Journal of Psychology and Judaism, Vol. 22, No. 4, Winter 1998

Creative Pseudo-Reality as a Defensive Factorin Jewish Wit: A Dialectical Perspective

Dr. SAMUEL JUNI is Professor of Applied Psychology atNew York University and a Clinical Psychologist specializingin Differential Diagnostics. He is an avid researcher in thefield of Psychoanalytic Personality. Educated in the traditionof reductionism and determinism. Dr. Juni stresses opera-tionalization in much of his work as a scientific criterion.Concurrently, Dr. Juni is an analytic Talmudic scholar inthe neo-Briskian tradition. His published works include var-ious studies of psychoanalysis, humor, religion, and socialbehavior.

Dr. BERNARD KATZ is Professor of Applied Psychologyat New York University and a trained psychoanalyst. He isactive in the research of cross-cultural personality, and hisstudies feature values as a central focus in the elucidationof culture. As an academic master of the dialectic, his orien-tation approaches social constructionism. Dr. Katz special-izes in teaching psychology from an existential perspectivehighlighting non-linear causality models. His stance towardpersonality inevitably features cultural dynamics, and incor-porates social, political, and economic contexts of behavior.This study is one of a series co-authored with Dr. Juni onhumor and its ethnic vicissitudes.

Theoretical dynamics of ethnic humor are juxtaposed with Jewish wit, showing thatthere is a distinct factor which operates in the Jewish humor response to oppres-sion. Drawing from Ziv's (1986) rich anthology of research and case studies, thisfactor is conceptualized as creative pseudo-reality. It is hypothesized that Jewish

© 1998 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

289

wit features this element of self-effacing humor besides the factors which it shareswith the ethnic humor of other marginal groups. The implicit ability to construct aperceived environment which is bound neither to reason nor to logic, is seen as thelast line of defense for an oppressed minority whose other options have been de-nied. Irony and triumph, suggested as key elements in this factor, are illustrated inannotated stereotypical excerpts of Jewish wit. Throughout the analysis, the di-alectic principle—maintaining the co-existence of inconsistent dynamics—is high-lighted in contrast to the reductionistic either/or approach commonplace in psy-chological and sociological discourse.

THE GUILT FACTOR

The superego is featured prominently in the religious/ethnic heritage of theJew. As Rubinstein (1968) sees it:

... guilt and self blame.... were constantly reinforced by Jewish liturgy... Jewish religiouspractice constantly reinforced the conviction of Jewish life since the exile was punitive,(pp. 128-129).

But, humor is as intrinsic to Jewish tradition as is suffering. What other culturehas a prescription for a designated member of each community to serve as officialbadchen (or merry marker) at festive occasions? While it is true that royal courtsalways had a jester, the designation of such a person for the "common folk" isa distinctly Jewish phenomenon. Dorinson (1981) points to the preponderance ofRabbis-turned-comics in American Society (as contrasted with the absence of suchphenomena in other ethnic groups) as testimony to the intrinsicality of humor tothe Jewish way of life.

Freud (1928) has formulated his understanding of humor as entailing theencouragement of the ego by the superego to cope with anxiety; the implicitmessage to the ego is: "It is not serious, it is something to laugh at." The resultis a state where the superego is laughing at the id and the infantile aspects ofthe self. Masochistic humor, however, is equated with inward oriented aggression(when outward expression is not feasible) based on the more primal notions ofenergy and force (Freud, 1905). This is particularly stressed in his discussion ofthe pervasiveness of self-effacing humor among Jews:

A particularly favorable occasion for tendentious jokes is presented when the intended re-bellious criticism is directed against the subject himself, or, to put it more cautiously, againstsomeone in whom the subject has a share—a collective person, that is (the subject's ownnation, for instance). The occurrence of self-criticism as a determinant may explain how itis that a number of the most apt Jokes— have grown up on the soil of Jewish popular life.They are stories created by Jews and directed against Jewish characteristics, (p. 11)

In his dissertation on Jewish Humor, Ben-Amos (1973) cites a variety of liter-ary and sociological works which elaborated and buttressed the original Freudian

290 Juni and Katz

observation. Typical of the mode, is the psychological interpretation by Grotjahn(1957):

Aggression turned against the self seems to be an essential feature of the truly Jewishjoke. It is as if the Jew tells his enemies: "You do not need to attack us. We can do thatourselves—and even better." (p. 12)

PSYCHOPATHOLOGY VS. ADAPTIVE DEFENSE

Reik (1962) noted a divergence in Jewish humor and saw the difference asreflecting the general behavior of the Jew which oscillates "between masochisticself-humiliation and paranoid superiority feelings" (pp. 230-231), leading to whathe sees as the psychopathology of Jewish wit. Reik generalizes his observationsbeyond the Diaspora, finding a parallel in the relation of the ancient Hebrews totheir neighbors to that of the Jews in Europe.

