forms of joking activity: a comparative approach

Forms of Joking Activity: A Comparative Approach

DON HANDELMAN Tel-A viv University

BRUCE KAPFERER University o f Manchester

In considering expressive interaction in two distinct cultural settings, a sheltered workshop in Israel and a section o f a lead and zinc mine in Zambia, joking activity was found to be governed by sets of rules which we term joking frames. Two types o f joking frames, setting-specific and category-routinized, are distinguished. Setting-specific joking depends primarily on resources derived locally within the setting in which this activity occurs. Such frames are highly fragile and setting-specific joking follows an indeterminate course. Category-routinized joking frames are anchored in more general social conventions, and are more resistant to subversion and to re-transposition to overtly serious activity. O f central concern to our analysis is the isolation of conditions which lead to the establishment, maintenance, and destruction o f joking frames during interaction. We indicate that joking activity, and indeed any form o f expressive activity, must be understood in terms o f the emergent, self-generative, form o f the activity itself. So our analysis indicates that while setting-specific and category-routinized frames are established and destroyed by similar mechanisms, the rules included in the latter have the greater time-depth because these rules are better able to integrate su bversive elements which emerge from the course o f joking activity, and the original definitions of category-routinized frames can be maintained for lengthier periods of time.

IN THIS PAPER we analyze a number of sequences of behavior in which joking and fun are the dominant theme.2 We analyze interactions in the order of their occur- rence because we wish to demonstrate the points at which joking is likely to be accepted, sustained, and ended. Our analysis will be directed toward understanding joking activity in terms of the structure of the social setting in which it occurs and in terms of the social relationships of participants. In addition to this relatively conventional approach to the study of social behavior we will analyze the content of each sequence of joking activity in terms of its own emergent form. A central thesis which guides this latter orientation is that joking, or indeed any form of expressive behavior, is not only conditioned by the structure of the social context in which it occurs, but is also mediated and modified by the emergent form of joking activity itself.3 By emergence we mean that any act cannot be understood

in terms of the act alone, but only in terms of the whole patterned sequence of which it is a part. A central concern of our analysis will be to isolate the rules which condition the emergence of certain sequential forms rather than others (Blau 1964:3; McHugh

For us, behavior which is recognized as joking is dependent on the expressed agreement of the participants in the focused activity. In our view, individuals, before they are able to organize their interaction in terms of joking, must receive a license to joke from the persons toward whom their activity is directed. The issuing of a license constitutes a process in which the various participants establish the basis on which to organize their enjoyment of joking activity. We emphasize that the issuing of a license to joke may be rooted in the mutual past experience of participants and therefore does not necessarily have to be negotiated at the onset of each new joking sequence. Once

1968: 24-28).

484

Handelman & Kapferer] JOKING ACTIVITY 485

a license to joke has been issued, a frame is established around the subsequent activity. This joking frame comprises a set of agreed rules which may govern such aspects as who can participate in the activity and the content of verbal and non-verbal behavior. More specifically, the joking frame can incorporate rules which relate to the containment or uncontainment of the sequence and whether the participants will utilize closed or open referents. By rules governing the containment or uncontainment of a joking sequence, we refer to the extent to which individuals are permitted to interact with one another in focused activity within the joking frame. The term contained applies to interaction which excludes the participation of either certain persons or a specified number of persons in the audience. Conversely, joking activity which is uncontained is that in which any member of the audience is free to participate. The terms open and closed apply to the extent to which the verbal referents in interaction are, or are not, ego-specific. Where we state that the verbal referents directed toward a particular person or target of joking activity are open, we mean that the characteristics selected out for comment are not peculiar to that person alone, but can apply equally to other members of the audience. Alter- natively, when we state that the verbal referents are closed, we mean that they apply to the identity and attributes of a particular person or target and to no one else.

The sequences we present in this paper represent two types of joking frames: setting-specific and category-routinized. In settingspecific joking, the beginning of joking activity depends on locally derived cues proferred by and to potential participants. The actual joking activity is expressed in terms of specific persons and their identities in a particular social setting. Such joking cues may have a cultural or normative basis, but they are not primarily prescribed by cultural categories. Because of this, the establishment of joking activity involves a high degree of uncertainty and joking

follows an indeterminate course. Setting- specific joking frames are highly fragile and unresilient, and participants are rarely able to sustain the original definition of the frame in the face of attempts to end the joking discourse, attempts which we term subversion. This is so because these frames do not have routinized or established behavior cues or roles to follow through in joking activity.

In contrast to setting-specific joking, category-routinized joking frames have the license to joke anchored in the common recognition that particular categories of persons can joke with one another. Once the persons concerned have agreed to introduce these categories into their interaction, they are able to proceed to insult and abuse one another without subverting and possibly destroying the joking frame transposing the joking activity to serious interaction. In category-routinized joking the transposition from serious to joking behavior is relatively independent of the joking activity which follows. A convention may be adopted wherein key expressions which designate the cues for category-routinized joking will be introduced during the course of joking activity and thereby help to sustain the joking frame and maintain its resilience. The most important general comment we can make at this stage is that in settingspecific joking, the rules of the joking frame have very little time depth. This contrasts with category-routinized joking frames, the rules of which have greater time depth in guiding joking activity and may last for the duration of the joking sequence. At this point we can refer back to contained and uncontained rules of joking frames. In setting-specific joking, the original rules of containment operate for only one or two interchanges after the joking frame has been established. This contrasts with category-routinized joking where the original rules of containment may well persist for the duration of the joking activity.

We will first present an analysis of two sequences of setting-specific joking in two different cultural contexts, a sheltered work-

486 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [74, 1972

shop in Jerusalem, Israel, and a plant section of a lead and zinc mine in Kabwe, Zambia. This will be followed by the analysis of two sequences of category-routinized joking in the same two cultural contexts. Our analytic approach is designed to allow us to examine both simple and complex joking sequences and, furthermore, this approach will allow us to compare and contrast types of joking activity rather than cultural contexts in which such activity takes place.

SEITINGSPECIFIC JOKING FRAMES

The setting of our first joking sequence was a sheltered workshop in Jerusalem which employed elderly indigent men and women. The workshop produced necklaces of ceramic beads and other articles. While the workshop itself was divided into a front room and a back room, the supervisor and workers who participated in sequence I were all located in the back room.

Sequence I involves an insult directed by one of the most skilled workers at another worker generally considered to be of low status in the workshop. However, the worker of low status turned the insult into a self-directed joke and received support for this transposition from other members of the audience. Two members of the audience entered the joking frame as participants and rapidly elaborated the content of joking in terms of its absurd attributes. Then the joking frame was abruptly subverted and destroyed by the sharp comment of another skilled worker of high status.

Sequence 14 1. Chai saunters past the workshop sink,

stops at Yaacovs worktable, and peers at Yaacovs work over his shoulder. He watches Yaacov for some two minutes.

2. Yaacov continues to work and does not acknowledge Chais presence. Then he raises his head and utters to the room: Chai is fat.

3. Chai quickly ripostes: Im not fat, Im pregnant.

4. Rena, the shop supervisor, smiles and asks: Oh? When will the baby arrive? Chai replies: In four months time. Shimon, working across the table from Yaacov reaches across Yaacov and shakes Chais hands, saying loudly, Congratulations, congratulations. At this point all the participants are laughing.

5. Zahava now interjects quickly and loudly: Pregnant? Fooey. He just drinks too much water.

6. The interchange ends abruptly and Chai returns to his worktable.

We argue that aside from the relevance of the context in which behavior occurred, such behavior must be comprehended in terms of the emergent properties of the linked verbal and non-verbal content of the interaction itself. Contextual and situational aspects like the organization of social space, the organization of work and the social relationships of workers can explain why Chai was selected as a target for insult by Yaacov. They can also explain Chais reaction and his transposition of insult to joke, the acceptance of a joking frame by the supervisor Rena, and by Shimon, and why Zahava subverted the joking frame and the means she chose to accomplish this. The explanation of these aspects of the sequence in terms of the context of interaction emphasizes primarily the social motivations of the participants, why they acted the way they did. Emphasis on this type of explanation often precludes any examination of the structuring of expressive behavior itself. We argue that it is the structuring of emergent properties of interaction which establishes conditions for the success or failure of the manner in which participants orient their behavior. This does not exclude, in turn, major connections between context, situation, and behavior. To demonstrate this thesis we can do no better than begin our analysis.

