Laughing ‘With’ vs. ‘At’: Exploring Emotional Bonds in Media Strategies

Abstract

This study examines the role of laughter in media strategies. The aim is to distinguish between laughter shared ‘with’ the audience and laughter directed ‘at’ the audience. The research briefly traces the historical evolution of laughter from a repressed and morally criticised expression to a symbol of wealth and empowerment, a transformation facilitated by media diffusion. The subsequent analysis, based on the Portuguese context, seems to indicate a current tendency towards a more empathetic, lighter, and more visibly expressive form of laughter that transcends boundaries such as age, education, and social status, thus fostering a deeper connection with the audience. This study underlines the profound impact of laughter on audience engagement and highlights the central role of communal laughter—laughing ‘with’ the audience—in contemporary media communication. In conclusion, the findings suggest that a more empathetic and less critical approach to audience behaviour through laughter has the potential to attract larger audiences. Indirectly, this emerging trend may be indicative of a growing reluctance among members of contemporary society to tolerate ideas or perspectives contrary to their own.

1. Introduction

In the current understanding, influenced by so-called “modern knowledge” of human beings and their emotions (Darwin 1859, 1871a, 1871b, 1872; Ekman 2003; James 1884; Spencer 1857, 1860), laughter is often perceived as a kind of “short circuit” in the brain that manifests itself visibly and abruptly in our physical expressions, especially in our faces (Bataille 1985, 1986; Foucault 1970; Freud 1960; Lévi-Strauss 1981; Provine 2001, 2012). Despite extensive scrutiny spanning centuries of this human phenomenon (Aristotle 1882; Mead 1979), it is still impossible to find a unanimous explanation for this phenomenon (Alberti 1999; Minois 2003). Thus, shifting our focus away from the theoretical concept and broad categorisation of laughter (Propp 2009), our primary objective is to identify what seem to be the primary categories of laughter within human and social interactions (Almeida 2024a; Burton 1989).

To illustrate this, we turn our attention to a timeless and insightful analogy penned by Burton (1989) and first published in 1621, in The Anatomy of Melancholy, a pioneering work in the analysis of mental illness. The theorist, under the pseudonym Democritus Junior in reference to Democritus, a pre-Socratic philosopher known as ‘the laughing philosopher’, begins his reflection by ironically claiming to write about melancholy only to distance himself from it (Burton 1989, p. 6). With equal levity and clarity, he later establishes the key pillars of this reflection, pinpointing two fundamental types of laughter: one that excludes and another that includes.

Consider a scenario where a person under the influence of alcohol encounters another in the same condition. In such circumstances, it is unlikely that the drunk person would mockingly reproach the other for excessive drinking since both are inebriated. It is far more plausible that they share laughter over their shared predicament, expressing something akin to, “We are both drunk!” while laughing at their own inebriation. This is an example of shared, complicit, and empathetic laughter. In fact, it is more likely that a sober person would reproach an intoxicated person with laughter, saying something closer to, “You’re drunk!” while laughing at their actions. In this case, the laughter is distant and marks a clear separation. Following Burton’s thought, an intoxicated person would only have the legitimacy to reproach someone with laughter if the person in question was not intoxicated or if the reason for the rebuke was unrelated to alcohol, for example, in calling them a glutton (Burton 1989, p. 34).

Thus, from this insightful consideration, two diametrically opposed types of laughter surface: laughter that participates in a “shared madness”, whatever that may be, and laughter that censures and distances itself from the source as much as possible (Almeida 2024d). This establishes a distinction between apathetic laughter and empathetic (not merely sympathetic) laughter. But how do these types of laughter manifest within the media, and what are the potential consequences? Building upon this question, an exploration of these two types of laughter in Portuguese television was undertaken, steering a reflection in that direction. However, before delving into the specifics, let us address the methodological aspects.

2. Methodology

Documentary analysis, as defined by Moreira (2005, p. 271), involves identifying, verifying, and evaluating documents for a specific purpose. In this context, the objective was to pinpoint instances in which the types of laughter mentioned above were manifested in Portuguese television. This required, first, a literature review and the development of a historical and theoretical framework (Denscombe 2003; Pardal and Lopes 2011). The guidelines established by Carmo and Ferreira (2008, p. 73) were followed, including the selection, processing, and interpretation of information from reliable sources to ensure the impartiality of information sources.

