Superiority Theory: John Morreall

John Morreall discusses superiority theory in detail, defining it as “The oldest, and probably still most widespread theory of laughter is that laughter is an expression of a person’s feelings of superiority over other people”, and “The laughable person is the one who thinks of himself as wealthier, better looking, more virtuous, or wiser than he really is” (1983, p. 4). Morreall uses examples from various works, but one stands out and that is from some of the earliest literature: the Bible. After describing a passage where the prophet Elisha has a member of the clergy slain for taunting him and curses a group of children for mocking his baldness, Morreall states that “To modern Western ears these passages seem cruel, but that is only because of our relatively recent moral objections to the enjoyment of others’ suffering.”, but also, “We should keep in mind, too, that our objections to cruel laughter are not, even today, part of all cultures”. (p 9).

Here Morreall enables us to form a distinction between laughing at someone (cruel laughter) and laughing with someone. To laugh at someone enables an exertion of power over them, whereas laughing with them would suggest equality. Morreall continues to define superiority theory using examples of how a baby’s laughter cannot be considered under the theory, but an older child and adults are, as they are able to “evaluate themselves and are capable of a sense of superiority” (pp. 10-11). He also clarifies that not all laughter situations fit into the superiority theory, such as laughter at a magic trick where one “would have to judge himself inferior to the magician who has succeeded in tricking them” (p. 11).

One situation, however, fits perfectly, and that is one that would today be called a “roast”, popularised in recent years by YouTube stars such as Linus Sebastian (Linus Tech Tips, 2019) and Sidemen (2019). The example Morreall uses is from the Greenland Eskimo, where opponents would ridicule each other and “All that counted was who got more laughs at his opponent’s expense” (p. 9). Another way to look at this would be that the winner is those who are able to portray to and convince the audience that they are superior to their opponent.

An important aspect to take away from all the examples is that the object of amusement must be a person, or something that can be identified as such.

Morreall expresses their distaste for situational comedies (p. 10), but it is essential to critically review the role of superiority theory in situational comedies, such as Blackadder (The Blackadder, Lloyd, 1982-1983; Blackadder II, Lloyd, 1986; Blackadder the Third, Lloyd, 1987; Blackadder Goes Forth, Lloyd, 1989). In doing so, Morreall’s statement that “We cannot ridicule inanimate objects, or situations.” (p. 13, my emphasis) starts to be questioned – is it the situation the characters find themselves in, or how they handle this situation, that we laugh at? With this in mind, we may start focusing down on the definition of superiority theory and assess how the object of amusement plays a key role.