Forms of Joking Activity: A Comparative Approach

DON HANDELMAN
Tel-Aviv 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. T w o 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 occurrence 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

1968:24-28).
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

484

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

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. Alternatively, 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

485

follows an indeterminate course. 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 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

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.

[74, 1972

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 sauntered 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

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

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 nonperson 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 determined, 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

487

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 coincide 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
d o n e deliberately, and sometimes it
appeared to be accidental. In sequence I
Chai stood in a workshop location which
Yaacov considered his own and which everyone 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 interpreting his lack of reaction as acquiescence
that the location in question was public
territory. Thus both the delay in the delivery

488

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

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 t o 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

[74,1972

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 meanings 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 advantages 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 dimensions 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 t o 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

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

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-

489

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 performance, 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 butt of invective, Chai.
Zahavas success in ending the joking
sequence demonstrates the fragility of joking
frames and their continuous susceptibility to

490

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

subversion. Zahava reintroduced the discrepancy 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

74,1972

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,

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

491

9. Joshua laughs: All of you are

Chileshe, and Mulenga, all unit two strippers,
Joshua, a scale attendant, and Gordon, a unit mufontini I t is only Patrice Lumumba
three scrubber. They discus the new who is educated. I dont know how Lotson
titrating jobs available. Mwape asks Zulu will manage in his new job. That one drinks
about which workers have been selected for a lot, and shift work will b e terrible for him.
the titrating course. Zulu gives a list of He has even sent his wife home so that he
can move about with some of his hooligan
names.
2. Mulenga intervenes and enquires of friends. He is really going to get it thick-its
Zulu: What about Chipalo-has he been about time he realized his stupidity.
eliminated? Cant he also go for training?
10. Whistle t o return t o work is blown.
3. Zulu: Chipalo cant be selected. He The workers stand and return to their jobs.
asked several times t o be considered and the
European foreman eventually called him
Sequence I1 began with Mwape, a unit
into his office. The foreman asked if he was two stripper, asking Zulu, also a unit two
able t o read and write and Chipalo said he stripper, which workers had been chosen t o
could. Chipalo was then shown a figure take the titrating course. A number of
eleven (Zulu drew this on the ground) and important promotional opportunities were
was asked t o read it. Chipalo stared a t the available to the cell room workers a t that
two lines very carefully and replied that it time. The mine management had opened six
was a two. The foreman asked if Chipalo new titrating jobs. These were of major
was certain and Chipalo again said it was interest t o the workers since their careers
two. Chipalo was then told that if he had could have been considerably affected.
difficulty reading a simple figure eleven, he These new jobs were among t h e highest paid
couldnt be taken on the titrating course. He and highest work open to the cell room
would be wasting his time. Zulus story of employees. In terms of t h e cell room
Chipalos failure evokes gales of laughter occupational structure, these new jobs gave
some workers the opportunity to demonfrom the break group.
4. Mulenga spies Chipalo standing some strate claims t o superior status and prestige
twenty feet away outside earshot. Mulenga in relation to workmates who had previously
calls t o him, Hey, Chipalo! When are you regarded them as equals or inferiors. Promogoing to be called for some titrating tion offered advances in occupational status,
and occupational mobility resulted in
lessons?
5. Chipalo comes over to where workers having to readjust some of their
Mulenga is sitting and says: I wont be social relationships o r t o develop new ones.
The European general foreman told the
going. Titrating is a job for children. I will
African workers about the available jobs,
continue stripping.
6. Mulenga guffaws: I know why you and he called for applicants to enter a short
give this excuse. Its because you werent training course. After finishing the course
even considered and the reason is that you the successful applicants were to be
couldnt even recognize a simple figure examined to determine their ability t o do
eleven. You counted the two short lines and the job. Before being accepted t o the course
loudly read out two. What a fool t o say the abilities of applicants t o complete the
that titrating isnt fit for you! Now there are course were assessed by the general foreman.
three fools. You, Abel, Chisulo, and Chilwa. Acceptance to the course required the
7. Chipalo: Shut up, Kabwata. Dont ability t o read and write simple English, and
you know how to control your talk? Why the general foreman subjected each applicant
havent you been selected-you also worked t o a short interview in English2 during
which he was asked t o identify simple words
as a stripper?
8. Mulenga: I am not educated, there- and numbers. Applicants could fail either
fore I cant even try to ask for that job as the initial interview with the general foreyou did-after all, I know better than you.
man or the examination a t t h e end of the

492

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

course. Workers from all job categories

applied, and there were over twenty applications for the six vacancies. Successful
applicants were younger, with some schooling. 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 t o
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

[74,1972

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 t o the
course, but were still faced with the possibility of failing the exam at the end of the
course, protected themselves before their

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

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 conveyed 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 coworkers 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

493

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. Furthermore, 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 unwitting 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 confronted 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

494

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[74,1972

classed him with previous failures in the Mulenga extended the field by inviting
room; where Chipalo had previously Chipalo into the discourse, he exposed himdenigrated his peers, they were now deni- self to personal attack by Chipalo. If Chipalo
grating him. If Chipalo had accepted his role had entered after a collective request (like
of mark at this stage and abetted in his own general shouts, calls) from the break group,
degradation, he would have risked his work- then their capacity to successfully confute
mates downgrading his status relative to Chipalo would have been strengthened. Even
their own. Chipalo was aware that Mulenga his angry response (11: 7) would have been a
and many of the workers who now con- clear case of flooding out (Goffman
fronted him were, in a sense, also failures, 1961:55)and an index of his weak position
However,
and it was with reference to this awareness within the joking frame.*
that he rejected Mulengas invective (11: 7). Mulengas action allowed Chipalo to contain
His awareness of the failures of Mulenga and his response to his personal relationship with
others made Chipalo particularly loath to the former. Chipalo did this by insulting
accept any public downgrading of his status. Mulenga. He addressed him by his nickname,
If the activity within the joking frame Kabwata, and drew specific attention to its
had proceeded with reference to certain meaning. Kubwato in Bemba refers to a
structural features, Chipalo would have had person who babbles or talks endlessly.
no alternative but to accept his downgrading Chipalo then referred to the fact that
irrespective of his unwillingness to be Mulenga also could be considered a failure.
cooled. But the joking activity was out of At this point, while the joking frame reChipalos control; like a worm on a hook he mained contained, Chipalo had employed
could not escape discomfort. The trans- open referents. Most of the break group
position to a joking frame had occurred were strippers, and they had largely selected
without his participation. The enjoyment of Chipalo as the target of their joking and fun.
joking was set within an extended field Chipalos inquiring as t o why Mulenga had
which included all those gathered at the not been selected for the titrating course was
break site. All these participants targeted also applicable to the others, with the
Chipalo in terms of closed referents. Control exceptions of Gordon (a scrubber) and
over joking was vested in participants and Joshua (a scale attendant). Mulengas use of
audience, but not in the target. Thus if he the first person in replying to Chipalo firmly
had refused to participate, it probably would maintained the joking frame as contained
not have ended the joking. Indeed, either his (11: 8); but here Mulenga attempted to
refusal to participate in the joking activity or redirect activity within the joking frame by
his agreement to become a figure of fun using closed referents specifying once again
both would have heightened the enjoyment Chipalos failure to live up to his own
of the other participants and the audience. presentation as an educated man. In doing so
Chipalos role as target was considerably he reaffirmed the basis of the establishment
different from that of Chai in sequence I. of the joking frame itself.
The joking and fun of sequence I was largely
Because the joking frame was contained,
self-directed, since Chai was both the previous participants were now excluded, and
initiator and target of joking. Consequently, their control of the direction of the joking
Chai had some control over the direction was nullified. Furthermore, the elaboration
and elaboration of activity within the joking of content threatened to subvert the joking
frame itself. Chipalo introduced new content
frame.
We have argued so far that Chipalos which had not been included in the original
chances to acquit himself favorably were definition of the joking f r a m e f o r example,
limited because the joking frame was uncon- his comment to Mulenga that strippers who
tained and joking activity had developed in were not selected for the course were also
terms of closed referents. However, when failures (11: 7). Chipalos use of open refer-

