Jon Houston's Notebook

The Paradox of Horror

The Paradox

Consider the following three claims:

  1. Some of us enjoy horror fictions.

  2. Horror fictions characteristically produce fear and disgust in their audience.

  3. Fear and disgust are intrinsically unpleasant emotions.

All three of these statements seem true on the face of things.

But if they are all true, they seem to lead to a contradiction.

Why would we enjoy something that produces intrinsically unpleasant emotions?

Two Ways to Approach the Paradox

There are two main ways to approach this paradox.

  1. Show that all three statements are true, but that they do not actually lead to a contradiction.

  2. Show that at least one of the statements is false.

First Strategy: All Three Statements Are True

The first strategy says that all three statements are true, but there is still no contradiction.

There are two major versions of this strategy.

Cognitivism

Associated with Noël Carroll and David Hume.

According to cognitivism, we enjoy things that arouse and satisfy our curiosity.

Monsters are especially good at arousing our curiosity because they are categorical violations.

They do not fit neatly into our ordinary categories.

For example, a monster might be:

  • Dead and alive
  • Human and animal
  • Natural and supernatural
  • Innocent-looking and dangerous
  • Familiar and deeply wrong

Because monsters violate our categories, we want to know more about them.

The plot of many monster movies involves gradually uncovering more about the monster.

Monsters also arouse fear and disgust.

But on the cognitivist view, this fear and disgust is the price of admission for satisfying our curiosity.

Thus, all three original statements are true.

We do experience fear and disgust.

Fear and disgust are unpleasant.

But the overall benefit of satisfying our curiosity outweighs the cost of experiencing those negative emotions.

Expressivism

Associated with Collingwood and Aristotle.

According to expressivism, we do not enjoy the negative emotions themselves.

Rather, we enjoy the expression of these emotions.

By expressing our emotions, we may unburden ourselves of them.

Or, by expressing our emotions, we may come to understand those emotions better.

On this view, horror gives us a controlled way to experience, express, and process fear and disgust.

Again, the cost of experiencing negative emotions is less than the positive benefit we get from expressing or releasing those emotions.

Second Strategy: One of the Statements Is False

The second strategy says that the paradox can be solved by rejecting one of the original claims.

Evaluativism

Associated with Berys Gaut.

According to evaluativism, statement 1 is clearly true:

Some of us enjoy horror fictions.

Statement 2 is also clearly true:

Horror fictions characteristically produce fear and disgust in their audience.

But statement 3 is suspect:

Fear and disgust are intrinsically unpleasant emotions.

Evaluativism argues that not all instances of fear and disgust are unpleasant.

Fear and disgust are typically unpleasant, but they are not always unpleasant.

For an emotion to count as fear or disgust, we must have a negative evaluation of the object of that emotion.

But we might experience that negative evaluation positively.

For example, we might negatively evaluate the monster as dangerous, disgusting, or horrifying, while still enjoying the emotional experience of making that evaluation.

If this is right, then statement 3 is false.

Fear and disgust are not always intrinsically unpleasant.

Therefore, there is no paradox.

As for why we enjoy horror, that may be a scientific matter.

But there is no inherent contradiction in enjoying horror.

Questions

  1. In his argument for cognitivism, Noël Carroll focuses primarily on monster movies. Are there other types of horror movies besides monster movies? How might his theory handle these other types?

  2. Do we really watch horror movies so that we can draw out our negative emotions? What kind of mood do we have to be in to watch horror movies? Are we less scared or more scared after watching a horror movie?

  3. What are we to make of the person who comes out of a horror movie and says it was not scary enough? Do any of these theories accommodate that person? If I had to guess, I would say that the person claiming this is most likely an adolescent male. Do you think that is a good guess? Why would this be the case?

  4. For the evaluativist position, it seems like the emotion comes after we have evaluated the object of that emotion. Is that really how emotions work? Have we ever been anxious but not known why we were anxious? Which comes first: our rationalizing or the emotion? What might this mean for the evaluativist position?

  5. How might these arguments be applied to other negative emotions in other art forms, such as sad songs? How might these theories be applied to people who seek out painful experiences, such as spicy food eaters, tattooed individuals, or daredevils?