Mary Douglas argues that the meaning and effect of jokes, as symbolic ‘rites’, are not only contained within the speech or act itself, but must also be analysed in relation to the wider social situation from which they arise (Douglas, 93). The importance of the ‘social dimension’ of joke telling can be considered by analysing a stand up comedy performance by Kevin Bridges, a Glaswegian comedian performing in Glasgow.
(I refer to up to 3:46)
According to Douglas, for a joke to be ‘permitted’ and found funny by a group, it must be contained within the social structure itself (Douglas, 98). Thus, arguably Bridges’ observations in this performance are funny because he lays bare the tensions and contradictions of life in Glasgow that already exist. Thus the audience, constituted of Glaswegian people, are able to resonate with his observations, because they map onto their shared ‘social experience’ in a meaningful way (Douglas, 100). For example, Bridges admits to feeling a secret pride when English people comment upon Glasgow’s reputation for violence, a joke which embodies both the stereotype of Glaswegian people as fiercely patriotic, with the real prevalence of crime in the city. For Douglas, the role of the ‘joker’ is to produce these kinds of ‘disruptive comments’, and thus express the wider ‘consensus’ of the social group, which is, in this case, a room full of Glaswegian people, made manifest through their laughter (Douglas, 107).
In this way, a joke can operate as an ‘anti-rite’, which aims to break down and deconstruct dominant values, beliefs and hierarchies (Douglas, 100). For example, Bridges later constructs the profile of a stereotypical Glaswegian citizen called ‘wee mental Davey’, an ‘apprentice joiner’ and ‘father of six’. As each detail of this ‘real’ representation of Glasgow is revealed, the laughter increases, as the audience shares in a mutual acknowledgement of the stereotypes that more accurately characterise Glasgow’s populace, compared to an advertisement that Bridges previously described. Bridges thus fulfils the ‘social requirements’ for the ‘permitting’ of his less-than-charitable depictions of Glasgow, as he is poking fun at the very group to which he himself belongs (Douglas, 98). It is not difficult to imagine how differently these same jokes would be received if they were delivered by an Edinburgh native to the same audience. Additionally, Bridges’ comedic persona is that of a dry, witty Glaswegian, who utilises the scathing yet self-deprecating tone native to the Scottish comedic sensibility. Thus, this particular Glaswegian audience is well equipped to translate and decode the nuances in his observations and style of delivery. Therefore, when Bridges jokes that ‘wee mental Davey’ named his daughter destiny ‘after the night club in which she was conceived’, the audience knows that he is laughing with, not at them. Resultantly, Bridges’ and his audience become ‘undifferentiated’, ‘unhierarchised’, and thus made equal, through a mutual recognition of their common lived experience (Douglas, 104).
Douglas, Mary, ‘Jokes’ in Implicit meanings in anthropology (1975): 146-164.