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

ents here also transferred t h e 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, o r serious
activity. At thisstage (11: 7, 8) we stress that
the joking frame had not yet been
destroyed. Most members of t h e break group
were still enjoying t h e 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 t h e contained elaboration of abuse came to dominate t h e joking
frame, joking would cease completely. For
members of the break group, it was imperative that t h e 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 unacceptable 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 t h e joking sequence sustained
the joking frame even when activity had
been redirected towards the contained
exchange of vituperation. This established
the conditions for t h e entry of Joshua as an
active participant (11: 9). Joshua was t h e one
person who could enter the joking with
relative impunity. In t h e cell room h e was
recognized as an established joker. His
physical appearance contained elements of
the absurd. At t h e 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 differentiation and opposition among the participants and audience, and it was he, the joker,
who completed t h e subversion and destruc-

495

tion of t h e joking frame, but o n a note

acceptable t o all his workmates present. He
re-introduced t h e reality to all those present,
that they were uneducated and therefore
ineligible for promotion t o titrators. He also
obscured Chipalo as t h e basis of t h e 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 t h e activity b y transfering t h e 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 t h e activity t o serious interaction, Joshua offered the break group a
rationale which qualified the value of
promotion and stressed the immoral consequences of accepting a j o b 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 o n his own position in the
structure and t h e disruptive comments
which he makes upon it are in a sense t h e
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 t h e 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. I n the first t w o sequences we
dealt with setting-specific frames of joking
activity, joking in which the resources for
joking, t h e means t o joke, and t h e history of
social relationships of t h e participants in
joking were all locally derived and realized in
specific social settings.
In setting-specific joking, t h e beginning of
joking activity depends, as previously stated,
o n locally derived cues proffered b y and to
potential participants. Where such cues,
Chais statement about his pregnancy o r
Zulus tale of Chipalos failure to distinguish
between the numerals two and eleven, are
accepted and responded to, a joking frame is
established. But t h e actual joking activity is

496

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

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. Negotiation 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 t o
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

[74,1972

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 interdependently 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;

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

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 identifying 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 illustrations 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 situationspecific 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

497

with one another in most contexts. However, 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 regularized 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 negotiations 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 preestablished 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

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 categoryroutinized 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 coworker 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 t o transfer the blame to Lotson
and his associates.
1. Chilwa enters the cell room and
walks to the site where many of the workers

[74, 1972

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-

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

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 t h e strongest man here, old
fool? Let m e kick you. Havent you tested
the strength of Bembas yet?
16. Most of t h e 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 raincoat 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 o n e 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 barking 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.

499

23. Jackson: Come on, Andrew, go

back t o your bench. This is t h e 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 t h e 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 t h e 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, t h e chosen target.
Chilwas demeanor and his use of Gordon
to communicate joking cues to Lotson is
explicable in terms of t h e context of the
social setting. Chilwa was t h e crew boss of
the anode workshop, where anodes were
made for use in t h e cell room. The cell room
was some forty yards distant from t h e 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 t h e unit, and
furthermore an intrusion into the domain of
authority of the unit three crew boss,

500

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

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 responsible 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

[ 7 4 , 1972

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 categoryroutinized 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 steadfastly 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 categoryroutinized 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 invitation to view the bird the former quickly
issued a license to joke. This was indicated
by Lotsons exaggerated handling of the

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

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 t h e
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 o n 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 character 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 t h e meaning of various
verbal and non-verbal expressions and
gestures of o n e another in t h e 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 t h e experiencing of a wide range of o n e anothers behavior, must have t h e 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 t h e basis o f 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

501

employed b y participants. Given the

category-routinized nature of the joking
frame, participation was restricted, but anyone classed as either Bemba o r Ngoni was
free to enter. Thus interaction was not
restricted to a particular set of relationships.
Finally, t h e 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 t h e 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 t h e emerging
content of t h e sequence permitted the inclusion of those members of the audience
who wished t o participate, an explanation of
why certain members of t h e audience chose
t o participate depends upon a closer
examination o f 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 t h e
content of activity, his careful plucking of
the dead bird and his placing it o n t h e fire,
helped to obscure Lotson as t h e major target
of activity within the joking frame. Moreover, Softs elaboration of t h e content of
activity led to Gordons more spontaneous
involvement within t h e joking frame and led
t o his participation in acting o u t t h e absurd
content of activity (111: 12). Softs entry
(111: 10, 11, 1 2 ) deflected attention from
Lotson to t h e former. Because Lotson was
not personally involved in elaborating the
absurd content of activity (111: 1 1 , 12), h e
was better able to evaluate Gordons
suggestion that Soft go to t h e township t o
fetch salt (111: 12), and through his stated

502

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

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 BembaNgoni 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

[ 7 4 , 1972

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

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

target (111: 12). As the initiator of joking

exposes himself as a potential target, the
actual target, because of t h e role he plays in
joking, may be vested with considerable
influence t o redirect activity as the success
of a joke often initially rests o n the willingness of an individual to be a target. If Lotson
had refused t o go over to the scrubbing
bench, much of t h e subsequent fun of this
occasion would have been quickly
dissipated. Here, enjoyment did not lie so
much in the expressive oral content of t h e
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 t h e joking activity is t o be
enacted. Once Lotson accepted the role of
target, he, with t h e help of Soft, moved the
location of t h e joking activity away from the
area of Gordons scrubbing bench, where the
latter exercised control over rights of entry,
t o t h e 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 t h e 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 t h e 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 t h e 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 t h e participants
becomes focused o n the enjoyment of joking
as such. An instance of this is provided by
sequence I, where t h e focus o n 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-

503

direction would have been unlikely, even if

Zahava had chosen not t o enter t h e interchange. Not only was t h e 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 t h e 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 t h e
individual who is t h e target is also the joke,
and a change of target would risk t h e ending
of t h e 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, t h e target represents a class o r category
of persons. Where t h e joking is elaborated
about a target through t h e 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 t h e 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 t h e emergence of
joking and enjoyment can lead t o conditions
which make t h e interchange susceptible t o a
transfer of the role of target without a
re-transposition to the guidelines of nonjoking discourse. Whether t h e target of the
joking is transferred may also b e related t o
the point in t h e emergent sequence a t which
the target is selected. For instance, the
capacity of the individual to transfer his role
of target depends o n the degree of extension
or restriction of the field within which he