In Ben-Amos' review of Jewish humor of the last century, he concludes thatmost analysts see this style of wit as ...

... a reflection of certain given socio-economic environmental factors. Similar circum-stances should produce the quality of self-ridicule in the humor of any other ethnic group.Thus, according to this social rather than psychological determinism, Jewish humor is notan expression of the genius of the Jewish people, but just a particular case of a generalsociological principle, (p. 117)

Humor encapsulates specific nuances of experience. Since self-aggressioncan be functional as such, we reject Reik's (1962) notion that self-effacing humoris intrinsically pathological. Clearly, the adoption of a particular style of behavioralresponse (such as humor) is determined by adaptive survival dynamics. Disagree-ing with Grotjahn (1970) who sees implicit self hatred in the phenomenon, wepostulate that an adaptive mechanism is extant here. Furthermore, deeper meta-messages in the joke-work actually feature positive aspects about the Jew, renderingthe overt negative message of the joke merely a "pseudo-masochistic" vehicle forthe defensive joke mechanism. Psychodynamically, then, "Jewish humor is notmasochistic but in the service of ego mastery" (Schlesinger, 1979, p. 326).

Jaspers (1965), in his analysis of the Greek tragedy theme, typifies the phe-nomenon by declaring that "destruction is the atonement of guilt" (p. 49). This iscontrasted sharply by Gertel (1976) from Jewish guilt, where expiation is directlytranslated into suffering as a means of ultimate redemption rather than impendingdoom. Thus, if the Greek tragedy should serve as the prototype of identificationwith the aggressor, it follows that Jewish self-punitiveness is not at all consonantwith that particular construct. Indeed, the suffering of the Jews is not heroic butexpedient in the ultimate analysis.

In perhaps a more macabre extension of this defensive mode, we might wellconceptualize the group suicide at Massada as the ultimate defense of a peoplewho were left no alternative; in that gruesome finale, perhaps they had "the final

291Creative Pseudo-Reality as a Defensive Factor in Jewish Wit

victory." We reconceptualize such humor as a tool for maintaining a sense of controland superiority over oppression. From an existential perspective, this reflects anaffirmation of choice in a circumscribed field. Specifically, the choice is not whetherone dies or not, but rather—how to die. A new option is thus carved out wherethere appeared to be none, and mastery of one's fate is restored to some extent.

Humor which is a true reflection of identification with the aggressor defies thepremises of defense mechanisms as we know it. Insofar as reality testing subsumesthe rational evaluation of the consequences of behavior, accepting attack and—moreover—joining with it, cannot be seen as adaptive within our conceptual model.

But, precisely there, lies the solution to this adaptive enigma. The notion ofnormalcy is usurped by the Jewish humor response of Turning Against the Self; thisresponse is, in fact, a bone fide defense mechanism within the normal repertoire(Juni, 1997). Implications based on reality testing and cause-effect sequences aresummarily usurped and dismissed in an adaptive break with rules of order, as befitsa people who are mired in an intolerable Kafkaesque vise of merciless persecution.Based on logical analysis, the response is indeed not defensive. "But," the flailingvictim seems to say, "since when has logical analysis done me any good?" AsMeghnagi (1991) depicts i t . . .

Since he cannot escape accusation, the Jew turns the accusation on to himself, transferringhis guilt on to another plane in order to free it from the vicious circle of accusation andcounter-accusation (p. 223).

Some researchers have labeled this mode of wit as ironic humor. It is the powerof irony to turn weakness into strength, criticism into self congratulation, andvulnerability into victory (Mintz, 1977).

Grotjahn (1957) builds upon Reik's (1962) equation of (Jewish) humor andmelancholia, seeing the process as an implicit acceptance of human suffering.Humor should not lead to loud laughter, but to the "sad smile of the great clown"(p. 99). As Sholom Aleichem's Tevye The Milkman puts it, one eye is laughingwhile the other is weeping (Aharony, 1982). Grotjahn contrasts humor to wit, whichhe relates to sadistic aggression. By his reckoning, the Jewish joke stands betweenwit and humor. In his contrasting Jewish from other jokes, Grotjahn argues thatwhile the latter are merely insults (often disguised) against an ethnic group, theJewish joke features a triumphant turn-around which converts insult into victory,and heralds victory via defeat.