The sequence opened when Chai saun- tered past the table at which Yaacov worked, stopped, and peered over Yaacovs shoulder to observe him at work. Yaacov eventually responded by insulting Chai. We


will explain this in terms of Chais intrusion into Yaacovs personal space and private territory. Yaacov took a relatively long time to recognize Chais presence. This is related to two factors: Yaacov was focused on his work, and Chai had positioned himself behind Yaacov.6 These factors enabled Yaacov to ignore Chai and define him as not a person. As long as Yaacov could maintain this definition no breach of personal space or private territory was recognized, for someone defined as a non- person cannot invade personal space (Sommer 1969:44-45) or private territory. But Yaacov could not disattend to Chai for very long. Not only had Chai first intruded into territory Yaacov considered his own, but Chai was also peering over Yaacovs shoulder and thus intruding into his personal space. Furthermore, Chai was standing and so attracted the attention of other workers in the room. This decreased the utility, for Yaacov, of continuing to disattend to Chai. This is more understandable if we examine the physical positioning of Yaacov and Chai, and the nature of the area in which they were located during this sequence.

First, however, we must stress that all workers had some conception of private and public territory. In our usage territory is distinguished from personal space in the sense that territories7 are defined in relation to physical markers while personal space is defined relative to a persons body. Thus any worker would carry his personal space with him when he moved to other locations either within or outside the workshop. But territory was situationally defined and deter- mined, and was locked in a social setting. Yaacovs private territory was that area in which he regularly worked. It was defined in terms of the locations of physical markers like his chair and the space it occupied in the different positions in which Yaacov sat, the area on the table where he rolled his clay beads, and the location of his tin plate in which h e placed finished beads, Private territories tend to be recognized even in the absence of their occupiers, although many of the rules governing entry and exit may be

relaxed. Thus if a worker was absent or left his work place for an extended period of time, his place would remain vacant. While the boundaries of personal space may coin- cide with those of private territory, in the case of Yaacov his private territory bounded on a location in the workshop regarded by others as public territory, a location to which the supervisor and all other workers had rights of access and use. This public territory surrounded and included the sink at which workers washed their hands, filled their water glasses, moistened their clay, and cleaned their tools. However, the sink, since it was located right next to Yaacovs workplace, was the point from which intrusions into both Yaacovs private territory and personal space could be made. For example, occasionally the water tap would be turned on too hard, and Yaacov would be sprayed with water. Sometimes this appeared to be done deliberately, and sometimes it appeared to be accidental. In sequence I Chai stood in a workshop location which Yaacov considered his own and which every- one else considered public territory.

The boundaries of private and public territory are frequently ill-defined. The boundary about the sink which distinguished public from private territory was no exception. Indeed, the boundaries separating private from public territory may continuously be open to negotiation and subject to the agreement of others with whom one interacts frequently.* By standing between Yaacov and the sink, Chai placed himself in the ambiguous location the boundaries of which had never been definitively negotiated by members of the workshop. Prior to sequence I Yaacov had been involved in many disagreements with other workers over their rights of access to the area immediately adjacent to the sink.

Given the above information we can now see that Yaacov could not maintain his definition of Chai as a non-person without increasing the risk of other workers inter- preting his lack of reaction as acquiescence that the location in question was public territory. Thus both the delay in the delivery

488 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [ 74,1972

of the insult and the insult itselp must be understood in terms of Chais intrusion and his standing in the location in question. This was not a passing intrusion but a pointed one. Yaacov reacted with an insult because of Chais low status in the workshop. His use of the third person validated the low status of Chai.

We must emphasize that Yaacovs response to Chais intrusion was ambiguous. On the one hand, the insult communicated an instruction to Chai to leave Yaacovs territory. On the other hand, the other workers viewed this as an attempt by Yaacov to commit them to a re-definition of the ambiguous locale as his private territory through the subterfuge of winning their agreement to his statement which expressed commonly held backroom sentiments about Chais physical attributes. The content of Yaacovs insult indicates this, for while he used a closed reference about Chais obesity, this reference was uncontained and thus permitted potential participants easier entry into the sequence. The uncontained aspect of Yaacovs insult is demonstrated by his use of the third person: if he had stated, Chai, you are fat, rather than Chai is fat, the statement would have been closed and contained and would have tended to restrict the interchange to only Yaacov and Chai by limiting the ease of entry of others into the sequence.

Chai did not retreat in the face of Yaacovs insult. He was aware of the difference of opinion over the locale in which he stood. Yaacov expressed his insult in an uncontained form. This made the opinions of others nearby relevant. These factors also partially explain why Chai should attempt a transposition to joking (on transposition, see Emerson 1969). The disagreement over the definition of the locale, and the uncontained nature of the sequence gave Chai an opportunity to enlist the support of others nearby in his attempted transposition to joking.

A more extended consideration of what transposition to joking permits participants to do will increase our understanding of why Chai should attempt to transpose the insult

into a joke, and why those seated near Yaacov should accept this transposition and issue Chai a license to joke.I3 That such license was indeed issued is indicated by Renas question (I: 4) after Chai had stated that he was pregnant. Once persons have agreed to participate in joking activity, other, non-joking, guidelines for social conduct are either ruled irrelevant, reduced in their relevance, or allocated different mean- ings within the joking frame. Once other guidelines were suspended, the rules governing entry into private territory were no longer of immediate relevance for Chai. Chai was able, through joking, temporarily to neutralize rules of spatial conduct which Yaacov wished to apply. By participating in joking activity with others at the table, he temporarily legitimated the primacy of the absurd in social discourse over the rules of spatial conduct. This is of major importance, for Chai only very rarely came into friendly contact with the others who participated in this sequence. His work and physical attributes were often severely criticized by the supervisor, Rena. There were other ad- vantages to be gained for Chai by joking. By stating that he was pregnant he transposed the discourse to the realm of the absurd. The subsequent elaboration of the dimen- sions of the absurd by the other participants blunted the pointedness of Yaacovs insult. This elaboration also excluded the initiator of the insult, Yaacov, who had originally attempted to define Chai as a non-person at the beginning of the sequence.

Clearly, however, it was not only to Chais advantage, but also to the advantage of others, that he be issued his license to joke. When Yaacov declared to others nearby that Chai was fat, they were faced with a dilemma. Not to react could have confirmed Yaacovs view that the locale in question was his private territory. But Shimon shared a worktable with Yaacov and was his closest friend in the workshop. Yaacov was an innovator, a creator of new types of beads, and his abilities gained him the praise and patronage of the supervisor, Rena. A negative reaction from these persons could


have threatened their personal relationships with Yaacov. The opportunity to joke enabled these persons t o participate and resolve their potential dilemma.

Apart from what the transposition to joking allowed the participants to do, there are important organizational features which emerge from t h e development of t h e joking sequence itself. These first strengthened the interchange within a joking frame, and then rendered this frame susceptible t o subversion and destruction. The interchange was strengthened through the issuing of a license t o joke, by the elaboration of the absurd content of the joke, and by the extension of the field of active participants t o include Rena and Shimon (I: 4).16 However, both the elaboration of content and the extension of field were in terms of closed referents directed a t Chai. We strongly suggest that when joking is elaborated and the field extended on the basis of closed referents, then the joking activity is likely to spiral rapidly t o shared enjoyment and then, just as quickly, to fade away. A reason for this rests primarily in the process of elaboration, whereby the joking activity quickly loses its purpose, since the repetition of various aspects of the joking which evoked laughter and enjoyment may wear thin through over-use.17 One or more of the following will be necessary if the joking activity is to continue: new jokes may be introduced; the content of the joking activity may be elaborated to include new aspects not agreed upon by participants when they accepted the shift to a joking frame of activity; o r a new target of joking may be selected. As we will argue more extensively in the analysis of other joking sequences, the processes involved in the re-direction of joking activity may result in the subversion and destruction of the joking frame. For example, in sequence I the joke, the elaboration of joking content, and the participants who cooperated in the joking were defined, through closed referents, in relation t o a specific person, Chai. Should the target of joking be transferred t o another person or should the attributes of the person desig-

nated as target be defined as unworthy of laughter, t h e joking frame is likely to be subverted and possibly destroyed. This argument does not deny that other conditions, like the development of euphoric enjoyment in the act of joking, may permit re-direction to occur without the destruction of the joking frame.