504

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

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 assumption 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 unenviable 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

[74,1972

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

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

with Andrew, Should Gordon have rejected

the tribal joking frame, now that h e 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, h e could transfer t h e role of
target to Gordon, and utter closed references
that Gordon was foolish and should learn to
think. These references did not threaten t h e
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 Soft. In sequence I
(I: 5), a similar utterance by Zahava, subverted the joking frame and ended the joking
activity. This did not occur in sequence 111
because t h e tribal joking frame was relatively
unaffected by t h e elaboration of t h e joking
content within it.
No sooner had Lotson made his abusive
comments t o Gordon than Andrew entered
the sequence (111: 14). His entry was permitted by the Bemba-Ngoni tribal joking
frame and momentarily transferred the role
of target from Gordon to himself. This
demonstrates that persons who take prominent parts within joking frames are highly
vulnerable to becoming targets. But why
should so much attention and then assault
have been directed a t Andrew? Andrew
typically engaged in tribal joking of an
extreme variety. Within the tribal joking
frame of sequence 111, he moved
immediately to extreme abuse and the threat
of physical assault, e.g., Your bloody balls
(rnalandi yobe), I will fix one! (111: 14).
On other occasions Andrew typically began
his extreme behavior without first nego-

505

tiating an agreed frame for t h e joking.

Workers in the cell room continuously complained about Andrews behavior. Andrew
would rush from his scrubbing bench to
accost a passing worker with whom he
considered himself t o stand in a tribal joking
relationship. He would roughly shake the
victim by t h e latters boiler suit all t h e while
shouting obscene insults. Just as suddenly,
Andrew would desist, return t o his scrubbing
bench and focus o n his work. Andrew would
also turn a water hose o n workmates he
considered tribal joking partners, soaking
them to the skin. To his victims, Andrews
behavior seemed extreme, inconsistent, and
without purpose.28
Given this information it is clear why
Andrew became a target of extreme joking
activity-physical
assault. Those workers
classed as Bemba enjoyed seeing extreme
forms of behavior turned against him. This is
indicated by Godfreys interjection of encouragement, Come on, Lotson, teach him a
lesson (111: 16). It also clarifies how the
field of joking activity was extended to
include Godfrey and Joshua. Godfrey and
Joshua were among t h e most frequent
recipients of Andrews extreme attacks.
We can now state that behavior expressed
within and in terms of a category-routinized
tribal joking frame is not automatically
legitimate. We suggest that all successful
joking activity requires a consensually agreed
upon joking frame and that this consensus is
expressed through t h e medium of issuing a
license t o joke. Failure to meet these conditions will either abort t h e establishment of
the joking frame o r will subvert and destroy
it at a later time during joking activity.
In a study of tribalism and tribal joking in
the towns of Central Africa, Mitchell (1956)
notes examples of the subversion and
destruction of joking behavior set in
c a t e g o r y - r o u t i n i z e d frames. Mitchell
proposed that tribal joking activity could be
expected to occur in casual social contexts
and not in contexts with well-defined infrastructures such as between co-workers in
industry o r between officials of an organization like a Trade Union (1956:41).Our

506

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

data and those of Mitchell cast doubt on his

hypothesis. For instance, Mitchell discussed
an example of a subverted joking frame in
which an Ila man touched the beads around
a Lozi womans waist, and fondled her
breasts in the casual context of a butchers
shop. Ila and Lozi stand in a tribal joking
relationship with one another. The woman
charged the man in court with assault. Her
charge was based on the ambiguity of the
mans actions in the public setting of the
butchery. Should her husband have learned
of the incident, it could have been interpreted as adulterous (Mitchell 1956:40).
Data on tribal joking activity in the cell
room directly contradicts Mitchell. We
suggest that a major reason for the occurrence of subversion is that the basis of the
joking frame has not been negotiated to
agreement and a license to joke not issued.
Such an explanation should cover both
Mitchells example of subversion and our
data.
When the target was transferred to
Andrew (111: 15) by Lotson, this provided
an object lesson for Gordon, who had
previously rejected attempts of his workmates to enter into tribal joking with him.
The physical assault evidenced in this
segment of the sequence was an extreme
form of tribal joking behavior. It represented
a virtually complete invasion of personal
space. Previously, Gordon had resisted nonwork association with his workmates and
had aggressively repelled what he considered
intrusions into the private territory surrounding his scrubbing bench. The workers
who assaulted Andrew were able to demonstrate, before Gordon, the liberties which
those classed as joking partners could take
with one another. Although Andrew became
the target, attention was still given to
Gordon as Godfrey reminded the former of
his obligations to his close friend and tribal
associate, Andrew. Gordons rejoinder to
Godfrey in the categorical conventions of
tribal joking idiom (111: 20) constituted a
public definition that he agreed to being
classed as Ngoni and was prepared to participate in Bemba-Ngoni tribal joking.

[7 4 , 1972

We have argued that in categoryroutinized joking the joking frame tends to

be more independent of joking activity than
is the case in setting-specific joking. We
suggested that category-routinized joking
would tend to be less susceptible to subversion and destruction of the joking frame.
In such joking, new factors which threaten
to subvert the frame are less likely to be
introduced through the elaboration of content or extension of the field of joking
activity. Tribal joking is category-routinized
in that participation is restricted to persons
classed in particular tribal categories. If a
person enters such a joking frame with the
incorrect tribal identity, then the joking
frame is threatened with subversion and
destruction.
When Jackson, the crew boss, entered the
gathering, he subverted and destroyed the
joking frame. Jacksons specific tribal
identity was Lamba, a tribe not classed as
either Bemba or Ngoni (Mitchell 1956: 39).
In addition Jackson subverted the BembaNgoni tribal distinction on which the joking
frame was based because he included all the
participants within the single category of
friends (bane) (111: 1). With this interjection, the activity was re-transposed to
within the guidelines of serious discourse,
despite the objections of Andrew and
Gordon (111: 22-25) whose actions within
the joking frame had been negatively interpreted by Jackson. Although Andrew and
Gordon attempted to sustain the joking
frame, most of the principal participants
Lotson, Soft, Joshua, and Godfrey-had
already dispersed to their respective work
places. The effects of Jacksons action must
be distinguished analytically from the
factors which motivated him to act when he
did, and his placing the blame on Andrew
and Gordon for the disturbance. The latter
are located in the context within which the
joking frame was established, rather than in
the definition of the frame or the joking
activity which followed. As crew boss, it was
Jacksons duty to control the work of the
unit three employees and to maintain the
rhythm of the process of production. The

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

joking activity had seriously disrupted work

in the unit. Jackson chose to blame Andrew,
and to a lesser extent Gordon, for the
disturbance because both had the lowest
status of those who participated. He further
wished to avoid any confrontation with a
worker of Lotsons power and influence in
the cell room.
In sequence 111, although the individuals who participated in category-routinized tribal joking had to negotiate an agreement that these tribal categories were relevant to their behavior, the joking relationship recognized between these categories
was generally accepted in the urban environment and existed prior t o their interaction in the work setting.