Masochistic indulgence implies acceptance of suffering, according to Grotjahn(1957):

Gentile and Jewish jokes follow the same dynamics: A hostile trend is repressed, undergoesa clever disguise, reappears now in acceptable form, and the energy that was originallyintended to repress the aggressive idea can now be liberated in laughter. The Jewish jokefollows the same unconscious dynamics as the gentile joke, but with a special twist. Jewishjokes are also disguised aggression, but the Jewish joke proclaims loudly and clearly: You,the anti-Semite, cannot hurt us, because you do not really know us. We know ourselvesbetter than anybody else. We know our weaknesses and our faults (p. 98) the way weare is our way and for us the right way (p. 99).

Juni and Katz292

This argument is in fact consonant with Freud's (1903) notion of self insight as aprerequisite of Jewish wit:

Jews know their real faults as well as the connection between them and their good qualities,and the share which the subject has in the person found fault with creates the subjectivedeterminant (usually so hard to arrive at) of the joke-work (Freud, 1903, pp. 111-112).

The aggressor typically perpetrates an act. The purpose of the aggression,however, is not the act itself, but rather its intended effect upon the victim. Theaggressor wants the victim to feel victimized. By renouncing the logical evaluationof an attack, the victim can thus deny the attacker success, since the victim's innerworld is governed by novel illogical rules which immunize him from the externalsystem. There is more at stake here than a mere stoic pretense of not showing thebully just how much the attack really hurt. We refer to a novel mind set, ratherthan to a deceptive maneuver. By emancipating them from the confines of realitytesting (and its socially subsumed correlates), the victim snatches the prize fromthe perpetrator: "You will never defeat me," he triumphs, "since I refuse to see itso." Dynamically, self deception when practiced to the hilt, succeeds in deceivingothers as well!

DUALITIES INTERLOCKED

Two prototypes frequent Jewish folklore: the schlemiel and the schlemazal.The two are depicted anecdotally where the bumbling waiter (the schlemiel) spillshot soup (by mistake, of course) on the lap of the (innocent, of course) patron (theschlemazal.) Wisse (1971) describes the hapless victim who has come to gripswith his total lack of empowerment, having stumbled onto truth which may eludeothers who cling to an illusion of power. The strength of the schlemiel is that hisrevelation leads not to despair but to a will to live without mock heroics or unduesoul searching. Schlesinger (1979) argues that when we laugh at this unfortunate,our self aggrandizement at his expense is apt to suddenly lose its foundation, aswe realize that "we are him and we are laughing at ourselves" (p. 325).

What seems to be missing in the published analyses of these two partners invictimization, is their intrinsic dialectic interdependence. They are, in fact, twohapless characters imprisoned in the cultural network of the Jew in the diaspora.Without the schlemiel, there can be no schlemazal! From the perspective of defen-sive dynamics, it can be thus be concluded that the two earmarks of Jewish wit—laughing at the self (as victim) and the other (as aggressor)—are indeed comple-mentary manifestations of a single maneuver. By relegating the entire phenomenonof victimization to the humor domain, the aggressor loses his punch precisely as(or because—or causing) the victim loses his pain (or gains his dignity). Althoughthese two prototypes are both Jewish victims of the oppressed domain, these com-plementary dynamics can easily be applied to the everlasting antithetical relationbetween the Jew and his gentile oppressor. In the latter more pivotal context, then,

Creative Pseudo-Reality as a Defensive Factor in Jewish Wit 293

perhaps the self-deprecating humor of the victim can only be understood as part ofa larger process which mitigates the legitimacy of the aggressor simultaneously.

It can be argued that this delegitimization is merely an extension of a moregeneral dynamic postulated vis a vis the phenomenon of contemporary JewishPolitical Radicalism. Rothman (1978) suggested that such radicalism is designed(defensively) to challenge the extant ideology which renders the Jew marginal. Inthis vein, perhaps Jewish wit is similarly oriented at delegitimizing the premiseswhich promote Jewish oppression.

