learning to laugh at ourselves: humor, self-transcendence, and the cultivation of moral virtues

735

LEARNING TO LAUGH AT OURSELVES: HUMOR,SELF-TRANSCENDENCE, AND THE CULTIVATION

OF MORAL VIRTUES

Mordechai Gordon

School of EducationQuinnipiac University

Abstract. In this essay Mordechai Gordon begins to address the neglect of humor among philosophersof education by focusing on some interesting connections between humor, self-transcendence, and thedevelopment of moral virtues. More specifically, he explores the kind of humor that makes fun ofoneself and how it can affect educational encounters. Gordon begins his analysis by discussing thenature and purpose of humor in general, while distinguishing it from laughter and amusement. In thenext part of the essay, he takes a close look at the characteristics and benefits of the type of humor thatwe use when we make fun of ourselves. He then turns his attention to exploring the relation betweenlaughing at ourselves, self-transcendence, and a number of moral virtues. The final part of this essaybriefly examines what might happen to the quality of educational encounters when teachers becomemore comfortable with laughing at themselves.

Introduction

Throughout the history of Western philosophy, relatively little has been writ-ten about humor, laughter, and amusement. While many philosophers, includingPlato and Aristotle, touched on humor in their writings, they generally did notaddress this topic in depth or attempt to create a general theory of humor. Writingin the 1980s, humor theorist John Morreall noted that ‘‘until a few years ago,the study of laughter was treated in academic circles as frivolous.’’1 Morreallattributed this neglect to the misguided belief that since laughter is not a seri-ous activity, it is neither possible nor desirable to investigate this phenomenonseriously. Moreover, since laughing has rarely been considered a capacity that isuniquely human, it never received the kind of attention and serious investigationthat was dedicated to thinking, speaking, or acting.

Aside from a general tendency to neglect humor, Morreall suggests in hisnew book Comic Relief that throughout most of the history of Western philos-ophy, the assessment of humor has not been kind.2 Indeed, not only Plato andAristotle but also Rene Descartes and Thomas Hobbes generally viewed humorwith scorn and tended to focus on the negative rather than the positive aspectsof humor. Many philosophers from Plato to Hobbes subscribed to what is calledthe superiority theory, which considered laughter as an expression of our delightin the shortcomings of others. Two other theories that have attempted to explainlaughter and humor are the incongruity and the relief theories. Briefly, the formersuggests that laughter arises when we perceive something as incongruous (for

1. John Morreall, Taking Laughter Seriously (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), ix.

2. See John Morreall, Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

EDUCATIONAL THEORY Volume 60 Number 6 2010© 2011 Board of Trustees University of Illinois

736 E D U C A T I O N A L T H E O R Y Volume 60 Number 6 2010

example, Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer expressed this view); whereasthe latter maintains that laughter functions to release nervous energy (HerbertSpencer and Sigmund Freud held this position).3 Despite the attempts of variousmodern philosophers and theorists to deal with humor, Morreall claims that itwas not until well into the twentieth century that humor gained even a semblanceof respect among philosophers and thinkers in general.

The general tendency among philosophers to overlook or marginalize humor isprobably even more prevalent when one examines the relation between philosophyof education and humor. In fact, my preliminary research of this topic suggeststhat very few articles in philosophy of education journals have been published inthe last couple of decades that even mention humor, let alone attempt to explorethis topic in adequate depth. Two notable exceptions that at least refer to humoror jest are Cris Mayo’s essay ‘‘Being in on the Joke: Pedagogy, Race, Humor,’’ andJim Garrison’s article ‘‘Teacher as Prophetic Trickster.’’4 Yet these rare exceptionsonly serve to illustrate the point that educational theorists have yet to take aserious look at some of the relations between philosophy of education and humor.

This essay is intended to begin to address the neglect of humor among philoso-phers of education by focusing on some interesting connections between humor,self-transcendence, and the development of moral virtues. More specifically, Iwould like to explore the kind of humor that makes fun of oneself and how it canaffect educational encounters. I begin my analysis by discussing the nature andpurpose of humor in general, while distinguishing it from laughter and amuse-ment. In the next part of the essay, I take a close look at the characteristics andbenefits of the type of humor that we use when we make fun of ourselves. Ithen turn my attention to exploring the relation between laughing at ourselves,self-transcendence, and a number of moral virtues. In the final part of this essay, Ibriefly examine what might happen to the quality of educational encounters whenteachers become more comfortable with laughing at themselves.

The Nature and Purpose of Humor

In The Will to Power, Friedrich Nietzsche sarcastically remarked that ‘‘perhapsI know best why man alone laughs: he alone suffers so deeply that he had to inventlaughter. The unhappiest and most melancholy animal is, as fitting, the most

3. This essay is not aimed at addressing in depth the three classical humor theories as many otherwriters have already done. For a good analysis of these three theories, including examples of each one,see John Morreall, ed., The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor (Albany: State University of New YorkPress, 1987).

