Introduction
Laughter has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, especially in relation to humour. Most scholars tend to focus on the question of why we laugh when we are tickled or hear a joke, that is to say: what causes laughter?Footnote 2 The theories advanced to answer this question can be divided into the following three groups.Footnote 3 First, there is the superiority theory, which argues that laughter is a form of derision, with a person always laughing at others in order to assert superiority (Scruton Reference Scruton and Morreal1986). According to John Morreall, this was the only widely circulated understanding of laughter before the Enlightenment (Morreall Reference Morreall2009: 6). Second is the incongruity theory, which treats laughter as a response to illogical things and situations that violate expectations (Schultz Reference Schultz, Chapman and Foot1976; Suls Reference Suls, Goldstein and McGhee1972). The third is the relief theory, which argues that laughter is a physical sign of the release of nervous tension and physical energy (Freud Reference Freud and Strachey1974; Spencer Reference Spencer1860). Each of these intends to use one theory to explain what causes laughter.
However, scholars have pointed out that while humour is often accompanied by laughter, they are essentially two different things (Chafe Reference Chafe2007; Ruch Reference Ruch and Raskin2008). For example, one can laugh without experiencing humour, as in the case of awkward or nervous laughter. And one can certainly experience humour without having to laugh. Apart from asking what causes laughter and attempting to theorize this, there are also studies that discuss the cultural history of laughter itself, focusing on ancient Greece and Rome (Beard Reference Beard2015; Bremmer and Roodenburg Reference Bremmer and Roodenburg1997; Halliwell Reference Halliwell2008). Moreover, the relationship between laughter, freedom, and tragedy is regularly emphasized (Kallen Reference Kallen1968; Guan Reference Guan2009: 342–59).
I show that the separation of laughter from humour studies, and a focus on the practice of laughter itself, is also applicable to the study of early Chinese texts, especially the Zhuangzi 莊子, an anthology totalling 33 chapters edited by Guo Xiang 郭象 (c. 252–312 ce).Footnote 4
First, why start with the Zhuangzi? One reason is because it is considered the wittiest philosophical text in early China – using humour in debating and arguing – while its functions of laughter other than humour have been largely ignored (Sample Reference Sample, Chey and Davis2011: 177; Wang Reference Wang2005: 99; Froese Reference Froese2013; and Moeller and D'Ambrosio Reference Moeller and D'Ambrosio2017: 59–113). Early studies on laughter in the Zhuangzi were modelled on humour theories from the West, using laughter as an indicator of humour and merely focusing on the interpretations and functions of humour, but not laughter. Christoph Harbsmeier was probably the first to study humour in early China (Harbsmeier Reference Harbsmeier1989; Reference Harbsmeier1990). His pioneering work has stimulated scholarly interests in the “humorous sensibilities” of early Chinese texts, among which the Zhuangzi is taken as one of the outstanding examples alongside the Lun yu 論語 (Harbsmeier Reference Harbsmeier1989: 307–8; Chey and Davis Reference Chey and Davis2011; Santangelo Reference Santangelo2012; Wang Reference Wang2009; Rea Reference Rea2015). An edited volume by Hans-Georg Moeller and Günter Wohlfart titled “Laughter in Eastern and Western philosophies” also focusses on humorous aspects of Daoism and Buddhism, treating laughter as a signal for humour (Moeller and Wohlfart Reference Moeller and Wohlfart2009).
Second, how should we define laughter so as to differentiate it from humour? The idea of humour in its basic sense refers to a type of behaviour that consciously arouses amusement for its own sake, normally through the practices of joking, banter, anecdotes, and mimicry (Halliwell Reference Halliwell2008: 6–8, appendix 1). The study of it refers to the clarification of this concept per se. However, the study of laughter in this paper has no such intention, instead, it aims to reveal the social, political, and ethical concerns that laughter generates and is generated by.
When I discuss “laughter” in the Zhuangzi, I look at the Chinese term xiao 笑, which appears 33 times in the text. It refers not only to vocal–facial laughter, as when one “faces the sky and laughs extensively” (yang tian chang xiao 仰天長笑, Guo Reference Guo2007: 597), but also to facial smiling, as well as to metonymic laughter, which does not relate to the manifestation of bodily signs. One can be laughed at purely conceptually, without any outward manifestation, as when one says “I would have been laughed at for a long time by the masters of the great methods” (wu chang jian xiao yu dafang zhi jia 吾長見笑於大方之家, Guo Reference Guo2007: 560). I analyse stories that use the three different types of laughter mentioned above to come to a basic definition of laughter: laughter can be seen as a way to express and transform states of mind when faced with political, ethical, personal, and social concerns. In the following part, I select representative cases to show various functions and practices of laughter in the Zhuangzi.
