Failed humor and social norms

Whether the failure of humor upholds or challenges social norms clearly depends on a number of factors. Most of these are common to all communication, but they may be evaluated differently in humorous talk. In this section I address three factors that are particularly important to the evaluation of (failed) humor: the degree of transgression in the failed humor, speaker roles and responsibilities, and the degree of intimacy between the interlocutors.

First, the extent to which the content of the failed joke transgresses norms will affect the response and consequences. Transgression is, of course, relative.

One group might tolerate all violent-themed humor, another might do so only if it is presented as a parody or if it does not use marginalized persons as its target, while a third social circle might eschew all such efforts to amuse. This is where humor is a particularly challenging social achievement. Humor that always stays within the bounds of normativity is likely to be deemed stale (one kind of unsuc-cessful humor), but to stray too far into new territory is to be ostracized for having a weird/mean/ugly or just plain inappropriate sense of humor. As has been noted, humor is one of the most important means social groups have of delineating in- and out-group boundaries. Successful humor that falls slightly outside of these lines may succeed in redrawing the lines; however, the failure of such an attempt at humor will likely ensure that the present norms remain in place.

Second, although it is impossible to deny the role of the audience in the joint construction and management of failed humor, I see the status, role, and responsibilities of the speaker, in particular, as crucial. For instance, some speak-ers, such as politicians, teachspeak-ers, and religious leadspeak-ers, may be held to a higher standard than other individuals. Barack Obama’s derogatory description of his bowling abilities as worthy of the Special Olympics (see Example 2.1) resulted in a great deal of public discussion and in him having to apologize to the chair of that organization’s board. A similar remark from someone whose profession does not make him or her responsible for the well-being of others might well have gone unnoticed. The failure of jokes by those who wield power, but who are not in the public eye in the way that celebrities and politicians, but also teachers and religious leaders are, may suffer less from the failure of their quips. In day-to-day workplace situations, for instance, a boss whose humor fails – provided that it does not transgress social norms – will likely be tolerated simply because of the power that person has in creating assignments, assessing work, and giving raises (see, for example, the characters Michael Scott/David Brent in the U.S. or U.K.

versions of the television series The Office for an exaggerated imagining of this scenario).

Failed humor and social action       157

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the degree of intimacy between the speaker and other interlocutors is a crucial factor in predicting the social conse-quences – and sanctions, if any – of a failed attempt at humor. One tool to aid in understanding the role of social distance is Wolfson’s (1988, 1989) bulge theory of social interaction. This theory posits a non-linear relationship between the level of intimacy among interlocutors and the amount of negotiation or elaboration that occurs in conversation. When social distance is either very high, as in the case of strangers, or very low, as in the case of intimates, such as family members, speakers tend to address each other directly. Little speech elaboration is neces-sary, as these relationships are fixed. Within “the bulge,” however, lie relation-ships that tend to be less established and more dynamic, such as those between co-workers, classmates, or acquaintances. The theory predicts that interaction between these people will exhibit the greatest amount of negotiation as uncertain relationships are mediated.

D I R EC T N E S S

Strangers Acquaintances Intimates

Figure 7.1: Wolfson’s bulge theory of interaction

When social distance is high due to a well-established hierarchy, little joking activity occurs between status unequals. When social distance is low, humor has been shown to occur frequently (Carter 2004, Norrick 1993), which is unsurpris-ing given the importance of humor in creatunsurpris-ing feelunsurpris-ings of intimacy, as well as maintaining group identity. Interaction in “the bulge,” among acquaintances and co-workers, has also been shown to be marked by a high degree of joking.

This suggests that humor provides a means of dealing with the ambiguity of such relationships. Even though corpus studies show more play and humor among intimates (Carter 2004), it may be the humor that clearly “does something” in terms of relational work is found in the bulge, where relationships are less fixed and norms constantly need to be negotiated. Furthermore, jokes that present

a challenge to group or societal norms – whether intended or not – seem more likely to occur in the bulge, simply because the boundaries are less clear and more dynamic, changing as relationships change. This also raises the possibil-ity that unsuccessful attempts at humor will occur more frequently among these interlocutors.

The management of failure within each of these social groups differs and does not necessarily adhere to the shape of the bulge, depending on the way that humor fails. Specifically, the two studies on responses to failed humor reported in the previous chapter suggest that there is a difference in the ways that interlocu-tors negotiate humor that failed due to lack of comprehension versus humor that failed due to lack of appreciation. The management of humor that fails because it is not understood closely follows the predictions of the bulge theory, with more direct responses given to strangers and intimates, while acquaintances receive more equivocal reactions (Bell 2013). Similarly, when an attempt at humor is not appreciated, Bell (2009b) found that, as predicted by the bulge, very direct responses were seen between intimates and more equivocal reactions are pro-vided by acquaintances. Unlike the reactions to humor that was not understood, however, many intimates responded not just directly, but with vehemence toward the speaker (Bell 2009a). Between strangers, on the other hand, an unfunny joke did not receive direct responses, but instead tended to receive minimal, neutral responses (e.g., see the response of the girl on the light rail in Example 7.2, above).

This skewing of the bulge toward intimates in humorous interaction is a finding also reported by Eisterhold, et al. (2006), and it suggests that engaging in playful communication is not only quite different between strangers and intimates, but also varies from other types of talk.

These differences are explicable when we consider, in particular, the identity and boundary formation functions of humor. First, the differential treatment of humor that is not understood versus humor that is not appreciated can be seen as indicating the importance and special status of humor appreciation:

While not appreciating a joke can place someone into the category of “people with no sense of humor,” not understanding a joke cannot entail the same assessment, as appre-ciation usually cannot occur prior to comprehension (although cf. Bell, 2007). Having not yet understood the joke, the hearer’s sense of humor cannot be evaluated. Judgments can be made only on his or her ability to interpret the joke, a quality that is not often publicly lauded and therefore is less subject to face threats.

(Bell 2013: 187) The emotionally charged reactions of many of the intimates to the joke that they did not appreciate further supports this view of the status of appreciation – and the ability to appreciate as a positive quality that most individuals want to claim

Deliberately failed humor       159

as part of their identity – in the process of humor reception. The data from Bell (2009a) demonstrated that

sometimes the audience members will see the joke as an indication that the problem lies with them, as well as with the teller, because it implies something about their own sense of humor: Why would you think I would enjoy that joke? Do you think my sense of humor is that bad? The joke, then, becomes a face-threatening act for individuals who want to claim

“good sense of humor” as a part of their face (cf. Spencer-Oatey 2007).

(Bell 2009a: 159–160) Moreover, the relational aspect of identity and face claims explains the attacks on the teller of a bad joke. Humor that violates group norms is subject not only to censure, but, as the data showed, aggressive censure, again demonstrating the significance of humor in establishing and maintaining in- and out-group bound-aries. Clearly sending the message that this type of joking is not appropriate for this group make it unlikely that the teller will repeat this type of humor in the future ensures that social lines are maintained.