Does Humour Have a Role to Play in Politics? (By: Carys)

  Does everybody know what humour means? It refers to the tendency of experiences to provoke laughter and offer entertainment. It is derived from the humoral medicine of the ancient Greeks, which taught that the balance of fluids in the human body, which is also known as “humours,” or in Latin form, humour, a body fluid, is navigated by human health and emotion. People of any age, gender, or culture are responsive towards humour. Most people can experience humour, where they are amused and smile and laugh at something hilarious, such as a pun or joke. Therefore, they are considered to have a sense of humour. The hypothetical individuals who are absent a sense of humour would likely look for the behaviour to be inexplicable, mysterious, or even irrational. Despite being ultimately decided by subjective personal taste, the extent to which an individual finds something humorous relies on a host of variables, comprising geographical locations, cultures, maturity, education levels, intelligence, and context. For instance, young kids may be fond of slapstick like Punch and Judy puppet shows or cartoons like Tom and Jerry or Looney Tunes, whose physical nature makes them more accessible to them. By contrast, more complicated forms of humour like satire need an understanding of their social definition and context and thus tend to appeal to a more mature audience.

  These are the theories of humour. Myriad theories exist about what humour is and what social potential it serves. The prevailing types of theories trying to account for the existence of humour comprise psychological theories, the tremendous majority of which consider humour-induced behaviour to be very fit as a fiddle; vital theories, which may, for example, consider humour to be a “gift from God”; and theories that consider humour to be an indescribable mystery, very much just like a mystical and magical experience. The benign violation theory that is endorsed by Peter McGraw, an American professor of marketing and psychology at the University of Colorado Boulder, attempts to define humour’s existence. The theory explains, “Humour only happens when something seems incorrect, unsettling, or threatening but simultaneously seems fine, acceptable, or safe.” Humour can be used as a mechanism to easily engage in social communication by taking away those awful, uncomfortable, or uneasy emotions of social interactions. Others believe that “the suitable usage of humour can facilitate social communications.”

  Views about humours are as shown……. Some say that should not be described. E.B. White, an American author, claimed that “Humour can be dissected as a frog can, but the thing deceases in the process, and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind.” Faced with this argument, protests of “offensive” cartoons invite the dissection of humour or its absence by aggrieved persons and societies. The process of dissecting humour does not need to be banish in a sense of humour but directs attention towards its politics and assumed universality. Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher, lamented the abuse of Humour, which is a German loanword from English, to mean any type of comedy. However, both humour and comics are often utilised when theorising about the subject. The connotations of humour as exempted from comic are claimed to be that of response against stimulus. In addition, humour was thought to involve a merging of ridiculousness and wit in an individual, the paradigmatic situation being Shakespeare’s Sir John Falstaff. The French were gradual to adopt the word humour., In French, humour and humour are still two distinct and diverse terms; the former is defined as a person’s mood or the archaic perspective of the four humours. Non-satirical humour can be specifically termed droll humour or recreational drollery. Humour is also discovered in great apes.

  This is a question: does humour have a role to play in politics? The answer is……. yes. They are significant and multifaceted for both politicians and the public. It is a powerful interaction resource that can be used for various aims, from establishing a rapport to critiquing power structures, but it has its own boons and banes. Let’s dig into them…….

  To talk about the boons of humour in politics first, they humanise politicians. Why? It is because they split down the formal, usually rigid image of leadership and disclose a more human side. They help in building connections between politicians and citizens. Self-deprecating jokes show humility and vulnerability, making leaders seem to be approachable. They form a sense of shared experience, especially when politicians joke about daily struggles or cultural quirks. Humour aids in revealing authenticity. A well-timed joke can signal emotional intelligence and spontaneity, which are traits that we collaborate with real people on. They help in counteracting the perception of being overly scripted or robotic, especially in high-stake environments such as debates or interviews. Humour also enhances persuasion. Studies show that humour can raise message retention and lower cognitive defences, making audiences more receptive to political opinions. It’s a strategic tool to disarm critics, soften controversial themes, and even reframe complicated problems in digestible methods. They give media and pop culture impact via appearances on comedy shows or viral memes. This reshapes public perception, especially among younger voters.

  Besides that, humours increase likeability and vote probability. They not only make people laugh but also make politicians more likeable and electable. They trigger positive emotions like joy and amusement, which can boost a candidate’s likability. It also mitigates negative feelings such as anxiety or fear, making voters more open to considering the candidate, even across party lines. When politicians use humour, they break expectations of stiff, formal behaviour. This surprise can make them seem to be more genuine and relatable, expanding trust. Voters often respond positively to candidates who defy stereotypes in a refreshing manner. In the aspect of persuasion and memory, humour improves attention and recall. They are more likely to memorise a candidate’s message if it is delivered with it. It also reduces cognitive resistance, making people more receptive to the latest ideas or policies. Affiliative humours, which are both inclusive and non-aggressive, aid candidates in connecting with different audiences, fostering a sense of society and shared values. This interaction can translate into higher voting intentions, especially when humour evokes enthusiasm or lower fear. According to one study, voters who watched humorous campaign videos rated candidates as more dynamic, cheerful, and likeable than those who saw non-humorous ones. Another experiment showed that humour can increase the pronounced probability of voting, regardless of political ideology.

  Humour enhances communication by making interactions more engaging and memorable. It captures attention, helps clarify complex ideas, and supports mental alertness during lengthy discussions. Shared laughter fosters trust and openness, promoting participation. In formal or repetitive contexts, humour energises audiences and creates a positive atmosphere that encourages receptiveness to new ideas. Messages delivered with humour tend to be more memorable, especially when combined with storytelling. Humour also diffuses tension, clarifies social norms, and helps presenters appear approachable and genuine.