4. Cris Mayo, ‘‘Being in on the Joke: Pedagogy, Race, Humor,’’ Philosophy of Education 2008, ed. RonaldDavid Glass (Urbana, Illinois: Philosophy of Education Society, 2009), 244–252; and Jim Garrison,‘‘Teacher as Prophetic Trickster,’’ Educational Theory 59, no. 1 (2009): 67–83.

MORDECHAI GORDON is Professor in the School of Education at Quinnipiac University, 275 MountCarmel Ave., Hamden, CT 06518; e-mail: <[email protected]>. His primary areas ofscholarship are philosophy of education, humor, and teacher education.

Gordon Learning to Laugh at Ourselves 737

cheerful.’’5 Although we cannot know for sure that other animals do not laughlike us, it is a pretty safe bet to say that humans are the only beings that areaware of themselves laughing, much as they are the only ones who know thatthey suffer. Another way of making Nietzsche’s point is to say that we are theonly beings who have a sense of humor and are conscious of having this capacity.Our sense of humor enables us to laugh not only at other people, situations, andfunny incidents that we read about or watch, but also to laugh at ourselves. Humorallows us to view the world from a perspective that is amusing and comical ratherthan serious or sad.

In order to avoid confusions and conceptual errors, I would like briefly todistinguish humor from both laughter and amusement. To begin with, it is inter-esting to note that unlike laughter, both humor and amusement are relatively newterms that acquired their current meanings only in the late seventeenth century.The word laughter, on the other hand, can be traced back thousands of years, notonly to Western societies such as ancient Greece but to Eastern cultures as well.‘‘It denotes a combination of bodily events, including the spasmodic expulsion ofair from the lungs, accompanying sounds, characteristic facial distortions, and inheavy laughter the shaking of the whole body.’’6 Following Morreall’s analysis, Iam using the word laughter to refer to the physical activity that is caused by andexpresses the feelings of a pleasant psychological shift. Laughter can be producedby a wide range of activities, from tickling to hearing a joke, and from regainingsafety after being in danger to watching other people experience misfortune.

Amusement, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), is ‘‘the plea-surable occupation of the attention, or diversion of the mind’’ from serious duties.To amuse means to divert the attention of someone from serious business by any-thing trifling, ludicrous, entertaining, light, or cheerful. When people are amused,they often laugh or smile with pleasure. Amusement, therefore, is the pleasantfeeling produced by a diversion of our attention or a psychological shift. It isimportant to note that while amusement usually manifests in laughter or smiling,the state of being amused is not necessarily the result of humor. People may beamused by many things that are nonhumorous, such as driving along a scenicroad, playing a sport, or reading an exhilarating novel.

Finally, humor refers to ‘‘that quality of action, speech or writing, whichexcites amusement’’ (OED) and often results in laughter. Our sense of humoris that capacity that enables us to identify ironical, cynical, sarcastic, witty,ludicrous, and generally funny expressions, comments, or actions. Humor is usedhere in the broad sense of the term to signify a variety of activities, from self-deprecating and wry remarks to absurd and hilarious deeds. It can manifest in manydifferent ways, including jokes, puns, funny facial expressions, imitating others,spontaneous comments that amuse people, and so forth. However, as mentioned

5. See Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale (New York:Vintage Books, 1967), 56.

6. Morreall, ed., The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor, 4.


previously, there are many cases of amusement, such as singing and dancing, thatare not humorous and do not result in laughter. There are also many cases in whichpeople laugh that are not really humorous (for example, tickling, running into anold friend on the street, or feeling embarrassed). Thus, although I am using humorhere in the broad sense, it is a narrower term than both laughter and amusement.

Despite the important distinctions between humor, laughter, and amusement,the three terms are closely connected. For instance, we frequently laugh when weare amused or when we detect somebody using humor. Being amused can be theresult of both laughter and humor, while this state can also lead to more fun, laugh-ter, and jest. Humor usually amuses people who are exposed to it and produceslaughter. Hence, there is a mutual interaction among humor, laughter, and amuse-ment, in the sense that each affects the other two and is in turn influenced by them.

Rather than focusing on one of the traditional theories of humor, or arguingfor a general theory of humor that would attempt to explain what makes peoplelaugh in all situations, I advocate an eclectic view of humor. Sometimes we laughat jokes or comments that point out the shortcomings of others and make us feelsuperior to them. On many occasions we laugh when we discover an incongruityor a discrepancy between our expectations that something will follow a certainpattern and our actual perceptions of this reality. For instance, if our doorbellrings, we expect to open the door and find a person there; however, if we were toopen the door and find a dog or a cat standing there, this would be funny. Still,on other occasions we laugh simply when we are being playful with friends orfamily or making witty remarks to others. Donald Hanks echoes the point thatit is virtually impossible to construct a general theory that would cover all thedifferent instances of humor when he writes that ‘‘humor wells kaleidoscopicallyfrom unseen depths, forever bursting into novel instantiations, and will thereforeresist the formulation of any general theory that seeks to integrate it with theother causes of laughter by isolating a single thread.’’7

It is important to emphasize, as Morreall does, that humor is fundamentallya social experience.8 For one, we laugh much more when we are surrounded byother people than when we are alone. Indeed, laughter is contagious and it haseven been proven to work as a form of therapy for people who are depressed or justfeel sad. Jokes are meant to be shared with others, and comedians know that whenthe audience is not being amused, the humor is probably not very funny. Aboveall, humor can greatly reduce the tension among people and enable individualswho are different from each other to get along and even live together in harmony.