Laughter in the Zhuangzi
The term xiao 笑 in the Zhuangzi is frequently used to express disdain and contempt. Ironically, during the course of the Zhuangzi, laughter that is meant to show superiority frequently turns out to be the very act revealing foolishness and limitations.Footnote 5 For example, in the chapter “Free and easy wandering” (Xiaoyaoyou 逍遙遊), we hear the small and inexperienced cicada, dove and quail “laughing at” (xiao 笑) the great Peng's 鵬 skill in flying. What follows is a story about Song Rongzi 宋榮子, an almost perfect man who has transcended stereotypical value judgements and social critiques and only focuses on the inner self (Guo Reference Guo2007: 14). He laughs at those who pursue wealth and reputation, but it is his laughter that shows his all-too conscious effort towards the differentiation of inner and outer, and his failed attempt to distinguish himself from others. He might be free from praise and blame, but not from using his standard to judge others. In the chapter “The Sign of Virtue Complete” (Dechongfu 德充符), we hear Zi Chan 子產 laughing at a disabled man (Guo Reference Guo2007: 198–9). He assumes that disability has made the man both socially inferior and ethically wrong, while the Zhuangzi teaches us that Zi Chan should be ashamed of focusing on physical completeness rather than inner fulfilment.Footnote 6 These cases show that laughter is used to indicate judgements against what is going on, but those judgements may not be justified.
Laughter also shows disagreement. In the chapter “Giving away the throne” (Rangwang 讓王), a story relates Bo Yi 伯夷 and Shu Qi's 叔齊 meeting with King Wu 武王 to enter into a covenant (meng 盟). The King, who was believed to possess the Dao 道, offers them wealth and rank in exchange for their service, upon which “they looked at each other, laughed, and said” (相視而笑曰):
嘻！異哉！此非吾所謂道也。昔者神農之有天下也，時祀盡敬而不祈喜；其於人也，忠信盡治而無求焉。樂與政為政，樂與治為治，不以人之壞自成也，不以人之卑自高也，不以遭時自利也。今周見殷之亂而遽為政，上謀而下行貨，阻兵而保威，割牲而盟以為信，揚行以說眾，殺伐以要利，是推亂以易暴也。吾聞古之士遭治世不避其任，遇亂世不為苟存。今天下闇，周德衰，其並乎周以塗吾身也，不如避之以絜吾行。(Guo Reference Guo2007: 980–1).
Goodness – how peculiar! This is certainly not what we would call the Way! In ancient times, when Shen Nong held possession of the state, he performed the seasonal sacrifices with the utmost reverence, but he did not pray for blessings. In his dealings with men, he was loyal and trustworthy and observed perfect order, but he did not seek anything from them. He delighted in ruling for the sake of ruling, he delighted in bringing order for the sake of order. He did not use other men's failures to bring about his own success; he did not use other men's degradation to lift himself up. Just because he happened along at a lucky time, he did not try to turn it to his own profit. Now the Zhou, observing that the Yin has fallen into disorder, suddenly makes a show of its rule, honouring those who know how to scheme, handing out bribes, relying on weapons to maintain its might, making blood covenants for trust,Footnote 7 lauding its achievements in order to seize gain – this is simply to push aside disorder and replace it with violence! We have heard that the gentlemen of old, if they happened upon a well-ordered age, did not run away from public office; but if they encountered an age of disorder, they did not try to hold on to office at any cost. Now the world is in darkness and the virtue of the Zhou in decline. Rather than remain side by side with the Zhou and defile our bodies, it would be better to run away and thus protect the purity of our conduct!Footnote 8
First, we need to pay attention to the setting in which laughter is generated. King Wu's minister, the Duke of Zhou 周公, represents the royal power bestowing official status on Bo Yi and Shu Qi in the name of King Wu. Second, it is also an event where the values of the ruler are presented. King Wu shows his possession and understanding of the Dao by inviting Bo Yi and Shu Qi, and bestowing wealth and social status upon them so as to show respect. Third, it is a ritual setting. Under these official circumstances, Bo Yi and Shu Qi laugh, both facially and vocally (“Goodness” xi 嘻). Did they intend to laugh directly at the Duke of Zhou? Because the segment quoted above shows no accusation or sarcasm targetting the Duke, I do not think this is a likely explanation. There is also no indication that Bo Yi and Shu Qi intended to arouse amusement. How, then, should we understand their laughter?
In this official and public context, we see that laughter is used as a tool to show strong disagreement with the application of social values, the practice of ritual, and the idea of ruling by means of power. It is used as a tool by Bo Yi and Shu Qi to show their disagreement with those in power, who rule for the sake of wealth and status, use rituals to ask for blessings instead of performing them with the proper respect, and who abuse the misfortune of others for their own profit. Through laughter, the power of the ruler is subverted, disagreement is shown, and the reverent atmosphere is broken. Even the honour of receiving wealth and status is laughed away. With their laughter, the values that ought to underlie both the power of the ruler and the rituals of the state are shown to be lacking.
This same type of laughter appears again in this chapter when Zi Gong's 子貢 social and ethical values are challenged and criticized by Yuan Xian 原憲:Footnote 9
原憲居魯，環堵之室，茨以生草，蓬戶不完，桑以為樞而甕牖，二室，褐以為塞，上漏下溼，匡坐而弦。子貢乘大馬，中紺而表素，軒車不容巷，往見原憲。原憲華冠縰履，杖藜而應門。子貢曰：「嘻！先生何病？」原憲應之曰：「憲聞之：『無財謂之貧，學而不能行謂之病。』今憲，貧也，非病也。」子貢逡巡而有愧色。原憲笑曰：「夫希世而行，比周而友，學以為人，教以為己，仁義之慝，輿馬之飾，憲不忍為也。」(Guo Reference Guo2007: 975–7).