  Humour makes critique and social commentary more approachable by easing difficult truths and inviting open discussion. It exposes contradictions through surprise or exaggeration, lets messages spread widely, and uses playful language to challenge authority safely. Humour also amplifies marginalised voices and ensures important ideas are both memorable and engaging.

  Humour acts as emotional armour, going beyond entertainment to help people cope with stress and adversity. It can deflect tension, reinterpret pain, and restore control in overwhelming situations. Laughter releases endorphins, lowers cortisol, and reduces heart rate and blood pressure, physically relaxing the body. Humour helps reframe negative events, promotes psychological distance, and lessens emotional impact. Shared laughter fosters connection and boosts morale in groups while allowing safe expression of emotions. Ultimately, using humour builds resilience and helps individuals navigate challenges more effectively.

  In addition, humours build social bonds and identity. They are social glues and a mirror. They bring people together and reflect who they are, what they value, and how they see the world. They create shared experiences, as laughing together over the same jokes forms an instant connection. Inside jokes and playful teasing become shorthand for trust and familiarity in intimate relationships. They express group identity by signalling belonging to a tribe, which are cultural, generational, professional, and even fandom -based.

 The kind of jokes people tell, and laugh at, disclose shared values, beliefs, and norms. Humour showcases personality by reflecting an individual’s emotional style, whether sarcastic, dry, slapstick, or ironic. By joking, people reflect themselves in low-pressure ways, offering people insight into how we tick. They encourage communication by making conversations more engaging and less tense, encouraging open dialogue. They can ease difficult conversations by lightening the mood while still allowing depth. They build psychological safety as when they are respectful and inclusive, they foster safe environments where people feel accepted. Playfulness invites creativity and association, essential in teams, families, and societies.

  What’s more, they reveal hidden messages or motivations. They are like Trojan horses, sneaking into deeper truths past people’s defences in a burst of laughter. They camouflage commentary as jokes and often mask critiques or uncomfortable truths in playful language. Satire, parody, and irony allow people to voice opinions they’d hesitate to state seriously. Humour reveals beliefs and values, for what people find funny or offensive hints at their worldview. They act as a filter, showing what people prioritise, fear, or feel strongly about. Humour is a safe outlet for desires, as jokes can express desires or frustrations that social norms might suppress. Flirting, rebellion, and ambitions often emerge via humour without explicit statements. Humorists "push boundaries to help people examine social norms," and responses to daring jokes show where boundaries are drawn. Many jokes rely on subtext—through puns, visual metaphors, or twist endings—to convey critique, confession, or curiosity beneath the surface.

  Furthermore, humours have historical significance. They echo via history as a tool for survival, rebellion, unity, and insight. Across cultures and centuries, people have used humour to document their times, cope with hardship, challenge authority, and express identity. As a mirror of society, historical humours reflect the values, taboos, and struggles of their time. They show what makes people laugh, worry, or rebel, preserving emotional fingerprints across eras. They are weapons against power. Throughout history, humours have served as low-risk resistance. Political cartoons, satire, and coded jokes have been used to undermine rulers or unjust systems when direct criticisms were treacherous. They are a compass for change, as movements for justice and reform often use humour to spread messages and unify supporters. Suffragettes used cheeky performances and smart slogans to challenge stereotypes. Humour helps humans feel progress, not just moral or logical, but relatable and energetic. Humours are records of everyday life, as they preserve the quirks and attitudes of normal people that formal records overlook. Humour serves as a universal language, as every culture has its humour forms, like proverbs, slapstick, irony, and wordplay, that transcend time and borders. Humour has shaped religious texts, folklore, rituals, and even diplomacy.

  On the other hand, the banes in humours in politics are as shown here…...They lead to misinterpretations and offence. They are subjective and culturally specific. A joke that lands well with one audience might offend or be misunderstood by another, potentially alienating voters or causing public backlash. For instance, sarcasm often doesn’t translate well. Humour reinforces stereotypes, discriminatory practices, and prejudices, even when not intentionally malicious. Additionally, humours dampened motivation for actions. Some scholars argue that while humour can make people feel better, it might also lead to a sense of complacency, dampening their motivations to engage in activism or push for authentic changes. Laughter can temporarily alleviate frustration, functionally making people set aside their considerations. While affiliative humours, which aimed at strengthening relationships tend to be positive, aggressive humours that ridicule others can have negative consequences, even if they appear socially acceptable due to its “just a joke” façade. They can be prone to lower evaluations of politicians who employ them. Humour in politics can have a perception of insincerity or lack of seriousness. If misused, they can make a politician appear insincere, flippant, or not crucial enough for the gravity of their positions. For short-term effects, while a single exposure to political humour might have negative or positive short-term impacts on perceptions, consistent exposure to disparaging humour is not likely to have long-lasting effects on trust in politicians. Lastly, context is the key. The efficiency of political humour heavily depends on the context, speaker, audience, and cultural norms. What works in a late-night comedy show might not work in a serious policy debate.

  In a nutshell, humours are undeniable potential forces in politics. When used skillfully and appropriately, they can be highly effective tools for politicians to connect with constituents, convey messages, and even subtly critique opponents. For the public, it provides a way to engage with politics, process information, and voice dissent. However, their inherent ambiguity and subjective nature define that they also carry risks and can, if mishandled, backfire significantly.