In his famous essay titled In Praise of Folly, Desiderius Erasmus eloquentlycaptured the social value of humor and silliness. Written in 1509, this essay is along speech made by the goddess Folly on her own behalf in which she argues that

7. Donald Hanks, ‘‘Self-Deprecating Humor in Relation to Laughter,’’ Contemporary Philosophy 23, no.5–6 (2001): 32.

8. Morreall, Comic Relief, 59.


it is foolishness rather than reason that makes possible everything we value mostin life:

In sum, no society, no union in life, could be either pleasant or lasting without me [Folly]. Apeople does not for long tolerate its prince, or a master tolerate his servant, a handmaiden hermistress, a teacher his student, a friend his friend, a wife her husband, a landlord his tenant,a partner his partner, or a boarder his fellow boarder, except as they mutually or by turnsare mistaken, on occasion flatter, on occasion wisely wink, and otherwise soothe themselveswith the sweetness of folly.9

Erasmus’s point is that in order to have harmonious relations with our colleagues,family members, or friends, we need to be able to overlook some of their blemishesand laugh when they make mistakes. It is folly and our sense of humor, no lessthan reason, that enable us to live together with others, form close relationshipswith them, and even love one another. Yet, as I will argue in the next section, it iseasier to tolerate the flaws and imperfections of others when we are able to laughat our own.

Laughing at Ourselves

Historically speaking, it was not only Western philosophy that tended to treathumor with suspicion and scorn. Christianity was also very vocal in its insistencethat sternness and discipline were those qualities that Christians needed to adopt,while associating laughter and humor with the loss of self-control and the breakingof social rules. For instance, John Chrysostom, an early Christian thinker, wrotethat

Laughter often gives birth to foul discourse, and foul discourse to actions still more foul. Oftenfrom words and laughter proceed railing and insult; and from railing and insult, blows andwounds; and from blows and wounds, slaughter and murder.10

In this view, laughter is bad because it can lead to uncontrollable behavior,aggression, and even violence. Other thinkers from the monastic tradition andthe Puritans were also very critical of laughter and humor and argued that theywere incompatible with the good Christian life based on moderation of speech andaction.

Given Nietzsche’s sharp attacks against both Western philosophy andChristianity, it is not surprising to find that he also denounced their negativeattitude toward laughter and humor. Indeed, in the chapter called ‘‘On the HigherMan’’ in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he mocked those who believe that laughing isour greatest sin on earth. Summarizing the value of the laughing spirit against thedead weight of our culture and traditions, Nietzsche wrote,

What gives asses wings, what milks lionesses — praised be this good intractable spirit thatcomes like a cyclone to all today and to all the mob. What is averse to thistle-heads and

9. Desiderius Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, trans. Hoyt Hopewell Hudson (Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press, 1941), 28.

10. John Chrysostom, ‘‘On the Priesthood: Ascetic Treatises; Select Homilies and Letters; Homilies onthe Statues,’’ vol. 9 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Christian Literature, 1889), 442.


casuists’ heads and to all the wilted leaves and weeds — praised be this wild, good, free stormspirit that dances on swamps and on melancholy as on meadows. What hates the mob’sblether-cocks and all the bungled gloomy brood — praised be this spirit of all free spirits, thelaughing gale that blows dust into the eyes of all the black-sighted, sore-blighted.11

For Nietzsche, the way to become liberated from the melancholy teachingsand the gloomy morality of various religions is not by anger but by relying on aspirit of jest and lightheartedness. Throughout this chapter, Nietzsche repeatedthat failure is good and called on the higher human beings to ‘‘learn to laugh atyourselves as one must laugh!’’ By learning to laugh at ourselves and accept failureas an integral part of the human condition, we also begin to question the Spiritof Gravity — those morals that have been handed down to us by tradition, whichwe typically take for granted. Nietzsche recognized better than most philosophersthat part of what makes our lives so burdensome and gloomy is our uncriticalattachment to various conventions that we inherited from our parents, culture, orreligion. Taking ourselves less seriously can help us relate to these conventionsless rigidly and perhaps even become open to the possibility of creating new values.

Not taking ourselves so seriously also has some psychological benefits, asSigmund Freud recognized. In his essay ‘‘Humor,’’ Freud distinguished betweenthe superego that normally lacerates the ego and a nonhostile superego that seeksto console the ego. The latter situation is one that Freud associated with humor,noting that, in humor, the superego ‘‘speaks such kindly words to comfort theintimidated ego.’’12 Simon Critchley argues that Freud interpreted humor as amaturation of the superego, ‘‘a maturity that comes from learning to laugh at one-self, from finding oneself ridiculous.’’13 Critchley goes on to explain that humorhelps the superego become a less severe master; it enables this function of ourpsyche to develop into a more gentle and flexible monitor. Humor, for Freud, isvery beneficial in that it promotes the development of a healthy relation betweenthe superego and the ego, one that is based more on comforting and supportingthan on scolding. Conversely, people who suffer from mental illnesses such asdepression and paranoia (having a very stern superego) are typically not able torecognize and appreciate humor.