Yuan Xian lived in the state of Lu, in a tiny house that was hardly more than four walls. It was thatched with growing weeds, had a broken door made of woven brambles and branches of mulberry for the doorposts; jars with the bottoms out, hung with pieces of coarse cloth for protection from the weather, served as windows for its two rooms. The roof leaked and the floor was damp, but Yuan Xian sat up in a dignified manner, played his lute, and sang. Zi Gong, wearing an inner robe of royal blue and an outer one of white, and riding in a grand carriage whose top was too tall to get through the entrance to the lane, came to call on Yuan Xian. Yuan Xian, wearing a bark cap and slippers with no heels, and carrying a goosefoot staff, came to the gate to greet him. “Goodness!” exclaimed Zi Gong. “What distress you are in, Sir!” Yuan Xian replied, “I have heard that if one lacks wealth, that is called poverty; and if one studies but cannot put into practice what one has learned, that is called distress. I am poor, but I am not in distress!” Zi Gong backed off a few paces with a look of embarrassment. Yuan Xian laughed and said, “To act out of worldly ambition, to band with others in cliquish friendships, to study in order to show off to others, to teach in order to please one's own pride, to mask one's evil deeds behind benevolence and righteousness, to deck oneself out with carriages and horses – I could never bear to do such things!”
Yuan Xian's laughter is firstly a response towards Zi Gong's exclamation, and secondly emphasizes Zi Gong's all-too-obvious hypocrisy and indifferent, if not ill-intended, mockery. The story begins with a contrasting image between Yuan Xian, a student of Confucius who is living in extreme poverty but is content and dignified, and Zi Gong, another student of Confucius. Zi Gong visits Yuan Xian while openly displaying his wealth and status, and appears distraught as he assumes that Xian must have become ill – the only possible explanation in his mind for Yuan Xian's poverty.
When Yuan Xian replies with a clear differentiation between what is called poor and what is called ill, Zi Gong steps back in embarrassment. Yuan Xian's laughter ridicules Zi Gong's demonstration of his wealth and criticizes his false concern masked in moral values and decorated with carriages and horses. It reveals Zi Gong's obsession and self-indulgence as the true illness.
A third type of laughter is used to signify inclusion and exclusion. This can be seen in the case of the chapter “The great and venerable teacher” (Dazongshi 大宗師):
子桑戶、孟子反、子琴張三人相與友，曰：「孰能相與於無相與，相為於無相為？孰能登天遊霧，撓挑無極，相忘以生，無所終窮？」三人相視而笑，莫逆於心，遂相與友。莫然有閒，而子桑戶死，未葬。孔子聞之，使子貢往侍事焉。或編曲，或鼓琴，相和而歌曰：「嗟來桑戶乎！嗟來桑戶乎！而已反其真，而我猶為人猗！」子貢趨而進曰：「敢問臨尸而歌，禮乎？」二人相視而笑，曰：「是惡知禮意！」(Guo Reference Guo2007: 269–71).
Master Sang Hu, Mengzi Fan, and Master Qin Zhang made friends with one another, saying, “Who can join with others without joining with others? Who can do with others without doing with others? Who can climb up to heaven and wander in the mists, roam the infinite, and forget life forever and forever?” The three men looked at each other and smiled. They laughed with each other, found no disagreement in their hearts and so they became friends. After some time had passed without event, Master Sang Hu died. He had not yet been buried when Confucius, hearing of his death, sent Zi Gong to assist at the funeral. When Zi Gong arrived, he found one of the dead man's friends weaving frames for silkworms, while the other strummed a zither. Joining their voices, they sang this song: “Ah, Sang Hu, Ah, Sang Hu, You have gone back to your true form, while we remain as men, O!” Zi Gong hastened forward and said, “May I be so bold as to ask what sort of ceremony this is – singing in the very presence of the corpse?” The two men looked at each other and laughed. “What does this man know of the meaning of ceremony!”
Albert Galvany argues persuasively that laughter in the story quoted above should be interpreted as a mechanism that shatters the conventional, rigid, and cloying routines of Confucian ritual propriety. Galvany goes on to suggest that laughter shows one's spontaneous and irrepressible expression, which is free from Confucian moral codes (Galvany Reference Galvany2009b: 53). However, I would argue that the laughter of the Zhuangzian masters is not a spontaneous and natural expression. Instead, it is intentionally and consciously performed to demonstrate shared values and to exclude those with opposing views.
In the passage quoted above, we have two appearances of laughter. The first example can be said simply to show the idea of mutual understanding. This is a correct assessment, but not the complete story. If we look at the two examples together, we find that laughter here functions as a strong mechanism for identification and exclusion in terms of ethical values. The first act of laughter unites those who find friendship in shared ethical values, values that to other people might appear absurd and amusing. When the three friends laugh, they affirm their shared values while laughing away others’ ridicule and misunderstanding. That is to say, if anyone is also able to laugh with these three friends, that person too shares and respects their values: laughter becomes an act of inclusion and identification.
The second instance also uses laughter to indicate shared values. More importantly, it represents an act of exclusion. When Zi Gong expresses strong disagreement about their singing in the presence of the deceased, he accuses them of wrongdoing. Confronted with Zi Gong's accusation of ritual impropriety, the two remaining friends laugh, an act in opposition to what Zi Gong considers appropriate, namely wailing. Through laughter, they isolate Zi Gong as the one who does not share their values, and present him to the audience as someone who does not understand the fundamental value of the Dao.
