ego (or rigid, fixed self-concept) or can open up to an accepting realization that we simply don't have control over everything in our lives. The former often takes the form of barbs, jabs, or insults, while the latter is just looking lightly at the foibles that afflict people.
I am even thinking that humor can point to the realization that we are not as important as we believe we are. For example, status might be considered a sign that one has worked harder to achieve things, and is therefore somehow 'deserving' to lead others. But as Luke suggests in her chapter on humor, there is no permanent role in life that is set in stone. People only become leaders because there needs to be someone to lead in that particular moment. But it isn't to say that the leader will always lead or attract followers. The role itself is only based on the temporary conditions of the moment, and it's thus best not to be overly attached to the role itself. I found that having a humor about myself helps me to see this more clearly and lighten up my belief that my position in life will be the same forever.
Luke seems to suggest that the healing element of humor lies in seeing beyond the ego. I remember reading in Schopenhauer the idea that things seem strange and absurd only from the perspective of a self that is always calculating things to be a certain way. Puns are an example of a kind of humor where the expectations of language are thwarted: words which are predicted to mean one thing are suddenly seen in a completely different light when they point to another meaning. To have a sense of humor is to see past the self that is always in control, and laughter is the relinquishing of the expected outcome in favor of something delightfully off the path.
Luke also evokes the 'old fool' as an alternate archetype for older people. We typically tend to 'look up' to those who are elderly as people who have a huge modicum of experience and knowledge. But this idea would put a lot of pressure on people to have answers to life, when in fact life just gets more perplexing with experience. So why not embrace the idea that one simply does not know at all? Luke suggests that this latter position would invite more openness and ability to take risks or make mistakes. It takes a person off the pedestal of having to have answers, and toward a greater sense of wonder and spaciousness. I have to admit that I felt a lot of relief while reading this chapter, realizing that one does not need to keep accumulating knowledge to have valid experiences.
I have yet to really reflect deeply on the phenomenology of realizing the humor in life. Luke does a good job in opening up the discussion, but I like to think about whether or not humor is itself a kind of knowledge. I believe that in order to grasp humor, one has to have an insight into a deep relationship between things. I also wonder whether anyone who has never experienced 'humility' before could experience humor. By humility, I am talking about the everyday kind: the one that splashes mud on your pants when you walk too close to a car on a rainy day. In those moments of suffering, one begins to realize the tension between having to survive and take care of one's body and well-being, and the realization that there is no absolute control over the environment or what could happen to oneself. When the person leans toward one extreme or another (self-protection or self-abandon), suffering is bound to arise. But if I learn to be okay with the tension between these conflicting forces, I can be more resilient to frustrations. I also become more watchful and even embracing toward unexpected troubles that are bound to arise precisely because of our fragility and lack of control over the world.
Luke, Helen M (1995) The way of woman: Awakening the Perennial Feminine. New York: Doubleday
No comments:
Post a Comment