The use of humour in common workplace situations

Index of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Defining Humour
2.1. Humour and the Workplace

3. The Functions of Humour
3.1. Creating Solidarity
3.1.1. Joint Humour
3.1.2. Jocular Abuse
3.2. Rivalrous Humour
3.3. Repressive Humour
3.4. Subversive Humour

4. Relating Humour
4.1. Humour and Power
4.1.1. Lessening Power Differences
4.1.2. Enforcing The Differences
4.2. Solidarity and Group Behaviour
4.3. Humour and Gender
4.4. Creating Workplace Harmony

5. Using Humour
5.1. The Strategic Use in Workplace Environment
5.2. Releasing Tension
5.3. Diffusing Aggression

6. Reactions to Humour
6.1. Unsuccessful Humour
6.1.1. Humour and the Language Barrier
6.2. Unintentional Humour

7. Workplace Humour on Television

8. Conclusion

9. References

1. Introduction

In this term paper I will be talking about the different characters and functions of humour with special consideration of workplace situations. This will be including the use of humour to create solidarity contrary to rivalrous humour and repressive vs. subversive humour. Above all, special consideration has to be taken in exploring the attributes that characterise and differentiate humour from other interactional devices. It will become clear that humour is multifunctional and can work on different levels, which makes defining it difficult. Humour always evolves out of a triggering event in interrelational context and then refers back to it and all of its facets supporting group interaction. Furthermore, I will try to enlighten the linguistic strategies involved. Here the role of power will be in focus. I will show what humour reveals about power relationships and its use either to enforce or to lessen status differences. The connection between the individual and a group can be defined through humour. How solidarity is achieved will be investigated. After this, I will talk about the relation between humour and gender being followed by the strategy to create workplace harmony. The issue of how humour contributes to group life, the way it affects social relations will be another point of interest. Finally yet importantly, I will try to show what kind of reactions can be evoked by using humour. We will see that it can work as tension releaser, as well as an aggression diffuser. Especially the trouble of responding correctly to these will be an issue of discussion. We will find that when the audience is not responding in accordance to the speaker there are two types of possible misunderstanding. The ambivalence of humour can be seen here again, which, once more, makes the problem of defining humour clear. What happens when humour is unsuccessful or unintentional will be in focus of investigation. Failed humour also will be put into relation with language and culture differences. To finish this investigation I will shortly try to examine how the media depicts occupational humour in a (fictional) workplace environment by means of television comedy series. Thereby my focus will be on failed humour. Of course, such fictional interpretation of actual workplace interaction does not recreate the exact conduct of participants but at least gives a proper insight into stereotypical circumstances and exaggerated behaviour.

2. Defining Humour

First, before researching the purposes and fields of application considering humour, it would be useful to give a short and reasonable definition of humour itself. But how to define humour? How to provide a good definition of humour? This is the first hurdle to clear when talking about humour and its effects because it is not that easy to actually define humour satisfactorily. Its multifunctional and ambivalent nature makes it very difficult to define. Humour does not serve one sole purpose but serves a variety of different purposes. There are as many attempts of defining humour as there are facets of its use.

Holmes picks up this problem while trying to give an accurate definition. Her first findings are that explanations oftentimes are bound to “particular theories of humour” (2000: 162). Her insights show us that “some theorists distinguish between humour and wit” and that jokes in particular can be categorized as different from humour as well as they can be categorized as incidents of it (2000: 162).

However, most importantly, she presents us with some basic constituents that are backed up by many analysts. One of these features is that “humour must always involve some kind of cognitive dissonance, such as the establishment of an incongruent relationship or meaning” (2000: 163). This is the crucial factor needed to create a humorous environment. Misunderstanding a relation or meaning, be it willingly or unwillingly, is the precondition that gives way to making a humorous remark. However, at the same time it is exactly this reinterpretation that makes it so difficult to talk about humour in a serious manner. Mulkay considers it the “essential problem” that “humorous and serious discourse operate according to fundamentally different principles” (1988: 7). He compares the attempt of describing a humorous remark seriously to “using words to describe pictures” (Mulkay 1988: 7). Drawing somebody a picture by using words always bears a certain similarity to the actual picture but due to the fact that both are based on different systems of expression there cannot be an absolute identity which provides enough space for re- and misinterpretation.

Furthermore, we have to consider the point of view when approaching the field of humour research. Analysts have been discussing the matter using three different perspectives. First there is the speaker’s perspective. Holmes states that “something is humorous only if it was intended to amuse” (2000: 163). This proves true for the vast majority of such remarks. Nevertheless, there is a small amount of humorous comments that are not intended to be amusing by the speaker and obtain their humorous touch only through the listener. Following this thought will lead to another perspective, namely the view of the listener. Therefore, it has to be considered that this form of unintentional humour exists. Furthermore has to be taken into account that evolving from the speakers perspective humour can be divided into successful and “failed humour” (Holmes 2000: 163). Both presume an intention to amuse. One creates amusement and affiliation but the other one rather separates the participants.