The above discussion opens the way for an explanation of t h e closing segment of the joking sequence. At the moment when Chai, Rena, and Shimon were showing considerable enjoyment a t one anothers perfor- mance, Zahava suddenly ended the sequence (I: 5) by denying that Chais obesity was worthy of good-natured fun. She subverted the fun by confronting the participants with the reality-invoking statement that Chai was fat simply because he drank too much water. At this point the joking frame was destroyed. Shimon and Yaacov began to converse about the price of vegetables, Rena returned to her work, and Chai returned t o his worktable.

There are a number of aspects connected with Zahavas position in the workshop which explains her action. With the exception of t h e supervisor, Rena, Zahava had the highest status in the workshop. Going by her past behavior she would have been annoyed a t being excluded from activity in the workshop; Yaacov, the innovator, was her most serious work competitor, and Yaacov enjoyed the support of the supervisor, Rena, in disputes with Zahava. Chai, o n the other hand, was more frequently than any other worker the butt of invective and abuse by Zahava. In sequence I Rena and Chai were cooperating in joking to the detriment of Yaacov. Thus Zahavas statement of subversion did not support Yaacovs contention about Chai, but ended the fun of Rena and Chai. Zahava avoided aligning directly with her opponent, Yaacov, yet she succeeded in ending the enjoyment of her opponents prime source of support, Rena, and of her frequent but t of invective, Chai.

Zahavas success in ending the joking sequence demonstrates the fragility of joking frames and their continuous susceptibility to

490 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 74,1972

subversion. Zahava reintroduced the dis- crepancy between the subject of spontane ous enjoyment (male obesity as pregnancy) and involvement in the world carved out within the joking frame, (elaboration of male obesity as pregnancy), a world which momentarily came alive for the participants in joking. Because of the loudness and intrusiveness of Zahavas manner, the joking participants were unable to ignore Zahavas re-definition of Chais obesity as a matter for serious discourse. The joking frame could not be sustained, because of the degree of tension Zahavas statement created between that to which participants were required to disattend in order to maintain the joking frame and that to which she forced them to attend (see Goffman 1961:41-43). The participants then quickly dispersed and returned to activities more in keeping with the context of the workshop.

We now extend the argument presented in the analysis of sequence I. Sequence I1 is of longer duration and more complex in organization than sequence I. Two points which developed from the analysis of sequence I guide the following discussion. First, the elaboration of the content of joking activity introduces conditions which threaten the maintenance of the joking frame. Second, spontaneous enjoyment in a joking frame sustains the definition of the frame for a period even after the processes of subversion have begun.

The setting of sequence I1 changes from the sheltered workshop in Jerusalem to the cell room located in the plant area of the lead and zinc mine in Kabwe, Zambia. The African employees in the cell room worked to extract purified zinc mined ore. Mined zinc ore was reduced to a zinc sulphate solution and then pumped into cell boxes in the cell room. Here the zinc passed through an electrolytic process, the purified zinc depositing on aluminum cathodes in the cell boxes. The strippers worked in pairs at the end of each double row of cell boxes. They removed the cathodes and stripped off the purified zinc. The stripped zinc sheets were removed by the scale attendants to be weighed and later melted into slabs. When

cathodes became too dirty, they were removed and later cleaned by the scrubbers. The dryer worked by the drying fire where he dried the zinc sheets wet with sulphuric acid which would explode if melted in that condition. Of major importance to the production system were the titrators. Only their work demanded any special skills. Other jobs required only physical strength and experience. The titrators maintained the correct chemical solutions in the cell boxes. Without their constant attentiveness the electrolytic process would be drastically interrupted.

Except for the titrators, all employees worked a four hour day which included a fifteen minute break period. The titrators worked eight hour shifts. The cell room was divided into three units each with its separate work gang of strippers, scrubbers, titrators, and a dryer. The scale attendants removed stripped zinc sheets from all units. Each unit was controlled by an African crew boss. The crew bosses and titrators were the most highly paid workers, followed by the strippers, scale attendants, and finally the scrubbers and dryers.

Sequence I1 occurred during the break period at a site in the cell room where many workers regularly gathered during break. Here discussion developed about the selection of workmates to take a titrating course. The discussion focused on a worker named Chipalo, a unit three stripper, who was then beyond earshot. A story was told about his failure to be selected for the course. Those seated at the site found this information highly amusing. Their enjoyment increased when one worker, Mulenga, invited Chipalo into the gathering and asked him to explain his failure. However, the joking was subverted by Chipalo who insulted Mulenga. This subversion excluded others from continuing their participation but allowed the entry of Joshua, the cell room joker, who destroyed the joking frame, but on a correct note.

Sequence ZZ 1. At break a group of workers gathered

at the site. They include Mwape, Zulu,


Chileshe, and Mulenga, all unit two strippers, Joshua, a scale attendant, and Gordon, a unit three scrubber. They d iscus the new titrating jobs available. Mwape asks Zulu about which workers have been selected for the titrating course. Zulu gives a list of names.

2. Mulenga intervenes and enquires of Zulu: What about Chipalo-has he been eliminated? Cant he also go for training?

3. Zulu: Chipalo cant be selected. He asked several times t o be considered and the European foreman eventually called him into his office. The foreman asked if he was able t o read and write and Chipalo said he could. Chipalo was then shown a figure eleven (Zulu drew this on the ground) and was asked t o read it. Chipalo stared a t the two lines very carefully and replied that it was a two. The foreman asked if Chipalo was certain and Chipalo again said it was two. Chipalo was then told that if he had difficulty reading a simple figure eleven, he couldnt be taken on the titrating course. He would be wasting his time. Zulus story of Chipalos failure evokes gales of laughter from the break group.

4. Mulenga spies Chipalo standing some twenty feet away outside earshot. Mulenga calls t o him, Hey, Chipalo! When are you going to be called for some titrating lessons?

5. Chipalo comes over to where Mulenga is sitting and says: I wont be going. Titrating is a job for children. I will continue stripping.

6. Mulenga guffaws: I know why you give this excuse. Its because you werent even considered and the reason is that you couldnt even recognize a simple figure eleven. You counted the two short lines and loudly read out two. What a fool t o say that titrating isnt fit for you! Now there are three fools. You, Abel, Chisulo, and Chilwa.

7. Chipalo: Shut up, Kabwata. Dont you know how to control your talk? Why havent you been selected-you also worked as a stripper?

8. Mulenga: I am not educated, therefore I cant even try to ask for that job as you did-after all, I know better than you.

9. Joshua laughs: All of you are mufontini I t is only Patrice Lumumba who is educated. I dont know how Lotson will manage in his new job. That one drinks a lot, and shift work will b e terrible for him. He has even sent his wife home so that he can move about with some of his hooligan friends. He is really going to get it thick-its about time he realized his stupidity.

10. Whistle t o return t o work is blown. The workers stand and return to their jobs.

Sequence I1 began with Mwape, a unit two stripper, asking Zulu, also a unit two stripper, which workers had been chosen t o take the titrating course. A number of important promotional opportunities were available to the cell room workers a t that time. The mine management had opened six new titrating jobs. These were of major interest t o the workers since their careers could have been considerably affected. These new jobs were among t h e highest paid and highest work open to the cell room employees. In terms of t h e cell room occupational structure, these new jobs gave some workers the opportunity to demonstrate claims t o superior status and prestige in relation to workmates who had previously regarded them as equals or inferiors. Promo- tion offered advances in occupational status, and occupational mobility resulted in workers having to readjust some of their social relationships o r t o develop new ones.

The European general foreman told the African workers about the available jobs, and he called for applicants to enter a short training course. After finishing the course the successful applicants were to be examined to determine their ability t o do the job. Before being accepted t o the course the abilities of applicants t o complete the course were assessed by the general foreman. Acceptance to the course required the ability t o read and write simple English, and the general foreman subjected each applicant t o a short interview in English2 during which he was asked t o identify simple words and numbers. Applicants could fail either the initial interview with the general foreman or the examination a t t h e end of the

492 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [ 7 4 , 1 9 7 2

course. Workers from all job categories applied, and there were over twenty applications for the six vacancies. Successful applicants were younger, with some school- ing. However, many of the twenty applicants were older, with little or no education.

