Resignation, Humor and Wit

Perhaps the most neglected dichotomy postulated by Sigmund Freud has been that between hostile wit and humor. Fifty-seven years have passed since the publication of the monumental Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious³ and 34 years have transpired since the appearance of the unemphasized paper “Humor.”⁴ Yet in that time researchers seem to have ignored the implications of the differences between the two variables. The 1928 article highlighted theoretical dilemmas on the nature of the superego and the value of reality—adjustment in mental health—but Freud's continuing analysis of the dissimilarities of hostile wit and humor have not been examined. Although scores of articles have been written on these topics, only a few writers have focused upon the Freudian distinctions in their works.^1,2,5,6,7,8 The dearth of naturalistic research is exceeded only by the paucity of experimental evidence related to humor and wit processes. It may be that to date only one project⁸ has been modeled upon Freud's views of the comic. Both naturalistic and experimental researchers, it seems, have failed to abide with the insights of Freud. The concepts generally have been combined and labeled “humor” with gross injustice to the deductions of psychoanalytic theory.

In brief, the salient characteristics of the two follow. Humor was regarded by Freud as a high order of adaptive mechanism, the epitome of maturity. It represented a victory of the ego in the face of a severe objective stress situation. On the other hand, wit was viewed mainly as a regressive mechanism providing circuitous release