Within this study, consistent use of the Internet proved crucial in facilitating access to content that would otherwise be inaccessible. This encompassed viewing both recent and historical television programmes and bringing various documents to light. However, utmost caution was always taken to consider the provenance, credibility, and authenticity of the sources selected (Denscombe 2003, p. 214). Most of the material collected was obtained from official sources (such as broadcasters’ websites).

Before proceeding, it is important to note that our scholarly approach aims to distinguish laughter and the laughable from comedy and humour, a common misconception in both popular and scholarly discourse. Drawing on Dewey’s insights, we emphasise that laughter should not be exclusively associated with humour; its association is secondary, merely marking the culmination or the result of this broader process (Dewey 1894). Furthermore, in our current era dominated by technology-driven media, we witness laughter thriving independently. This is evident in the proliferation of laughter-related images on social media, often unrelated to humour or comedy. This autonomy underlines the uniqueness of laughter as a phenomenon. Consequently, our analysis focuses primarily on laughter and the laughable as separate entities, with the relationship between humour and comedy taking a secondary role.

In summary, this study adopted a methodological approach encompassing documentary analysis, using a literature review and an examination of written and audiovisual materials, with a specific focus on laughter overall and its manifestation in Portuguese television in particular. Divided into three phases, the analysis in this article initially established a historical framework for laughter in general. It then focused on the evolution of laughter in Portuguese television and, finally, on contemporary programmes. While the first two aspects emphasise more tangible and audible laughter, the latter deals mainly with symbolic laughter, which is not visible but, akin to the other two, is authentic and has real effects on the audience.

3. General Analysis

3.1. The General Cultural and Historical Context

The Western tradition, rooted in the works of Plato and later developed by Augustine of Hippo (Krüger 1910; Murphy 2003; Nietzsche 2005; Russell 1984), contributed to the suppression of laughter in the social sphere for nearly two millennia (Almeida 2024g; Alpalhão 2015; Bakhtin 1984; Minois 2003; Resnick 1987). This formal endorsement of a “non-laughter” ethos seemed to coincide with a prevailing mood of melancholy stemming from the unmet aspirations of “modernity” during part of the 20th century (Almeida 2024e; Latour 1993; Martins 2011). However, the tides have shifted. The era of melancholia has given way to an era of exuberance (Giddens 1992, 2001; Lipovetsky 2007, 2014; Maffesoli 2001, 2014). Furthermore, in the “heat” of this societal climate, often termed “post-modernity” (Giddens 2001), the Platonic ideal of a laughter-free existence appears to be outdated. A new paradigm, championed by Darwin and heralded by Nietzsche, has taken precedence (Gilhus 1997; Hollingdale 1999; Lourenço 2006; Martin 2011; Winiarczyk 2016).

According to this new perspective, laughter and other emotional expressions once deemed as sinful (Ambrose 1961; Benedict 1925; Chrysostom 1890, 1956; Descartes 1989; Plato 1937, 1942, 1975, 1986; Tatian 1982; Vieira 1710), have undergone a profound transformation into symbols of the bounty of life (Almeida 2024f; Darwin 1872; Ekman 2003; Mead 1979; Nietzsche 1978, 2001). In a nurturing emotional and social environment, influential role models have linked laughter to empowerment, achievement, and self-satisfaction, gradually liberating society from the shackles of guilt associated with laughter (Foucault 1970; Gilhus 1997; Lipovetsky 2014; Martin 2011; Minois 2003). While the first model, which championed ideas, took centuries to disseminate, the second, focusing on emotions and granting laughter a special role, spread much more rapidly, facilitated by mass media (Almeida 2024h).