Sequence IV
The final sequence considers categoryroutinized joking activity which emerges
within a social context. This is a form of
behavior which developed in the course of
frequent interaction among a number of
friends. It differs from category-routinized
tribal joking in that the categories of the
latter are independent of any specific sets of
persons and d o not develop from frequent
interaction. In fact, tribal joking may be the
categorical basis o n which persons establish
relationships rather than joking which
emerges from close social relationships.
We argued previously that in settingspecific joking the joking frame included
rules which had very little time depth.
Because of this, t h e emergent joking activity
constitutes a continuous feedback which
modifies the nature o f the joking frame. We
argued that combination of referents used,
redirections of targets, and t h e introduction
and elaboration of content, were all
potentially subversive. We further argued
that in category-routinized tribal joking the
joking frame contained rules which operated
in greater time depth but were specifications
of a general and categorical nature. Thus in
sequence 111, the frame included a rule
which specified which persons were
permitted t o joke, those classed as Bemba o r

507

Ngoni, and a rule which focused the activity

on particular themes of discourse and action.
I n sequence IV, we consider categoryroutinized joking in which all the rules
governing joking activity are included within
the frame. Thus once a frame is established,
all t h e joking activity which follows relates
t o the original definition of the frame. Since
the frame is category-routinized, all the
joking activity is repetitive through a
number of such frames established o n different occasions. Because the rules governing
activity are included in t h e frame, this kind
of frame is highly susceptible t o subversion.
Any elaboration constitutes a breach which
cannot immediately be resolved since verbal
elements are reduced t o a minimum. Therefore, much of t h e ambiguity of meaning and
focus of attention of verbal activity is
eliminated. But since the verbal elements
that exist are not allowed extensive
elaboration, but consist of a particular word
expressed repeatedly, there is n o basis o n
which participants can discuss and renegotiate the rules of activity.
While such a frame would seem to be
highly fragile and unresilient and therefore
inconsistent with our argument about
category-routinized frames, the rules of
activity are embodied in a game which for
the participants constitute shared consensual
knowledge which exists independently of
their joking activity. As the game represents
shared consensual knowledge, it consists of a
set of prior negotiated agreements required
for the introduction of the game as the
frame for joking activity. While t h e joking
frame is fragile, t h e game o n which it is
based is ever present in the minds of the
participants and this enables them to
establish the same joking frame time after
time.
In sequence IV, we return t o the
sheltered workshop in Jerusalem which was
the setting for sequence I. The activity
leading u p to the establishment of t h e joking
frame in terms of the game took the
following course: sitting in the front room
of the workshop, Eliahu informed Daniel
that earlier in the morning, Chai, one of

508

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

their closest friends, had called the latter a

crazy donkey. Upon hearing this, Chai
retorted that it was Eliahu who had called
Daniel a crazy donkey. Yemini, a close
friend of both Chai and Daniel, followed
Daniel into the back room; he supported
Chai, stating that Eliahu had called Daniel a
crazy donkey. Chai tried t o pacify Daniel
by sighing and stating: What a crazy life;
were all donkeys here. A number of insults
followed centered about who could legitimately be considered a donkey. Some of the
participants supported Chais extension of
the term, while others limited the terms of
reference to Chai. Daniel called Chai the
biggest fattest donkey in the world. The son
of the king donkey of Bourgiba. Chai stood
and began lightly to strike Daniel. Daniel
responded in the same manner, and both
men kept striking one another, called one
another crazy and donkey and laughed
quite wildly. At this point, after Daniel had
extensively insulted Chai, Chai introduced a
physical referent which allowed the exchange to become mutual. Neither man was
striking the other hard, but both were
striking at the same time.
Suddenly Zahava began to sing very
loudly so that all other verbal communication in the back room was drowned out.
Daniel and Chai, who had restricted their
exchange to one another, were unable to
disattend Zahavas singing which penetrated
and permeated the space between them.
They abruptly broke away from one
another. Chai sat down, and both Daniel and
Yemini returned to the front room. Zahava
stopped singing.
We can now turn to sequence IV, as some
two minutes later, Daniel returned to the
back room.

1. Daniel returns to the back room

holding the tail behind his back. Chai
turns his back momentarily, and Daniel
deftly hangs the tail on the back of his coat.
2. Chai appears unaware of the dangling
tail and walks around the room with it.
Three of the women workers, Rifka, Fricha,
and Lea, begin to giggle.
3. Chai discovers the tail. Daniel,
Yemini, and Shimon shout donkey,

[74,1972

donkey at him and begin to laugh. The

above mentioned women in the audience
also begin to laugh.
4. Chai now hangs the tail on the back
of Yeminis coat collar. Yemini takes the tail
and hangs it on Shimon, who is sitting with
his back to Yemini. Shimon discovers the
tail. Each discovery is met with cries of
donkey. Shimon now quickly hangs the
tail back on Yeminis coat.
5. Yemini is taken unawares. The tail is
hanging between his shoulder blades, and he
has difficulty in reaching it. His efforts are
spurred on as the women in the audience
urge him to reach higher, higher.
6. Yemini finally grasps the tail and
hangs it on Yaacov. Until now Yaacov has
been sitting apparently engrossed in his
work. He seems not to have taken any notice
of the previous proceedings. He now stands
immediately and attempts to denounce this
game for children during work. But he is
drowned out by whoops of laughter from
both the men and women in the room.
7. So Yaacov plays and hangs the tail
on Yaish who has just entered the back
room.
8. Yaish attempts to remove the tail
and is faced by cries of donkey, donkey.
At the same time, Daniel begins to tickle
Yaish.
9. Yaish and Daniel begin to strike one
another on their respective chests and arms
while the others laugh. This play of the game
has ended.
10. Yaish states, Daniel and Chai will be
gentiles even in their graves.
11. Zahava begins to laugh again, and
adds, Right, theyll hang tails on the
angels.
12. Now Rifka quips, Then no one will
know who is an angel and who is Satan. At
these remarks the participants and audience
break into renewed laughter, and Daniel,
Yaish, and Yemini return to their work in
the front room.
One of the most common terms used in
the workshop was donkey. This is a
common term of derision in Israeli speech.
However, it is a term with a broad spectrum
of meaning, ranging from that of mild insult

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

to affection, depending on context and tone.

Unless coupled with visible anger or overt
seriousness, the term was only mildly
derogatory. In the workshop, the term
donkey was used primarily between men.
When used by men t o one another, the term
was often playfully derisive and was often
the basis for extended elaboration of other
mens attributes. This was evident in the
interaction prior to sequence IV. Chai, who
worked in the back room, and Daniel,
Yemini, Yaish, and Eliahu, who worked in
the front room, often engaged in joking
activity with one another. Shimon, who
worked in the back room, sometimes joined
them. These men played practical jokes and
pranks and gently ridiculed one another.
While one on a specific occasion might be
the butt of others, over time all participated
as initiators, targets, and butts. Thus there
were strong elements of mutuality and
camaraderie in their setting-specific joking
with one another.
The game of donkey was rooted in a n
interchange of settingspecific joking which
occurred approximately a month before
sequence IV. At that time, Daniel elaborated
the absurd nature of Chais parentage. He
suggested that there existed in Tunisia,
Chais country of origin, donkey-trees from
which, under the light of the full moon, a
donkey would appear. He then suggested
that one night Chais mother had wandered
through the countryside, become tired, and
lain down to rest under a tree. When the full
moon had risen, a donkey suddenly
appeared and impregnated Chais mother. He
then stated that this was the basis of Chais
parentage. This was considered highly
amusing by the men present, including Chai,
and was extended t o explain Yaishs
paternity in the Yemen. Here foals sprang
whole from the donkey-tree. This theme
continued to be elaborated among this set of
men and the sequence ran its course. The
motif of donkey-tree was not raised again.
However, a few days later, Daniel constructed a device which consisted of a length
of copper wire with a large ceramic button
fastened to one end. He then bent the other
end of the wire into t h e form of a hook.