This dialectic formulation can be taken as a critique of the contemporaryapproach to ethnic wit. The latter approach is reflected in the data based studiesof humor researchers who attempt to determine whether the dynamics of the selfmaligning style are attributable to "turning against the self or to "identificationwith the aggressor" (e.g., Juni, Katz, and Hamburger, 1996). It is being suggestedthat such dichotomizations engenders distortions akin to those of the three blindmen analyzing the elephant. Harington (1596) depicts the absurdity of being forcedto choose one of several equally legitimate aspects of satire on the very title pageof his final volume of his trilogy:AN APOLOGIE 1. Or rather a retraction. 2. Or rather a recantation. 3. Or rathera recapitulation. 4. Or rather a replication. 5. Or rather an examination. 6. Orrather an accusation. 7. Or rather an explication. 8. Or rather an exhortation.9. Or rather a consideration. 10. Or rather a confirmation. 11. Or rather all ofthem. 12. Or rather none of them.

The ironic twist to Jewish wit is implicit rather than explicit in the text ofthe joke. The joke itself, in its form, is indistinguishable from any other ethnicjoke in its denigration of the incompetent minority. It is the social context—boththe immediate context of the "telling of the joke" (including the nature and groupmembership of the audience and the joke teller) as well as the historical parametersof the group—which elicit the unspoken finale of victory through defeat. It is thisdialectic synthesis of victory and defeat which forms our hypothesized cornerstoneof this style of wit.

MARGINALITY

Some authors have focused on the transition process as central to Jewishhumor. Sadan (1951), for example, in a comparison of humor in different periodsof Hebrew literature, argues that masochistic attributes are part of the folklore ofthe "transitional Jew," who has left the ghetto, but has not yet become integratedinto the majority culture. Self mockery serves the very process of assimilation; bylaughing at traditional Jews, the transitional figure cements his association with thelarger host culture. Landmann (1962) supports the latter view by a meta-analysisof "Jewish humor" showing that it flourished primarily between the eighteenth andtwentieth centuries, a period when assimilatory movements were at their peak. Her

294 Juni and Katz

remarkable conclusion is that in eras of non-assimilation, there is no distinctiveJewish humor; modern Israel is thus as humorless as the Bible. A milder summationcan be found in Nevo's (1984) assertion that "Jews in Israel have changed theirhumor habits" (p. 195).

It is our view, however, that transitionality does not suffice to capture theprecise dynamics of Jewish wit that has allowed the Jew to usurp the ownershipof masochistic ethnic humor and transform it into "Jewish humor" by brandingit with this fantastic resolution. In our view, the central dynamic at play here isone of marginality; i.e., the fact that Jews always remained peripheral to the hostculture of the Diaspora, forcing them to attempt to create their own identity, withuneven results.

Despite meta-analytic conclusions to the contrary (Eckardt, 1992), we positthat it is the chronic marginality of the Jewish people—a marginality which has per-sisted as such despite thousands of years of persecution and attempts at stampingout, and has made survival in a hostile environment synonymous with Judaism—that is being reflected in the idiosyncratic humor of its people. It can be arguedthat Jews have the distinction of maintaining a distinct ethnic identity which haspersevered and withstood assimilation/annihilation without the frame of referenceof an existing homeland, and that this phenomenon is predicated on a transcen-dent stance toward reality and a characteristic ability to overcome it. Illustrativeis a truism verbalized among holocaust survivors: One has to be crazy to havecome through such an experience sane. It is this built-in collective incongruityand non-allegiance to normal "rules of play" which the Jewish joke has come toentail.

Marginality has been heralded as intrinsic to Jewish self-identity (Diamond,1983). The roots of such uniquely ingrained marginality generally parallels themulti-determined foci of antisemitism which have been annotated (e.g., Pragerand Telushkin, 1983; Poliakov, 1965). There have been suggestions in the liter-ature that it stems from their religious non-acculturation, which labels them as"different" from their host culture. Some have suggested that local prohibitionsagainst usury by Catholic Church, coupled with limitation against Jews partici-pating in agriculture, have both enabled, and then forced, the local Jew to becomethe money lender; this role eventually led to his ostracization. Others have pointedto the massive displacement of Jews as a group (rather than being displaced asindividuals) following the destruction of Jerusalem as contributing to insularityand the ability to withstand amalgamation into the host society.

