Humour and Satire – A Few Kind Words for Superstition

The present participle is formed by adding -ing (with the final consonant doubled in putting). Go, put, ring and read are irregular, so their past participles must be learned.

(c) He acknowledges its persistence and sees some human value in it.

Davies does not attack superstition; he notes that it survives in even the most educated and modern people, and he treats it with tolerant amusement, finding in it a genuine expression of human nature rather than mere foolishness.

Robertson Davies, in his essay "A Few Kind Words for Superstition," argues that superstition is not merely the folly of the ignorant because it is a universal human tendency found among all classes and levels of education. He points out that superstition survives not because people are stupid, but because it satisfies deep psychological and social needs that reason alone cannot fulfil. Even educated, sophisticated people — doctors, lawyers, sailors, soldiers, and scholars — hold superstitious beliefs, which shows that superstition is rooted in human nature rather than in ignorance.

Two reasons he gives for the persistence of superstitious beliefs in modern society are:

1. Superstition provides comfort and a sense of control in an uncertain world. Human beings live surrounded by chance, danger, and forces beyond their control. When people face situations where reason and science cannot help them — illness, death, travel, exams, or war — they turn to superstitious practices such as charms, rituals, and lucky objects to gain a feeling of security and to reduce their anxiety.

2. Superstition fulfils a deep human need for mystery and wonder. Davies argues that modern life has become too rational and materialistic, leaving no room for the magical or the unexplainable. Superstition fills this gap by keeping alive a sense of the mysterious and the supernatural, which is an essential part of human experience. It also serves a social function, as shared beliefs and rituals bind groups together and give comfort through tradition.

Thus, for Davies, superstition is not the foolishness of the uneducated but a lasting expression of humanity's need for reassurance, mystery, and belonging.

In A Few Kind Words for Superstition, Robertson Davies defends superstition not by proving it true but by using irony and humour to expose the arrogance of those who dismiss it. His strategy is to make the rational, "enlightened" reader laugh — and then realise that the laugh has been turned back on them.

Irony as a weapon

Davies constantly sets up expectations and then undercuts them. The very title is ironic: "a few kind words" suggests a mild, polite defence, yet the essay quietly argues that superstition is a serious and universal human phenomenon. He also uses irony of tone — speaking of superstition in the language of scholarship and respect, as though it were a subject worthy of a university chair. By treating it with mock-solemnity, he shames the reader who dismisses it too quickly.

His sharpest irony is directed at the rationalists. He points out that the same people who sneer at superstition will not walk under a ladder, will knock on wood, or will refuse to sit at a table of thirteen. The "enlightened" are shown to be just as superstitious as anyone else — they simply refuse to admit it. The irony lies in the gap between what people claim to believe and how they actually behave.

Humour as a softening device

Davies's humour works in several ways. He uses exaggeration, treating minor rituals as though they carried great weight. He uses comic examples — the man who will not start a journey on Friday, the woman who keeps a lucky charm in her purse — and presents them without contempt. The tone is affectionate rather than mocking, which disarms the reader. Because we are amused rather than offended, we are willing to keep reading, and by the end we have been persuaded to be more tolerant.

He also uses self-deprecating humour, admitting his own small superstitions. This makes him a reliable narrator: he is not preaching from above but laughing with us.

The defence itself

Through this blend of irony and humour, Davies makes three serious points:

1. Superstition is universal. It appears in every culture and every class, including among the highly educated.
2. It is not the same as religion, but it is related to it. Both are attempts to make sense of a world that is uncertain and often frightening.
3. It performs a psychological function. Superstition gives people a sense of control and comfort in the face of chance. To mock it is to mock a basic human need.

Conclusion

Davies does not ask us to believe in superstition. He asks us to stop being smug about it. By using irony to expose the inconsistency of rationalists and humour to disarm his readers, he turns a defence of superstition into a gentle satire on human self-importance — and in doing so, he earns the "few kind words" of his title.

In "A Few Kind Words for Superstition," Robertson Davies sets out to defend a habit of mind that educated people usually dismiss with contempt. His central claim is that superstition is not the preserve of the ignorant but a permanent feature of human nature, and that it survives because it answers real psychological needs. He therefore argues that it deserves "a few kind words" — not endorsement, but understanding.

Superstition as a response to uncertainty. Davies observes that superstition flourishes wherever life is unpredictable and beyond human control. He notes that it is common among people whose work is dangerous or whose outcomes are uncertain — sailors, miners, actors, gamblers, students before examinations. These are situations where skill and reason can take a person only so far, and where chance decides the rest. When knowledge runs out, superstition steps in to fill the gap. Davies is careful to say that this is not confined to the ignorant; educated and sophisticated people hold superstitions too, often without admitting it. The essay's point is that uncertainty, not stupidity, is the soil in which superstition grows.

Superstition as a response to fear. Davies links superstition to the fear of forces that cannot be controlled or explained. He discusses the widespread belief in fate, luck, and omens as ways of dealing with the anxiety such fear produces. The examples he gives — touching wood, avoiding the number thirteen, not walking under a ladder, throwing salt over the shoulder — are trivial in themselves, but they are rituals that calm the mind. He also points to the deeper, older forms of superstition, such as belief in ghosts, curses and the evil eye, which arise from the fear of death and of unseen powers. Even in a scientific age, he argues, these fears have not disappeared; they have merely gone underground.

Superstition as a desire for control. The most important psychological need Davies identifies is the human craving for control over events. A superstition is a small, repeatable act that gives the illusion of influencing an outcome — a lucky charm, a ritual before a performance, a particular seat or route. Davies compares this to the way primitive people used magic: not as a substitute for practical effort, but as a supplement to it. The ritual does not really change the world, but it changes the person performing it, reducing helplessness and restoring confidence. In this sense superstition is a coping mechanism, a way of making an indifferent universe feel slightly more manageable.

Davies's argument and his "few kind words." Davies does not claim that superstition is true or rational. He claims that it is human, and that it has a social and psychological function. He notes that it can be harmless, even comforting, and that it often coexists with genuine knowledge and intelligence. His plea is for tolerance rather than ridicule: superstition should be treated as a natural part of the human condition, not as a shameful weakness. He also warns that it becomes dangerous only when it replaces reason altogether or is exploited by the unscrupulous.

My view. I largely agree with Davies. Superstition does appear to be rooted in human nature, and it clearly serves to reduce anxiety in situations of uncertainty and fear. The examples he gives are convincing precisely because they are so ordinary and so widespread. However, I would add a qualification: while a few kind words are fair, superstition should not be encouraged to the point where it displaces rational action or is used to manipulate others. Understood as a mild psychological comfort, it deserves the tolerance Davies asks for; treated as a substitute for knowledge or responsibility, it does not.