In addition to the insights of Nietzsche and Freud, some of the most importantlessons on the benefits of laughing at ourselves come to us from Zen Buddhism.The Zen tradition that follows the ninth-century master Rinzai teaches us that inorder to reach enlightenment (satori) we need to liberate ourselves from attach-ment. The kind of attachment that the Zen masters have in mind is not merely ourattachment to material things; they also want us to renounce our blind reverencefor religion as creed or a set of rituals to follow: ‘‘And so in Zen there are norituals, scripture, doctrines, or sacred figures — not even the Buddha — to whom

11. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, part 4 of The Portable Nietzsche, trans. WalterKaufmann (New York: Penguin Books, 1968), 407.

12. Sigmund Freud, ‘‘Humor,’’ in Art and Literature (London: Penguin Books, 1985), 433.

13. Simon Critchley, On Humor (New York: Routledge, 2002), 103.


the followers should become attached.’’14 Moreover, Zen masters challenge thedominant Western way of understanding the world through words, concepts, logic,and rational thinking because they believe that it has led us to try to conquerand control the world. In this view, we must continually question our conceptualsystems and remind ourselves that they are merely lenses and tools that onlyprovide us an incomplete view of reality.

Yet perhaps the most important kind of liberation that Zen masters advocateis the emancipation from our attachment to the mind as a detached, metaphysicalentity. As Morreall writes,

In Zen the empirical ego is not the person and is not the independent substance. Theenlightenment sought is an intuitive awareness of the nothingness of the separate ‘‘mind’’ Inormally think of as my self. In being liberated from that mistaken attachment to the self, Iovercome the core of the problem of all attachment.15

Thus, in Zen, the most basic attachment that we need to break is our belief in adetached, disembodied ‘‘I’’ that has an enduring and separate existence from therest of reality.

The benefit of our liberation from the notion of a detached self is that itmakes it much easier for us to laugh at ourselves. Once we begin to question thenotion of an independent ego — the empirical self that constitutes the core of ourbeing — we are likely to stop taking this ‘‘self’’ so seriously. Such realization maylead one to be amused by the illusory nature of the self and to regard oneself asa big joke and human existence as absurd. That is, once we are freed from ouruncritical attachment to our egos and can regard ourselves with humor, it is easierfor us to laugh at the other absurdities and incongruities that we experience.16

In his essay ‘‘The Absurd,’’ Thomas Nagel echoes this notion that the absurdityinherent in human existence should be cause for humor not agony. Nagel firstacknowledges that people encounter daily many absurd situations when there isa discrepancy between their pretensions or aspirations and reality. In those cases,people generally try to modify the absurd situation by changing their aspirations,by trying to align their reality with them, or by removing themselves entirely fromthe situation. However, Nagel points out that a philosophical sense of absurdityarises from the view that pretension and reality inevitably clash for everybody.He accounts for this universal notion of absurdity by ‘‘the collision betweenthe seriousness with which we take our lives and the perceptual possibility ofregarding everything about which we are serious as arbitrary, or open to doubt.’’17

The problem is that neither the seriousness with which we approach our lives northe arbitrariness of our beliefs and conventions ever really change even when we

14. Morreall, Comic Relief, 134.

15. Ibid., 135.

16. Slavoj Zizek has a knack for identifying many of the absurdities and incongruities that mark currentforeign policy. See, for example, his essay ‘‘Iraq’s False Promises,’’ Foreign Policy, no. 140 (Jan–Feb,2004), 43–48.

17. Thomas Nagel, ‘‘The Absurd,’’ Journal of Philosophy 68, no. 20 (1971): 718.


notice that they clash. Ultimately, Nagel concludes that the defiance that someexistentialists such as Albert Camus adopted in response to the absurd nature ofour existence is not a particularly mature and healthy attitude. Rather he believesthat being aware of our own absurdity is one of the most human and interestingthings about us, a fact that calls for laughter, irony, and humor rather than gloomor despair. Being able to laugh at ourselves, then, is beneficial because it is one ofthe best ways of coping with the absurd nature of human existence.

It is important to emphasize that neither Nagel nor the other thinkers men-tioned here believe that laughing at ourselves has to manifest in an actual physicallaughter. Rather, laughing at ourselves should be understood as a kind of metaphorfor not taking oneself too seriously and being more self-critical. As John Ohligerargues, laughing at ourselves ‘‘can be seen as the mood where we’re conscious atthe same time of our importance and of our insignificance.’’18 To be sure, thereare situations in which we actually laugh at ourselves when we make a foolishmistake or when others poke fun at us. However, there are also many instancesin which this kind of humor is displayed when people are in a cheerful frame ofmind and are amused by their own shortcomings. In either case, what is essentialis embracing the spirit of lightheartedness that Nietzsche advocated since it canliberate us from the weight of tradition and, even more importantly, from our ownrigid and self-absorbed tendencies.