509

Daniel then began to hang this device onto

the backs of male workers with whom he
joked frequently. He attempted t o d o this
deftly so that they would be unaware of
what he had done. When they discovered the
device he would cry donkey, donkey.
Within a week the device came to be termed
a tail (zanav), and the other men with
whom Daniel had engaged in setting-specific
joking began t o participate in the hanging
and transferring of the donkeys tail. The
only verbal content of this action occurred
when the victim discovered his tail. Then the
cry of donkey might not be limited t o
only the male participants, but the audience,
including the women, could also join in. This
however, depended o n contextual factors, as
did the tempo with which the tail was
transferred. If t h e workshop supervisor or an
administrator of the workshop organization
was present, the cry of LLdonkey was
usually eliminated. Again, if such persons
were present, transfers of the tail were only
rarely carried out in an uninterrupted sequence, as they were in sequence IV. The
participants would then have t o attend to
activities more in keeping with t h e nature of
the workshop and would tend t o their tasks.
Thus, while the joking frame might only be
established for one or two transfers, the
game, the body of shared knowledge which
the frame represented, allowed for the same
frame to be reestablished a t a subsequent
moment in time and the game t o be continued. For the male participants in the
game, the tail represented a n elaboration of
the absurd, a felt incongruence between the
setting in which they were employed, the
workshop, and their own self-conception.
These men had labored most of their lives,
often in hard physical work. They had
supported and maintained their households
as both bread-winner and household head.
Through various circumstances they had
been deprived of the means of earning a
livelihood and had become dependent on
welfare. They were then funneled into the
sheltered workshop as a way of erasing them
from the welfare rolls and allowing them an
earned income. In the workshop they were
given tasks which were minimal both in skill

5 10

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

required and in physical exertion. In

addition, their salaries were minimal.
Finally, all of these men were of North
African or Middle Eastern origin, and all had
been accustomed to domestic and
occupational superordination to women. In
the workshop setting, they had to take
orders from an administration which was
composed only of women, and a supervisor
who was female. The worker with most
influence in the shop was Zahava, also a
woman. Thus they were mature men, doing,
as they would say, the work of children,
earning a minimal income, and taking orders
from women. That these strongly felt incongruities were absurd was expressed in the
donkey game. In the game, mature adult
men were able to sustain a joking frame in
which they hung a donkeys tail on one
another within the context of the sheltered
workshop.
In the week that followed Daniels
introduction of the tail, the following rules
for its use were developed. The participants
never formally stated these as rules, but
whenever one or more of these were absent
or contravened during the transfer of a tail,
the joking frame was subverted. These rules
and the organization of the game included
characteristics which were typical of categoryroutinized frames. While category-routinized
frames are by definition contained and
employ closed referents, once the frame has
been established, the joking activity within it
proceeds through open referents and is
uncontained. By this we mean that all
persons characterized in the definition of the
frame as legitimate participants are then free
to joke with one another in an uncontained
manner using open referents. The game was
restricted to men in the workshop who were
also close friends. These men interacted
often, indulged in frequent setting-specific
joking, and did one another personal favors
unrelated to work. During the course of the
transfer of a tail, a second tail could not be
introduced. Thus only one tail could be in
play at one time. A second tail would
introduce too much uncertainty into the
order of the game. If one tail was in use,

[ 7 4 , 1972

then the participants were aware of who

possessed the tail, and therefore who had the
right to hang the tail, even after lengthy
interruptions. This meant that when one
participant had the tail, he also had the sole
right to make the next transfer whether
within the same frame or the next time the
frame was reestablished. Moreover, this
participant had the right to choose his
target. The redistributive aspect of this right
was mutuality in being both the recipient of
a tail and hanging the tail on another target.
Finally, the tail had to be transferred. If the
tail was not or could not be transferred
within a particular frame, that frame was
destroyed. Then it was up to the participant
who had been the last recipient to hang the
tail on another participant and thereby
establish the subsequent category-routinized
frame. Observation indicated that when
someone other than the established participants attempted to play, the frame would be
destroyed and that segment of the game
ended. The participants might attempt to
induce a non-participant male to play, but
women were always relegated to the roles of
spectators. Observation over a period of a
month also indicated quite clearly that the
transference of the tail among participants
was mutual and that every participant both
received the tail and hung it roughly the
same number of times. Moreover, transference was quite equitably distributed among
all the participants. In summary, the game
consisted of the following rules: (a) only
those classed as close male friends could
play; (b) only one tail could be used at a
time; (c) the tail had to be tran~ferred.~
The tail itself, sometimes with a ceramic
button and sometimes with a large rag
attached, was symbolic of the body of
shared knowledge which constituted the
game. Once a participant took the tail from
his work table or from this pocket, this was
a clear cue that a category-routinized joking
frame was about to be established. The tail,
therefore, also symbolized the rules of the
game. Nevertheless, the game also included
elements of uncertainty and suspense. No
participant knew in advance who would be

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

chosen. Furthermore, the ideal form of the

game required that the tail be hung without
the knowledge of the r e ~ i p i e n t . ~ Then
other participants and the audience could
enjoy the spectacle of the recipient being
labeled as Ldonkey and unaware of this as
he continued his routine activities. This
shared knowledge that others had of the
recipients condition previous t o his knowing
that he had become the target also constituted an incongruent element between
how the recipient conceived of himself a t
that time and how others saw him. Because
the game was almost completely non-verbal,
and indeed could be played in the complete
absence of oral discourse. there was no
elaboration of content. Since the tail was the
object in play, there was also no introduction of new content.
An important component, which we
emphasize, of a games enjoyment, is that a
person is labeled as a donkey for a period
beyond the frame of the game. This is
particularly so when the game is played
before an appreciative public, for, if the
game is then subverted, the last recipient of
the tail is clearly designated in the role of
donkey, and he cannot easily rid himself of
this designation unless he also transfers the
tail before an attentive audience. Even
though he can establish a subsequent frame
and transfer the tail t o one of his friends
with whom he regularly plays, members of
the audience, non-participants, will still consider him t o be the last significant recipient
of the role of donkey unless he effects a
transfer before them.
Given the above information about the
genesis and nature of the donkey game,
we can return t o sequence IV. After Zahava
had interrupted communication between
Chai and Daniel by singing, Daniel returned
with the donkey tail. Where his interchange
with Chai had been contained, by introducing the tail Daniel immediately extended
potential participation t o a number of other
men. However, he continued his interrupted
interchange by first hanging the tail o n Chai
(IV: 1). This immediately evoked amusement and enjoyment from the women in the