Regarding laughter’s integration with technology, we begin our exploration with phonographs, among the earliest devices capable of reproducing laughter. Initially, these contraptions garnered curiosity and intrigue, but they eventually achieved widespread success (Gaisberg 1942; Smith 2005). Even during cinema’s silent era, it did not overlook the depiction of visible laughter to the audiences (Hennefeld 2016). Regarding radio, this mass media confronted distinctive hurdles in expressing laughter. At a certain point, radio’s advancement was impeded by its own struggle to convey laughter effectively (Cantril and Allport 1935; Giotta 2017). Naturally, our journey through the evolution of laughter in technology would be incomplete without acknowledging the invention of television. Television in its early days required another innovation, the laff box—operated behind the scenes by a laff boy who added different types of laughter to television scenes—which preceded the laugh tracks we still hear today (Giotta 2017; Nosanchuk and Lightstone 1974; Sacks 2010; Smith 2005). Continuing within the context of television, particularly talk shows, Provine (2001, pp. 50, 51) highlights a phenomenon he terms “laughspeak”. In this hybrid discourse, hosts infuse their speech with laughter, interspersing their words with subtle chuckles that resemble pauses in breathing. This aspect is observable in the discourse of many talk show hosts, adding a distinctive dimension to their communication style.

However, what can we say about the evolution and characteristics of laughter and what is considered laughable in the Portuguese media atmosphere? The aim of this article is to highlight the developments that have taken place over time in this particular area. The following paragraphs will then focus on this aspect in the specific context of mainstream Portuguese free-to-air television.

3.2. The Focus on Television in Portugal

Based on the documentary analysis already mentioned, in Portugal, after the 1990s, a new “model” of television, characterised by accessibility and empathy, gradually gained traction in the media landscape, especially across mainstream channels. Especially after this period, television personalities, often compared to “modern deities”, began to laugh more openly and consistently, not “at” the audience but “with” them, laughing at the same things that most of their audience members laughed at.

Originally introduced by host Manuel Luís Goucha on the public channel RTP (Radio and Television of Portugal), this widespread form of laughter became even more popular when host Cristina Ferreira took it to the private channels, starting with TVI (Independent Television) and later SIC (Independent Communication Society). It is a kind of laughter that adheres to a specific pattern, repeated hundreds of times in each episode, an accomplishment even the most successful comedy shows struggle to replicate.

An analysis shows a tally of 20,176 laughs recorded over four weeks (weekdays), averaging 170 laughs per hour, 3 laughs per minute and approximately 1 laugh every 20 s (Almeida 2022). It is a simple, repetitive laughter, making one of the most characteristic attributes of laughter in these non-comedic entertainment shows: it is not strictly linked to humour and its traditional strategies. It is similar, for example, to images of laughter on social media platforms (Almeida 2024h).

For example, in the first episode of O Programa da Cristina (Cristina’s Show) on 7 January 2019, on a morning talk show that is not comedic or humorous, before the main host uttered a word, she laughed openly. She was not just smiling; she was laughing. At the show’s onset, the host laughed, walked down some stairs, greeted, “Good morning!” and laughed once more. These were the first images of the show. In fact, within the first few seconds of her new show, this host seemed to have only one goal: laughing and displaying that laughter to her audience. Is it just a coincidence that the morning show where the host laughs the most is also the one attracting the largest audience in the medium and long term (GfK 2019)? Probably not. However, let us explore how this laughter differs from others.

Comedy shows were a regular feature on Portuguese television long before these talk shows appeared, making laughter and its stimulation in the audience a natural element of these content formats. Notable examples include the iconic segment Sr. Feliz e Sr. Contente (Mr Happy and Mr Content) in 1975, featuring two prominent figures in Portuguese television, Nicolau Breyner and Herman José, in the show Nicolau no País das Maravilhas (Nicolau in Wonderland). Another example is O Tal Canal (That Channel), which broadcasted from 1983 to 1984, among other similar shows. In fact, there have been numerous shows of this type over the years. However, there were several important differences between the laughter in these comedy shows and that which would later appear, for instance, in the morning talk shows. Despite the evident differences in these show types, such as time slots and themes, the most significant contrast seems to be the underlying purpose: laughing “at” the audience as opposed to laughing “with” the audience.

The laughter encouraged in comedy shows during that era often carried a critical tone, originating from a more educated elite, and frequently seemed aimed at criticising and distancing itself from the general public. This characteristic is still common in comedy shows around the world today.