The attention of all workers in the break group focused on Zulus listing of the successful applicants (11: 1). Interaction was uncontained, and open referents were used. That interaction was uncontained and not restricted to a specific relationship was indicated by the way Mwape and Zulu conversed. Mwape and Zulu did not face one another but gazed toward the area where the other members of the break group were congregated. Their loud voices indicated that they did not wish to restrict information to one another. In addition, the issues they raised were of interest to all the break group. Referents were open because reference was made to a category of persons (successful applicants) and, while a number of individuals were named, no specific person was selected as a target. Because of the uncontained and open nature of the interchange, any of the workers in the break group could enter the conversation easily. Any participant could also narrow the broad focus of the conversation and direct it to a more specific area of interest and discussion.

Mulenga entered the conversation and asked Zulu for information about Chipalos chances of being selected for the course (11: 2). This immediately directed attention to Chipalo. Zulu then told the story of how Chipalo had failed his interview (11: 3). The fun of the story lay in Chipalos inability to distinguish between the numerals two and eleven. Zulu grinned broadly throughout the tale, and his audience laughed during and after the story. The story was clearly defined as a joke and enjoyed by both Zulu and the other members of the break group.

Zulus story contained information about which his audience was previously unaware. Chipalo, standing some twenty feet to the side was, in turn, then unaware that the break group had new information about him. This information revealed Chipalo to be

committed to a conception of self which was contradicted by his experience with the European foreman during the interview, and which the break group now knew about.

Chipalo boasted loudly and frequently about his physical strength, his influential connections (a kinsman of his was a senior African crew boss in the cell room), and his knowledge of town customs. He often referred to his workmates as villagers (hamushi) unworthy of living in town. He considered himself civilized and occasionally claimed that he was educated-he had completed two years of primary school. Most workers in the cell room boasted periodically. But workers objected to the frequency of Chipalos boasts which he used in attempts to devalue workers regarded as having higher status than himself.

In boasting, Chipalo did not expose himself to undue risk. His self-presentation was not susceptible to easy refuting by his cell room work companions; therefore, his workmates could not acquire information to refute his claims. To apply for the course a worker had to present himself as sufficiently educated for such work, and therefore risked the mine managements refusal of his application. Most workers considered themselves less qualified than the mine management to judge the educational qualifications of applicants. Provided other cell room workers were aware of it, the act of applying required the worker to drop his defences and compensations that previously protected him from defeats (Goffman 1952:452). However, not to have applied for the titrating course was tantamount to a public admission of lack of education. Workers who did not apply protected themselves with compensatory explanations like the follow ing: I value my friends above better pay, or, Titrating isnt attractive because its shift work. Many workers applied for the course in secret and attempted to hide their applications from their workmates. Even those applicants who were accepted to the course, but were still faced with the possibility of failing the exam at the end of the course, protected themselves before their


workmates by maintaining that they probably would not accept a titrating job.

Zulus tale of Chipalos failure exposed the secrecy which Chipalo had tried to maintain about his application and thereby deprived Chipalo of his defense against failure. The enjoyment expressed by the break group during and after the story indicated their public reassurance that they were Chipalos equals if not his betters. Through their shared enjoyment they con- veyed the message that they, at least, could distinguish between the numerals two and eleven, and they imparted the impression that they would not have failed such an elementary test, as Chipalo did. This sustained both the joking frame and their own public defenses against failure. The enjoyment of the tale as a joke offered a license to joke to any and all members of the break group, and at the expense of Chipalo. Because Chipalo had been exposed as a fraud he was now marked for public degrading in order to readjust his past social identity in accordance with the new, publicly shared, facts of his failure.

Mulenga proceeded to set up Chipalo (11: 4). The organization of the joking frame permitted anyone seated in the break group to do so. Although the target, Chipalo, had been delimited in terms of closed references (specific to Chipalo), the joking frame was still uncontained and was not restricted to a particular relationship. Mulenga had, however, given Zulu the cue to tell his tale and thus established his right to play an active role in directing the subsequent development of activity within the frame. Mulengas relationship with Chipalo also led him to cool the mark, and led others, who might have competed with Mulenga for speaking time, to stand aside.

Chi palos prior behavior had been particularly irksome to Mulenga. Until a month before sequence 11, Chipalo and Mulenga had been close friends and co- workers on the same stripping stand in unit two. Being fellow tribesmen and coming from the same locality in the rural area had strengthened their friendship. However, one

of the unit three strippers left the cell room, and Chipalo was moved to fill his place. Chipalo treated this transfer as a promotion, and he claimed that the European foreman considered him one of the best workers in the room. Indeed, the European supervisors appeared to treat unit three as a crack gang. Unit three was used to test new machinery which the management hoped to introduce. But unit three was used for this purpose because it was closest to the supervisors office, which enabled them to keep the new equipment under continuous surveillance. This was unrelated to any conceptions of unit three as a crack gang, an interpretation advanced by other workers on the basis of what they observed. With his transfer Chipalo became even more boastful, and he intimated to Mulenga and others that higher promotions were in store for him. Moreover, Chipalo began to interact less with Mulenga. This was especially noticeable at break time when he interacted more with the unit three strippers. Previously he had been a regular break companion of Mulenga.

Mulenga set up Chipalo by loudly inquiring when the latter would go for titrating lessons. The query was ironic in that it had different meaning for the questioner, his audience, and the person addressed. Further- more, the query was an act of simulated ignorance which unwittingly committed Chipalo to replying in terms of his usual self- presen t a t ion. Mulenga introduced Chipalo as an active participant in the break group ending his role as an external un- witting butt, and established him as a target who could be confuted with the facts. This confutation is found in Mulengas rejoinder to Chipalo (11: 6). Mulenga publicly con- fronted Chipalo with the latters inability to distinguish the numerals two and eleven and then classed him with past cell room failures.

Chipalo could either accept or reject his public degradation. As his response to Mulenga indicated he chose the latter course (11: 7). Mulenga failed to offer Chipalo an acceptable rationale for the latters failure, and he further derided and insulted his victim. He called Chipalo a fool (cipuba) and


classed him with previous failures in the room; where Chipalo had previously denigrated his peers, they were now deni- grating him. If Chipalo had accepted his role of mark at this stage and abetted in his own degradation, he would have risked his workmates downgrading his status relative to their own. Chipalo was aware that Mulenga and many of the workers who now con- fronted him were, in a sense, also failures, and it was with reference to this awareness that he rejected Mulengas invective (11: 7). His awareness of the failures of Mulenga and others made Chipalo particularly loath to accept any public downgrading of his status.

If the activity within the joking frame had proceeded with reference to certain structural features, Chipalo would have had no alternative but to accept his downgrading irrespective of his unwillingness to be cooled. But the joking activity was out of Chipalos control; like a worm on a hook he could not escape discomfort. The transposition to a joking frame had occurred without his participation. The enjoyment of joking was set within an extended field which included all those gathered at the break site. All these participants targeted Chipalo in terms of closed referents. Control over joking was vested in participants and audience, but not in the target. Thus if he had refused to participate, it probably would not have ended the joking. Indeed, either his refusal to participate in the joking activity or his agreement to become a figure of fun both would have heightened the enjoyment of the other participants and the audience. Chipalos role as target was considerably different from that of Chai in sequence I. The joking and fun of sequence I was largely self-directed, since Chai was both the initiator and target of joking. Consequently, Chai had some control over the direction and elaboration of activity within the joking frame.

We have argued so far that Chipalos chances to acquit himself favorably were limited because the joking frame was uncontained and joking activity had developed in terms of closed referents. However, when

Mulenga extended the field by inviting Chipalo into the discourse, he exposed himself to personal attack by Chipalo. If Chipalo had entered after a collective request (like general shouts, calls) from the break group, then their capacity to successfully confute Chipalo would have been strengthened. Even his angry response (11: 7) would have been a clear case of flooding out (Goffman 1961:55) and an index of his weak position within the joking frame.* However, Mulengas action allowed Chipalo to contain his response to his personal relationship with the former. Chipalo did this by insulting Mulenga. He addressed him by his nickname, Kabwata, and drew specific attention to its meaning. Kubwato in Bemba refers to a person who babbles or talks endlessly. Chipalo then referred to the fact that Mulenga also could be considered a failure. At this point, while the joking frame re- mained contained, Chipalo had employed open referents. Most of the break group were strippers, and they had largely selected Chipalo as the target of their joking and fun. Chipalos inquiring as t o why Mulenga had not been selected for the titrating course was also applicable to the others, with the exceptions of Gordon (a scrubber) and Joshua (a scale attendant). Mulengas use of the first person in replying to Chipalo firmly maintained the joking frame as contained (11: 8); but here Mulenga attempted to redirect activity within the joking frame by using closed referents specifying once again Chipalos failure to live up to his own presentation as an educated man. In doing so he reaffirmed the basis of the establishment of the joking frame itself.