As mentioned before, the audience is just as important as the speaker is. The listener’s perception of a remark is crucial for acknowledging it to be amusing. Now, how does the analyst identify an instance of humour? Surely, the most reliable source can be found in the listener's response. Be it laughter or a smile, both indicate that the intended meaning has been transmitted successfully. Bearing this in mind I can only agree when Holmes concludes that “the speaker and the hearer must both be taken into account in identifying instances of humour: so the speaker's intention is relevant and must evoke an appropriate response” (2000: 163). Holmes here gives us the two most essential parts needed to create a humorous speech act. The speaker is absolutely necessary to set the amusing act in motion whereas the hearer is needed to contribute a, or even any response in order to complete the act. Another important role, especially in the process of examining, plays the analyst whose “identification of instances of humour is a crucial component in the analytical process” (Holmes 2000: 163). Any misunderstandings or misinterpretations undoubtedly lead to exclusion. Hence does the analyst function as a filter. In her definition of humour Holmes sums up her findings:

Instances of humour included in this analysis are utterances which are identified by the analyst, on the basis of paralinguistic, prosodic and discoursal clues, as intended by the speaker(s) to be amusing and perceived to be amusing by at least some participants (Holmes 2000: 163).

This definition though not being able to claim completion gives us a stable basis for further development. Mullany rightly calls it a “complex undertaking” and in addition names laughter as “the contextualisation cue of humour par excellence” following Kotthoff's research (2007: 87). Laughter, though the most obvious clue to humour cannot serve as the sole indicator for it. Its potential ambiguity makes further examination of co- and context necessary. Mullany here takes up Holmes attempt of definition which has already been discussed in this paper. As I tried to point out before and Mullany notes correctly it is necessary to extend this basic definition in order to include further content. Mullany prefers a slightly different point of view as Holmes “beyond a sole focus on speaker intention” and concentrates more on the analysts point of view, examining more of “a stretch of discourse between speaker and hearer(s) […] not just assessed by looking at speaker intention within a single utterance” (Mullany 2007: 87).

By changing the viewing angle Mullany manages to include unintentional and unsuccessful humour which enables her to enhance the former definition:

Instances where participant(s) attempt to signal amusement to one another, based on the analyst's assessment of interlocutors' paralinguistic, prosodic and discoursal clues. Humour can be classified as either successful or unsuccessful (Mullany 2007: 88).

However, one cannot define humour fully without setting it into context. The most important questions arising here are the following. Where is it used, what are the circumstances of the humorous comment? What kind of reactions does it provoke, how does it indicate social interaction? To answer these questions we have to be aware of two basic features always included in practising humour. To begin with the circumstances. The range of possible variations they provide are enormous. The act of humour can for example take place at work, at home, between friends or strangers. In any case, the fact should be recorded that whatever the circumstances are, there are at least two people involved. The minimal group of two participants is the crucial factor for creating interactional humour, consisting of a speaker who makes a humorous attempt and a listener who indicates if this attempt has been successful or not. This proposition leads to the conclusion that humour is highly socially interactive. Humour is always and only used in social interaction. Given that social interaction takes place every day, in every possible situation as soon as more than one person are involved broadens the functional use of humour to a great extent. Now analysts have to focus on limited areas in order to satisfactorily recover the particular functions. This is why of course the way of defining humour always depends on the main emphasis the researchers set out to enlighten their special field of interest inside the extensive and multiple entity of humorous interaction.

While trying to reduce the widespread field of purposes I have chosen to only look at its use in the field of working place culture, which still provides numerous possibilities of usage.

2.1. Humour and the Workplace

As Mullany mentions correctly “humour is not absolutely necessary in order to get tasks achieved” and therefore does not stand in direct relationship to “completing workplace goals ( 2007: 86). As she points out, humour has traditionally been seen as standing “in direct opposition with seriousness” (2007: 86). This point of view, which nowadays is a matter of discussion, can easily lead to a false way of looking at the subject. As seriousness is traditionally seen as strongly work-related, humour as the opposite might quickly be considered as unrelated or irrelevant to work-matters. Nevertheless, it evidently cannot be defined through its oppositional relationship to seriousness as empirical evidence successfully demonstrates. Humour, in order to take place, needs a specific point of reference. Resulting out of the circumstances of the workplace situation, this point therefore must necessarily be connected to issues concerning the workplace.

3. The Functions of Humour

But what functions can humour serve in a working place situation? Clearly, humour does not only have one specific function but enables the user to express his/her views in various different ways and manners and evoke a multitude of diverse reactions. This multifunctionality is a key benefit emerging from using humour. What does that mean in detail? Well, as Mullany states that humour “is frequently used to maintain good working relations in the workplace” she describes the first of the four work related functions (2007: 88). The other functions are the use as “a strategic device to invoke power to produce challenges and subvert existing power relations” (Mullany 2007: 88). Hence, in one way humour can be used to preserve hierarchy whereas at the same time it can be employed to undermine it. It contradicts without being contradictory and thus can be a powerful tool to express an opinion without having to fear the consequences. Mullany mentions that “[p]art of the power of humour resides in the fact that it is indirect and ambiguous. It can operate rather like a safety net, as participants can always deny that they were being serious if challenged by receiver(s)” (2007: 88).

