Here's the problem with the incongruity theory in a nutshell: not all incongruities are funny. A car accident is deeply incongruous, things should not end up that way. But it's not funny (except in very specific circumstances, which is itself a clue). A horror film is full of incongruity, the unexpected, the wrong. Not funny. A mathematical paradox is deeply incongruous. Also not (usually) funny.
Something has to transform incongruity into humor specifically. The most elegant contemporary solution is the Benign Violation Theory (McGraw and Warren, 2010), which synthesizes the best of all three earlier accounts.
The theory: humor occurs when, and only when, three conditions hold simultaneously:
- A situation is a violation, it threatens the way things ought to be (moral norms, expectations, logic, physical laws, social conventions). 2. The violation is perceived as benign, it's also okay, safe, harmless, or not too serious. 3. Both perceptions occur simultaneously, the violation and the benignness must coexist, not cancel each other out.
When a violation is too serious, the benign perception is overwhelmed: it's not funny, it's horrifying. When there's no violation at all, there's nothing to laugh at. The sweet spot, where something is wrong but also fine, is the territory of humor.
A few examples that show how the dials work:
- Tickling: a mock attack (violation) that you know won't hurt you (benign). The laughter is literally a response to a benign violation. Notably, you can't tickle yourself, the self-administered tickle loses the violation element because your brain predicts the attack. - Slapstick: someone falls and clearly isn't seriously hurt. If they just look embarrassed, it's funny. If you hear bones break, it isn't anymore. The comedy is in the violation-without-real-consequence. - Dark humor: "I told my therapist I was having suicidal thoughts. She charged me extra for the extra hour." Funny for people who have some psychological distance from the topic (benign); deeply unfunny to someone currently in that pain (not benign). The same content, different audience, different benignness calculation. - Dad jokes / puns: technically they're violations (of lexical expectations), but the violations are so mild and the benignness so complete that many people find them more groan-worthy than funny. Not enough violation.
Humor occurs when and only when a situation is a violation, the situation is benign, and both perceptions occur simultaneously.
— McGraw and Warren, Benign Violation Theory (2010); quoted in IU Blogs 'What Makes a Joke Funny?' (2023)
The benign violation theory also elegantly explains why jokes go wrong, which is philosophically important. A joke fails because either:
- The violation disappears (you explain the joke, the incongruity resolves completely, the frisson is gone)
- The violation becomes too real (a joke about a tragedy in front of someone directly affected)
- The violation doesn't register (the audience doesn't share the norm being violated, explaining why inside jokes, cross-cultural humor, and topical comedy have limited shelf lives)
And it explains the razor-thin line between comedy and offense. Comedy about race, sex, disability, and misfortune lives entirely on this line. Change the perception of benignness, make the audience feel the violation is aimed at them or at people they care about, and the exact same joke stops being funny and starts being cruel. Context, power dynamics, and the audience's relationship to the subject matter all determine which side of the line a joke lands on. This is not a matter of individual sensitivity or oversensitivity; it is the basic mechanics of how humor works.