The Act of Creation Read Free Page B

produces expressions ranging from smile
to broad grin to the facial contortions typical of loud laughter. [2]
Other researchers made films of tickled babies and of hysterics
to whom tickling was conveyed by suggestion. They again showed the
reflex swiftly increasing from the first faint facial contraction
to paroxysms of shaking and choking -- as the quicksilver in a
thermometer, dipped into hot water, rapidly mounts to the red mark.

These gradations of intensity not only demonstrate the reflex character
of laughter but at the same time provide an explanation for the rich
variety of its forms -- from Rabelaisian laughter at a spicy joke to the
rarefied smile of courtesy. But there are additional reasons to account
for this confusing variety. Reflexes do not operate in a vacuum; they are
to a greater or lesser extent interfered with by higher nervous centres;
thus civilized laughter is rarely quite spontaneous. Amusement can be
feigned or suppressed; to a faint involuntary response we may add at
will a discreet chuckle or a leonine roar; and habit-formation soon
crystallizes these reflex-plus-pretence amalgams into characteristic
properties of a person.

Furthermore, the same muscle contractions produce different effects
according to whether they expose a set of pearly teeth or a toothless
gap -- producing a smile, a simper, or smirk. Mood also superimposes
its own facial pattern -- hence gay laughter, melancholy smile,
lascivious grin. Lastly, contrived laughter and smiling can
be used as a conventional signal-language to convey pleasure or
embarrassment, friendliness or derision. We are concerned, however,
only with spontaneous laughter as a specific response to the comic;
regarding which we can conclude with Dr. Johnson that 'men have
been wise in very different modes; but they have always laughed in
the same way.'

The Paradox of Laughter

I have taken pains to show that laughter is, in the sense indicated
above, a true reflex, because here a paradox arises which is the starting
point of our inquiry. Motor reflexes, usually exemplified in textbooks
by knee-jerk or pupillary contraction, are relatively simple, direct
responses to equally simple stimuli which, under normal circumstances,
function autonomously, without requiring the intervention of higher
mental processes; by enabling the organism to counter disturbances
of a frequently met type with standardized reactions, they represent
eminently practical arrangements in the service of survival. But what
is the survival value of the involuntary, simultaneous contraction of
fifteen facial muscles associated with certain noises which are often
irrepressible? Laughter is a reflex, but unique in that it serves no
apparent biological purpose; one might call it a luxury reflex. Its only
utilitarian function, as far as one can see, is to provide temporary
relief from utilitarian pressures. On the evolutionary level where
laughter arises, an element of frivolity seems to creep into a humourless
universe governed by the laws of thcrmodynamics and the survival of
the fittest.

The paradox can be put in a different way. It strikes us as a reasonable
arrangement that a sharp light shone into the eye makes the pupil contract,
or that a pin stuck into one's foot causes its instant withdrawal --
because both the 'stimulus' and the 'response' are on the same physiological
level. But that a complicated mental activity like the reading of a page
by Thurber should cause a specific motor response on the reflex level
is a lopsided phenomenon which has puzzled philosophers since antiquity.

There are, of course, other complex intellectual and emotional activities
which also provoke bodily reactions -- frowning, yawning, sweating,
shivering, what have you. But the effects on the nervous system of reading
a Shakespeare sonnet, working on a mathematical problem, or listening
to Mozart are diffuse and indefinable. There is no clear-cut predictable
response to tell me whether a picture in the art