How an eighteen-year-old Assagioli mapped the intellectual, moral, and pedagogical effects of laughter, linking comic detachment to the serene perspective of wisdom
By Roberto Grego Assagioli
Doc. #23288–23289 | Assagioli Archives, Florence
Original title: Gli effetti del riso e le loro applicazioni pedagogiche
Journal of Psychology Applied to Pedagogy and Psychopathology, Florence, March–April 1906
Translated and Edited With Notes by Jan Kuniholm
Editorial Note
This article can be considered a forerunner to Assagioli’s better-known article on this topic, Smiling Wisdom. The abstract and contextual subtitle in this online edition have been added by the editor, Kenneth Sørensen, to support readability, navigation, and archival consistency. The original wording has not been altered. The translation, footnotes, and scholarly editorial commentary are by Jan Kuniholm, who has contributed contextual annotations throughout.
Abstract
In this 1906 article, written at age eighteen, Assagioli examines the intellectual, psychological, and moral effects of laughter and argues for its pedagogical value. He critiques the philosophical tradition for neglecting both the technique of humorous writing and the concrete consequences of comic experience. Laughter, he contends, sharpens critical reasoning, exposes logical fallacies through reductio ad absurdum, and cultivates fine psychological observation comparable to that found in literary fiction. Beyond cognitive benefits, he links laughter to a dynamogenic enhancement of personality, positioning the comic response as a momentary attainment of the detached perspective that characterises wisdom. He concludes by outlining practical classroom applications, noting that humour sustains attention, clarifies understanding, and provides teachers with an immediate gauge of comprehension.
Almost every self-respecting philosopher, from Plato and Aristotle to the modern Bergson [1] and Sully [2] , has developed — incidentally or deliberately — a theory of “comedy,” attaching more or less importance to it.
The subject is certainly very interesting, and its great complexity has given rise to many ingenious and original theories. For those who wish to explore it further, I recommend Dr. Franz Jahn’s book, Das Problem des Komischen in seiner Geschichtlichen Entwicklung [3] , which provides a very accurate, albeit somewhat dry, history of the theories of ancient and modern philosophers on “comedy,” as well as an extensive bibliography.
However, I find it strange and regrettable that, while so many theories have been put forward on the nature of the “comic,” two extremely interesting topics with important scientific and practical consequences have been and continue to be almost completely neglected:
- The analytical and logical study of the technique of writings that make us laugh.
- The study of the intellectual, psychological, and moral effects of laughter.
To a certain extent, it is understandable that “professional” philosophers do not deign to study the technique of witticisms; they would compromise their gravity and authority if they dealt with such a trivial subject.
However, if they had begun to concern themselves with it, they would have realized that it is not as trivial as it seems at first glance, but that it lends itself to a continuous, subtle, and rigorous application of the logical method like few others; indeed, it absolutely requires it. It must be acknowledged, however, that it is more convenient and much more effective to engage in pompous and abstruse discourses on eternal and absolute morality and free will than to patiently and reasonably search for common characteristics and establish complicated classifications and subtle distinctions.
Only one of the most cultured and brilliant modern scientists, the Viennese neurologist Prof. Sigmund Freud, has not disdained the study of this subject, to which he devotes a large part of his original and thought-provoking book: Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten [4].
While the study of the techniques [of humorous writings of the past] is very interesting and does not deserve the general disdain it has received so far, even more important is the study of the effects of laughter. These are very complex and extensive, and knowledge of them sheds new light on many important intellectual and moral questions. Moreover, they possess special characteristics that make them singularly suitable for use in educational purposes.
I now propose to outline the general direction of this study.
Laughter has, first of all, a general stimulating effect on the intelligence. Contrast, surprise, and disappointed expectation (which almost all theorists count among the most important causes of laughter) awaken and sharpen faculties that we would otherwise have left unnoticed. For example, comparisons and similarities which are so deliberately bizarre and outlandish as to be ridiculous, and the comical juxtaposition of disparate and heterogeneous things, make us notice common characteristics, highlight differences. They show us unexpected and often curious relationships between two facts or classes of facts, thereby sharpening our powers of observation and suggesting new ideas to us. In short, they give greater activity and power to our entire intellectual mechanism.