Because the joking frame was contained, previous participants were now excluded, and their control of the direction of the joking was nullified. Furthermore, the elaboration of content threatened to subvert the joking frame itself. Chipalo introduced new content which had not been included in the original definition of the joking f r amefo r example, his comment to Mulenga that strippers who were not selected for the course were also failures (11: 7). Chipalos use of open refer-


ents here also transferred the role of target from himself t o Mulenga as stripper. These emergent developments threatened to subvert the joking frame and re-transpose the joking activity to non-joking, or serious activity. At thisstage (11: 7, 8) we stress that the joking frame had not yet been destroyed. Most members of the break group were still enjoying the degrading of Chipalo. However, they were deriving their enjoyment from earlier segments of the joking sequence and not from the contained abusive interchange between Mulenga and Chipalo which threatened the destruction of the joking frame. If the contained elaboration of abuse came to dominate the joking frame, joking would cease completely. For members of the break group, it was impera- tive that the joking frame should not be destroyed at that point. The content of Chipalos comments expressed through open referents (11: 7) threatened t o subvert and destroy the joking frame o n a note unaccept- able to most of the workers present, i.e., that strippers not promoted t o titrator were also failures.

The enjoyment engendered by earlier segments of the joking sequence sustained the joking frame even when activity had been redirected towards the contained exchange of vituperation. This established the conditions for the entry of Joshua as an active participant (11: 9). Joshua was the one person who could enter the joking with relative impunity. In the cell room he was recognized as an established joker. His physical appearance contained elements of the absurd. At the age of thirty-five he was totally bald. This was a source of continual amusement for his workmates. His nickname, Patrice Lumumba, which he had acquired during the Congo disturbances, was also a source of continued amusement. By using his own nickname as he entered the joking, Joshua cued in the others present that his role of joker governed what he had t o say. Joshua denied any basis for differ- entiation and opposition among the participants and audience, and it was he, the joker, who completed the subversion and destruc-

tion of the joking frame, but on a note acceptable t o all his workmates present. He re-introduced the reality to all those present, that they were uneducated and therefore ineligible for promotion t o titrators. He also obscured Chipalo as the basis of the groups enjoyment. He classed Chipalo with all the break group and did not specify him as its inferior. Finally, as joker, Joshua was able to redirect the activity by transfering the role of target to one, Lotson, who stood outside the frame. He then began t o speak of Lotson in a serious manner and thus destroyed the joking frame, but in an appropriate tenor. In transposing the activity t o serious interaction, Joshua offered the break group a rationale which qualified the value of promotion and stressed the immoral con- sequences of accepting a job which entailed shift work and earned high pay. Joshuas action clearly demonstrated Douglas point that the joker is not exposed t o danger. He has a firm hold on his own position in the structure and the disruptive comments which he makes upon it are in a sense the comments of the social group upon itself (1968:372).

We will now briefly summarize a number of general themes which develop from our analysis of the first two joking sequences. We found it highly profitable t o analyze recorded sequences of joking activity in terms of t h e establishment and destruction of joking frames as distinct from serious activities. In the first two sequences we dealt with setting-specific frames of joking activity, joking in which the resources for joking, the means t o joke, and the history of social relationships of the participants in joking were all locally derived and realized in specific social settings.

In setting-specific joking, the beginning of joking activity depends, as previously stated, on locally derived cues proffered by and to potential participants. Where such cues, Chais statement about his pregnancy or Zulus tale of Chipalos failure to distinguish between the numerals two and eleven, are accepted and responded to , a joking frame is established. But the actual joking activity is

496 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [74 ,1972

expressed in terms of specific persons and their identities in a particular social setting. Such joking cues may have a cultural or normative basis but they are not primarily prescribed or directed by cultural cognitive classifications. As suggested in the analysis of sequence I, settingspecific joking frames are highly fragile and unresilient, and participants are rarely able to sustain the original definition of the frame in the face of subversion because they do not have routinized or established behavioral paths and roles t o follow through in joking activity. Thus the establishment of a joking frame must be negotiated by potential participants. Such potential participants have the right to reject situational cues and gambits and therefore to refuse to participate. Extensive knowledge of local resources, means, and social histories are necessary to understand how the transposition to joking activity occurs. Negotia- tion in such situations does not involve bargaining, because the actual development of joking is very quick and a joking frame of activity may only last for a minute or a few minutes. But in relatively permanent face to face groupings like the sheltered workshop and the cell room, potential participants and participants all have extensive knowledge of the existing local social order and their sustaining or subverting of a joking frame does not require that they think through their actions. They can act quickly, with purposive intent in interaction based on the knowledge which accrues to them as members of such groupings.2

We also found it advantageous to d i s tinguish analytically between the joking frame which established and guided the course of the joking sequence and joking activity, the ways in which participants behaved during the course of the sequence. As the guide to activity, the joking frame itself consists of rules which specify whether a sequence will be contained or uncontained, in other words, which persons have rights of entry. While we regard the joking frame as either present or absent, the rules it consists of may alter during the course of joking

activity as a result of the behavior of participants. In settingspecific joking the frame is never independent of the course of joking activity since cues for the onset of joking and allocation of roles to participants are not routinized. The acceptance of a cue to joke does not bring to mind a specific role with attendant behavior which a participant will play. In a sense, the rules of the frame and joking behavior emerge interdependent- ly through the course of joking, and greatly affect one another. It is therefore axiomatic in settingspecific joking that the establishment of a joking frame also plants the seeds of its destruction or the transformation of its original rules. Thus, content may be elaborated by participants until the content ceases to be funny and the incongruent meaning of the absurd is exhausted. Also, the field of participants may be extended to include persons who did not accept the original meaning of the joking frame. Whether this will subvert the frame may well depend on whether participants employed open or closed referents. If closed referents were employed, then the extension of the field will require intrusions by persons who were outside of the frame. Such intrusions may destroy the frame if the intruder reinvokes the reality of the social setting, or if he enters with a different definition of the frame and thereby introduces content or a new target which participants are unable to sustain in terms of joking. However, even if open referents are employed and as a result the frame becomes uncontained and the field is extended to include another participant, this may still result in subversion of the frame if the new participant introduces content or a target which is incompatible with the basis of enjoyment in the sequence. The sequence will still be subverted and destroyed, but the illegitimate intruder of the former example will probably destroy the frame at an earlier stage than the legitimate new participant of the latter example. Perhaps the most important general comment we can make here is that, in setting-specific joking, the rules of the joking frame have very little time depth;


they establish the frame, but thereafter operate only as fragile guidelines since they are not routinized.

Superficially perhaps, our analytic approach may seem to resemble one which employs concepts of structure and process. However, our approach would be closer to that of Goffman (1961), who distinguishes between formalizations and dynamics in his study of the mechanisms which engender, sustain, and destroy encounters. Goffman, however, was primarily interested in iden- tifying and describing the mechanisms of encounters, regardless of any specific context or setting. Our approach is more restricted but, at the same time, less static. We here consider joking in only two different cultural settings, but we discover analytical similarities which we can relate to context and the history and organization of social relationships in each setting. Furthermore, we consider sequences of joking activity, sequences which have a beginning and an end. This permits us to examine the mechanisms of joking both in temporal and contextual terms. Thus joking activity becomes the focus of our analysis rather than illustra- tions of conceptualizations.