Third, laughter in the Zhuangzi often embodies an actual transformation of perspective. In the aforementioned chapter “Giving away the throne”, we see how the Zhuangzi transforms what others believe to be ming 命 (situations beyond human control) into a form of choice, and how such an idea is expressed in association with laughter:Footnote 10
子列子窮，容貌有飢色。客有言之於鄭子陽者曰：「列御寇，蓋有道之士也，居君之國而窮，君無乃為不好士乎？」鄭子陽即令官遺之粟。子列子見使者，再拜而辭。使者去，子列子入，其妻望之而拊心曰：「妾聞為有道者之妻子，皆得佚樂，今有飢色。君過而遺先生食，先生不受，豈不命邪！」子列子笑謂之曰：「君非自知我也。以人之言而遺我粟。至其罪我也，又且以人之言。此吾所以不受也。」其卒，民果作難而殺子陽。(Guo Reference Guo2007: 972–3).
Master Liezi was living in poverty and his face had a hungry look. A visitor mentioned this to Zi Yang, the prime minister of Zheng, saying, “Lie Yukou appears to be a gentleman who has attained the Way. Here he is living in your state, and in utter poverty! It would almost seem that you have no fondness for such gentlemen, does it not?” Zi Yang immediately ordered his officials to dispatch a gift of grain. Master Liezi received the messenger, bowed twice, and refused the gift. When the messenger had left and Master Liezi had gone back into his house, his wife, filled with bitterness, beat her breast and said, “I have heard that the wives and children of men who have attained the Way all live in ease and happiness – but here we are with our hungry looks! His Excellency, realizing his error, has sent you something to eat, but you refused to accept it – I suppose this is what they call ming!” Master Liezi laughed and said, “His Excellency does not know me personally – he sent me the grain simply because of what someone had told him. And someday he could just as well condemn me to punishment, again simply because of what someone told him. That's why I refused to accept.” In the end it did come about that people rebelled and put Zi Yang to death.
For Liezi's 列子 wife, her marriage to someone who refuses food and endures hunger is an uncontrollable situation that is unreasonable and exceptional. When her husband rejects the offer from Zi Yang 子陽, she believes Liezi has rejected the last chance that could have allowed them to survive.Footnote 11 However, to Liezi, their impoverishment is a reasoned choice. For Liezi believes that if he allowed himself to be appreciated and rewarded based on hearsay, then he might also be opening himself up to being punished or killed because of hearsay. In this sense, their situation is neither uncontrollable (since it was chosen by Liezi himself), nor unexplainable (since he has valid reasons that justify his choice). The text in the end supports Liezi's deliberation by mentioning that Zi Yang was eventually put to death by his people.
When confronted with his wife's complaint and worry, Liezi laughs. Liezi's laugh is not cruel or lacking in understanding. Instead, it embodies his care by transforming an uncontrollable situation into a form of rational choice. Liezi laughs because he had acted to decide their future, instead of passively following the general rule. Liezi's laughter shows his confidence in looking carefully at his own situation and making a reasonable decision for himself. Moreover, when Liezi laughs, he laughs away this uncontrollability. Laughter helps his wife and us to break through conventional wisdom and embodies a reassertion of control over ming in a deliberate choice to transform the situation.
In the chapter “Mastering Life” (Dasheng 達生), the laughter of Duke Huan of Qi 齊桓公 also indicates a liberation from and transformation of mental and physical illness. It starts with Duke Huan bringing great mental stress and physical illness onto himself when he believes he has seen a ghost, even though Guan Zhong 管仲 who accompanied him did not. After a person named Huangzi Gao'ao 皇子告敖 argues that both illness and ghosts should be understood as the circulation and accumulation of vital energy (qi 氣), he explains that if you see a ghost this implies that you will become a hegemon one day. Upon hearing this, Duke Huan laughs without realizing that his illness is gone. The duke is now able to turn his doubt into hope. Laughter reveals a transformation away from previous beliefs and towards new interpretations (Guo Reference Guo2007: 650–4).
In the chapter “The tree on the mountain” (Shanmu 山木), we once again see how laughter is related to a transformation of perspective. The story begins by posing a dilemma between being useful or not (cai 材 or bu cai 不材). To Zhuangzi's disciples, it is unclear how being either useful or useless can help one to avoid calamity and so they ask him how he would “posit himself” (he chu 何處), suggesting a mindset of dichotomy. The disciples clearly consider the possible choices to be limited to either being useful or useless. Confronted with his disciples’ question regarding how exactly he would posit himself in order to be safe, Zhuangzi laughs and gives the following explanation:
莊子笑曰：「周將處乎材與不材之間。材與不材之間，似之而非也，故未免乎累。若夫乘道德而浮游則不然。無譽無訾，一龍一蛇，與時俱化，而無肯專為；一上一下，以和為量，浮游乎萬物之祖；物物而不物於物，則胡可得而累邪！此黃帝、神農之法則也。(Guo Reference Guo2007: 667–70).
