Home--> Resources --> The Use of Humour in Psychoanalysis

By: Nancy Ronne, Ph.D., Psy.D.

Dr. Nancy Ronne is a  psychoanalyst/psychotherapist in private practice in Brentwood, California. Much of her work focuses on her area of expertise, human sexuality and couples relationships.

Humor has always been an important part of my life. If there is a humor gene, I’m sure I got it from my father. He was a high school teacher who used humor and wit to engage troubled adolescents in the joy and excitement of shop math. Humor was a way that my father connected with people. I know it seeped into my bones.

My last analyst was quite funny. Our sense of humor matched. We laughed at the same jokes and shared a similar ironic take on the world. Can there be twinship in humor as well as in life? Was that one of the essential ingredients that made that analysis successful?

One of the major goals of the analytic process is to help the patient gain understanding about their behaviors and personal dynamics. One of the techniques in using dream or other unconscious material is to bring to conscious awareness the contents of one’s unconsciousness. This allows the patient a richer understanding of their internal life. Patients generally come to treatment because they are in pain, not because they decide to spend several years and a significant amount of money on analysis. Potential patients are searching for an analyst or psychotherapist because they are longing for answers, wanting miracle cures and desiring a relationship. They yearn for an analyst who can provide them with a real life connection and relief from what seems to be unbearable.

Does that mean that it is inappropriate to use humor with patients who are in distress? Is it impossible to imagine that the use of humor might be helpful to a patient who is in psychic pain and emotional turmoil? My conclusion is that the use of humor, as with all elements of psychoanalysis, depends. It depends on the degree of pain expressed and experienced, the strength of the patient, their level of functioning, their defensive structure, and the use that
humor plays in their life.

One of my foundational assumptions (my bias) is that the use of humor demonstrates a high level of functioning. It adds to life and one’s
experiences. I am also aware that the use of humor (by both patient and analyst) can be a tool that is used to reduce the intensity and discomfort of painful, horrific or shameful affects. This, also, can potentially be destructive to the therapeutic process. Freud indicated that humor was a high-level defense and when repression failed, humor was often employed to help deal with feelings of unpleasure. In addition, Freud theorized that humor or comical asides could allow patients to present themselves as "grown-up" and "too mature" to still be bothered by old painful events.

Winnicott wrote about self-protective behaviors. Behaviors that are organized according to the principle of Winnicott’s true-self/false-self paradigm. When one becomes traumatized or hurt the true self is obscured. The “authentic” self is then protected from additional wounds. The false self evolves to protect the soft underbelly of the vulnerable true self. The false self is presented to the world as the real self (Winnicott, 1986). One aspect of the false self presentation might be that of the humorous, happy-go-lucky, jokester. Winnicott noted that it is not “healthy” if one aspect of an individual’s personality overrides and overshadows all other aspects. Winnicott, like other analysts, has expressed ambivalence about the use of humor during the course of an analysis.

My intention is to explore several perspectives on the use of humor in the psychoanalytic process and relationship. This exploration begins with Freud’s discussions of humor and jokes. Then, I will examine the perspective of theorists and practitioners that followed Freud. Next, I will look at contemporary writers and their ideas about humor. Subsequently, I will develop a theoretical perspective. I will then propose several principles that clinicians can think about when evaluating the proper and most beneficial applications of humor in an analysis. I will provide several
examples from my own experience, discussing why I believe that the use of humor has been helpful or potentially harmful. The paper ends with a brief summary, conclusion, and recommendations.

A Review of the Literature

A pivotal article that stimulated my thinking both prior to and during the writing of this paper was The Impact of Humor in the Counseling Relationship, Sultanoff (1992). In his article, Sultanoff defended his view that humor can be beneficial in the counseling relationship. For example, he noted that humor helps to build relationships, increase communication, change feelings, thoughts, and behaviors and alters biochemistry. Sultanoff’s writing indicates that humor is a positive and desirable therapeutic intervention.

The Early Years

Freud (1905) explored humor under the rubric of jokes. His 1905 book, Jokes and Their Relation to The Unconscious, was a seminal work addressing jokes, slips of the tongue, humor and their relationship to the unconscious. He began by dividing jokes into several types, starting with the dichotomy of verbal and conceptual jokes. These were further divided into abstract or innocent jokes and contentious jokes. The abstract innocent joke is its own aim and is simply designed to give pleasure. The contentious joke has other purposes. According to Freud, contentious jokes have one of two purposes. They are either hostile or obscene. The hostile jokes or remarks have an aggressive, dominating or destructive motivation. The obscene joke allows one to express and expose uncomfortable or shameful thoughts, feelings or ideas. These jokes are primarily sexual. Freud noted that in both instances the jokes allow for "opening sources of pleasure that have become inaccessible."