Laughing at Ourselves, Self-Transcendence, and Moral Virtues

In the previous section, I argued that laughing at ourselves is very beneficialin that it promotes a critical attitude, helps us be more flexible and forgiving, andenables us to better cope both with the ordinary incongruities we encounter and thegeneral absurdity of our human existence. Here, I would like to extend this argu-ment by exploring the relation between laughing at ourselves, self-transcendence,and a number of moral virtues. Following Joseph Beatty, I am using the term virtueto suggest a practice, disposition, or set of habits, which is

held in esteem by a community or society, to whom it is thought to be in some sense beneficial;its practice should involve some coefficient of difficulty, that is, something (temptations tothe contrary, certain emotions, actions, inclinations) must be resisted.19

Beatty’s point is that to qualify as a moral virtue, a practice not only has to bewell regarded and helpful to a community of people, but must also involve resistingsome temptations such as behaving in a dishonest, unjust, or corrupt manner.Moreover, as Robert Roberts asserts, ‘‘a virtue is an achievement, something withwhich you can be credited as having had some hand in the production of it.’’20

Roberts argues correctly that moral virtues are traits that people can develop andpossess only through participating in their formation (such as courage or patience);

18. John Ohliger, ‘‘Forum: You Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Make You Laugh,’’ Journal ofAdult Education 19, no. 1 (1990): 32.

19. Joseph Beatty, ‘‘Good Listening,’’ Educational Theory 49, no. 3 (1999): 291.

20. Robert C. Roberts, ‘‘Humor and the Virtues,’’ Inquiry 31, no. 2 (1988): 142.


they are not merely genetic dispositions or attributes that were produced entirelythrough social conditioning. Thus, I am using the term moral virtue to refer to apractice or trait that is shaped to a significant extent by the person displaying it.

Regarding the notion of self-transcendence, Roberts associates it with thekind of person who can generally enjoy any satirical representation of oneself.Roberts is correct in saying that ‘‘a person who lacks the ability to be amusedby his own follies has a kind of rigidity which prevents him from dissociatinghimself from his traits.’’21 Such a person lacks a certain kind of self-transcendence,namely, the ability to rise above personal concern, to view the world from multipleperspectives, and to appreciate the standpoints of others. Conversely, people whoenjoy laughing at themselves are generally able to transcend their immediate,self-absorbed situation, even when that state is uncomfortable. Self-transcendencerefers here to the capacity to adopt a position that is not egocentric, to be able tolook at oneself from the perspective of others and enjoy the amusement that thisbroader view provides.

Roberts associates self-transcendence and the ability to laugh at oneself withthe moral virtue of ‘‘blithe humility,’’ a cheerful kind of humbleness. He explainsthat

A sense of humor about oneself is a lack of defensiveness (in the Freudian sense) and thus akind of self-transparency, or openness to ‘‘seeing’’ painful truths about oneself. For there isoften something painful about seeing oneself as significantly incongruous, but the pleasure ofbeing amused at this incongruity may mitigate the pain and open the heart. And since onecan hardly expect to improve morally without acknowledging foibles, the truthfulness whichblithe humility entails is fundamental to any moral character.22

For Roberts, blithe humility involves the ability to look at oneself humorously, yethonestly, without immediately becoming defensive, making excuses, or shuttingdown. Since this kind of humility implies not only being open to acknowledgingmistakes but also being amused by one’s mistakes, there is a greater chance thatbehavioral change and moral growth will occur (in comparison to a defensivestance). Of course, laughing at one’s foibles can also constitute a kind of defen-siveness, as when someone uses self-deprecating humor to defuse other people’scriticism. Yet, unlike the person with blithe humility, the self-deprecator is gen-erally merely performing a role and is not willing to scrutinize oneself criticallyand truthfully.

Aside from humility, the ability to laugh at ourselves can help foster othermoral virtues such as open-mindedness, honesty, and patience. As mentionedbefore, people who never regard their own mistakes as amusing tend to be rigidand find it difficult to look at themselves from the perspectives of others. Incontrast, the capacity to laugh at ourselves involves a willingness to considerourselves silly or foolish; it implies an openness to evaluate some of our habitualways of thinking or acting in light of different and more innovative ways of being.

21. Ibid., 141.

22. Ibid., 142.


For instance, a friend of mine who has a great sense of humor but a terrible sense ofdirection once got lost on her way to my house. When she finally arrived an hourand a half late, instead of cursing or pouting, she showed me a sticker that sherecently bought that read, ‘‘I am not lost, I am just exploring!’’ The ability to laughat her tendency to get lost and not get defensive not only helped her appease apotentially tense situation, but, more importantly, enabled her to interpret gettinglost as something positive (exploring) and to literally go along for the ride. Hence,when we laugh at ourselves, we are more open to seeing new ways of makingsense of our lives and of the world around us.