In contemporary Portuguese television, especially in the work of certain figures such as Ricardo Araújo Pereira, Joana Marques, and others, laughter seems to take a more empathetic and socially sensitive form. This laughter is often directed at elites or those who perceive themselves as such. Empathy with the general public stands out as one of its key characteristics. It is clear that times and social realities in Portugal have changed, and perhaps the characteristics and role of humour (and humourists) have changed with them. The practice of satirising the general population under the guise of humour no longer seems to hold the same prominent place in the repertoire of contemporary humourists, at least not to the extent it did in the past.

In the mentioned comedy segment, Sr. Feliz e Sr. Contente (Mr Happy and Mr Content), for instance, the primary target of ridicule was the Portuguese population and its perceived passivity. “Do not fear the fall of this government in the summer; everyone will go to the beach; no one will think about revolution”1, joked Sr. Contente (Mr Content) amid laughter. The same thing happens in O Tal Canal (That Channel), illustrated by the episode where students, portrayed as alienated individuals, mindlessly echo everything their teacher says—both appropriate and inappropriate remarks.2

This form of laughter aimed to delineate boundaries, openly ridiculing regular people while indirectly exalting the elite responsible for constructing this source of ridicule. It reflected a somewhat haughty laughter, symbolic of superiority, that forced ordinary people to expose their vulnerabilities and find amusement in them. Given its frequent focus on complex issues beyond the understanding of the average citizen, this laughter seemed to widen the communication gap between the masses and the elite, or those perceived as such.

This differed significantly from the laughter witnessed, for example, in a show called Contra Informação (Counter Information) in 1996, in which the elites—politicians and others—were grotesquely caricatured.3 In this show, the elites were presented by the media through the lens of ridicule, allowing the public, the common people, to symbolically “punish” them with their laughter. This is undoubtedly an expression of modern laughter—the laughter of the modern social model (Bergson 1913; Nietzsche 2001), which is clearly distinct from light postmodern laughter (Lipovetsky 2007, 2014). However, this laughter is predominantly symbolic. It is felt but hardly visible.

In stark contrast to the snobbish laughter seen on television shows that indirectly belittled ordinary people, and far removed from the symbolic laughter just mentioned, is the laughter of morning talk shows (which also appeared in the 1990s with a more reasonable expression). The intention behind this “new laughter” seems to be to connect with the audience, not just symbolically but also visibly. It is a type of laughter that is completely accessible to everyone. It is rooted in everyday events, and its spontaneity allows any viewer, regular or not, to understand and relate to it.

On these talk shows, laughter is typically triggered by unexpected events such as objects falling, hosts tripping over themselves, phrases with double meanings, and so on. It is a light and effortless laughter that resonates with everyone, regardless of age, education, or social class. Usually, the audience is not given any complex intellectual ingredients to construct their laughter (alone). It is mainly visible and audible laughter. It is not an empathetic humour or a friendly smile but a deeply empathetic (shared) laughter.

3.3. The Risk of Symbolic Laughter

As we transition from symbolic distancing laughter to visibly empathetic laughter, we see that the latter can also be “corrupted” by small, subtle aspects, as was observed in the analysis conducted. Let us delve into two illustrative examples, which we will highlight below.

When analysing the morning talk shows, it became evident that one of the hosts of the TVI channel repeatedly made indirect references to owning a large property. On the other hand, another host from the public channel RTP did not hesitate to mention his passion for golf consistently. However, this kind of phenomenon did not seem to occur in the regular speech of the host of the SIC channel. In fact, overall, their communication seemed to focus more on their vulnerabilities (such as their difficulties with English, fears and concerns about their child, bills to pay, and so on). Thus, while the first two hosts, in their public appearances, seemed to have no reservations about emphasising what made them different from the majority of people, all the while maintaining a friendly demeanour, the third host seemed to prefer highlighting mostly what made her seem equal to—or even less privileged than—the majority of people.

Considering this, irrespective of the visible and authentic laughter that ensues, it is clear that it is already rooted in differing foundations and varying degrees of empathy. There is a structural discourse underlying this laughter.