Zhuangzi laughed and said, “I'd probably take a position halfway between worth and worthlessness. But halfway between worth and worthlessness, although it might seem to be a good place, really isn't – you'll never avoid trouble there. While if you were to climb up on the Way and its Virtue and go drifting and wandering, neither praised nor damned, temporarily being a dragon, temporarily being a snake,Footnote 12 adapting with the times, never willing to hold to one course only, sometimes staying up, sometimes keeping down, taking harmony for your measure, drifting and wandering with the ancestor of the ten thousand things, dealing with things without being manipulated by outer things – then how could you get into any trouble because of outer things? This is the method of Shen Nong and the Yellow Emperor.
When the confused and frustrated disciples consult Zhuangzi on a life or death issue, Zhuangzi first replies with laughter. The laughter shows Zhuangzi's confidence – which comes from having things under control. It allows Zhuangzi to guide his disciples away from their dichotomous mindset by confirming his understanding of such a mindset. Laughter functions to ridicule dichotomous thinking, before transforming what his disciples believe to be uncontrollable into a form of self-control, namely the ability to “transform oneself in accordance with the times” (yu shi ju hua 與時俱化). When laughing away the fixed rule, one adapts to the situation and is as flexible as a snake who sloughs off its skin according to the seasons.
In the previous four types, I have pointed out one particularly prominent function of laughter within each story. However, this does not mean that laughter within each story only serves one purpose. In fact, laughter can be understood from different perspectives. For example, in the case of Bo Yi and Shu Qi, their public laughter is not only a powerful tool to challenge the political, ethical and ritual values of the state, but is also used to include people and readers who understand their value judgements, while at the same time excluding King Wu. In other words, laughter helps identify the values that ought to be shared. In order to demonstrate the complex usages of laughter, in the following example I show the multi-layered functions of laughter within a single story.
In the chapter “Heaven and Earth” (Tiandi 天地), a gardener laughs at Zi Gong. When Zi Gong sees the gardener, he finds him to be inefficient, and therefore suggests that the gardener uses a contrivance called gao 槔 (a kind of gardening tool). Faced with Zi Gong's “expert” advice, the gardener flushes with anger, before laughing and expressing his ideas (為圃者忿然作色而笑曰):
「吾聞之吾師：『有機械者必有機事，有機事者必有機心。』機心存於胸中，則純白不備；純白不備，則神生不定；神生不定者，道之所不載也。吾非不知，羞而不為也。」子貢瞞然慙，俯而不對。(Guo Reference Guo2007: 438–49).
I have heard from my teacher that, “where there are ingenious contrivances, there are sure to be plotted doings; and that, where there are plotted doings, there is sure to be a scheming mind. But, when there is a scheming mind in the breast, its pure simplicity is impaired. When this pure simplicity is impaired, the spirit becomes unsettled, and the unsettled spirit is not the proper residence of the Dao. It is not that I do not know (the contrivance which you mention), but I should be ashamed to use it.” Zi Gong blushed with chagrin, looked down and made no reply.
How to understand this kind of laughter immediately after strong anger? First, the gardener's reply itself is quite witty. Through punning on the multiple meanings of ji 機, in ji xie 機械 (“contrivances”), ji shi 機事 (“plotted things”), and ji xin 機心 (“scheming mind”), the gardener equates the use of a contrivance with subtle doings and a scheming mind (which are also connected phonetically through assonance),Footnote 13 directed of course at Zi Gong himself. Naturally, laughter is used as a signifier for the gardener's humorous language to ridicule both Zi Gong and his suggestion.
Second, the act of laughing signals a transferral of authority and power. Originally, as a disciple of Confucius, Zi Gong is supposed to be the one who understands the Dao – especially compared to a common gardener. Regardless of Zi Gong's social status, it is clear that the gardener ought to know more about growing plants. Zi Gong's attempt to teach a professional how to do a better job is laughed away by the gardener and exposed for its silliness, but what is more, the gardener takes on the role of an expert on the Dao and argues that Zi Gong's clever method in fact leads him away from the Dao. As such, authority and expertise are reversed and put back, the text suggests, in their proper place. Laughter here represents a subversion of social status and moral authority. The simple gardener is shown to be the true possessor of the Dao, a practitioner of practical knowledge, and worthy of our respect. While Zi Gong in the end remains silent and blushes with chagrin.
Third, through laughing, the gardener is able to distance himself from the angry emotions aroused by Zi Gong. Instead, he comes up with a clear argument that shows that it is in fact Zi Gong who does not possess the Dao. When laughter appears, the gardener dispels his anger towards Zi Gong, who is someone who because of his higher position in society and self-asserted authority presumes himself to be in a position to lecture anyone, whether or not he actually has a clue about what they are doing. After laughter, the gardener diverts himself from his anger, speaks calmly, and presents his ideas in a constructive manner.
Fourth, the change of atmosphere marked by laughter allows readers to connect themselves with the story. When the gardener laughs, it includes the laughing readers who understand the silliness of Zi Gong and the clever and humorous speeches of the gardener. Readers can identify with the values of the gardener, the wit of the puns, and the clever role reversal. It sets them apart from those who do not understand the laughter of the gardener and the values this story tries to convey. Appreciative readers are brought together in a reading community, while others are excluded.