CATEGORY -ROUTINIZED JOKING FRAMES

The next two joking sequences we consider contrast markedly with the first two. Sequence 111 represents an example of joking behavior set within tribal relationships. Sequence I V is an example of routinized joking which has developed from situation- specific joking in the sheltered workshop. Both examples of joking are classed within what we term category-routinized joking. Joking behavior which is routinized and is normatively or customarily prescribed can be expected to have a high degree of consensus about the context of joking, the category of person permitted to joke, and even about the content of joking itself. For example, members of particular tribal categories in the towns of Zambia recognize joking relationships and will take liberties

with one another in most contexts. How- ever, there are social contexts, like funerals and dancing competitions, where participants will receive maximum support for their actions. The content of joking is usually stereotypic-tribal joking partners organize their participation in terms of each others strange dietary habits, immoral sexual behavior, or peculiar marriage customs.

This type of routinized customary joking behavior usually employs a highly regular- ized set of opening cues and subsequent general modes of behavior. It thus contrasts markedly with the situation-specific joking of the first two sequences, where negotia- tions leading to the joke and the transposition to joking from serious interaction are not routine, but must be worked out anew on each occasion, even if these occasions recur in the same social setting. In a sense, much of the behavior in routinized customary joking is located in pre- established and accepted categorical cues for the expression of joking and shared enjoyment. Hence our use of the term category-routinized to refer to such joking behavior.

In contrast to settingspecific joking frames, category-routinized joking allows for the greater mutual independence of the joking frame and joking activity. In category-routinized joking, the license to joke is anchored in the common recognition that particular categories of persons can joke with one another. Once the persons concerned have agreed to introduce these categories into their interaction, they should be able to proceed to joke and even abuse and insult one another without subverting and possibly destroying the joking frame and re-transposing joking to serious interaction. In category-routinized joking, the establishment of a joking frame is relatively independent of the activity which follows. However, if in the course of joking the categorical cues which defined the joking frame are lost sight of, then the frame is highly susceptible to subversion. To prevent this, a convention may be adopted wherein

498 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [74, 1972

key expressions which designate the categorical cues for joking will be continuously introduced, particularly at points of redirection in the joking activity.

To summarize, category-routinized joking is more likely to be able to withstand redirections in joking activity than is setting-specific joking. These redirections will include the transfer of the role of target and the introduction of new content. We would then expect that category-routinized joking sequences would be of longer duration during which the joking frame would be sustained, regardless of directional changes. Finally, we consider that category- routinized joking can be analyzed in the same manner as settingspecific joking. We maintain that this analytic approach of close scrutiny of both types of joking in different social and cultural settings will extend our understanding of joking behavior in general.

Sequence III

Sequence 111 opened with a prank by Chilwa. With the help of Gordon the prank was directed at Lotson. Lotson accepted the prank and issued Gordon a license to joke. The content of the prank was elaborated and the field of participants extended. In the course of elaboration the prank diminished in value as a focus of attention. Lotson, the original target of the prank, was able to transfer his role of target to Gordon. The prank then became irrelevant but the joking frame continued to be sustained. A co- worker of Gordon, Andrew, came to the formers assistance, but in doing so he became the new target of Lotson and his supporters. Andrew was physically assaulted but the joking frame was still sustained. The frame was finally destroyed by the unit three crew boss, Jackson, who blamed Andrew for the whole disturbance. The sequence continued for a short while longer while, in a serious vein, Andrew and Gordon attempted to transfer the blame to Lotson and his associates.

1. Chilwa enters the cell room and walks to the site where many of the workers

gather at break time. The site is close to Gordons scrubbing bench. Chilwa is holding a dead bird, but he goes relatively unnoticed by the workers who are engaged in their work. He is swinging the bird backward and forward in a clear attempt to gain attention.

2. Gordon continues with his work but looks up and asks, What will you do with the bird?

3. Chilwa raises his voice above the din of the room: I brought the bird to give to anyone who eats stuff like this-especially Bemba. They eat all sorts of rubbish. The General Manager shot it the other day and gave it to me. Its for anyone who wishes to eat it. Lotson might like it-hes a Bemba.

4. Gordon laughs. He finishes cleaning a cathode, walks away from his scrubbing bench, and places the cathode in the cathode rack. While there he shouts to Lotson who is standing nearby, Come over. There is some relish for you at my bench.

5. Gordon returns to his bench but Lotson remains where he is and replies, What kind of relish has Chilwa brought for me? Before he receives an answer he starts toward Gordons bench.

6. Gordon has ceased working. He and Chilwa stand with broad grins awaiting Lotson. Lotson arrives at the bench and examines the nightjar carefully, stretching its wings and feeling its body. Lotson exclaims: Theres nothing wrong with this bird. These birds are good to eat. Bring it here where I work, you young fools!

7. As Lotson turns to leave, Gordon asks: Are you really going to eat such a disgusting looking bird?

8. Lotson: Im going to prove it. Keep your eyes open so you can see it for a fact.

9. Lotson sees Soft at the cathode rack and calls t o him, Come over here and pluck this bird.

10. Soft takes the bird from Lotson, goes to the drying fire, and proceeds to pluck the bird. Lotson, Gordon, Chilwa and a number of other unit three workers go over to the drying fire to watch Soft.

11. Soft finishes plucking the bird and places it on the drying fire. He then ap-


proaches Gordon and asks: Where can I get some salt?

12. Gordon: Why dont you go t o the township?

13. Lotson: Nsenga are unreasonable. Gordon is a fool to think someone should leave the workplace just to get some salt. Its time you started to think, Gordon.

14. Andrew comes acros from his scrubbing bench: Who is attacking Gordon? Eeee-I see him now to be a fool. To Lotson: Your bloody balls (makandi yobe). Faces Andrew: You, Gordon! Why are you letting these Bemba fools attack you? I will fix one.

15. Lotson grabs Andrew by his boiler suit: Are you the strongest man here, old fool? Let m e kick you. Havent you tested the strength of Bembas yet?

16. Most of the unit three workers burst out laughing. Godfrey enters the small cluster of active participants and calls, Come on, Lotson, teach him a lesson.

17. While Lotson is holding Andrew, Joshua comes up, strips off Andrews rain- coat which he had worn loosely over his boiler suit, throws it on the floor, and begins t o kick it. Then he grabs Andrews left leg and begins to jerk it from side to side. Lotson releases Andrew, and so does Joshua.

18. Andrew: Oh, you fools! Why are you doing this?

19. Godfrey: Why cant your bululu Andrew help you? You helped him, but he fails to help you. Were just going t o kill you, and no one will help you. Wont your fellow Ngoni help? Dont they cooperate any longer? We Bemba are going t o fix you all.

20. Gordon: Little Godfrey-stop bark- ing like a village dog. Can you fight Ngoni? You have forgotten your history and tradition.

21. Jackson: Friends (bane) this is time for work. Andrew, get back t o your job. You can quarrel when you knock off. Thats the best time.

22. Andrew: Dont call m e by name; I didnt start this.

23. Jackson: Come on, Andrew, go back t o your bench. This is the reason the foreman took down your mine number.

24. Andrew: All right, but note that I didnt start this. These other fools like Lotson, Godfrey, and Joshua are the ones that are n o good.

25. Gordon: Especially that fool over there. He points to Lotson. Dont listen to them, Jackson; theyll tell you lies.

Early in the sequence there was a cue for the suspension of serious discourse, when Chilwa stood beside Gordons scrubbing bench swinging the dead bird. Gordons questioning of Chilwa gave the latter an opportunity to offer categorical cues for joking and a possible target, Lotson (111: 3). These cues suggested a joking frame cast in terms of the Bemba-Ngoni tribal joking relationship which African residents of Kabwe and other Zambian towns agreed existed between members of these tribal categories. Both Chilwa and Gordon were Chewa. Chilwa made general reference to the Bemba and followed with a derogatory comment o n Bemba dietary behavior, a joking convention usually followed in tribal joking. Therefore Chilwa offered Gordon an opportunity for category-routinized joking with Lotson who was a Bemba. By laughing, Gordon indicated that he agreed with Chilwas cues (111: 4). Gordon then went further and attempted t o begin joking with Lo tson, the chosen target.

