Forced to Be Funny: Mental Health’s Role in Comedy
The 2019 documentary Laughing Matters tackles the overwhelming occurrence of depression and anxiety among comedians. In the film, Sarah Silverman claims that “100% of comedians became comedians because somewhere in their childhood they needed to be funny in order to survive.” Mental health, addiction and trauma is a pattern in comedians’ histories, ironically increasing their ability to be critical and resilient both on stage and in life. Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Social Contract argues that “man is born free; and everywhere he is in [the] chains” of man-made institutions and civilization. But, man is unable to revert to the state of nature to eradicate this corruption. As comedians encounter the devastations that may accompany a social order, Rousseau believes the “general will” can “force” people to greater freedoms. Whoever “refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire body” and is ultimately “forced to be free,” just as comedians are oftentimes forced to be funny.
Specifically, Rousseau believes the general will binds individuals to the decision of the collective, enabling certain freedoms. Because the general will exists, individuals have freedom from inequality and judgement, which prevents self-love. In other words, one is free if he isn’t subject to the harm or domination of others. Rousseau claims, "Impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty.” Comedians chose humor as a means of liberty from their previous circumstances. This system only succeeds, however, when individuals believe in the narrative of the common good. They must honestly value the collective more than preserving their natural freedoms in order to gain from the transaction of society. We see this in many artists today who claim that no matter their struggles, they feel an obligation to produce for their audience. Josie Long, a social justice advocate and humorist, explains that “satire is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.” Comedy is integral for societal progress and therefore, the decision to be a comedian holds an element of responsibility. Comics are oftentimes reliant on the high of impacting an audience, while an audience can be reliant on comedians’ insights. Because society faces significant gains from humor, comedians voluntarily provide their common good after being forced into difficult prior circumstances. Jamie Masada, after hosting at the Laugh Factory in Los Angeles and watching audiences for thirty years, claims that comedy is “so fundamental to us. We need comedy like air to breathe.” It can bind groups together, incite autonomous thinking, inspire civil disobedience or act as a source of relief — all for the common good. Comedians are also forced by their audience, by the whole general will that includes themselves, to contribute their part. This common good is a greater judge than individual interests. Therefore, the general will acts as one active entity, as well as one active force.
The general will forms an incentive to value reputation over health
I would argue comedy is a form of freedom, asserting that the majority of jokes improve the common good. In order for comedy to be a bi-product of the general will, comedians and their audience must believe their words will benefit the collective. Ultimately, this is successful through two diverging methods: escapism or realism. Robin Williams, infamous character comedian and impressionist, claimed that “comedy is acting out optimism.” In other words, it’s entertainment that holds merit in veiling and acting out an improved reality. However, other comedians have asserted that being on stage is the most authentic and intimate versions of themselves, and everything else is, to some extent, an act. Thus, depending on the person, comedy can both be a therapy and an avoidance of deeply rooted issues. Scott Weems, a cognitive neuroscientist explains in his book Ha! The science of when we laugh and why that humor is a “response to conflict and confusion in our brain.” This being said, Samuel Janus (1975) found that 80% of comedians still seek therapy, indicating the ineffectiveness of relying on humor for long-term happiness. Undeniably, however, we benefit from laughs, and comedians benefit from our joy. Although this Rousseauian view of collectivism explains the motives and pressures of comedians, I am not convinced this is the most effective perspective to achieve the optimally healthy outcome. Is comedy harming comedians? It appears the “general will” forms an incentive to value reputation and validation over personal health.
The general will is not necessarily the greatest judge of interests
In order to determine which perspective of governance is most effective, we must account for the direction of correlation between comedy and mental health. Overall, those with mental health issues are more prone to comedy. The British Journal of Psychiatry found “comics have high levels of psychotic personality traits.” Although this confirms observable patterns that comedians may struggle with, this correlation doesn’t prove an automatic causation. One hypothesis is that people who have experienced harm in their life are more prone to resilience and humor. Or, perhaps those who are funny test as intellectually above average, which in turn may be tied to depression. Gordan Claridge found that comedians generally have two personality traits, extroverted impulsiveness and difficulty feeling pleasure (introverted anhedonia). Australian Psychological Honorary fellow Dr. Montgomery also states that “some people use their public persona as a way of trying to face their demons.” Essentially, the field is known for extremity, oftentimes delivering religiously uplifting performances, yet sporadically making headlines of prodigal comedians’ deaths. In 1982, John Belushi, famed SNL star, died of an overdose and in 1997, Chris Farley saw the same fate. Bernie Mac, Mitch Hedgberg and Greg Giraldo each shocked the public in their tragic premature deaths. Robin Williams himself struggled with bi-polar disorder and severe depression, ultimately committing suicide in 2014. Although mental health complications most likely pre-date comedians’ careers, consistently acting with and for general will may prohibit one to seek further help. This would insinuate the general will is not necessarily the greatest judge of interests.
Especially in Western comedy, believing each comedian’s individual interests authentically overlap with the collective interest seems rather idealistic. This does not negate that in existence of the general will, comedians would certainly be included. However, I don’t necessarily believe every comic would adamantly buy in to the story of one, unified good, if given the choice. Alternatively, as James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers №10, I would claim factions are inevitable and that “relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.” Madison and Rousseau both believe in republicanism, yet Madison acknowledges not everyone would actually accept a single outcome, and the government more closely represents an aggregate of individual interests. Especially in an increasingly international entertainment sector, audiences have thousands of cross-cutting cleavages. Therefore, because comedians aren’t able to simply speak to a faction they wholly represent, a “general will” is difficult to determine. Comics must speak to a multi-dimensional, multi-interested crowd and, in fact, have many internal conflicts themselves. Unless they prefer to, individuals needn’t worry about how others seek to better society when creating art, because there’s too many definitions of societal betterment. Rousseau’s model can be applied to art, but ironically, the socially optimal outcome is to ensure artists are healthy enough to productively contribute their individual creativity.