Fifth, just as with Bo Yi and Shu Qi, the laughter of the gardener shows how opposing opinions between people of different social and political status can be exchanged. In other words, laughter both marks a difference in hierarchy as well as facilitating a conversation between people of different social status without direct confrontation. Through laughter and wit, people of lower status such as the gardener are able to express subversive opinions without obviously violating social protocol, or offending those in power and thereby endangering their lives. The gardener was also capable of silencing and shaming Zi Gong without directly shutting him up. Laughter is a tool to challenge power without direct confrontation. Laughter also helps to change the atmosphere and keeps the conversation moving without conforming to authority. In the Zhuangzi, the laughter of people with lower social status allows them to express contrarian opinions in a humorous and acceptable way without bringing harm to themselves.
Situating Zhuangzi's laughter in early China
In the Zhuangzi we can see how laughter operates beyond humour and is practised in ethical, political, and social spheres of life for a variety of reasons other than merely arousing amusement. From the perspective of readership, laughter is used to draw the readers’ attention and include them in a group who share the same values. It signals a change of atmosphere and allows readers to connect with the story, laugh along and identify themselves with the shared values conveyed within. Laughter also serves a rhetorical function which facilitates interaction between people of different social status. It is used as a non-verbal tool to express anger and to challenge power and the values it represents. Moreover, laughter indicates an ability to transform situations and how they are perceived. Philosophically, it allows one to laugh away what is beyond human control and redirect our attention to what can be controlled, thereby transforming one's mindset and directing it towards a new way of thinking. Socially, it allows one to laugh away power, break its dominance and challenge its status. When laughter appears, the claim to authority is transferred from one character to the other.
Analysing laughter in the Zhuangzi as a case study further shows that there are many functions of laughter in early Chinese discourse yet unexplored, for example: what are the ideas and practices of laughter in early China? What are the changing attitudes towards laughter? How does laughter operate between people of different social and political status? The study of laughter in the Zhuangzi presents us with new approaches to the broader study of this topic, and an awareness of and sensitivity to laughter allows for a deeper understanding of early Chinese texts. Let us now look at examples from the Daode jing 道德經 (Classic of the Way and Its Power), Lun yu 論語 (The Analects), Mengzi 孟子 (The Mencius), Yanzi chunqiu 晏子春秋 (Spring and Autumn Annals of Master Yan), Han Feizi 韓非子, Lüshi chunqiu 吕氏春秋 (Spring and Autumn Annals of Lü Buwei) and Zuo zhuan 左傳 (Zuo's Commentary to the Spring and Autumn Annals).
First, to laugh scornfully at others as a show of superiority receives strong criticism in the Zhuangzi. This is a sentiment that was shared in early China. For example, in chapter 41 of the Daode jing, we see a paradoxical use of laughter:
上士聞道，勤而行之；中士聞道，若存若亡；下士聞道，大笑之。不笑不足以為道。
When the best student hears about the way, he practices it assiduously; when the average student hears about the way, it seems to him one moment there and gone the next; when the worst student hears about the way, he laughs out loud. If he did not laugh, it would be unworthy of being the way (Lau Reference Lau2001: 61; Liu Reference Liu2009: 426).
The laughter from the worst student reveals their ignorance and misunderstanding of the Dao, while simultaneously demonstrating its profound and obscure nature. In the Li ji 禮記 (Records of Ritual), we also encounter scornful laughter when Zi Lu 子路, a student of Confucius, laughs at others for not properly observing the three years’ mourning ritual. Contrary to Zi Lu's intent to show off his ritual dedication, Confucius points out that such scornful laughter not only reveals a lack of empathy, but also a superficial understanding of the ritual involved (Gong Reference Gong2000: 214–5). The Xunzi 荀子 similarly points out that when great Ru 儒 are in poverty, it is only vulgar Ru who laugh at them (Wang Reference Wang2010: 137–8).
Second, in early Chinese discourse laughter is often presented as neither a spontaneous nor a natural reaction. Instead, it is intentionally performed and purposefully expressed. As argued in the Han Feizi, a ruler's frowning and laughter are intentional (Wang Reference Wang2018: 230). In the chapter “The lower left series of the outer congeries of persuasions” (Waichushuizuoxia 外儲說左下), we hear of the questionable intentions of Marquis Jian of Zhao 趙簡子, which are vividly exemplified by his laughter. The Marquis asks Yang Hu 陽虎, who had been expelled from both Lu 魯 and Qi 齊 before finally being employed by the state of Zhao 趙, whether he is good at discovering talents and empowering them. Yang Hu disputes this and explains that all the people that he has helped eventually either colluded and turned their backs on him, or were indifferent and pretentious when he needed their assistance. Upon hearing this, the Marquis bends over in laughter and replies that a gentleman should be cautious in employing people, just like an orange tree bearing tasty fruits, but whose branches will prick you once you get too close (Wang Reference Wang2018: 302). In the same chapter, Marquis Jian's reply is criticized, since he mistook Yang Hu's genuinely selfless and virtuous intention to discover talents and empower them for hypocrisy, as Yang Hu was known to cover up his evil intention and probe his ruler's mind on other occasions (Wang Reference Wang2018: 293).