Following many previous analyses Holmes approaches the matter using Politeness Theory and bearing psychological and sociological theoretical frameworks in mind. She finds that the psychological functions, according to Freud, consist of “tension release, the expression of aggression, or hostility” whereas “the assertion of superiority, or the enforcement of social norms” belong to the social functions of humour (Holmes 2000: 164). Hence Politeness Theory does not account sufficiently for humour with a non-cooperative intent Holmes consults Van Dijk's Critical Discourse Analysis offering a more apt analysis of “power relationships in working place interaction” (2000: 164). This gives her the possibility to discuss “concepts such as repressive discourse and coercive discourse” (Holmes 2000: 164).

As eluded before Politeness Theory cannot analyse instances of humour satisfactorily when they demonstrate a non-cooperative intent because the theory presumes the participants cooperation. Therefore face threatening acts are treated with an assumption of a “basic cooperative intent” and naturally only take the speaker's and listener's positive face needs into consideration (Holmes 2000: 164). Whereas “self deprecation [...] attends to the speaker's positive face needs” it is solidarity that displays the listener's positive face needs (Holmes 2000: 164). And how to create solidarity through humour? I will try to explain this in the following paragraphs.

3.1. Creating Solidarity

Now let us start with examining the social functions of workplace humour in closer detail. The most obvious function humour serves is the power of associating the participants. Needless to say that this applies to humour in all areas. However, what is of special interest for this study is that it applies to business related humour. Colleagues in regular interaction develop over time a form of humour that contains in itself a certain amount of insider-humour. Naturally, the more social interaction they encounter with each other the more insider-amusement comes into existence. The same conclusion draws Holmes: “Most workplace humour is inextricably context-bound. Utterances which give rise to great hilarity among work colleagues often appear obscure and opaque to outsiders” (2000: 159). For only the colleagues have the contextual insights and along with that the necessary preconditions, only they can understand. Therefore, the group (of insiders) defines itself by the preconditions all the participants have in common. These groups are not stable because of constant changing of preconditions and what furthermore is important is that each individual can and does belong to many different of such groups. Why can one belong to more than one group? Every social contact creates preconditions for further development. But there are not always the same people involved, therefore the individual shares more preconditions with some than with others thus creating different social groups existing possibly inside bigger social groups.

Let us construct an example to clarify this: There are two men, A and B, and two women, A+ and B+, working in the administration department of company XY. Man A and woman A+ work from Monday till Wednesday, the other pair from Wednesday till Friday. The four of them have a meeting every Wednesday which is the groups precondition and source of shared humour! Inside this group of four there exist multiple smaller groups. What kind of groups could that be? For example man A and woman A+ who work together from Monday till Wednesday have shared preconditions through two more days of conjoint social interaction. The same applies to man B and woman B+. Taking gender into account, even although they might not see each other very often the two women, A+ and B+ have some common preconditions only due to their experiences as women. The same holds for the men. Furthermore woman A+ and man B might be going to the same fitness club, being the source of common preconditions and humour for them.

There are many more possibilities to further develop this example, but the point I tried to make clear is that unconsciously we constantly generate and nourish these social groups. Exactly this character of humour, namely to “create and maintain solidarity, a sense of belonging to a group” is what Holmes calls “one of the most basic social functions” that humour serves (2000: 159). Mullany even goes a bit further and includes in this “strategy to create/maintain solidarity and collegiality” detailed features (2007: 89). Among these features she lists “humour being used to share criticisms of outsiders and others, for self-deprecation, including embarrassment and apologetic sentiments, as a tension releaser and as an aggression diffuser” (Mullany 2007: 89). Furthermore she incorporates “supportive humour signalled by hearer laughter” (Mullany 2007: 89) thereby already pointing towards the participant’s relationship, interaction and cooperation which will play an important role in a special form of humour used to create solidarity. The form of humour in question, namely joint humour will be examined in the next step.

3.1.1. Joint Humour

A special form of collaborative humour or humour that creates solidarity represents joint humour. What is joint humour? Mullany argues that humour “can be produced individually or jointly” (2007: 88). So what makes the difference? Individually produced humour means that one participant acts as the speaker while the other participant(s) give a response to the amusing statement. Hereby the statement presents itself as enclosed and is given from the beginning to the end by one speaker. Jointly constructed humour on the other hand calls for at least two speakers within an enclosed statement. One could also argue that here the statement is not enclosed any more but rather open for apposition. Exactly these “instances where more than one participant is engaged in producing humour” are what Mullany calls “the category of conjoint humour” wherein a “continuum” is created (2007: 88). Following Holmes she explains:

Instances of conjoint humour are classified according to the participant who initiates and then 'seeds' the humour: this participant will begin a humorous sequence, which then progresses to become 'an extended jointly constructed humorous interaction' (2007: 88).

Due to the fact that humour is multifunctional and ambiguous it is no wonder that several functions of humour, maybe working on different levels, can be produced in the same expression. So could joint humour be created by continuing mutual and well-intentioned jocular abuse.

[...]