Interpretations of Why the Chicken Crossed the Road

Everyone’s heard the joke “Why did the chicken cross the road?” with the classic answer, “To get to the other side.” Many consider it the quintessential ‘anti-joke’ that subverts expectations by delivering an answer that isn’t a punch-line.

But there’s an interpretation of this joke in which the answer IS a punch line. This joke doesn’t have to be an anti-joke. I’m not here to say that either interpretation is correct. I only want to explore why so many people are quick to accept the ‘anti-joke’ interpretation.

To Get to the Other Side

For those who don’t understand the punch-line, the answer ‘To get to the other side’ is a play on words. Think about a spiritual medium trying to contact spirits and ghosts. They try to contact people …wait for it… on the other side.  So when the chicken crosses the road, it could be trying to get to the other side by getting run over. This joke uses two different understandings of the same phrase to create two valid meanings.

A surprising number of people don’t interpret the joke this way. Why? Is ‘the other side’ an obscure term? Admittedly, the phrase was more popular in superstitious times, but it doesn’t seem to be that unused in modern culture. Is it really that difficult to interpret? I have a theory.

Children and Jokes

Let me overthink the social exercise of hearing and telling jokes for a moment. As a child, if you don’t get a joke, you risk being thought of as stupid. Children know that when others laugh, and they can’t understand why, there’s something their peers understand that they don’t. Fitting in is a compelling motivator, so children may pretend to understand jokes simply to fit in. The optimal response is to laugh along.

Now, we take into account the anti-joke. Children use this type of joke as a test. If you laugh at the joke, you‘re revealed as a faker. The optimal response when one doesn’t understand a joke changes. Pretending is no longer the best course because you risk being revealed as a faker. In admitting you don’t understand, you still run the risk of seeming stupid. When you don’t understand the joke, the only outcome in which you aren’t vulnerable is if you correctly identify the joke as an anti-joke. So, I theorize that we are predisposed to believing that jokes beyond our understanding are anti-jokes. And thus, we’re more likely to dismiss ‘Why did the chicken cross the road?’ as an anti-joke.

Most people probably heard this joke as children. Most children probably don’t understand the double meaning of the phrase ‘the other side.’ So when most children hear and/or tell the joke, it’s dismissed as an anti-joke. When we grow up, we have no incentive to think any deeper about the joke. It’s already established in our minds as having no meaning. Even though the joke isn’t hard to understand, few people find it worth thinking any harder about.

The Debate

I personally believe that the ‘true’ interpretation of the joke is that of the chicken trying to kill itself. To me, the phrasing and context of the joke align too perfectly with this interpretation to be a coincidence. But, I found that even the Wikipedia article doesn’t acknowledge this interpretation.

In researching this topic, I found people far more opinionated, including myself, than was warranted. Some people know and understand the second meaning, refuse to acknowledge it, and stick to their interpretation of the anti-joke as the correct interpretation. Others who have discovered the second meaning see it as the obviously correct interpretation. Why do people care so much about the interpretation of a joke?

I think it goes back to that social exercise as children. People who hold to the anti-joke belief don’t want to think of themselves as stupid for not having thought of that alternate explanation so they deny that any deeper interpretation of the joke is valid. People who ascribe to the second interpretation see themselves as smart for having ‘gotten’ the joke. They don’t want to give up that feeling of superiority.

Either way, it doesn’t matter. The joke is so old that no one can know its ‘original’ meaning, so the original meaning isn’t relevant to the discussion. Both interpretations make sense, so there’s no obviously ‘right’ interpretation. Getting emotionally attached to one interpretation or the other is ultimately silly. (I admit to having overcome my silly prejudice on this ‘issue’ while writing this blog post. But huzzah, I have grown as a person and can now accept other people’s viewpoints on the subject of why the chicken crossed the road.)

Some Interesting Arguments

Since this is a blog about deeply explaining things that need no explanation, I’d like to share some of the interesting arguments I found in the debate over which interpretation of the ‘Why the chicken crossed the road?’ joke is correct.

One of the most convincing arguments on the anti-joke side aims to find the ‘original’ meaning of the joke on the basis that the ‘original’ interpretation is correct. This argument cited Wikipedia in saying that the earliest known printed iteration of the joke was in 1847. It would have existed in oral tradition for much longer. In those times, cars didn’t exist, and the typical road was not so heavily trafficked that crossing one at any given time was likely to result in death. There were millions of more efficient ways for a chicken to willingly enter the great beyond in those times. So, it’s nonsensical for the original interpretation of the joke to mean that the chicken was trying to kill itself by crossing a road.

My counter-argument is that roads have existed since ancient times. In largely populated areas, roads have always been heavily trafficked with horses, pack animals, carriages, and carts. Roads were probably still relatively dangerous. Also, not nearly as well regulated as the roads of today. People just drove every which way, not watching for pedestrians. I can see this joke coming about as a way for parents to teach their children not to cross streets willy-nilly. “You want to be like that chicken in the joke, little Pete? End up on the other side with your dear departed nan? I didn’t think so.”

Got any other good arguments for either side of the debate? As long as you are civilized, I would love to hear them!