An interesting hypothesis is offered by Leon (1950), however, which does notdraw from the antisemitism literature and is an intrinsic theory of Jewish marginal-ity as such. Leon's theory hinges on the distinct position of the Jew during the riseof mercantilism. Trade, at that time, was limited by language barriers and also ba-sic mutual mistrust among competing nations. Because of expulsion from Israel ofa large number of Jews and their subsequent dispersion among various countries,

Creative Pseudo-Reality as a Defensive Factor in Jewish Wit 295

Jews were unique in their shared language which enabled them to communicatewith each other, disregarding language and cultural barriers, including ingrainedmutual distrust, which characterized the international and cross-continental Arabicand European communities. The Jew could, thus, always be counted upon to besent as emissary to other nations and domains, for he is sure to find another Jewthere to serve as liaison. It is this role which then marked the Jew as one who isnot really part of the host culture, based on the implicit need for such a "marginal"class of citizen to serve as a intermediaries with the "outsiders." Consistent withLaitin's (1995) principle postulating the perpetuation of marginality based on thehigher economic returns available for such a position (as compared with those ofentry-level positions in mainstream roles), it is easy to understand why this rolepersisted for the Jew. Little imagination is necessary to fathom how this positionthen led to the demonization and ostracization of the Jew when relations withoutsiders proved troublesome. "Blame the messenger" is not quite distinct from"Blame the liaison."

It is noteworthy that Leon applies his theory to explain Jewish marginalitywithin their host societies, as well, besides their marginal position vis a vis inter-cultural relations. Taking a Marxist perspective, Leon argues that it suited thepowerful to interject the Jew as intermediary between the rulers and subjects, sothat the Jew can serve to deflect the criticisms against the power structure. This thenanchored the Jew as marginal, not only vis a vis the host culture's relations withother cultures, but also in the interclass context of the very society in which the Jewfound himself. Leon argues that this is the single instance where a "people class"is extant; that is, the Jew's marginal position is cemented by his identification intoa class which is determined by religion rather than national origin.

The type of humor we are addressing is not intrinsically Jewish in its formu-lation. Rather, it is an integral feature of the marginal. It is clear that any ethnicgroup will feature masochistic (or pseudo-masochistic) humor in its cultural reper-toire during the stormy periods of marginality when it is subjected to an engulfingentity. However, when the situation abates—be it through liberation and autonomyor through assimilation into the host culture—both marginality and masochistichumor are expected to fade in tandem. It is for this reason that masochistic humorhas not been identified as part of specific ethnic legacies since such a characteri-zation is short-lived as a rule. It is the Jew who has defied this rule, managing toexist in marginality for millennia.

It is thus that Jews have assumed ownership over the type of humor which is sowarlike and rebellious that it almost lacks entirely the "peace of mind and appease-ment" which are generally seen as essential joke components (Druyanov, 1963).A vivid example is to be found in the haunting image depicted in Genghis Cohn(Gary, 1968), of the old Hasidic Jew being dragged by the beard by a German whilethe onlooking Germans laugh, with the Jew joining in their laughter (Kaufman,1986).

296 Juni and Katz

DUAL REALITIES UNSYNTHESIZED

Grotjahn (1987) relates the story of the rabbinical apprentice of a great masterobserving his mentor's approach in mediating a marital dispute. After listening tothe wife's complaints, the Rabbi responds to her: You are right, no doubt aboutit. The husband then presents his case, and the Rabbi responds to him: You areright, no doubt about it. When the apprentice points out the inconsistency of theapproach to the Rabbi, he receives the response: You are right, no doubt about it.

While the episode's first two interactions might well be taken as a typical anti-ethnic joke denigrating a bumbling Rabbi, the final exchange carries the profoundand stereotypically Jewish wit message: Logic and consistency are inconsequentialwhen a crucial matter such as family life is extant. The absurdity of the final retortreflects the ability of the Rabbi to transcend rationalism and renounce logic in theservice of his people. The agenda here is clearly not the content but, rather, theprocess. The distortion is in the service of the goal. Once renounced, reality nolonger hinders him from doing the very best with no need for accountability at all.That is the essence of the triumphant turn marking the apex of Jewish wit.

Another perspective in conceptualizing the above story is available by ap-pealing to the affect vs. content schism. The Rabbi, in agreeing with each of themarital dyad is not at all focusing on the content of their arguments. Rather, he issaying to each, in his commiseration with their feelings, "You are right... to feelthe way you do." If the premises for these feelings are based on inconsistent fact,so be it, for the Rabbi's role is one of the great conciliator, not that of the arbitratorof reality. The latter point is indeed the intent of the statement to the disciple whoraises the discourse to the content level: "You are right!" The two incidents areindeed incompatible logically, but always reconcilable emotionally.