This general stimulating action on the intelligence is combined with a restful action without eliminating it; the nervous discharge produced by laughter reduces excessive intellectual tension and quickly restores the balance that was disturbed by too intense application.
In addition to these general effects on intelligence, laughter, produced by particular groups of ridiculous things , has special, I would say almost specific , influences on certain well-defined forms of intellectual activity.
I will mention two or three of the main ones:
Laughter powerfully develops the critical sense and the faculty of analysis. Some categories of “ridiculous things” are truly excellent microscopes that expose and isolate many intellectual defects that usually go unnoticed. Many kinds of sophistry are thus brought to light, especially false, hasty, and undue generalizations, which are so common even among those who claim scientific rigor and which are so harmful to the correct assessment of facts.
This very important function is exercised not only diagnostically (that is, to discover logical flaws in the reasoning of others), but also prophylactically, hygienically, and therapeutically,; that is, to correct ourselves and prevent us from making similar mistakes. A skilled mind, with appropriate and well-done exercise of witticisms, can acquire extraordinary acuity; but it is superfluous to insist on the great usefulness of this procedure. The main categories of witticisms that have this effect are those based on reductio ad absurdum [5] . This is a dialectical weapon commonly used in philosophical discussion, but while it makes little impression when diluted in a long philosophical argument and is no more effective than other arguments, when concentrated in a concise and incisive witticism, it acquires a singular liveliness and clarity, and therefore a great power to deconstruct.
Another even higher intellectual function is reasoning, exercised and developed in certain other categories of witticisms. In fact, some of them require complicated reasoning that demands considerable intellectual effort; to understand them, one must make a series of deductions of the same nature as those made in mathematical reasoning. For example, one must deduce the conclusion from a premise; or given a conclusion, one must trace it back to the necessary premises. This intellectual process is required by a category of witticisms based on non-verbal but logical implications, on conditions that are not expressed but implicit and necessary. This category includes many so-called fake compliments, insulting compliments, and double entenders [6] (provided they are not based on verbal ambiguity), etc.
Finally, I will mention the importance of many witticisms (which do not, however, form a separate category) for the development of a fine intellectual quality that is unfairly underappreciated; namely the emphasis or accentuation ( Betonung ) of one side or one detail in a discourse. This quality — which, in relation to words, constitutes a large part of the art of acting — is also very useful in reasoning, as it establishes the exact perspective of any argument. This faculty is developed by certain witticisms whose “point” consists entirely in drawing attention to one part of the witticism rather than another. This is often a deliberate exaggeration, which results in an obvious “distortion of perspective” and therefore ridicule.
No less important are the psychological effects of witticisms:
To study these effects, witticisms must be considered in a completely different way from that used to study their effects on intelligence. Witticisms must be considered and dealt with solely in terms of their subjects, the environments in which they occur, the physical, intellectual, and moral characteristics of the people involved, etc. In this way, an observer will soon notice how many subtle and ingenious psychological observations are contained in short and seemingly light, superficial, and “carefree” witticisms.
The psychological characteristics of different ages, professions, social classes, nations, races, and times are captured directly from real life and recorded while still fresh and vibrant. The naturalness, spontaneity, liveliness, and suggestiveness of the psychological observations contained in witticisms are such that I have no hesitation in declaring them equal and sometimes superior in psychological importance to novels and short stories of manners and travel impressions. I can personally attest to having learned more about the psychological characteristics of the English and Germans by reading Tit-Bits [7] and Fliegende Blätter [ 8 ] than by reading works of other literary genres.
I say “other” intentionally, because I believe that witticisms constitute a literary genre unto themselves, possessing a special aesthetic with well-defined rules, and it is strange that rhetoricians do not recognize it as such, while they make a literary genre out of epigrams, which are nothing more than a special category of witticisms, differing from them only in that they are generally satirical and generally written in bad verse.
Making a formally perfect witticism is much more difficult than one might think. It is necessary to combine maximum conciseness with maximum effectiveness; to group together all the essential elements and omit all the accessories; each word must function in relation to the other words, indeed favoring them with skillful contrasts. Strange as it may seem at first glance, there is a category of anecdotes and witticisms, and another of aphorisms and “little prose poems.”
Laughter — when it is not stupid and vulgar or produced by the tickling of animal instincts — is a great relaxant and stimulant, not only of the intelligence, as I have already mentioned, but also of the noblest energies of the soul.