511

audience (IV: 2). On this occasion the

supervisor, Rena, was not present in the
workshop, and therefore a number of consecutive transfers of target could be effected.
Each redirection of target was within the
rules, and the participants and audience
acted to supply the maximum surprise,
waiting until a recipient had discovered his
tail before crying donkey (IV: 2-5).
When Yemini was able to grasp his tail
(IV: 6), he hung it o n Yaacov. Yaacov was
not friendly with the other participants and
did not play the game. As an innovator, he
was one of the few men who enjoyed his
work and became engrossed in it. He
considered his status to be higher than that
of the players and boasted frequently about
his abilities where the other players
denigrated the nature of workshop tasks.
By trying t o involve Yaacov in the game,
Yemini was also attempting to get him
publicly t o exhibit the same denigration of
work as that of the players. If Yaacov
acquiesced, his conception of work would
then have been that of the other players and
would have been, at least temporarily, a
denial of his previous involvement with the
tasks of the workshop o n which he based his
status and for which he was rewarded.
Yaacov, however, attempted to deny the
validity of the game and refused t o enter the
joking frame (IV: 6). He specifically stated
the incongruity between gaming and work
by defining the game as one for children.
However, by this time the shared enjoyment
of o t h e r s b o t h participants and audiencewas great, and they greeted Yaacovs
denunciation with whoops of laughter. In
the audience was Zahava, Yaacovs major
competitor in the workshop. If he played,
Yaacov would obviate his rights to status
which he had acquired in the face of
Zahavas opposition. However, if he did not
play, Yaacov was faced with ridicule, for by
this time everyone in t h e shop had accepted
the definition of the joking frame and were
involved as either participant or audience.
Therefore, the definition of the whole
setting had temporarily changed from that
of place of work to a place of fun, and

51 2

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[74,1972

Yaacov was the one who was not acting At this point the men retreated to the front
within the correct frame, The ridicule he was room and returned to work while the
faced with was a consequence of his being women continued to joke.
Loutof frame and not a consequence of his
general unwillingness to play the game. So
CONCLUSION
Yaacov played and hung the tail on Yaish
(IV: 7). Daniel then began to tickle Yaish
Our analysis has focused on the ex(IV: 8), but this introduced new content
into the frame which it could not sustain, amination of joking activity which is organsince this content was not included in the ized in terms of settingspecific and
rules of the game. This effectively destroyed category-routinized frames. We have argued
the joking frame, and this segment of the that such frames, once established, include
rules which guide the subsequent activity of
game ended.
By tickling Yaish and subverting the participants. However, our exposition has
frame, Daniel effectively maintained the not been to illustrate this. Of central conformer as the donkey before an attentive cern has been the isolation of conditions
audience. Yaish collaborated in destroying which lead to the establishment, maintethe frame by lightly striking Daniel. We can nance, and destruction of joking frames. We
now understand Yaishs quip to the audience have done this through the detailed analysis
that Daniel and Chai will be gentiles even in of material collected in two distinct cultural
their graves (IV: 10). Yaish, clearly marked contexts. We have shown that joking frames
as the donkey at the ending of the frame, are highly susceptible to subversion and
then attempted to obscure his designation destruction as a consequence of processes
by focusing attention on Daniel, who had which emerge from the course of joking
subverted the frame, and Chai, whose activity. These processes are related to
supposed action had originally led to the factors which lead to the redirection of
category-routinized frame being established. target and content in joking activity. Thus,
Because the frame had been destroyed, where content is elaborated in joking
members of the audience could now partici- activity, new elements may be introduced
pate more actively and attempt to wrest which were not included in the original
control of the situation from the game definition of the joking frame. This does not
players. Yaishs quip, which contained exclude, as we emphasized in our analysis,
strong elements of the absurd (that Jews are the emergence of factors which can reduce
gentiles) constituted a license to joke which .the effect of subversive elements. Such
was accepted first by Zahava (IV: 11) and factors include the emergence of euphoria or
then by Rifka (IV: 12). Both of their spontaneous enjoyment and the extension of
remarks also included elements of the the field of participants.
Although settingspecific and categoryabsurd. Their acceptance of the license to
joke established a short-lived setting-specific routinized frames are subject to similar sets
joking frame which effectively obscured of conditions which establish and destroy
Yaish as the last recipient of the donkey tail, them, the rules included in the latter have
and under the cover of general laughter greater time depth; in other words, the
evoked by Rifkas comment that no one original definition of the joking frame may
would be able to tell an angel from Satan, be maintained throughout the duration of
the men returned to the front room to work, joking activity. Settingspecific frames are
Thus the setting-specific joking which highly susceptible to early subversion and
emerged from category-routinized joking destruction because there is a high degree of
both turned the focus of attention from feedback from joking activity into the
Yaish and left the back room in control of frame. Such feedback emerges as an unthe women who were joking and laughing. intended consequence of the rules of the

Handelman & Kapferer]

J O K l N G ACTIVITY

frame itself and their modification o r change

during behavior. Our first two sequences
exemplified this. The category-routinized
frame of sequence had a greater time-depth
than the earlier sequence, because this frame
was relatively independent of the joking activity which emerged from it. While new elements were generated in the course of activity, their feedback into the frame was restricted. Sequence IV exemplified a categoryroutinized frame which included rules
governing all subsequent joking activity
which emerged from it. This frame was
highly susceptible t o subversion because the
development of any activity not prescribed
by the frame immediately destroyed it. We
hasten t o add that the reason such a frame
was highly susceptible t o subversion differed
from that for setting-specific frames. Although settingspecific frames could be easily
subverted, they could also incorporate new
rules o r modifications of original ones which
allowed t h e joking activity to be sustained.
This was not t h e case in category-routinized
frames of t h e complex type exemplified by
the donkey game, where n o change in the
rules of the frame could be achieved without
an agreement to change t h e rules of the
game, and the game, as shared knowledge,
existed independently of i t s being played.
While t h e frame of t h e donkey game could
be easily destroyed either by a deviation
from the rules o r by external interruption,
the same frame could quickly be established
on subsequent occasions when the correct
symbol, the tail, was put into play.
We have developed a conceptual scheme
which has enabled us to examine the pattern
and form of joking behavior irrespective of
its specific function o r purpose. Factors
rooted in the social context lead t o t h e onset
of joking and are expressed through it. Thus,
joking may be a form of behavior which
develops, for example, in response to the
necessity to regulate interpersonal hostility
and to control t h e actions of others. However, the conditions which generate the
onset of joking activity may be as varied as
the social contexts in which they arise. This
emphasis has led to numerous scholars