Humor can also be beneficial in getting people to speak the truth and be morehonest with each other. Indeed, as Shakespeare’s comedies illustrate, the truth isoften communicated to us through the medium of the Fool, who uses sillinessand humor to convey the sobering message. Humor is a very effective way toconvey the truth because it permits frankness to be less threatening than a moreconfrontational style of discourse (for example, Jon Stewart and Michael Moore).As Sammy Basu argues, ‘‘comedy can make palatable what is otherwise hard toswallow.’’23 Unlike the person who takes herself too seriously, someone who isable to laugh at herself can more easily acknowledge the ‘‘painful truths aboutoneself’’ that Roberts spoke about in the quote cited previously. Since the latterdoes not equate herself with her foibles, it is much easier for her to dissociateherself from a particular mistake and relate to it with humor.24 In short, humorhas the potential not only to help us communicate important truths to others butalso to be more honest with ourselves about our own problems.

Finally, the ability to be playful and laugh at ourselves is correlated to patienceas a moral virtue. Patience refers to the power to tolerate inconvenience, delays, orsuffering while staying calm and not complaining. Patience is usually considereda moral virtue because it implies the willingness and ability to put up with themisbehavior, faults, or limitations of other people while maintaining a good spirit.People who are patient usually display forbearance and generosity toward others.In contrast, Basu claims that ‘‘those who take offense and go on the offensivewhen they encounter people (or practices) different from themselves (or theirown) cling to their identity too tightly, too fearfully, with too much gravity andmelancholy.’’25 Taking ourselves less seriously can help us avoid becoming easilyirritated at others by reminding us to look at the big picture rather than sticking toour habitual ways of thinking, which are often too narrow and self-centered. Forexample, like many drivers, I easily get annoyed and experience road rage whenI get into a traffic jam or perceive other drivers doing foolish things. Frequently,

23. Sammy Basu, ‘‘Dialogic Ethics and the Virtue of Humor,’’ Journal of Political Philosophy 7, no. 4(1999): 391.

24. Of course, humor, as in the case of alcoholics, can also be used to evade dealing with the truth orchanging one’s bad behavior. However, in those cases, the people making fun of themselves generallyknow the truth, but feel that they are incapable of change. Such humor tends to produce a reaction thatis simultaneously comical and sad rather than one that is purely funny.

25. Basu, ‘‘Dialogic Ethics and the Virtue of Humor,’’ 390.


what helps me to cope better in these moments is the ability to recall a joke thatapplies to the awkward situation, such as George Carlin’s witty observation: ‘‘Didyou ever notice on the highway that everybody going faster than you is a maniac,and everyone going slower than you is a moron?’’26 Humor helps us tolerate theseordinary inconveniences by diverting our attention from the relatively minor‘‘miseries’’ we experience to other more pleasant thoughts. It also enables us keepthe trivial incidents in perspective so that we can focus our energies on the moreimportant matters in life.

To be perfectly clear, I am not claiming that the ability to laugh at ourselvesis a necessary condition for the development of the moral virtues discussed here.Nor am I saying that people who do not have a sense of humor or are not able tolaugh at themselves cannot behave ethically toward others. Moreover, I am nottrying to suggest that the moral virtues mentioned here are the only ones that canbenefit from humor. Rather, my contention is simply that self-transcendence, asit has been defined in this essay, and the capacity to laugh at ourselves can helpfacilitate the development of a number of moral virtues that we generally value.27

In other words, being able to look at ourselves humorously, through the eyes ofothers, can make it easier for us to cultivate humility, open-mindedness, honesty,and patience. While our sense of humor is not in itself a moral virtue,28 when usedjudiciously (especially in order to make fun of ourselves), it can help us enhanceother, generally recognized virtues.

Laughing at Ourselves in Educational Encounters

What might happen to the quality of educational encounters when teachersbecome more comfortable with humor in general and laughing at themselves inparticular? Consider the following anecdote related to me by Ms. G, a foreign-born,high school Spanish teacher:

A couple of years ago in early November, my Spanish 3 students asked me to tell them aboutwhat my son dressed up as for Halloween. Wishing to encourage my students to practicelistening and speaking in Spanish, I proceeded to share with them how my six-year-old dressedup as Bud-weis-er. The students were astounded and said: ‘‘You mean you let your son dressup as a beer?’’ Recognizing the confusion, I said: ‘‘No, no. Not a beer. You know; that characterfrom the movie Toy Story.’’ Suddenly, one student shouted out: ‘‘Oh! You mean he dressed upas Buzz Lightyear.’’ The next thing I noticed was that all the students were falling from theirchairs, roaring in laughter. I immediately joined in the general bliss, continuing to laugh forthe next five minutes. . . . The rest of the lesson was very productive with my students eagerlyparticipating in all of the oral and written activities.

26. Carlin’s humorous comment is cited in Morreall’s Comic Relief, 67.

27. The relation between the kind of humor that makes fun of oneself and the development of a numberof moral virtues outlined here should not be confused with a direct causal connection. What is at stakehere is merely a correlation rather than a relation based on linear causality. I do not believe that thecapacity to laugh at ourselves is a precondition for the virtues described. Still, I think that there is astrong case to be made that this capacity can help foster moral virtues such as humility, patience, andopen-mindedness.

28. I do not consider humor a moral virtue because it can be used to unjustly deride people or makeracist, sexist, and other derogatory remarks toward others. Thus, humor is not necessarily motivated bygood intentions and does not always produce beneficial results.