Chilwas demeanor and his use of Gordon to communicate joking cues to Lotson is explicable in terms of the context of the social setting. Chilwa was the crew boss of the anode workshop, where anodes were made for use in the cell room. The cell room was some forty yards distant from the anode workshop. During working hours entry to the cell room was restricted t o persons who worked there. Exception was made for visitors who entered o n cell room business.24 Chilwas entry constituted an intrusion into the territory of the unit, and furthermore an intrusion into the domain of authority of the unit three crew boss,

500 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [74 , 1972

Jackson. By entering the area of unit three during work and while not on legitimate business, Chilwa risked a confrontation with Jackson, who maintained control over entry and egress. This risk of confrontation with Jackson was high, since Chilwa attempted to interfere with the work of the unit three employees. Chilwa used two devices to reduce this risk. First, he kept to public territory in unit three. When he entered the room, Chilwa moved immediately to the area beside Gordons scrubbing bench. This was generally recognized by both cell room and anode workshop employees as public territory. As we saw in sequence 11, this site was used as a gathering place during break and as a resting place during work. Jackson had less control over activity in this area, and during break periods he usually kept clear of it. It is of general interest to note that when the activity in this sequence was located in the break site, Chilwa participated more actively. Note when the location of activity moved to the cathode rack and the drying fire, completely unit three territory, Chilwa hovered on the fringe of the active participants and played the part of an amused bystander. Secondly, he involved himself in the activity through a third person, Gordon.

In Gordon, Chilwa used a worker categorized as Ngoni. Gordon was also re- sponsible for supplying Lotston and his partner with clean cathodes. Thus Gordon had easy access to the target selected, Lotson. Gordons work bench also bordered on the break site, and Chilwa could therefore position himself in public territory and communicate easily with Gordon from there. Chilwa was thus able to minimize his risk of confrontation with Jackson and reach the target, Lotson, a Bemba, through Gordon, an Ngoni.

The Bemba-Ngoni tribal joking relationship was category-routinized in that it excluded from participation any person not classed as either Bemba or Ngoni. We suggest that entry of persons who do not possess the appropriate categorical attributes, to participate in category-routinized joking will

threaten the capacity of other participants to sustain the joking frame. Although, for convenience, we have referred until now to Gordon as an Ngoni, this classification was ambiguous, and Gordons active participation at this stage (111: 4) could actually have destroyed the establishment of a category- routinized joking frame. Gordons social identity in the cell room could have excluded him from legitimate participation in Bemba-Ngoni joking. To some workmates like Chilwa and Andrew, who like him migrated to Kabwe from rural homes in Zambias Eastern Province, Gordon was classed as a home man and he readily accepted this.2 But, until this particular occasion, Gordon was not willing to be classed as an Ngoni by other workers in the cell room. This was a classification which other workers who migrated from the Eastern Province were prepared to accept irrespective of whether Ngoni was their actual tribal identity or not. Gordon stead- fastly refused this categorization, and he rejected any attempt by other workers in the cell room who classed themselves as Bemba to open joking with him on that basis. One of those classed as Bemba was Lotson. Gordon was a relatively new worker in the cell room, inexperienced in his work, and he often delayed the work of the strippers, one of whom was Lotson. Prior to this occasion, Lotson had attempted to cajole Gordon through tribal joking to work more efficiently, but he did not succeed either in joking with Gordon in tribal terms or in getting him to work more efficiently.

On this occasion Gordons participation as a threat to the emergence of category- routinized joking was reduced for two reasons. First, by accepting Chilwas categorical cues, Gordon had implicitly agreed to be considered as Ngoni. Second, Lotson momentarily restricted his response to his interaction with Chilwa and treated Gordon only as a go-between (111: 5).

Once Lotson accepted Gordons invita- tion to view the bird the former quickly issued a license to joke. This was indicated by Lotsons exaggerated handling of the


dead bird. While Lotson accepted a category-routinized joking frame, as indicated by his reference t o Chilwa and Gordon as young fools (111: 6), Gordon required an extended confirmation that a license t o joke had indeed been issued. This pointed to the nature of Gordons relationship with Lotson as compared with the latters relationship with Chilwa. Gordons relationship with Lotson was marked by considerable social distance, and Gordon usually rejected Lotsons attempts t o initiate interaction with him. One of the few workers with whom Gordon interacted regularly on equal and friendly terms was the other unit three scrubber, Andrew. In contrast t o Gordon, Lotson regularly interacted with Chilwa both a t work and after working hours. This difference in the char- acter of Lotsons relationships with Chilwa and Gordon lends support to a more general point concerning license t o j o k e t h a t a license to joke can be issued and accepted more quickly between close friends than between those who have more distant relationships. Friends, because they successfully interpreted the meaning of various verbal and non-verbal expressions and gestures of one another in the past, can, in the present, communicate with one another more clearly, quickly, and in an understood manner. Those who have not had such close association through friendship or frequent contact, which would provide the experienc- ing of a wide range of one anothers behavior, must have the basis of their interaction defined more clearly. As in the case of Lotsons issuing of a license to joke to Gordon, this involves a n extended elaboration of verbal and non-verbal expression in order to clarify ambiguities and possible misinterpretations in the basis of their interaction.

Given the above information, we are now in a position t o note more closely the emergent organization of the sequence. Up to the point where Lotson confirmed his issuance of the license to joke to Gordon (111: 7, 8), the joking frame had been uncontained and open referents had been

employed by participants. Given the category-routinized nature of the joking frame, participation was restricted, but anyone classed as either Bemba or Ngoni was free to enter. Thus interaction was not restricted to a particular set of relationships. Finally, the referents used were open in that comments made about Lotsons dietary habits were not specific to him as a person but generalizable to all persons classed as Bemba. The uncontained and open nature of the joking frame permitted the easy entry of persons with t h e correct categorical attributes. The field was first extended to include Soft (111: 9) who was classed as Bemba, and then extended t o include Andrew (111: 14) , classed as Ngoni, and finally extended to include Joshua and Godfrey (111: 19), both classed as Bemba.

We emphasize that although the emerging content of the sequence permitted the in- clusion of those members of the audience who wished t o participate, an explanation of why certain members of the audience chose t o participate depends upon a closer examination of their sets of social relationships. For example, it is significant that those workers classed as Bemba, who entered the joking frame, were close friends of Lotson, and were obligated t o him for a number of personal favors, and were also subordinate t o him in cell room status.

The extension of t h e field of participants to include Soft, and Softs elaboration of the content of activity, his careful plucking of the dead bird and his placing it on t h e fire, helped to obscure Lotson as the major target of activity within the joking frame. More- over, Softs elaboration of the content of activity led to Gordons more spontaneous involvement within t h e joking frame and led t o his participation in acting out the absurd content of activity (111: 12). Softs entry (111: 10, 11, 12) deflected attention from Lotson to the former. Because Lotson was not personally involved in elaborating the absurd content of activity (111: 11, 12), he was better able to evaluate Gordons suggestion that Soft go to the township t o fetch salt (111: 12), and through his stated

5 0 2 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [ 7 4 , 1972

evaluation (111: 13) he redirected the course of the joking activity by transferring the role of target to Gordon; Lotson also redirected the expressive content of joking activity towards greater insult and invective. The joke about Bemba dietary custom, which had focused on the dead bird, now ended (111: 13). One joke (as distinguished from sequential joking activity) had ended and another joke, laden with abuse and invective, was about to begin.

Before extending the analysis to an examination of other aspects of the sequence, we should examine more closely the factor which related to the above redirection of the sequence. Why Lotson should choose to redirect the sequence is meaningful in terms of his relationship with Gordon. We earlier stated that on a number of prior occasions Lotson had attempted to initiate tribal joking with Gordon and that he was rebuffed on each occasion. A major reason for this was the content of Lotsons comments on those occasions. These comments consisted of criticisms of Gordons sloth and inexperience which Lotson only thinly veiled in his attempts to initiate Bemba- Ngoni tribal joking with the former. An important function of joking behavior is that it allows the mutual penetration of the social identities of participants and permits the temporary redefinition of such identities in derogatory ways.? However, these derogatory redefinitions are meant to be treated unseriously by the mutual consent of participants, and the serious meaning of redefinitions is disattended to. The participants involved can then negotiate on matters affecting their relationship at the most intimate level. The earlier emphatic issuing of a license to joke by Lotson to Gordon (111: 6, 8) operated as a tactic designed to draw Gordon into an active tribal joking relationship with the former. While Lotson succeeded and played the role of target for Gordons joking, this activity was not yet reciprocal, as would be necessary for the development of a tribal joking relationship. It then follows that redirection by Lotson, in which he transferred the role of target to

Gordon, was bound to occur or at least to be attempted.