513

treating joking as a mechanism of social

control o r as an expression of mingled
friendship and hostility. Certainly, joking
may include these elements as well as many
others. Such concerns have resulted from
primary interests other than joking o r in
joking as a n illustration of social factors
represented in varying degrees in every social
context. 3 u r approach permits the comparison of the form and pattern of joking
behavior and activity regardless of the
specific social context in which it occurs.
Our conceptual scheme has concentrated o n
the conditions which must be present for
joking to begin, to be sustained, and to be
ended. The emphasis has been o n joking as
behavior and not as function. Nevertheless,
the approach we have adopted does permit
us to place joking activity in its social
context. Sequences we examined, for
instance, constituted examples of joking
activity in response to interpersonal hostility
(sequence I), joking as a mechanism of social
control (sequences I1 and III), and joking as
expressions of friendship and enjoyment
(sequence IV).
The single most important contribution
we hope we have made is to demonstrate
that any form of expressive social activity,
whether it be joking o r not, must be
understood in terms of t h e emergent, selfgenerative form of the activity itself. The
value of this approach has already been
demonstrated by McHugh (1969) under
experimental conditions. Our own orientation has been modified in view of the
complexity of the respective fieldwork
situations in which we conducted our
research.
NOTES

'

Handelman wishes to thank the Bernstein Israeli Scheme, directed by Professor

Max Gluckman, which supported fieldwork
in Jerusalem during 1968-69. During his
fieldwork in Israel Handelman was a Research Associate of t h e Department of Social
Anthropology, University of Manchester.
Kapferer, for the duration of his research in
Zambia, between 1963-66, was supported by
a Commonwealth Scholarship while a Re-

514

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

search Affiliate of the Rhodes-Livingstone

Institute (now the Institute for Social Research). Both authors are deeply indebted to
Wesley Sharrock for his most stimulating
ideas and the numerous discussions we have
had with him. We are also grateful to Roy
Fitzhenry and John Lee.
*We recognize that serious behavior is
frequently interspersed with jokes which are
attempts to modify or destroy frames of
serious activity. Such jokes are used for a
variety of purposes: for example, to effect
greater participation in ongoing activity; to
change or end a topic of discourse potentially embarrassing, revealing, or insulting; or
even to sustain serious discourse. Joking
activity of the kind we examine may begin
in much the same way as joking which is
interspersed throughout serious activity.
However, in the instances we describe,
joking has resulted in the establishment of a
frame in which joking is the predominant
element. What is meant by frame will be
described later in the paper.
Most anthropological writings on the
subject of joking owe their impetus and
direction to the classic articles of RadcliffeBrown (1940, 1949). Even researchers who
have been critical of the arguments presented in these articles, with few exceptions
(Miller 1967; Douglas 1968), have conducted their analysis along the lines
originally suggested by him (Hammond
1964; Sykes 1966; Sharman 1969; Lundberg
1969; Loudon 1970; Coser 1959; Bradney
1957). We refer to Radcliffe-Brown not so
much to criticize and expand upon his ideas,
but to distinguish our approach from his and
to indicate the main direction of our analysis.
Each sequence has been divided into
numbered segments for the convenience of
the reader. References are made to these
numbered segments throughout the body of
this paper. The notation we follow is sequence number, colon, segment number.
These numbered segments have no other
analytic significance.
We use the term personal space in the
sense defined by Sommer as referring to an
area with invisible boundaries surrounding
a persons body and into which an intruder
may not come (1969:26).
Observations by researchers in other
settings indicate that eye instrusions may
evoke less response if the recipient is able to
focus on another activity. For example, in
libraries, The evil eye seems less effective
than a spatial invasion since the victims are
able to lose themselves in their books

[ 74,1972

(Sommer 1969:36). It has been reported

that where the intruder is face-to-face with
his victim, the response is likely to be greater
than if this is not the case.
For a description of possible types of
territoriality see Lyman and Scott (1967).
While territorial conceptions in settings
like the workshop are socially defined and
situationally specific, personal space is
probably culturally specific and not open to
negotiation in interaction.
There is little doubt that Yaacovs
statement was insulting to Chai. Chai was
obese, rarely bathed or changed his clothes,
and his nose dripped continuously. His
physical attributes were used by other
workers to tease and taunt him, and his
nickname, fat Chai, subsumed all those
attributes of his which other workers found
unpleasant.
We would argue that if the intruder
had been a worker of more equal status
Yaacov would not have reacted in an insulting manner and that Yaacov would not
have employed the use of the third person to
deal with such an intruder in the latters
presence.
The distinction here is basically
Batesons differentiation between report
and command aspects of communication.
Yaacovs statement was declarative, but
depending on his intent it could have been
rhetorical, with no reply required, or the
opposite, encouraging reply. We, however,
are not concerned with psychic intent. What
is important is that Chai did reply, and thus
in social terms Yaacovs declarative statement was non-rhetorical.
Later, in private, Shimon, Yaacovs
closest friend in the workshop, expressed the
sentiment that on this occasion Yaacov
Wasnt nice. He had n o good reason to
slander Chai.
We use the term license to joke in its
dual meaning: first as permission to joke
extended t o the initiator by members of his
audience and, second, as behavioral license.
Thus Douglas (1968:365) argues that The
joke affords opportunity for realizing that
an accepted pattern has no necessity. Its
excitement lies in the suggestion that any
particular ordering of experience may be
arbitrary and subjective. The initiator of a
joke, if the joke is accepted by his audience,
then offers participation in illicit expression
which would ordinarily be sanctioned if
expressed in serious discourse. His joke
establishes a frame for the expression of
behavior for which he and other participants

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

would be held responsible in serious discourse. As long as this frame is sustained

through joking interaction by participants
expression, ordinarily considered illicit,
off-key, etc., will not only be tolerated
but enjoyed by participants.
14
Our general orientation t o social interaction is that it is focused o n particular
meaning contexts and associated behavior.
These foci constitute analytic frames in
which participants behave toward one another in terms of rules appropriate to the
expression of meaning-content contained
within the frame. In addition, there are rules
governing shifts from o ne frame t o another.
This approach is similar t o that of Goffman
(1961) who considered some of the conditions required for t he establishment of
encounters, the rules which form the
boundaries of an encounter, and the
dynamics in terms of which an encounter is
played o u t by participants. We are here
concerned with
the transition
from
serious activity t o joking activity or, in
our terms, t h e transposition to activity
w i th in
a
joking
frame.
Douglas
(1968:372) has suggested that a joke represents a temporary suspension of the social
structure, o r rather it makes a little disturbance in which the particular structuring of
society becomes less relevant than another.
(See also Zijderveld 1968:290.)
We use t h e term absurd t o refer t o the
incongruity between behavioral expectations
and th e expressive content of activity. The
introduction into discourse of elements
incongruous with social setting and role
expectations o f participants is potentially
funny. T h e spontaneous element in
laughter may well rest o n recognition by
participants of t h e incongruities between
behavioral expectations derived from previous and perhaps on-going interaction, and
the shift in t h e meaning of actual behavior.
A statement is absurd and potentially funny
only when measured against dominant
cultural values, behavioral expectations, and
experienced previous interaction. Douglas
has suggested that A joke is a play upon
form. I t brings into relation disparate
elements in such a way that o n e accepted
pattern is challenged by t h e appearance of
another which in some way was hidden in
the first (1968:365). But an absurd statement only becomes funny (i.e., shared)
when other persons participate in t h e
elaboration of its content. A joking frame
can only come into being when others
accept the absurd (incongruent) definition
of t h e situation.