Freud went on to describe the mechanism of the joke in relationship to both dreams and the unconscious. He hypothesized that the joke is formed in the following way:

...a preconscious thought is given over for a moment to unconscious revision and the outcome of this at once grasped by conscious perception (Freud).

That is, the joke is passed through the unconscious during its process or genesis and emerges into the conscious mind fully formed, but unexpected. Freud distinguishes it clearly from the dream by noting that dreams are completely asocial mental products, while jokes are distinctively social. Dreams, to Freud, were wishes (even if unrecognizable) while jokes are a form of social interaction and playfulness.

Freud viewed abstract spontaneous humor as both innocent and positive. Freud maintained that the contentious forms of humor may serve important purposes for the individual, but do not necessarily result in a positive social outcome. The use of contentious humor by the analyst would never be appropriate or helpful. However, hostile asides, sarcastic remarks or negative put-downs from patient to the analyst could prove to be enormously revealing and fertile grounds for exploration.

Freud continued to think about and grapple with the contribution of humor to the psyche and to everyday life. In a paper published in 1928, he elaborated on some of his earlier thoughts and ideas. His writing emphasized his positive notions about humor. Freud’s over-arching theory was that the ego was usually forced by the superego to turn away from its pleasure-seeking, or at least modify its longings because of the demands of reality. Humor, he indicated was a type of triumph of the pleasure principle. This was positive for the ego. Humor allows the ego to momentarily enjoy a guilt-free narcissistic existence. Thus, humor contributes to a feeling of strength and pleasure. The superego, in this instance, acts towards the ego like a good parent, rather than a hypercritical one.

Freud’s writings about humor were not always consistent. Freud remained ambivalent about the application of humor in the psychoanalytic relationship. Kuhlman (1984) noted that there is not one reference in Freud’s writings about his cases that indicate use of humor during a psychoanalytic session. Freud does allude to humor in his writing in Volume VIII (1905) Jokes and Their Relationship to the Unconscious, Volume IX (1906-1908) Jensen’s ‘Gradiva and Other Works and Volume XXI (1927-1931) The Standard Edition, The Future of An Illusion, Civilization and Its Discontents and Other Works. Even though we know in fact that Freud used humor in analysis (Lowenstein, 1958; Birner, 1994), it would appear as though he was at best equivocal about the use of it.

Both Shelly (1994) and Birner (1994) emphasized various facets of Freud’s work and its connection to the creativity of therapy. Birner noted that Freud, in his daily life, looked for humor, paradoxes, and jokes. Freud believed that humor was a fundamentally creative way of looking at the world. Shelly noted that humor is transformative in its essence. The use of humor enables the "individual to transform(s) the content of unconscious conflict into different shape." In other words, the creative use of humor alters both the content and form of unconscious, unarticulated thoughts and ideas.

The creative aspect of humor was understood by Freud. Freud stated, in his 1927 paper Humor, that not all individuals were capable of understanding and using humor, nor were they capable of seeing the humor in others' representations.

Despite this, Freud presented the world with a very mixed message about humor and its usefulness in analysis. As a result what was adopted by the psychoanalytic community was a negative attitude toward the use of humor in psychoanalysis. Those who supported humor or used it in their analytic process were regarded by classical Freudians with skepticism.

The first analyst who openly wrote about the positive application of humor and who maintained his standing in psychoanalytic circles was Martin Grotjahn. Grotjahn (1949) argued that humor could be an important therapeutic tool for the therapist and that there was nothing inherent in Freudian concepts that refuted its use. It might be argued that this was a marginalized viewpoint given that the initial place for publication of this paper was the Journal of The Indian Psycho-Analytic Society in Calcutta. This was hardly the mainstream of psychoanalytic theory and practice.

Grotjahn continued to advocate the use of humor. He believed that his ideas were consistent with Freud’s writings. Along with Freud’s concept that humor allowed the ego to temporarily transcend itself, Grotjahn (1957) noted that humor involved a form of conservation of emotional expenditure. Humor can enhance the analyst’s tolerance of the patient’s traumatic and painful emotions and experiences. In specific circumstances humor can allow the analyst to establish and maintain an affective and effective connection to their patient while the patient is expressing extreme emotions such as deep sorrow, unremitting terror, acute anxiety or excruciating trauma. Humor can help the analyst from becoming flooded or overloaded with toxic emotions. Humor can protect both individuals in the dyad from overwhelming affects, even allowing them a form of enjoyment and communion.

