Many believe, as the saying goes, “There is a grain of truth in every joke”, or that “a joke is truth wrapped in a smile.” Sigmund Freud suggested that jokes were true, serving two purposes: aggression (such as sarcasm) or to expose unconscious desires (the sexual joke). But is there really truth in every joke? The purpose of this post will be to explore whether or not there is.
Freud certainly had a point; many jokes are hostile, and may indicate the teller’s true feelings. This can be seen in ethnic, racial, or other prejudicial jokes. Sarcasm provides another example of jokes intimating a person’s true feelings. Sarcasm is laced with truth and indicates an underlying anger or hostility that seeks escape. Even self-deprecation done in a joking manner may indicate a poor self-image, or an attempt at humbling an otherwise overconfident persona.
Freud’s other point suggests truth as well; many jokes are sexual in nature. As Freud believed there were two basic drives, life (sex) and death (aggression), it stands to reason he would see all jokes in this manner. Making a sexual joke may indicate something about the person’s unconscious sexual desire is certainly possible. Many sexual jokes might be from people considered sexually fixated.
The sexual aspect is difficult to argue. This culture is sexually based. Sex is used to sell nearly everything, and there is a great deal of support that it is one of the human race’s more basic drives. Sexual jokes may be a part of that drive, or simply an outgrowth of our culture. Either way, there seems to be sufficient evidence sexual focus is imbedded in our unconscious. As such, it contains at least a grain of truth.
That leads to the discussion of aggression. Many in the psychology field consider sarcasm as hostile. It has been purported by many that sarcasm indicates a hostile attitude, and in many cases, an underlying anger issue. Sarcasm generally puts another down in some way, or at the very least pokes fun at them.
Sarcasm is, in all likelihood, the most popular form of humor today. There are far too numerous television programs to count that use sarcasm as the vehicle. A list of the most popular comedy television programs for 2012 indicates the popularity of sarcasm: Big Bang Theory, Modern Family, The Family Guy, Two and a Half Men, and The Simpsons all employ sarcasm (and in some cases cartoon violence) to get laughs. In many cases this humor comes from a character easily perceived as hostile or angry at the core. There is no doubt some use sarcasm to mask their underlying anger.
I believe most people can identify someone they know who uses humor to confront another about something he finds disagreeable. If the individual is then challenged about his confrontation, he likely backs off and says he was just kidding. This is used to deflect responsibility back on the person who was the brunt of the joke, stating that he is just being sensitive. In this manner those using sarcasm in a hostile manner are able to express displeasure without taking responsibility for it.
Sometimes this passive-aggressive maneuver is successful in that the other takes the hint and changes behavior. Other times it is not successful in facilitating change in behavior (as is likely desired) but still serves as a release. Another possible payoff for masking anger with sarcasm is the person feels they aired their grievance, the other did not heed, and they have more to complain about. This is an unhealthy way of dealing with conflict but has its payoffs for many and is used fairly frequently.
However, is it simply because one of the great minds of psychoanalysis and many who have followed indicate something is so, that it is true? In the above cases, it is clear there is truth in humor. But because there are underlying motives does that mean there is truth in all humor? My position is that it really comes down to how you define truth. If you have a thought and it comes out in a joke, does that make it true? Or should thoughts be evaluated for truth?
In the course of the day a person is said to average between 12,000 and 70,000 thoughts. That is quite a range. Even at the lower number, is it possible that all 12,000 thoughts are true? The definition of truth is what becomes the arguing point. If, because you thought it before you turned it into a joke it is considered true, or to be reflection of a part of you, then yes, every joke has some truth. But, if like me you contend that thoughts are too disparate to discern the exact meaning, then there isn’t always truth in a joke. It was simply a thought, stemming from any number of drives, ego states, or neuron firings, and therefore is only true upon its evaluation.
Cognitive Behavioral, REBT, and many other therapies consistently challenge people to evaluate and dispute their thoughts. The person is tasked to determine which thoughts resemble reality. Reframing, the attempt to look at a situation from a different perspective, is a mainstay of therapy. In these cases, the therapist is insinuating that the person’s thoughts may not be true, may be distorted, and may not accurately reflect reality. As such, the thoughts might not be true. If the thoughts are not true, then there is not truth in the joke. Someone simply turned his irrational thought into a humorous anecdote.
Humor is an excellent part of life. Laughing leads to increased pleasure, more enjoyment, and a happier life. At times, humor is certainly used to mask underlying “truths” of the individual. In other instances it is simply an outrageous thought leading to humor. Often, it is simply a reflection of our human desire to connect and experience joy. You do not have to give credence to every thought you have. One would benefit from evaluating his or her thinking, and determining their truth. Hopefully, that truth leads to joy, for both you and others.
Copyright William Berry, 2013