The “dynamogenic” action of laughter manifests itself above all in a great general enhancement of our personality. Laughter is in a way a recognition of our superiority: laughing at something necessarily implies our spiritual independence from it, because we would certainly not laugh at something that worried us or inspired fear, respect, or veneration in us, but rather we assume towards it almost a position of judges, of hierarchical “superiors” — in short, we consider it “from above.”
But is not the ideal of the wise, the most exalted ideal that the human soul has conceived, superior even to that of the saint, precisely that of not being troubled ( affected ) by things, but of observing them always “from above”?
The difference lies only in the word “always.” The wise man is continuously in a state of mind that the one who laughs reaches only for an instant, but the nature of the two states of mind is the same. Laughter is a moment of wisdom, and wisdom is eternal laughter.
The study of the characteristics of humor, which is an elevated and diffused form of laughter, confirms this identity of nature between laughter and wisdom. The main characteristics of humor are precisely these: great moral balance; a profound sense of inner indifference, of the universal relativity of all things; the denial of all exclusivism and all moral absolutism; a strong “human sense” — all characteristics that we find brought to their most complete and sublime expression in wisdom.
Even this brief mention is enough to show the great importance of this connection, whose theoretical and practical consequences deserve lengthy study.
As for the pedagogical applications of laughter, it would be premature to discuss them, since they naturally presuppose a profound knowledge of the effects of laughter, which is currently lacking. I will mention them only to demonstrate the practical usefulness of such a study.
All other things being equal, it is always preferable (if you know how to do it appropriately) to teach anything in such a way as to make the student laugh, because laughter has a general and constant quality that is very important from a pedagogical point of view: namely, the powerful, sure, and lively stimulation of attention.
One of the main difficulties of teaching is not so much intellectual inadequacy as the problem of keeping the pupil attentive and interested in what he is being taught.
Equally useful is the skillful use of laughter to help students understand and remember what they are taught . Modern pedagogy has recognized how harmful it is to use abstract definitions instead of concrete examples to show the nature and practical consequences of a fact or class of facts. Laughter lends itself admirably to large-scale application in a modern education system because of the concreteness, precision, and vividness of the images and ideas it evokes.
Another notable advantage of using laughter in teaching is that it provides a reliable indicator of whether or not the student understands what is being taught. With ordinary means, the teacher has no direct and visible proof that the pupil has understood what has been said, and if he wants to know, he has to ask specific questions. By presenting the teaching in comical form, however, the teacher can immediately tell from the pupil’s reaction whether he has understood or not.
The purpose of this paper has been to provide an overview of a group of important issues related to laughter — which have not yet been dealt with theoretically — in the hope of encouraging scholars to take up the subject.
I myself intend to return to this topic shortly, developing some of the points mentioned in this paper.
[1] Henri Bergson (1859-1941) was a French philosopher, professor, and author of several influential works. He was awarded the 1927 Nobel Prize in Literature. He was known for arguing that immediate experience and intuition are more significant than abstract rationalism for understanding reality. – Oath.
[2] James Sully (1842-1923) was an English psychologist, philosopher and writer. His writings on psychology were praised by both Freud and Wundt. He founded an experimental psychology laboratory at University College in London in 1898 and was a founding member of the British Psychological Society. – Oath.
[3] [The Problem of the Comic in its Historical Development], A. Stein’s Verlagsbuchhandlung, Potsdam. —Author’s Note.
[4] [ Jokes and Their Relationship to the Unconscious ], Franz Deuticke, Leipzig and Vienna, 1905. —Author’s Note
[5] The literal meaning of this Latin phrase is “reduction to the absurd.” In logic and argumentation, it refers to a method of proving the falsity of a statement by showing that it inevitably leads to a contradiction, an absurd conclusion, or an impossibility. – Oath.
[6] A double entendre (from an obsolete expression in French meaning “double meaning”) is a figure of speech that is devised to have a double meaning, one of which is usually obvious and the other often socially unacceptable or risqué. – Oath.
[7] Tidbits was a British weekly magazine founded in 1881. —Ed.
[8] Fliegende Blätter [ “Flying Leaves” ] was a German weekly humor and satire magazine published in Munich between 1845 and 1944. —Ed.