Grotjahn (1957) wrote that jokes or humor exchanged between analyst and patient can be illuminating. He stated that there are instances in which the patient spontaneously tells a joke or creates a humorous moment; these, can reveal the core of the patient’s problem. Grotjahn described a session in which one of his patients entered the office and shared a cartoon. The patient broke into uproarious laughter. Analysis of the cartoon and why the patient found it so amusing allowed the surfacing of the patient’s behavior toward and thoughts about another man. This was a man with whom the patient had had a very close and intimate friendship. They had become estranged after an argument. Grotjahn reported that the cartoon had illuminated and crystallized the unconscious issue and had thus facilitated the release of energy and enabled the patient to get to the crux of his problem of repressed homosexual longing.” These longings had further been disguised within the transference neurosis. The cartoon and the subsequent laughter facilitated the deeper understanding of his patient’s unresolved homosexual longings and his transference neurosis.

There are other analysts who express cautions about the use of humor in the therapeutic environment. For example, Kubie (1971) indicated that humor can be destructive in an analysis. It can reduce tension in such a way as to allow the patient to avoid expressing negative affects. He believed that part of the success of the analytic process is through the well thought out increase in the intensity and prominence of the transference. This heightened, but tolerable level of affects, is an essential part of what is curative. Anything that reduces these feelings, releasing the tension too soon (as humor might) could potentially undermine the therapeutic process.

Although Kubie acknowledged that humor is not always destructive nor should it be summarily dismissed and never used, he argued that humor has such a high potential to cause harm that it should be used rarely and with great care. He described humor in pejorative terms as not only destructive, but as a "dangerous weapon." Kubie viewed humor as more of an amusement or entertainment for the therapist than anything else. He indicated that humor often masked hostility and created a false sense of togetherness or camaraderie that could ultimately confuse the patient. Kubie (1971) cautioned against the use of humor in analysis as it has the potential of duplicating the patient’s experience from early childhood. As in all aspects of psychoanalysis, there is the danger that through the transference-countertransference dance, old patterns and ways of relating will be reenacted.

Another analyst, Winnicott, differs with Freud on many issues regarding psychoanalytic methodology and practice. In the area of humor, however, there are some commonalities.

Winnicott (1975) is well known for his theoretical discussions of the need to develop an effective holding environment for patients. He worked with children and, unlike Freud, focused on the developmental process. He is known for his conceptualization of the “good-enough” mother or caregiver who provides the child with an environment that is imperfect, but good enough for the child to mature and develop.

In the psychoanalytic process, Winnicott allowed for personal interventions that Freud would have rejected. He accepted a social work role as the psychoanalyst, particularly when working with psychotic patients. These patients needed someone to take on management functions until they were able to develop these abilities for themselves. The environment he sought to create was one in which all emotions were allowed and "held" so that the patient could have a receptacle for uncontainable feelings and thoughts.

The role of humor was not fundamental to his process, but it was an aspect. Winnicott, like Freud, saw humor in a positive light. For him, humor was a sign of mental health and strength. It indicated a level of comfort in the relationship. He suggested that humor allowed for the tolerance of difficult subjects or affects. Winnicott (1971) used humor and jokes in his work with children, noting that humor is part of a sound family environment. While he did not claim to provide all the elements lacking in his patient’s families, he did strive to replace some of what was missing. He endeavored to create a holding environment in which humor, anger, hate, fear and love could be expressed without fear of reprisal, loss of control, or rejection by the authority figure.

Contemporary Views

One of the difficulties psychoanalysis has had in gaining acceptance is that it is often viewed as a monolithic process, still primarily influenced by Freud’s original theories and ideas. As Eckardt (2000) indicated, this is an inaccurate picture of contemporary psychoanalysis. Contemporary analysis represents many different schools of thought, and is open to innovative concepts and innovations. She noted that while Freud’s task at the end of the 19th century was understood as the articulation of fundamental laws that governed human behavior, thoughts and actions, the task for the contemporary theoretician and practitioner is to recognize and integrate complex multiplicities. She noted that contemporary analysts find meaning in mutually created relationships rather than universal principles. Thus, she stated, the tools, theories, terminology and practice which served Freud well, with his archaeological orientation, do not suffice for contemporary analysts. For contemporary analysts, she recommends the development of a more intersubjective, individualistic approach. Eckardt suggested that contemporary analysts must think of each patient as unknown territory to be explored with curiosity and complete open-mindedness. Mutuality and co-construction are essential.