Ms. G’s anecdote illustrates some of the benefits of humor in the classroomand, especially, what might happen when a teacher feels comfortable enough tojoin in the laughter, even when the butt of the humor is the teacher herself.It confirms many of the results of existing studies that suggest that humor andlaughter can reduce anxiety, create a positive learning environment, and increasestudent motivation and enjoyment of the topic. For instance, R.L. Garner foundthat ‘‘the use of appropriate humor can facilitate a more relaxed atmosphere andprovide a cognitive break that allows the student to assimilate the information.’’29

To be sure, the pedagogical benefits of humor are not really new and should notbe very surprising for educators and philosophers. After all, John Dewey alreadynoted, as much as a hundred years ago, the close connections between work andplay in the curriculum and that the latter enhances students’ interest in andmotivation for learning. For instance, in Democracy and Education Dewey wrote,‘‘it is the business of the school to set up an environment in which play andwork shall be conducted with reference to facilitating desirable mental and moralgrowth.’’30 More recently, James March outlined some of the most common biasesagainst playfulness in research as well as the intellectual and creative benefits ofplay. March noted that

Playfulness is a natural outgrowth of our standard view of reason. A strict insistence onpurpose, consistency, and rationality limits our ability to find new purposes. Play relaxesthat insistence to allow us to act ‘‘unintelligently’’ or ‘‘irrationally’’ or ‘‘foolishly’’ to explorealternative ideas of possible purposes and alternative concepts of behavioral consistency. Andit does this while maintaining our basic commitment to the necessity of intelligence.31

March’s basic argument about playfulness in the context of academic researchcould be easily made about humor in pedagogical settings. Just as playfulnesscan be consistent with reason and intelligence so can humor be compatiblewith an attitude of seriousness and rigorous learning. As the case of Ms. G’s classillustrates, humor and laughter can easily coexist with productive work. Moreover,as a form of playfulness, humor can help students relax so that they can thinkmore critically and creatively. According to Alleen Nilsen, ‘‘humor at its best isexcellent for challenging the status quo, and we need to make sure that we’renot getting in its way.’’32 Cris Mayo echoes this sentiment, noting that ‘‘humoris an invitation to think differently, from another perspective, while at the sametime inhabiting one’s own perspective; in other words, humor encourages one tolearn.’’33

Most importantly, the ability of Ms. G to laugh at herself and ‘‘to go with theflow’’ once she recognized why her students were laughing underscores the value

29. R.L. Garner, ‘‘Humor in Pedagogy: How Ha-Ha Can Lead to Aha!’’ College Teaching 54, no. 1(2006): 179.

30. John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 196.

31. James G. March, ‘‘Model Bias in Social Action,’’ Review of Educational Research 42, no. 4 (1972): 425.

32. Alleen Pace Nilsen, ‘‘In Defense of Humor,’’ College English 56, no. 8 (1994): 931.

33. Mayo, ‘‘Being in on the Joke,’’ 245.


of teachers having some blithe humility and patience in their interactions withstudents. Such a humorous situation presents a real teachable moment for boththe students and the teacher. For students, watching teachers laugh at themselveswhen they err helps students realize that teachers are human too and that learninga new language, math, or any subject is a difficult process that entails makingmistakes. For teachers, the ability to take part in the amusement especially whenit is directed at them presents an opportunity to become more humble and patientwith their students. As mentioned previously, a cheerful humility entails thecapacity to look at oneself honestly, yet humorously — that is, to openly examineoneself without becoming defensive. And patience is demonstrated by an ability toput up with some spontaneous misbehavior and not get easily irritated by others.Obviously, getting laughed at by one’s students can be a very embarrassing andchallenging situation for any teacher. Yet, to the extent that teachers can approachsuch a situation with humor as opposed to anger or frustration, they are likely todevelop more humility and patience.

A different example of a teacher who uses humor and knows how to laughat himself comes from one of my colleagues, Professor D. Professor D teachesundergraduate English courses as well as a graduate course on the teaching ofpoetry to preservice teachers. He is generally regarded by students as a verydemanding and passionate teacher who does not hold back and lays it all on theline in the classroom. In a recent visit to one of his classes on the teaching ofpoetry, I witnessed Professor D’s humor in action. While discussing his students’pedestrian attempts to write poetry, he shared with them some of his own mediocrepoems, emphasizing how important, albeit difficult, it is to avoid using cliches. Atone point during the discussion on the use of worn-out language, a male studentin the back of the room tried to suggest that they ‘‘already knew this!’’ Professor Demphatically interrupted, shouting: ‘‘You don’t really know this stuff; none of youknows this. You are a bunch of ignoramuses, just like me. It takes one to knowone!’’ I looked around the room and noticed several students quietly chuckling tothemselves; others had a nervous smile on their face. Once Professor D began tolaugh vociferously at his own humor many of the students joined the festivity.