In that context, Marquis Jian's laughter is interpreted as an assertion of power, which signals that he sees through the superficial words of Yang Hu. However, in light of other comments appearing in the same chapter, we could also interpret the reply of the Marquis as revealing his skill for rulership. He understands the capabilities of Yang Hu, while also acknowledging the problems and suspicions surrounding him. The laughter of Marquis Jian shows an appreciation of Yang Hu's honesty and loyalty, and a sharp understanding of Yang Hu's political ambition, without feeling suspicious and offended. The Marquis’ laughter helps to build trust between them. Meanwhile, his humbling and appreciative gesture reveals both the Marquis’ awareness of Yang Hu's potential danger as well as his confidence that he can control it without compromising the relationship. Just as in the analogy of the orange tree, if one is skilful enough one can enjoy the sweet fruit while remaining cautious of its thorns (Wang Reference Wang2018: 302).
The use of laughter in early China is not limited to any particular social status, be that gardeners, rulers, or minsters. Even an otherwise eloquent minister like Yan Ying 晏嬰 uses laughter to persuade and to criticize. In the Yanzi chunqiu, laughter is used as an intentionally performed and carefully designed act to remonstrate with rulers while stating one's own position. The following story offers an example of how laughter can sometimes be more effective and powerful than speech:
景公遊于牛山，北臨其國城而流涕曰：「若何滂滂去此而死乎！」艾孔、梁丘據皆從而泣。晏子獨笑于旁，公刷涕而顧晏子曰：「寡人今日游悲，孔與據皆從寡人而涕泣，子之獨笑，何也？」晏子對曰：「使賢者常守之，則太公、桓公將常守之矣；使勇者常守之，則莊公、靈公將常守之矣。數君者將守之，則吾君安得此位而立焉？以其迭處之，迭去之，至于君也，而獨為之流涕，是不仁也。不仁之君見一，諂諛之臣見二，此臣之所以獨竊笑也。」(Zhang Reference Zhang2016: 44).
Lord Jing travelled to Mount Niu and faced north, looking down on the walls of his capital. He began to cry. He said: “[How can I bear] to die and leave such a wonderful place?” Ai Kong and Liangqiu Ju both cried with him. Master Yan stood off to one side and laughed. The Lord dried his tears and turned his head to look at Master Yan. He said: “Today I am really not happy, so Kong and Ju are both crying with me. You are the only one who is laughing; why is this?” Master Yan replied: “If a wise man could keep [his state] forever, then the Great Lord, or Lord Huan, would still have [Qi]; if a brave man could keep [his state] forever, then Lord Zhuang or Lord Ling would still have [Qi]. If so many other rulers ought to have it, how can your lordship keep your title? [The state of Qi] has come down to your lordship because they possessed it one after the other, and then left it. It is not benevolent to bewail this [natural process]. I can see one unbenevolent ruler and two sycophantic ministers. This is the reason why I was laughing to myself.”Footnote 14
Though Master Yan 晏子 explains his laughter as a private expression of his emotion he was merely “laughing to himself” (du qie xiao 獨竊笑), the theatrics of the situation show he purposefully performed his laughter in public in opposition to the other ministers: he actually “stood off to one side and laughed” (du xiao yu pang 獨笑于旁). Laughter is unexpected in this context and is firstly used to arouse curiosity and attention. Lord Jing, upon hearing it, immediately directs his attention to Master Yan, providing the latter with an occasion to persuade him.
Secondly, laughter is a euphemistic expression of Master Yan's public confrontation with Lord Jing. Acting contrary to how a minister should have performed, Master Yan clearly demonstrates his disagreement without using any vain words. Furthermore, choosing to stand out by laughing can be seen as a gesture that marks Master Yan's difference and dissociation from the other ministers. Knowing that Lord Jing will react with anger and accusation, Master Yan's derisive laughter not only shows his ethical and intellectual superiority, but also his rhetorical skills and courage in remonstrance. Like Master Yan, the musician Shi Kuang 師曠 is also good at employing laughter as a form of criticism. In the Han Feizi, we read about laughter bursting out in court when Shi Kuang disagrees with his colleague Shu Xiang 叔向 while they are discussing whether it is the ruler or high ministers who hold decisive power in the conquest of territories. Being a musician, Shi Kuang is even able to accompany his laughter with a piece of music on his qin 琴 instrument (Wang Reference Wang2018 [1998]: 362).
It is worth noting that the act of laughter is not exclusive to men in early China. Though public speech for women was rare at the time, laughter provided women with a chance to deliver their opinions. Female laughter was often considered a sign of women's lack of education. Olivia Milburn gives examples of how it was used as a discriminatory reaction towards disabled persons and also reflected people's foolish understanding of beauty (Milburn Reference Milburn2007: 14–7). However, in the Zuo zhuan, we see how female laughter is associated with the appreciation of talent and virtue:
昔賈大夫惡，娶妻而美，三年不言不笑，御以如皋，射雉獲之，其妻始笑而言，賈大夫曰，才之不可以已，我不能射，女遂不言不笑夫. (Yang Reference Yang2018: 1665).
Some time ago there was a high officer of Gu who was ugly. He took a wife who was beautiful, and for three years she neither spoke nor smiled. He drove her out into a marsh in his chariot and shot at a pheasant. When he hit it, his wife smiled and spoke for the first time. The high officer of Gu said, “Talent is something one cannot do without. If I could not shoot, you would never have spoken or smiled!” (Durrant and Schaberg Reference Durrant, Wai-yee and Schaberg2016: 1690–2).
