SocioLOLgy

Campus Advisor: “What class are you having the most difficulty with?"

Student: “the Bourgeoisie”

The above sentence is supposed to be humorous, right? But why? And why is it important that you smiled slightly when you read that joke? This little piece is going to be about the sociological underpinnings of humour, ideas that may have never occurred to you because we usually underestimate the value of humour in our social interaction, which plays an important role in structuring and re-structuring our social reality every day.

 

 

“A musicologist says to her sociologist friend, “we are not that different, you and I”.  “How so?” the sociologist asks skeptically, “we both study cymbalic interaction”

Taking a sociological outlook, we can take the symbolic interactionist approach to explain why it’s important that you find things funny. Symbolic interactionism states that humour constructs meanings and social relations in a social interaction. In this approach, these meanings and social relations are not seen as fixed and given but as continuously constructed and negotiated in the course of social interaction (Kuiper 2008). Humour is something that lies out of the normalised structure of a daily interaction. Its placement out of the structure and into ambiguity makes it well suited for negotiations and manipulations of social relationships.

 According to the symbolic interactionist approach, nothing is already fixed as funny or serious. It depends on how the conversation is constructed and a shift from serious to a joking conversation becomes “an act of conversational cooperation, which can succeed, be withheld or failed and this shift creates an opportunity for specific types of communication” (Kuiper, 2008). For Goffman, this conversational shift is also referred to as “framing”. A humorous frame re-defines everything someone says within it. Think about it, if someone is saying something in jest, there is this implicit disclaimer that it is not supposed to be taken seriously. In such a situation, it becomes easier to bring up taboo topics and gives freedom to transgress norms. In a fixed structure of right and wrong and black and white, the ambiguous space that humour occupies helps transgress such norms and give space for negotiating change in the structure. For example, to a certain extent, sexual topics are considered to be taboo and sexual ‘non-veg’ jokes in a way help release such tensions and give space for negotiating meaning.  

The functionalist school of thought has a similar way of analysing humour. The difference lies in the fact that humour, rather than challenging the system as in conflict or symbolic interactionist approach, maintain social order.  For example, the idea of the so-called ‘joking relationships’ has a functional role in the society to manage inherent strain in specific relationships in non-western societies.  Joking relationship is “a relation between two persons wherein one is by custom permitted and in some instances required to tease or make fun of the other who in turn is required to take no offence” (Brown, 1940).

Another well-known function that humour serves in the society according to the functionalist approach is to maintain social control. This is done by pointing out what is “abnormal” and linking it to embarrassment and as well as ridiculing something that does not conform to the societal norms.

Humour and Gender

Gender penetrates even in the humorous spaces of life. Studies have shown that men joke more, which affirmed what Coser (1960) realised after her study that those in higher status in the society tend to joke more. Initiating humour is considered more masculine whereas ‘laughing at the joke’ is considered feminine. This way, gender roles are perpetuated through these interactions. Thus, women initiating jokes will be an indicator of a change in the holistic view of gender performativity in the society.  

 

I stumbled across an excerpt from the book 'The Dog’s Last Walk (and other pieces)' by Howard Jacobson published by Scroll.in titled, “As long as we have women laughing, civilisation is safe”. In it is a chuckle some narration of how the theocracies and its variants today have a tough time with humour especially with “women” and humour. He points out how the devil and angel dichotomy is somehow connected to how laughing and humour are bad.

“Whereas the Devil’s laughter pointed up the meaninglessness of things, the angel’s shout rejoiced in how rationally organised, well-conceived, beautiful, good and sensible everything on earth was.” Laughter, by this account, is the vigorous expression of our skepticism, our refusal to believe that everything is harmoniously conceived, or that a benevolent agency" (Jacobson, 2017).

In brief, the excerpt states, a Devil’s critical intelligence, expression of skepticism, a “refusal to believe that everything is harmoniously conceived” versus the angel who cannot laugh because there is “nothing in their conception of the world to laugh about” points humour and laughter to the devil.  Now considering the story of the Garden of Eden, Jacobson sarcastically notes that had Eve not taken the sinful bite, we would have been in a much grateful position. “For if laughter denotes a rebellious spirit, it is also an expression of sexual desire and appreciation.  And while a man likes a woman to laugh desirously on his say-so, he doesn’t want her laughing on someone else’s”. (Jacobson, 2017).  So where women create spaces to laugh and to joke about anything under this planet, it creates space for transgression and according to Jacobson, “as long as women are laughing, “we are safe. From one tyranny at least”. 

Humour has been sidelined in sociological study for the longest time. In an age where stand-up comedians, talk shows and other entertainment platforms, where humour is extensively used play an important part in shaping ideologies, it needs to be taken more seriously. We study social structures and changes bountifully, while undermining the role of humour in facilitating social change yet maintaining order to a certain extent.  What is known to be funny is contextual and therefore reflects the social reality that we live in. Studying humour could hence unfold new understandings about the world around us and the issues existing in it.  The question lies beyond why we laugh, but what we do and don’t laugh at, and what lies in the content of the joke, and why and, who performs it for who and why and these questions can go on and sociology and anthropology have a lot to discover about humour.

Written by-

Vatsala Nongmeikapam, TYBA 2018

References:

Jacobson, H. (2017, May 05). So long as there are women laughing, civilisation is safe: Novelist Howard Jacobson. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://scroll.in/article/836510/so-long-as-there-are-women-laughing-civilisation-is-safe

Jacobson, H. (2017). The Dog's Last Walk: (and Other Pieces). Bloomsbury.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1940). On joking relationships. Africa,13(03), 195-210. doi:10.2307/1156093

Raskin, V. (2008). The primer of humor research.

- Vatsala Nongmeikapam, TYBA