Inasmuch as humor often substitutes the absurd for the real (or, perhaps,highlights the incongruous in the logical), there is an escapist element to humorwhich is unrelated to ethnic derision.

The ego refuses to be distressed by the provocations of reality — It insists that it cannot beaffected by the traumas of the external word... such traumas are no more than occasionsfor it to gain pleasure (Freud, 1927, p. 162).

Some writers have seen this element as particularly true for Jewish wit.Schlesinger (1979) uses this dynamic to argue that. . .

... We witness a triumph of the absurd as the postulated, tragic heroism of the others istrumped by the Jew's refusal to bow to reality in order to survive it (p. 322).

As Dorinson (1981) puts it: Jewish humor involves "the forgetting of literal factsto make life more curable" (p. 499).

An entire genre of "inside" jokes (intended for domestic consumption only)has evolved where the impractical ethereal Jewish response to the mundane is

297Creative Pseudo-Reality as a Defensive Factor in Jewish Wit

highlighted, overtly ridiculed, but somehow lauded on the implicit level. The focusof this structure is the city of Chelm, where scholars preside over issues anddebates, fashioning solutions to problems which are totally divorced from reality.The entire township becomes involved in these solutions, resulting in a surrealexistence which is ludicrous and, yet, somehow sublime.

All stories of Chelm follow the same format: A problem, deliberation, pre-posterous solution, and triumph about the solution. An example follows:

The workers of Chelm decided to rebuild the Rabbi's house, which was perched high upon the majestic hill overlooking the city. They proceeded to take apart all the beams ofthe house, and to cut new trees for new beams. To remove the old beams, they worked formany days carrying the beams down the hill. One day, the Rabbi gazed up from his Talmudbook and saw the workers toiling with the beams. Remembering a passage in the Talmudwhich states "Going down is always easier than climbing up," he was inspired and said tothe workmen: "Why do you bother carrying those logs down? Would it not be easier justto let them roll down the hill?" Upon hearing this idea, all the townspeople assembled todeliberate the wisdom of the suggestion. After deliberating for seven days and seven nights,it was decided to drag all the old beams back up the hill and then to let them roll downby themselves to save labor. It was also resolved at the meeting that whenever a house isdismantled on a hill, the beams should be dragged up the hill after they are carried down,so that work and energy could be conserved by subsequently rolling them down the hill.

While to the outsider, the above cited joke will doubtless represent the imprac-ticality of logical analysis bereft of experience, there is an implicit message herefrom the Jew—one of primary allegiance to brainpower and analysis. There areno indications in the Chelm stories that the town-folk merely pretend to go alongwith the Rabbi's dictates overtly, all the while realizing the inherent incongruities.Instead, it seems to involve a reconstructive mind set. Based on a programmedobedience to the authoritarian position, it is up to the Jew to construct reality insuch a way that this power prove valuable. This process also undermines the au-thoritarian position by implying: "We have been doing our thing, and now we alsodo your thing"—the logic of the absurd! If practical reality stands in the way, itwill be disregarded and totally subjugated to the victory of the Rabbi who willinevitably gain points from his solution in the eyes of his people who accept hiswisdom without question.

SUMMARY: THE DIALECTIC FACTOR

This treatise begins by analyzing the role of guilt in Jewish humor. Aspects ofpsychopathology are contrasted with the adaptive nature of wit. Defenses such asturning against the self and self deception are pinpointed in the very fabric of theprocess. Dualities such as the schlemiel vs. the schlemazal are examined, as arethe explicit vs. the implicit domains of Jewish wit. Marginality is seen as central tothe conceptualization of the type of humor studied. The central dynamic hypothe-sized is creative pseudo-reality, where the Jewish defense avows no allegiance to theadjudication of inconsistent elements in the reality of avowed constructs. Indeed, a

298 Juni and Katz

common denominator in the foci discussed is the relatively blatant co-existence ofopposites in marginality and in identification with the aggressor which are utilizedas needed without any attempts at logical synthesis. Contradictions are ignored inthe service of keeping the peace, for it is implicitly known that engagement of thecontradictions would engender conflict.