The text sets up a situation which fits with the standard assumption that the beautiful wife would not smile because her husband is ugly, suggesting that she dismisses him because of his physical appearance rather than appreciating his character. Such an assumption is proven to be wrong in the latter half of the anecdote. The expectations of the reader are reversed to show that female laughter is not just about being ignorant, uneducated, or seductive. Instead, it is used here to appreciate, affirm, and encourage the talent of her husband. It is also worth noting that the expression “neither spoke nor smiled” (bu yan bu xiao 不言不笑) is otherwise conventionally used in early Chinese texts to express Confucius’ virtue of timely speech and of laughter only when fitting the occasion (Cheng Reference Cheng2008: 975), but this passage shows that it can also be applied to mark the virtue of a woman.
While laughter in the Zhuangzi indicates a transformation of perspective, and an embodiment of ethical ideals, for the Mencius, laughter is morally regulated. In the Mengzi, we are also informed that “flattering laughter” (chan xiao 諂笑) is not what a gentleman approves of, because laughter through its intentions is a manifestation of moral cultivation, or the lack thereof (Jiao Reference Jiao2017: 443–4). Furthermore, the Mengzi makes clear that gentlemen's laughter not only reveals their shared values as distinct from the masses, but also signals criticism towards actions that are inappropriate. This is shown in the story of Feng Fu 馮婦, who, while claiming to have been transformed from a tiger catcher to a gentleman, still rolls up his sleeves to go after a tiger whenever he sees one. Contrary to the crowd's delight, the true gentleman laughs scornfully at the actions of Feng Fu, since it is a clear sign that he does not know when to stop (Jiao Reference Jiao2017: 987–8). In the Lüshi chunqiu, Gongsun Zhi 公孫枝 points out that laughter signals the ability to appreciate moral worth. When Gongsun Zhi advises Duke Mu of Qin 秦穆公 to assign official duties to Boli Xi 百里奚, a lowly prisoner of war who had been acquired by Gongsun Zhi for the price of five sheepskins, the Duke immediately rejects it because the world would laugh at him (wunai tianxia xiao hu 無乃天下笑乎) for granting Boli Xi such a promotion. Duke Mu's fear of humiliation reveals his limited appreciation of true worth and his adherence to superficial value judgements. As Gongsun Zhi's response shows, anyone who is able to appreciate true worth would not laugh (fu shei jia xiao zai 夫誰暇笑哉) at the proposed promotion of Boli Xi. For such laugher would only reveal short-sightedness and lack of virtue (Xu Reference Xu2009: 336–8).
Lastly, laughter is used as a signal to show exclusion. In the chapter “King Hui of Liang A” (Liang Hui Wang shang 梁惠王上), when Mencius asks King Hui of Liang 梁惠王 what his greatest desire is, “the king laughed without saying a word” (wang xiao er bu yan 王笑而不言, Jiao Reference Jiao2017: 89). David Schaberg argues that laughter in early Chinese texts can show someone's sincere understanding and appreciation of criticism targetted at him in remonstration. In other words, laughter can indicate a decoding of hidden criticism (Schaberg Reference Schaberg and Kern2005: 194–225). However, in the case of King Hui's laughter, such a function of laughter does not apply. After King Hui laughs, Mencius continues to propose interrogative questions which King Hui either directly confirms or negates. This shows that by having a laugh, King Hui allows himself to communicate with his subordinate and lets him put forward questions without explicitly stating his own ideas. Through laughter, King Hui also gives Mencius a test regarding whether he understands the ambition of King Hui and can be included in his political project.
Conclusion
Alhough we can no longer hear the sounds of ancient Chinese laughter, written texts still allow us to investigate its uses in great detail and pursue questions about its distribution, prevalence, and variety. Through an examination of laughter in the Zhuangzi and beyond, this paper calls for a more general survey of laughter in early China. As in the West, laughter is not merely a sign of humour. Unlike the assumptions of the dominant theories on humour, in many early Chinese texts one does not burst out in laughter in response to situations violating one's expectation. Instead, it is an act of disagreement and remonstrance that is intentionally planned, publicly performed, and purposefully demonstrated, by both men and women, officials and commoners, in public and in private.Footnote 15 Also, laughter does not necessarily only show derision and contempt. Instead, it can be used as a tool to criticize and act against things with which one disagrees. It can also reveal true understanding and appreciation. Furthermore, it invites readers to share values which would otherwise be considered ridiculous, while signifying a change of perspective and emotions. Last but not the least, it breaks through rigid atmospheres and facilitates conversations between people of different social status. The diverse reasons for laughter indicate that there is no single answer to the question of what causes laughter. People's social status, different thematic settings, and one's assumed behaviour, all change the particular practical effect of laughter.
Precisely because the connotations of laughter are hard to pin down, laughter arises primarily in contexts where argumentative language does not serve its rhetorical purpose. In the case of remonstrance in the Yanzi chunqiu, Yanzi's multi-layered laughter forms an apt way of criticizing Lord Jing's unreasonable, confusing and un-benevolent self-pity. And in the context of political engagement, the laughter of Marquis Jian of Zhao matches well with the puzzling answer by Yang Hu. Marquis Jian's laughter is open to interpretation. It fits with the idea found in the Han Feizi that the sovereign should consistently act while camouflaging their emotions and hiding their intentions (Galvany Reference Galvany2012: 30–4).
