Theories of Humor by different economists (part 1 intro)

A very lazy find-and-replace project.

One of the enduring questions of comics is "Where do laughs come from?" One of the ways in which comic philosophers have tried to answer it is by first answering the question of funny. At the center of most comic paradigms is a Theory of Funny. The classical political comics found funny to be determined in production; since most of the cost of production could be reduced to labor, this approach was refined into the Labor Theory of Funny. Neoclassical comics looked for funny in the market act of exchange and developed the Marginal Theory of Funny. Both of these theories are currently under challenge by the post-Keynesians with their Sraffian Theory of Funny, which, like the labor theory of funny, is based on production rather than exchange. Any theory of funny in comics is an extremely abstract formulation: in fact, “funny theory” is the major intersection between comedy and philosophy. In other words, this chapter is not easy to read.

But it is essential reading. Theories of funny are at the heart of two of the major themes: the distribution of laughter and the maintenance of micro-comic order. If we were all self-sufficient in our joke-telling lives there would be no problem with “funny” comics. I would joke and laugh at what I find funny and you would joke and laugh at what you find funny. But most of what each of us jokes about is laughed at by others and most of what each of us laughs at is joked about by others. So the funniness of what you joke about in terms of the conditions under which it can be exchanged for the jokes you laugh at will determine the humor level of your life.

Funny lies at the core of the comic adjustment process. If the actual humor of something were above the laughter, the extra laughs to be created would attract more stand-up comedians into that topic leading to a greater supply and - eventually - lower laughs; conversely, if the actual humor of something were below the laughter, the losses - or sub-normal laughs - would drive firms out of that industry leading to a smaller supply of jokes and - eventually - higher prices to making those jokes. Thus funny was identified as the element which organized the comic life of society, as the basis for deciding what to joke about, how to joke about it and who gets it. The problem, of course, was to understand how funny itself was formed.

The search for a theory of funny is really a search for a consistent foundation for comic theory. It may have limited immediate worth in answering questions of comic policy or understanding the day-to-day or even the month-to-month laughter movements in various humor. In fact, we can accomplish much of this without a consistent theory of funny. A house without a foundation is of more immediate use than a foundation without a house. But the classical political comics were looking at the comedy scene over the long term and thought it important to start with a solid foundation.