This incident illustrates the case of a teacher who is skilled at using self-deprecating humor to shock students and to get them to think differently andoutside the box. Indeed, Professor D’s sarcastic pronouncements and unpredictablemanner are very effective in getting students to think more critically and creatively.Professor D’s humor consists in part of presenting himself as a ‘‘self-effacing clown’’who is not afraid to laugh at himself while simultaneously holding his students’feet to the fire. As he explained to me, ‘‘by laughing at my own meager effortsto be fresh and original, I find that students are generally willing to open up toconstructive self-criticism and to strive for a higher standard of language-playin that most difficult of arts — the writing of poetry.’’ Students in Professor D’sclasses report that they were challenged like never before to work hard and giveevery ounce of themselves on the various assignments that he requires. In short,Professor D’s teaching demonstrates the notion that humor and laughter cancoexist with productive work and rigorous learning.


The case of Professor D also illustrates some possible links between the abilityto laugh at ourselves and the moral virtues of honesty and open-mindedness. In thelesson I observed, Professor D’s humor was revealed by his frank admission that heis as ignorant as his students and, like them, struggles to write good poetry. As heshared with me after the lesson, ‘‘I am just another human humbled by the diffi-culty to make meaning; as a ‘professor’ of writing, I think it critical to show themmy own work and how I struggle with making language fresh.’’ In addition, Profes-sor D uses humor to challenge his students to be more critical and reflective, thatis, to question what they think they already know. As a Socratic teacher, he encour-ages his students to be more open-minded and honest in their writing of poetry,even as he makes fun of his own mediocre poems. Learning from the example ofProfessor D, teachers can use humor and laughing at themselves as a way of mod-eling the value of both honesty and open-mindedness in educational encounters.In doing so, their students will hopefully begin to internalize the significance ofthese moral virtues for education in particular and for their lives in general.

Conclusions and Caveats

While the examples of Ms. G and Professor D had a positive outcome, Irecognize that this is not always the case. There are other instances in whichusing humor in the classroom does not achieve its purpose or even has a nega-tive outcome. For example, teachers’ jokes, sarcastic remarks, or self-deprecatinghumor can be misinterpreted by students, leading them to feel offended, mistrustthe teacher, and ultimately lose interest in the lesson. It is certainly possiblethat Professor D’s self-effacing humor and his in-your-face style of teaching mayhave moved some of his students to lose confidence and be less willing to takerisks in his classroom. As such, humor is really no different than many otherinterventions and techniques that teachers use (such as pushing their students towork harder or critiquing their ideas), which can have both positive and negativeeffects. Experience shows that there is often a fine line between the sensible use ofhumor and laughter and their overuse or misuse. An expert teacher usually knowswhen humor is called for and how not to cross this line.

In addition to the issue of the judicious use of humor, there are matters of insti-tutional authority that may complicate the efforts to exercise humor in schoolsand classrooms. For instance, there are aspects of the teaching profession — suchas maintaining discipline and control of the classroom — that can make it difficultfor teachers to embrace a humorous attitude and laugh at themselves. Moreover,education implies that there are subjects to be learned and, yes, tests to be takenand passed. If teachers want their students to take seriously the content they arepresenting and work hard to master it, they may need to display a firm and forcefulstance in the classroom. Yet, I would argue that it is precisely self-transcendenceand the capacity to take themselves less seriously that can help teachers maintaintheir composure and keep things in perspective in those moments that call for amore stern and businesslike approach. Indeed, teachers’ sense of humor can helpthem not only cope with the multiple challenges they face but also mitigate thetendency of some educators to lose hope and become burned out.


My analysis also suggests that humor and laughter can help teachers andstudents form better relationships and come to see each other as human beingswho are jointly responsible for the success of the learning process. The cases ofMs. G and Professor D indicate that humor and laughter not only can coexistwith rigorous learning and investigation, but can actually enhance them. To theextent that we are able to take ourselves less seriously as educators, we can moreeasily ‘‘adopt certain stances without fully endorsing them. We can question ourauthority, and invite others to question it, even within contexts that arrogateauthority to us whether we wish it or not.’’34 Thus, in embracing a humorousstance, we have a greater chance of helping our students become more open toconstructive criticism and to thinking in new and creative ways.

Finally, the examples of Ms. G and Professor D indicate that there is a positivecorrelation between learning to laugh at ourselves and the development of a num-ber of moral virtues that are significant for teachers. When teachers are able totranscend their immediate, self-centered perspective and to view themselves fromthe standpoint of others (perspectives that are often humorous), they are likely tobecome more humble, honest, open-minded, and patient in their interactions withtheir students. To be sure, there is no guarantee that such a transformation willtake place, given that human beings are unpredictable and teaching is an elaborateand nuanced profession, one that is full of demands and surprises. However, mycontention is simply that self-transcendence and the ability to laugh at ourselvesare, generally speaking, healthy responses that can facilitate the development ofseveral qualities we value in teaching. Responding with humor can also helpteachers negotiate many of the daily challenges that characterize this critical,highly complex field we call education.

34. See Nicholas Burbules’s essay ‘‘Postmodern Doubt and Philosophy of Education,’’ Philosophy ofEducation 1995, ed. Alven Neiman (Urbana, Illinois: Philosophy of Education Society, 1995), 6.

learning to laugh at ourselves: humor, self-transcendence, and the cultivation of moral virtues

Documents