The above passage explained why Lotson should redirect the role of target to Gordon, but it did not examine the conditions of successful redirection. Redirection here did not simply involve a transfer of the role of target, but also a considerable alteration of the expressive content of the joking activity. We first outline conditions which must be present for a successful redirection of target. This will be followed by a consideration of factors which will permit a change in expressive content without subverting the joking frame and ending the sequence.

A number of factors may enable participants to transfer the role of target without subverting the joking frame. These may be related to the emergent properties of joking activity or to the social positions of participants and their relationships, or to both. One factor which enabled Lotson to transfer the role of target was his powerful position in the cell room. As a function of their obligations to him, many participants and members of the audience quickly agreed to this transfer of target. However, we consider that there are more general conditions governing redirection through the transfer of target which emerge from joking activity. Furthermore, we suggest that such conditions may override factors which are primarily contextual properties of the social setting in which the joking activity occurs. In category-routinized joking, reciprocal rights to the redirection of target is basic to the activity in that the person who either initiates the joking or selects the target runs, in turn, the risk of being selected as a target, in all possibility, by the person at whom he aimed his comments. By his action, the initiator of joking singles himself out from the company present and is thus exposed. He becomes a significant potential target. This was the case with Mulenga in sequence 11, who was an obvious choice of target for Chipalo. Gordon, who further elaborated the content of the absurd by suggesting that Soft go to the township for salt, also exposed himself as a significant potential


target (111: 12). As the initiator of joking exposes himself as a potential target, the actual target, because of the role he plays in joking, may be vested with considerable influence t o redirect activity as the success of a joke often initially rests on the willing- ness of an individual to be a target. If Lotson had refused t o go over to the scrubbing bench, much of the subsequent fun of this occasion would have been quickly dissipated. Here, enjoyment did not lie so much in the expressive oral content of the interchange, but in the active participation of the person against whom joking activity was directed. Therefore, because of his role, a target may have certain privileges. For example, like Lotson (111: 9, lo), he may have freedom of choice to select the territory in which the joking activity is t o be enacted. Once Lotson accepted the role of target, he, with the help of Soft, moved the location of the joking activity away from the area of Gordons scrubbing bench, where the latter exercised control over rights of entry, t o the more neutral area of the drying fire.27 This was an excellent vantage point from which to involve other workers and win their support-a factor which assisted Lotsons redirection of the sequence, first with Gordon as target and later with Andrew as target (111: 13-15).

The choice of target and the capability of the target t o redirect the choice of target to another depends on factors connected with the frame within which the joking interchange has been set, and the emergent organization of the interchange itself. The elaboration of joking activity and enjoyment which occurs as a function of the extension of joking behavior can result in the dissipation of the target as focus, with the result that the attention of the participants becomes focused o n the enjoyment of joking as such. An instance of this is provided by sequence I, where the focus on Chai as the target gives way to emergence of enjoying the elaboration of the absurd. Here, as the target loses focus, this can establish conditions for necessary redirection t o a secondary target. In this case, such re-

direction would have been unlikely, even if Zahava had chosen not t o enter the interchange. Not only was the joking and fun initially self-directed by Chai, but also, more importantly for this argument, Chai employed closed, i.e., ego specific, referents. We suggest that when joking is elaborated by participants through the use of closed referents about the target, his ability to transfer the role of target to another person will be restricted. Otherwise, his attempt to transfer the role of target threatens a re-transposition t o serious discourse. In this case the individual who is the target is also the joke, and a change of target would risk the ending of the joke. If Chai had removed himself as the object of fun, the joking would have ended, since it depended o n his obesity. In terms of our data this proposition is most valid in instances of settingspecific joking activity, and less likely to be true in cases of category-routinized joking. Where closed referents are used in joking of the latter type, the target represents a class o r category of persons. Where the joking is elaborated about a target through the use of open referents, then a transfer of target is possible without a re-transposition to non-joking discourse. This is so because the sustaining of joking and enjoyment is not tied t o one specific person as focus of the activity. Lotson was able to transfer the focus of attention to Soft (111: 9) both because he used open referents and because these were set within tribal joking categories. Given these conditions, attributes of dietary customs which applied to Lotson, also applied to others categorized as Bemba.

We have discussed how the emergence of joking and enjoyment can lead t o conditions which make the interchange susceptible t o a transfer of the role of target without a re-transposition to the guidelines of non- joking discourse. Whether the target of the joking is transferred may also be related t o the point in the emergent sequence a t which the target is selected. For instance, the capacity of the individual to transfer his role of target depends on the degree of extension or restriction of the field within which he


was first defined as target and the organization of this field. By restricted and extended we refer to the number of individuals actively participating in the joking interchange. A field is restricted if, relative to the number of potential participants, few individuals are actively involved, and is extended if a relatively large number are participating. By organization of the field we wish to point out the significance of the degree to which the interaction which emerges between the actors who enter the joking frame is dependent on the definition of a specific individual as target. We suggest that a sequence is more susceptible to a transfer when the field is restricted and the nature of participant interaction and involvement within the joking frame is not dependent on the participation of a particular person as target. The converse of this is also suggested. Where the social field is extended with reference to a particular target and where the other participants define their mutual interaction through the selection of a particular target, there this target has difficulty transferring the role of target to another participant. The as- sumption on which these two propositions rest is that the participants in a joking frame, with the possible exception of the target, have an interest in sustaining the joking and enjoyment which emerges from their focused activity.

Support for these propositions has been present in the data already described. For example, in sequence I1 (11: 5), Chipalo entered the frame as the target after the joke had been defined and after the field was extended to include all the members of the break group, who enjoyed themselves at Chipalos expense. Chipalo escaped his un- enviable position as the butt of the joke only by subverting the joking frame. He was able to do so by containing the frame to his relationship with Mulenga. This subverted the capacity of other participants to sustain the joking frame (11: 7,8). In sequence three Lotson could transfer the role of target to Gordon (111: 13), partly because at this time the field was relatively restricted, and, for

the joking and fun to continue, he was not specifically required as the particular target. The joking and fun of this sequence was based on the connection between the categories Bemba and Ngoni. Even so, later in the sequence (111: 14-20), Andrew and Gordon could not escape becoming the targets of physical assault and ridicule, despite their attempts to transfer the focus of attention away from themselves. We suggest that by this time the field had extended to include more Bemba, who, largely because they outnumbered those categorized as Ngoni, were better able to control the direction of the content of the joking frame to their advantage.

We are now able to return to an examination of sequence I11 and to extend our analysis. Lotsons transference of the target and elaboration of content within the joking frame was multi-faceted (111: 13). He sustained the joking frame within which the discourse was initially set and made the comment, Nsenga are unreasonable. That he referred to Nsenga and not Ngoni or Chewa, the last being Gordons specific tribal identity, was an indication that in the context of tribal behavior an individual who came from within the Bemba tribal category tended not to distinguish between tribes of a general class which were opposed to the class of which he was a member. In this context, the labels Chewa, Nsenga, Ngoni, etc., were interchangeable. Lotson, by using the tribal label Nsenga, was delivering a clear cue for Andrew to enter the sequence. Andrews specific tribal identity is Nsenga. It is possible that he could have ignored the cluster of workers who had gathered around the drying fire fairly close to his scrubbing bench. By drawing open attention to Andrews tribal identity, Lotson reduced the possibility that Andrew would choose to ignore the action developing around him. Why Lotson did this is explained by the risk involved in transferring the role of target to Gordon given Gordons previous reactions to Lotsons attempts to develop tribal joking behavior with him. However, Lotson frequently engaged in tribal joking behavior


with Andrew, Should Gordon have rejected the tribal joking frame, now that he was the target, Andrews participation would have prevented possible subversion of the frame and subsequent re-transposition t o other discourse. We stress that Lotsons use of the label Nsenga a t this stage sustained the tribal joking frame. The statement Nsenga are unreasonable was a simple convention for the maintenance of the tribal joking frame and did not represent the introduction of new factors which were not already acceptable within the frame of tribal joking. The joking frame had already been negotiated to agreement. Therefore, once Lotson indicated that he was still participating within it, he could transfer the role of target to Gordon, and utter closed references that Gordon was foolish and should learn to think. These references did not threaten the integrity of the frame (111: 13-18).

Through these closed references, Lotson ended the elaboration of the absurd by paradoxically pointing to the absurdity of Gordons suggestion t o S

forms of joking activity: a comparative approach

Documents