Contemporary theories have not generally been focused on humor. Kuhlman pointed out there are very few references, in the psychoanalytic literature, to humor. Much of what does exist is ambivalent. Interestingly enough, Kuhlman (1984) found a turning point in the publication of Norman Cousin’s book, Anatomy of An Illness (1979). Kuhlman pointed out that Cousins was the first to speculate on the effect of laughter on one’s physiology. Cousins believed that laughter caused the release of endorphins (the body’s analgesic-anesthetic hormone) which results in relaxation of muscular tension and proves to be beneficial to new learning. This state is defined by the new baby observers as "alert processing." Alert processing has been demonstrated to be the optimal state for new learning and most conducive to positive attachment.

Eckardt (2000) explored how contemporary theories of psychoanalysis embrace and welcome more eclectic and open-minded perspectives. Contemporary treatment incorporates varied and diverse points of view. Intersubjectivity, relational, co-constructionism, field and system theories, are just a few of the new theories. Eckardt investigated the interplay and contributions of disparate contemporary psycho-therapeutic theories and systems.

Eckardt (2000) makes two additional points that contribute to a new theory regarding the use of humor in psychoanalysis. First, she explores, and affirms, trends that emphasize embracing multi-dimensionality. Humor conceivably could be a facet that would be included. Second, she emphasizes the idea that human beings are meaning-making and narrative creating creatures. She indicated that this internal push towards an understandable gestalt is a source of creativity and is a creative adaptation to and in the world. The creative aspect of psychoanalysis invites the use of humor. Humor can greatly assist in the formation of a meaningful life story and the creation of a coherent narrative.

Lear (1998) contributes another perspective. His thoughts come from a different discipline...philosophy. His philosophy espouses a new direction of open-mindedness and complexity in psychoanalysis. Lear notes that the concept that “classical psychoanalysis is dead” is accurate owing to the closed-mindedness of classical psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis was based on rigid concepts that pathologically defines the patient as maintaining distortions and destructive mal-adaptive defenses. What Lear recommends is the revisiting of the old ideas and worn myths in order to allow for new interpretations. Further, open-mindedness allows for psychoanalysis to view each patient as a separate world, the source of spontaneity and originality. The relationship, the third element, the space in-between is a result of the contributions of both the analyst and the patient. The shared world between analyst and patient is co-constructed, mutually formed.

What does this have to do with the use of humor in psychoanalysis? First, it simply allows for an opening up of the system, a system which both Eckardt and Lear acknowledge has become rigidified. Second, it allows for an exploratory, playful, relaxed environment. This stable environment is conducive to physiological regulation and alert processing. This state can increase the patient’s ability to interact and relate. Openness provides the foundation not only for the use and creation of humor, but for the deepening of insight and narrative development. This process is mutually created by the active, spontaneous involvement of both the patient and the analyst.

Humor can create an emotionally available analyst. Zeddies (2000) discussed the development of analysts and analytic psychotherapists in some detail. One of the essential elements of the tripartite model of analytic training is the “training analysis.” The training analysis, ideally, opens the analyst to their own unconscious material. Another eventuality of a successful training analysis is the transformation of the budding analyst into an individual who is both open and minimally defensive. A contemporary training analysis allows the incipient practitioner to become increasingly emotionally available to their patients.

The contemporary analyst’s availability seems decidedly different from the early Freudian perspective of the analyst as an opaque mirror. The analyst (according to Freud) is not emotionally available, but rather a neutral observer, with "evenly-suspended attention." Although Freud himself is reported as joking with his patients (Loewenstein, 1958), it is not what he recommended for practicing analysts. He is quite clear about what behavior by the analyst is therapeutically/analytically appropriate. Is it not emotional availability, spontaneity or a jocular interaction.

Zeddies (2000) indicated that developing increasing emotional availability is desirable in the analytic relationship. Zeddies noted, with approval, Schafer’s (1983) proposal that the beginning analyst must develop the capacity to express his humanity analytically. Zeddies argued that it is important for an analyst to become comfortable with the productions of his or her own unconscious, using those productions in working with the patient. He echoes Eckardt (2000) in asserting that an attitude of open-mindedness is vital, allowing the contemporary analyst to relate more freely and to be more attuned to their patients.

We all choose our analyst because of articulated and unarticulated dynamics, conscious and unconscious processes. The problem here can easily be seen if we think of a child who has been wounded early in life by an extremely sarcastic, aggressive, teasing parent. In this instance, a sarcastic, teasing analyst may seem quite familiar to the patients, and repeat their early experience. If this interaction goes on unanalyzed and continues to be enacted, the analysis will recapitulate prior wounds and traumas. This situation would clearly harm rather than help the patient.