Based on Burton’s (1989) perspective, it could be argued that while these first two hosts occasionally, but not exclusively, manifest certain facets of their discourse that could be interpreted as symbolic laughter “at” their audience, the third host appears to be more committed to laughing “with” the audience. Essentially, this third host seems more invested in things that the audience shares or thinks the audience shares.

It is interesting to note that when this third host shares some of her extravagances, such as travelling to idyllic places, it is done with a specific intention ‘to share these experiences with those who might not have had similar opportunities’. The host presents herself as a conduit, as if undertaking these experiences not just for herself but also for others. This means that even in moments of opulence, this third host consistently strives to maintain an empathetic and relatable rhetorical style.

What can this empathetic symbolic laughter add to the already empathetic visible laughter? It amplifies empathy and enhances audience identification, ultimately drawing in more audience. The third host, who, during our analysis, seemed to align her laughter more closely with that of the audience—both directly and indirectly, authentic and symbolic—consistently attracted more viewers in the medium and long term (GfK 2019).

Therefore, if authentic laughter directed “at” the audience can be perceived as a potential risk to their engagement, we can infer that similar consequences can arise from symbolic laughter. Thus, as Burton (1989) points out, engaging in laughter directed “at” the audience can have costs in terms of fostering distance, promoting separation, and delineating boundaries. These consequences contrast sharply with the typical aims of the media, which employ various strategies to attract and engage their audiences.

4. Discussion

The analysis of laughter in the media, particularly in the context of Portuguese television, has provided insights into how laughter operates as a tool within human and social interactions. Laughter holds the capacity to promote both closeness and distance among individuals, as well as to provide comfort or create discomfort. Drawing from Burton (1989), we have begun to analyse and reflect on the distinction between laughing with and laughing at the audience, shedding light on the complex interplay of empathy and connection in the field of mass communication.

As we have observed throughout the historical evolution of laughter, both within and beyond the media, there has been a significant change in society’s attitude towards those who laugh. Traditionally, laughter was socially repressed and even interpreted as a diabolical act—equated with demonic possession or affliction (Tatian 1982, pp. 34, 35). However, with the advent of “modernity” leading to an era of exuberance, laughter gradually gained acceptance as a symbol of abundance and empowerment in life—it became just another trait considered alluring or even “sexy” (Provine 2012, p. 58).

As previously analysed in this study, the media played a key role in accelerating this change by making laughter more accessible to the general public. Laughter gradually shed its association with sinfulness or negativity and evolved into something regarded as commonplace—a normal facet of human and social life. Can we then assert a democratisation of laughter more or less directly facilitated by mass media? Undoubtedly, yes, in many ways. Visible and invisible laughter, directly or indirectly, contributed to dismantling religious beliefs and Platonic ideologies, among others, that sought to nullify laughter (Gaisberg 1942; Giotta 2017; Hennefeld 2016; Nosanchuk and Lightstone 1974; Sacks 2010; Smith 2005). Beliefs claimed, for example, that women who laughed might die (Hennefeld 2016, p. 45). What about the specific case of Portugal?

We suggest that in Portugal, the “new” social model, defined by effortless and empathetic laughter, found its main daily platform in the morning talk shows. This accessible form of laughter, shared in a broader discourse of common everyday experiences, also represented a divergence from the laughter and the laughable of some comedy shows, which often relied on critical and distanced laughter directed at the public.

We are discussing a type of laughter that does not seek to provoke the population by indirectly labelling them as ridiculous but rather, a light, empathetic laughter that transcends the barriers of age, education, and social class. The emphasis here is that we laugh, not why we laugh. While we are not suggesting a drastic shift in television following these talk shows, they likely represent one of the most noticeable lines of that gradual change.

This form of laughter observed on Portuguese television, as noted earlier, reflects a broader global social trend. It inundates us with emotions and laughter easily triggered and disconnected from their source (Cabanas and Illouz 2019; Giddens 1992; Lipovetsky 2007, 2014; Maffesoli 2001, 2014). It is not deeply linked to active social critique (Bakhtin 1984; Carvalho 1931; Queiroz 2008). Rather, it is primarily associated with personal enjoyment in social settings and self-fulfilment. From this perspective, laughter is perceived less as a defensive social mechanism and more as a source of personal pleasure—a source of “shared pleasure”, as Bataille (1985, 1986) points out in his exploration of laughter.

