Henri Frankson Predominance Hypothesis

All the time we giggle at individuals in light of the fact that they have some coming up short or deformity, or on the grounds that they discover themselves off guard somehow or endure some little incident. The grumpy person, the epicurean, the lush are every stock figure of parody; so is the henpecked spouse or the man who gets hit with a custard pie. We giggle, as well, at slip-ups: at schoolboy howlers, flawed elocution, awful language structure. These are all genuinely rough illustrations, yet it might be that even the most unpretentious diversion is simply an improvement of this, and that the joy we take in funniness gets from our inclination of predominance over those we giggle at. As indicated by. this view, all cleverness is mocking.

Clearly numerous mixed bags of prevalence hypothesis are conceivable, as indicated by the specific standard received. Henri Bergson (1859-1941) issues us both the clearest and most well known occasion of a specific utilization of the predominance hypothesis. Bergson's optimal is versatility, flexibility, the élan basic ["thrust of life"]. Consequently the ludicrous is for him "something mechanical encrusted upon the living." The commonplace comic character, he says, is a man with a fixation, or idée fixe, similar to Wear Quixote, or Moliere's recluse. He is not sufficiently adaptable to adjust himself to the intricate and changing requests of reality. As a commonplace illustration of comic unbending nature, Bergson refers to the account of the traditions officers who went valiantly to the salvage of the group of a destroyed boat. The main thing the traditions men said when they at last got the mariners shorewards was: "Have you anything to pronounce?" Here, Bergson says, we have the visually impaired, programmed steadiness of an expert propensity for brain, paying little mind to changed