Finally, Kubie (1971) indicated that the therapist’s use of humor could be viewed as a blocking device, rather than a means for furthering the patient’s insight. Thus, the interjection of humor may prevent the patient from continuing his or her flow of associations, sending him or her off on a different tangent. This sidetrack could potentially lead to the suppression or obfuscation of essential thoughts and feelings.

Kuhlman (1984) noted that Kubie (1971) is actually one of the few authors to emphasize the risks and dangers of humor in psychoanalysis. Kubie employed case examples to illustrate his perspective. Kuhlman noted that most authors do not write about "failed cases." As a consequence, those writings that are available emphasize the positive value of humor and successful case studies. This lack of “honest” reporting is potentially problematic.

Kuhlman suggests that there needs to be more writing about the negative aspects of humor in analysis. Most human beings, including therapists, have experienced the negative and destructive elements of humor through ridicule, teasing and other forms of aggressive humor. This type of humor is usually quite obvious to us. It can, however, be so subtle that we cannot accurately identify it. It is when aggressive destructive humor is ego-syntonic (for either the analyst or the patient) that problems arise. There is no “observing ego” that informs either the patient or the analyst about the hostile destructive effect of their use of humor. This feels like business-as-usual. Often these cutting remarks are followed by the disclaimer, "It’s only a joke!"

The use of destructive humor is difficult for patients to deal with. It is extremely trying for a patient to summon up his courage to deal directly with an analyst whom the patient perceives as having great power. This is a highly-charged situation. The patient, to one degree or another, feels smaller, younger and less competent than the analyst. This may even be a necessary element for the analysis to work. The risks that Kubie (1971) and Kuhlman (1984) identify are very real. What about the subtle teasing that often occurs in families? What are the differences between shared laughter and being laughed at? If this has been the patient’s "usual experience" with their family of origin, the insidious mocking or teasing expressed by the analyst might feel familiar and acceptable. Although it seems unlikely that any analyst would mock or ridicule a patient it does remain a possibility.

As Kuhlman (1984) notes, the difficulty arises because:
It must be reemphasized that whether such humor represents antisocial aggression or teasing............. or well-meaning criticism or a paradoxical display of affection, these various meanings are not defined by the joke’s technique or content.

In other words, the meaning of humor cannot be quantitatively and definitively determined by objective definition. It remains a matter of interpretation, a shared construction between two or more individuals. Issues of gender, race, socio-economic status, education and role may all play a part in different reactions to the same joke. Kuhlman noted that it is the grey areas of humor that are the problem. For the most part, the overt hostile and aggressive humor of an analyst or therapist can be identified by patients and dealt with. The grey areas, however, may impact the therapeutic environment by lessening trust, limiting development, slowing down the process, or ultimately derailing it. Kuhlman emphasizes the potential of the non-empathic nature of humor. Instead of being a reflection of empathetic understanding of the patient’s internal world, the humorous intervention can be a sidestepping or a lack of attunement. No analyst or therapist, classical or contemporary, would find this intervention acceptable.

Kuhlman discussed a case of his own -- which he considered a "failure." He concluded that an ill-timed ironic remark had negatively impacted the therapeutic relationship and abolished trust. The therapy ended. He reiterated that it is difficult to determine when the introduction of humor is appropriate. For him, the conclusion was that the use of humor was inappropriate when the patient was working intensively on issues, but might be appropriate when the patient was in a rut or bogged down. The problem, of course, is determining which is which. For example, in a case I will discuss toward the end of this paper, I am still uncertain whether the introduction of humor in the session was appropriate. Was my patient at work or was she stuck in a rut? Was my use of humor appropriate and effective? In another case, my use of humor was clearly getting in the way of the psychoanalytic relationship. I had to modify my behavior in order to change the dynamics into a positive, growth-oriented direction.

The problem here may be my own issues. It has been theorized that those who are drawn into the practice of psychoanalysis are themselves individuals who did not have appropriate mirroring, were not seen, and/or needed to care for their parents. Bader (1994) noted that there is a certain percentage of people who are doing analytic work who have inhibitions about the spontaneous expression of feelings, including humor. In other words, the people drawn to psychoanalytic work may find a theory of psychoanalytic practice that inhibits the use of humor congruent with their persona because it fits with their own inhibitions. This, like all other aspects of the analyst’s psychology, needs to be understood, analyzed and worked through so that the choice to use or not to use humor comes from a thoughtful place, not an unconscious enactment.