This analysis showed that the host who conveyed a more empathetic discourse, thus eliciting more laughter, and also more empathetic laughter, garnered a larger audience over the medium and long term (GfK 2019). Can this phenomenon be mere chance? As mentioned earlier, such an explanation seems unlikely according to Burton’s (1989) theoretical framework. It is an inherent facet of the human and social dynamics of laughter: that we either actively engage in others’ laughter or become its subjects. Essentially, we either relate to this laughter or feel subjected to it. Hence, laughter that promotes a sense of detachment from the audience or that seeks to ridicule the audience can indirectly undermine the goals of the media, which generally seek to attract and retain a diverse and broad audience.

The media in general, and television in particular, are more or less clear reflections of the societies that surround them (Carey 1988; Eco 1986; Giddens 2001; McQuail 2003; Subtil 2014; Wolton 1990). As a particular social reflection, it is clear that television at large, and free-to-air television in particular, has undergone several transformations and will continue to do so in the coming years (Almeida and Wolton 2024; Bustamante 2003; Casetti and Odin 1990; Correia 2015; Filho 2015; Gradim 2015; Miller 2009; Scolari 2008; Stole 2003; Timberg 2002). However, there is something that cannot be ignored. Television is part of our culture, and it feeds and is fed by the surrounding emotional climates in numerous different areas (Almeida 2024b, 2024c, 2024i). It is part of the society around us; in short, it is part of us. Because it is part of us, because it is a reflection of our “we”, it is not surprising that the preferred laughter is “ours”—the laughter in which we can participate.

5. Conclusions

This study of laughter in the context of the Portuguese media, with a particular focus on television, offers four crucial takeaways.

First, laughter and the laughable have undergone several changes over time, and now empathetic laughter—“with” the audience—seems to be the trend. Second, this change also seems to reflect a wider social change in a social context where laughter, previously seen as negative, is now seen as an image of pleasure and success. Third, audiences seem to be more drawn to those who offer them more empathetic laughter, whether visible or even symbolic (felt but not seen). Finally, media companies that embrace this trend seem to be in a better position to attract and retain audiences—and seem to be increasingly seeking emotional connections and relatable laughter.

This investigation into the role of laughter in Portuguese television not only highlights its influence on audience engagement but also provides insights into the evolution of mass communication dynamics. As we navigate this changing landscape, it becomes clear that empathy and relatability are central pillars of today’s mass communication. Therefore, laughing “with” the audience is now essential to keeping them close and connected. In fact, as Burton (1989) underscored, it has always been this way. Perhaps there was just a lack of sensitivity to the issue.

But who constitutes the “we” of the media laughing with us or at us? This “we” undoubtedly forms a collective that, through its popularity, represents the social context in which it is inserted. The most prominent figures in the media, commonly referred to as stars or celebrities, are nothing more than choices society itself made to represent its majority, either directly or indirectly. In this way, laughter, sometimes subtler and sometimes more obvious, is ultimately a reflection of our own laughter, that of most of us, projected onto others. The laughter most widely disseminated by the media is essentially the laughter of the collective, shaped by the prevailing characteristics of laughter within a specific period and context.

Individuals holding prominent positions in society and popular culture often serve as mirrors reflecting the tastes, dreams, and prevailing ideas of their specific geographical or temporal contexts. These broad reflections do not reflect the dreams, ideas, and aspirations of particular elites but those of ordinary people in general. Or at least they try—they try to reflect the majority of people. Criticising popular laughter and what feeds it is ultimately criticising ourselves as a society. This popular laughter, although subject to criticism, likely reflects the population and the era it represents; otherwise, it would not be popular. It is similar to looking in the mirror and not liking what we see. However, we see reality whether we like it or not. In this case, we see a social reality.

Finally, it is important to note that this study seems to suggest, albeit indirectly, that contemporary societies, as a collective of individuals and groups, seem to have a growing reluctance to endure the lens of ridicule—to see their ideas represented through ridicule within contemporary media solutions. If this is true, then this reluctance may be a problem, or more accurately, a sign of a problem: the increasing normalisation of intolerance towards different ideas or perspectives.