Humor for solidarity

Humor is often portrayed as trivial and “just for fun,” and if this is indeed the case, we might expect its use in developing relationships to be among its least important functions. Surely strong friendships can be formed without a shared sense of humor. Yet, as the research discussed above shows, shared humor pref-erences and laughing together result in demonstrably more positive emotions toward and personal evaluations of the speaker. Therefore, we can predict that unsuccessful humor will result in negative reactions to the speaker, and indeed, this prediction is borne out by an examination of naturally-occurring interaction.

In analyzing examples of humor that is intended to increase solidarity, but that fails to amuse its audience, I begin with the most extreme reactions to failure:

Those that result in marginalization or exclusion of a group member.

One instance of this was already discussed in the previous chapter (example 6.22), where Brenda, a new employee, found the joking culture of the company inappropriate and hurtful. When she chastised her colleagues for their humorous style, she was excluded from all but serious communication (Plester and Sayers 2007). Similarly, Collinson (1988) reported on the rather aggressive style of humor that was employed by workers on the shop-floor of a truck factory. Newcomers who did not share this sense of humor were either ostracized, or adapted and learned to partake in the culture (p. 189). Yet another example is found in Duch-eneaut and Moore’s (2005) discussion of socialization in an online gaming com-munity. In this excerpt from an online conversation during a game, B is a new addition to the already-established group of three friends who play together:

Example 7.1

01 E tells the group: the plan is to power level 02 C tells the group: cool

03 B tells the group: i have a 17 mag that could pop your head like a zit 04 (long pause)

05 B tells the group: lol 06 (longer pause)

07 E tells the group: the question is where and what color should the mob be (Adapted from Ducheneaut and Moore 2005: 97)

This group enjoyed joking together, but as is evident from their silence following B’s attempt at joking in line 03, they did not appreciate B’s style of humor. Duche-neaut and Moore report that “Eventually the group abandoned B, in part, because he simply was not funny” (p. 97). It is important to acknowledge that although this phenomenon was common enough to warrant inclusion in this article as one of the interactional practices of members of this community, the authors also note that it was repeated acts of joking that were not in keeping with group norms that would cause a player to be excluded. Their description of B’s abandonment, above, shows that his final exclusion took time to occur (“eventually” he was abandoned) and that the group had additional reasons for dropping him (it was only “in part” because of his failed jokes). Thus, although this shunning of those who do not share norms of humorous interaction remains poignant, it seems that individuals are not necessarily quick to exclude another on this basis alone. A few awkward attempts at humor may be forgiven, but continued infractions, or, as in Brenda’s case, open criticism of group norms, are likely to result in a member being ostracized.

When there is no specific community to reference, and little possibility of forming a community, exclusion might be more immediate. This is illustrated by the example that opened Chapter 1, where two strangers on the light rail did not connect humorously:

Example 7.2

01 Woman: the door is trying to close.

02 Girl: (removes headphones) huh?

03 Woman: (smiling) the door is trying to close.

04 Girl: (gives a short, half-hearted laugh) huh. yeah.

The woman’s joke (line 01) playfully manipulated the repeated recorded warn-ings to move away from the doors so that they could close. The failure of her attempt at humor also resulted in a failure to develop affiliation with her seat-mate, whose unequivocally unenthusiastic response conveyed a desire to not engage in conversation. This meta-message seems to have come through clearly to the would-be joker, as she quickly changed seats and found a passenger who would chat with her.

Not all unsuccessful attempts at humor for solidarity are greeted so harshly and not all result in the snubbing of the speaker. As noted above, repeated attempts at jokes that are seen by others as inappropriate are a sure path to social exclusion, but an adept interlocutor who recognizes failure and manages it in a

Failed humor and social action       145

way that minimizes its disruption will likely have fewer problems. In the follow-ing example, Judith, a university student, is interviewfollow-ing the student editor of the school’s newspaper for a class project. Although these two are strangers, as were the interlocutors in the previous example, because they are both young, female students this situation could be expected to be one in which a casual style of con-versation would be most appropriate. Indeed, Judith seems to have interpreted the situation in this manner and makes a small joke as the interview commences.

When the joke is not well-received by the student editor, Judith adapts and con-tinues her interview in a manner that accommodates the more serious style of her interactant:

Example 7.3

01 Judith: what do you like the most about the position and what do you like 02 least about th- your position?

03 Editor: the least is dealing with people 04 Judith: all right

05 Editor: dealing with the sta[ff because uh

06 Judith: [☺are they tough?☺

07 Editor: no it’[s it’s very

08 Judith: [huh huh huh I’m just kidding

09 Editor: it’s very difficult when you have to pull rank on a friend 10 Judith: oh right

11 Editor: like when you have to, for example you- your best friend is- for 12 example I’m the news editor

(adapted from Bell 2002: 182)

The student editor gives no sign of recognizing that Judith’s utterance (line 06) is an attempt at joking, which is probably what prompts Judith to provide multiple cues as to the nature of her remark, in the form of laughter and an explicit state-ment that she’s “just kidding” in line 08. These cues still do not elicit any sign of recognition of the quip from the editor, who continues on with the utterance she began to formulate in line 07. In a later interview about this interaction, Judith did not suggest that an attempt to establish affiliation with the editor was rebuffed, but mentioned that she thought that the editor seemed busy and wanted to rush

through the interview. Having assessed the situation in this manner, after this, Judith not only cut all joking behavior for the remainder of the interview, but also eliminated many of the questions she had planned to ask. The failure of her humor communicated something about the social situation to her, and she adapted accordingly, with the result being a successful completion of the inter-view.

Finally, attempts at joking for solidarity that fail among family and close friends also seem unlikely to result in social exclusion or decreased intimacy.

This seems to be the case even when responses are extremely vehement, as in the sister’s response to the “king of your castle” joke presented in Chapter  5 (Example  5.10). Feelings may be hurt, but the relationship will be maintained.

Repeated sharing of bad jokes also seems to be acceptable among those with established close relationships, unlike among acquaintances. In the next example, the mother is a habitual teller of corny jokes, usually of her own design:

Example 7.5

01 Mother: Michael Jackson’s building a theme park in Ireland. He wants to 02 be with all the little people.

03 Daughter: Uh huh. Yeah. Ok. Good one.

What is important to note here is that the daughter responds in a manner that communicates her lack of appreciation, but the relationship is ongoing, despite the mother’s insistence on telling jokes of this caliber.

Humor that is offered as an attempt to create or reinforce feelings of solidar-ity, but that is not appreciated by its hearers, certainly puts the speaker at risk of social exclusion. It seems, however, that only those very serious offenders will experience this. In this way, reactions to humor may be similar to those for other behaviors deemed socially unacceptable. For instance, making a few rude com-ments or sharing a few boring stories will not necessarily result in a speaker being ostracized. However, repeated iterations of the offending act may cause others to withdraw. Perhaps the most important factor in determining reactions and con-sequences to unsuccessful humor is the social relationship that obtains between interlocutors. This will be further explored in section 7.2.3, below.

Failed humor and social action       147