16

515

I t should be noted that it is the actual

participation by others within the meaningcontext of the joking frame which constitutes the license to joke, while it is the
content of their participation which constitutes t h e elaboration of joking within the
frame.
17
Our indicator of the acceptance of a
joking frame and subsequent enjoyment is
laughter by tw o o r more participants or
members of the audience in the setting.
While we recognize that acceptance of joking
may be expressed in many other ways (see
Burns 1953), shared laughter, in our terms,
is the most definite indicator that the absurd
attributes of t h e action have been
recognized.
I 8 A more complete description of the
work process in the cell room is given in
Kapferer (1969).
l g F o n t i n i is a term, often used in an
insulting way between urban Africans, which
refers to the unfamiliarity which the
individual(s) has with civilized town
customs.
Th e European foreman usually spoke
Chilupulapu with the African workers.
Then Chipalo would have been teased
until he was trapped in a rise (Goffman
1961:58) t o the shared enjoyment of the
other participants and t h e audience.
We should add that self-directed joking
activity should not require negotiation because the initiator is also the target. Therefore, other potential participants can only
accept o r reject his definition of t h e joking
frame.
2 3 S ee J. C. Mitchell (1956:35-42) for a
general description of urban tribal joking
relationships in Zambia.
For example, visitors from other areas
of t h e mine plant o r from the township who
wished to visit friends o r relatives in the cell
room during working hours had t o wait
outside the cell room until their friend or
relative could come outside t o speak with
them.
F o r a discussion of the nature of
home man o r home boy relationships,
see Harries-Jones (1969).
2 6 Gordon did not allow such penetrations. Of all the cell room workers he most
energetically defended the privacy of his
territory which centered a bout his scrubbing
bench. He refused workers access to the
water tap located above his bench, and he
maintained that this ta p water was only to
be used t o wash down dirty cathodes. By

516

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

restricting entry to territory in which a

major potential public resource was located,
Gordon erected a barrier around himself.
27The area around the drying fire is
regarded as public territory by the unit three
workers. It is also centrally located, and
most unit three employees in the course of
their work pass close by it. The fire is used
by the workers to warm hands and limbs on
cold wintry days, and to dry clothing; and it
is where many of the workers roast the
maize cobs they occasionally bring with
them to eat at work.
2 8 0 n e salient reason for much of
Andrews actions stems from elements of
status inconsistency. Where, in the cell
room, workers held general expectations of
being accorded respect according to one
dimension of status, age (Andrew was fiftytwo years old), Andrew worked in a low
status job generally filled by considerably
younger workers. At the same time, younger
workers also filled comparatively higher
status jobs.
Godfrey
termed Gordon Andrews
bululu. This is a town word derived from the
Afrikaans broer, brother, and indicates that
a relationship contains most of the sentiments and emotional aspects which
individuals normally associate with kinship
relations in the rural areas. Urban African
residents will often declare that bululu are
more important than those to whom they
can trace a genealogical relationship.
The donkey game closely resembled
the game of tag. While the frame within
which tag is played will be destroyed by
interruptions, knowledge of the game often
allows participants to continue where they
left off with the last person tagged having
the right to make the first tag when the
frame is again reestablished. In addition, a
set number of players is usually not
required, and the participant with the next
right of tag can then tag any of the
participants he wishes or can reach. The
game as presented here, only existed for a
month. Then Daniel was transferred to
another workshop, and the game acquired a
radically different cast.
31The hanging of a tail on anothers
person also constituted licensed behavior,
since it was a clear invasion of the recipients
personal space. This is an additional
indicator that the guidelines of non-joking
discourse had been suspended.
The regular participants all exhibited
what Goffman has termed role distance
(1961:108).They exhibited lack of involvement in the work roles, thus indicating the

174, 1972

incongruity between their roles as adult men

and their task roles in the sheltered workshop. Furthermore, they indicated that they
considered their work simple by treating it
in an off-hand manner as if it were n o match
for their skills. Within this frame of reference, therefore, a worker like Yaacov who
was engrossed and involved in his work
appeared to be slow-witted and unskilled.
However, workshop rewards were given for
involvement and engrossment; therefore, to
the supervisor, it was Yaacov who appeared
conscientious and the game players who
appeared lazy.

REFERENCES CITED
Blau. Peter M.
1964 Exchange and Power in Social
Life. London: John Wiley.
Bradney, Pamela
1957 The Joking Relationship in
Industry.
Human
Relations
10:179-187.
Burns, Tom
1953
Friends. Enemies and the Polite
~.~~
Fiction. American Sociological Review
18:654-662.
Coser, Rose Laub
1959 Some Social Functions of Laughter: A Study of Humor in a Hospital
Setting. Human Relations 12:171-181.
Douglas, Mary
1968 The Social Control of Cognition:
Some Factors in Joke Perception. Man
3:361-376.
Emerson, Joan P.
1969 Negotiating the Serious Import of
Humor. Sociometry 32:169-181.
Goffman, Erving
1952 On Cooling the Mark Out. Psychiatry 15(4):455-463.
1961 Encounters: Two Studies in the
Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill.
Hammond, Peter B.
1964 Mossi
Joking.
Ethnology
3:259-267.
Harries-Jones, P.
1969 Home-Boy Ties and Political
Organization in a Copperbelt Township. In Social Networks In Urban
Situations. J. C. Mitchell, Ed. ManChester: Manchester University Press.
Kapferer, Bruce
1969 Norms and the Manipulation of
Relationships in a Work-Context. In
Social Networks in Urban Situations.
J. C. Mitchell, Ed. Manchester: ManChester University Press.

Handelman & Kapferer]

JOKING ACTIVITY

Loudon, J o e
1 9 7 0 Teasing and Socialization o n
Tristan Da Cunha. I n Socialization:
The Approach of Social Anthropology. P. Mayer, Ed. London:
Tavistock.
Lyman, Stanford M., and Marvin B. Scott
1 9 6 7 Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension. Social Problems
15:236-249.
Lundberg, Craig C.
1 9 6 9 Person-Focused Joking: Pattern
and Function. Human Organization
28:22-28.
McHugh, Peter
1 9 6 9 Defining the Situation: Th e Organization of Meaning in Social Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Miller, Frank C.
1967 Humor in a Chippewa Tribal
Council. Ethnology 6:263-271.
Mitchell, J. C.
1956 The
Kalela
Dance.
RhodesLivingstone Paper 27. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.

517

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R.
1 9 4 0 On Joking Relationships. Africa
13:195-210. (Reprinted in Structure
and Function in Primitive Society.
London: Cohen and West, 1952.)
1 9 4 9 A Further Note o n Joking
Relationships.
Africa 19 :133-140.
(Reprinted in Structure and Function
in Primitive Society. London: Cohen
and West, 1952).
Sharman, Anne
1 9 6 9 Joking in Padhola: Categorical
Relationships, Choice and Social Control. Man 4:103-117.
Sommer, Robert
1 9 6 8 Personal
Space. New
York:
Prentice-Hall.
Sykes, A. J. M.
1 9 6 6 Joking
Relationships
in
an
Industrial Setting. American Anthropologist 6 8 :188-193.
Zijderreld, Anton C.
1 9 6 8 . Jokes and their Relation to Social
Reality. Social Research 35:286-311.