REFERENCES

Aharony, A. (1982). Shalom Aleichem: Tevye the Milkman. Aleph Pub.Ben Amos, D. (1973). The "myth" of Jewish humor. Western Folklore, 32 (2), 112-131.Davies, C. (1979). Welsh Jokes. Cardiff.Diamond, S. (1983). The state of being Jewish. Dialectical Anthropology, 8, 1-5.Dorinson, J. (1981). Jewish humor: Mechanism for defense, weapon for cultural affirmation. Journal

of Psycho-history, 8, (4), 447-464.Druyanov, A. (1963). The Book of the Joke and the Jest. Dvir.Dundes, A. (1971). A study of ethnic slurs: the Jew and Pollack in the United States. Journal of

American Folklore, 84, 186-203.Eckhardt, A. R. (1992). The heirs of Itzhak. Society, 4, 34-42.Freud, S. (1905). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. S.E., 8.Freud, S. (1914). On Narcissism. S.E., 14, 67-102.Freud, S. (1927). On Humor. S.E., 21, 159-166.Freud, S. (1928), Humor, S.E.Gary, R. (1968). The Dance of Genghis Cohn. New York: New American Library.Gertel, E. B. (1976). Because of our sins? Tradition, 15 (4), 68-82.Greenberg, A. (1972). Forms and functions of the ethnic joke. Keystone Folklore Quarterly, 27.Grotjahn, M. (1957). Dynamics of Jewish jokes. American Behavioral Scientist, 30,96-99.Grotjahn, M. (1970). Jewish jokes and their relation to masochism. In W. M. Mendel (Ed.), A Celebra-

tion of Laughter, L.A.: Mara Books, pp. 135-144.Harington, J. (1596). The Metamorphosis of Ajax. Annotated Edition by E. E. Sonno. N.Y.: Columbia

University Press.Jaspers, K. (1965). Basic characteristics of the tragic. In R. W. Corrigan (Ed.). Tragedy: Vision and

Form. San Francisco: Chandler Pub. Co.Juni, S. (1997). Conceptualizing defense mechanisms from drive theory and object relations perspec-

tives. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 57,149-166.Juni, S., Katz, B., & Hamburger, M. (1996). Identification with the aggressor vs. turning against the

self: An empirical study of turn-of-the-century European Jewish humor. Current Psychology, 14,313-327.

Kaufman, J. (1986). Gallows humor and Jewish Humor: A reading of "The Dance of Genghis Cohn"by Romain Gary. In A. Ziv (Ed.), Jewish Humor. Tel Aviv: Papyrus Pub., pp. 99-108.

LaFave, L. (1997). An irony of irony: the left-handed insult in intragroup humor. In A. Chapman & H.Foot (Eds.), It's a Funny Thing. N.Y.: Pergamon Press.

Laitin, D. D. (1995). Marginality: A Microperspective. Rationality and Society, 7,31-57.Landmann, S. (1982). On Jewish humor. Jewish Journal of Sociology, 4,193-198.Leon, A. (1950). The Jewish Question.: A Marxist Interpretation. Mexico D.F.: Ediciones Pioneras.Meghnagi, D. (1991). Jewish humor on psychoanalysis. International Review of Psycho-Analysis, 18,

223-228.Mintz, L. E. (1977). A continuum description of the motives and functions of Jewish humor. American

Humor; an Interdisciplinary Newsletter, 4(\).Nevo, O. (1984). Appreciation and production of humor as an expression of aggression: A study of

Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15,181-198.Poliakov, L. (1965). The History of Anti-Semitism. N.Y.: Vanguard Press.Prager, D., & Telushkin, J. (1983). Why the Jews? N.Y.: Simon & Schuster.Reik, T. (1962). Jewish Wit. New York: Gamut Press.

Creative Pseudo-Reality as a Defensive Factor in Jewish Wit 299

Rothman, S. (1978). Journal of Psychohistory, 6, 211-239.Rubenstein, R. L. (1968). The Religious Imagination. Boston: Beacon Press.Sadan, L. (1951). Additional notes. In E. Davidson (Ed.), (Sehok Pynu) Our Mouth's Laughter: An-

thology of Humor and Satire in Ancient and Modern Hebrew Literature. Tel Aviv, pp. 513-515.Schlesinger, K. (1979). Jewish humor as Jewish identity. International Review of Psychoanalysis, 6,

317-330.Wisse, R. (1971). The Schlemiel as Modern Hero. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.Ziv, A. (1986). Jewish Humor. Tel Aviv: Papyrus Pub. Co.

300 Juni and Katz