In "What is a Social Fact?" Durkheim says that social facts "consist of representations and of actions" and that "the function of a social fact ought always to be sought in its relation to some social end." Radcliffe-Brown provides a detailed analysis of "the joking relationship" as social fact. What is the function of the joking relationship? Suggest another examples of a social fact. What is its function? How are they embodied in collective representations?

Julia Derouard RE: Julia's post Allison Moss Jill Coen Radcliffe-Brown provides analysis of several interpersonal kin relationships to show the function of the joking relationship existent in each scenario. Joking is an example of Durkheim’s social facts, or the performance of contract or duty regulated by inherited, learned laws and customs (73). The function of the joking relationship, as Radcliffe-Brown illustrates, is a mode “of organizing a definite and stable system of social behavior in which conjunctive and disjunctive components…are maintained and combined” (200). In other words, there are interpersonal relationships that are at once challenged by a conjunctive (attached) and disjunctive (separated) element, such as the binding of families/clans through marriage. In one sense, Radcliffe-Brown says, the husband remains an outsider to his wife’s clan even after marriage. In another sense, the wife remains very much attached to her relatives who continue to take interest in her after her marriage. The attachment or conjunction creates a possibility for avoidance, and disjunction or separation creates a possibility for hostility and conflict. Radcliffe-Brown shows that “the alternative to this relation of extreme mutual respect and restraint is the joking relationship, one, that is, of mutual disrespect and licence. Any serious hostility is prevented by the playful antagonism,” and “a constant expression of teasing” (197). In other words, the joking relationship diffuses tension in interpersonal relationships where it exists and makes possible a relationship conflicted by conjunction and disjunction. Another example of Durkheim’s social fact, “ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual, and endowed with a power of coercion,” also referred to as “moral maxims” and social “laws,” include such acts as paying gratuities. Regarding gratuities, the fact of tipping is not a law in the legal sense of the word, but it is something we are taught to do, something we are ought to do, and something we can be criticized, ostracized and given bad service for in the future if it isn’t paid. The function of gratuities in its most altruistic form is to acknowledge hard work and attentiveness in the service industry. Another realty of tipping is to keep cost of labor down for restaurant and bar employers when business isn’t booming. Either way, collective representations of tipping stare up at us every time we charge a service bill and see the line for “ TIP: ____ .” At restaurants, serves whisper about there tips. Cafes continually quip cuter and savvier lines to attract attention to the shared tip jar. Bell hops and airport curbside aids linger with strong eye contact after unloading your bags. Although it is not legislative, gratuity is law, and resistance to it does not go unpunished.   Lauren Deal Lindsey Scott Savannah Fetterolf

!

!

Julia Derouard

Radcliffe-Brown discusses the place of the joking relationship regarding social structure. According to Radcliffe-Brown, joking relationships “are modes of organizing a definite and stable system of social behavior” (183). He believed that these joking relationships helped with the socialization of a given people. He goes on to say that this type of social behavior has two components, a conjunctive aspect and disjunctive one. By this he means that there is both attachment and a sense of separation between the two parties involved. For example, he discusses relationships in which there is mutual respect and mutual disrespect. However, these two opposites are able to co-exist because they work together creating the whole structure situation of joking behavior.

This joking relationship is definitely an example of a social fact. In American society, there is the general understanding of friendliness. (Although it’s a big generalization) within a smaller social situation, people are expected to engage in general niceties, by saying “how are you doing today?” or “have a nice day”. These phrases are often used even if there is no specific desire to engage in conversation with the other person. This social fact functions by facilitating basic day-today social interactions.

RE: Julia's post

Allison Moss

Going along with Julia's discussion as the joking relationship as a social fact, I would say that joking functions as a mode of creating solidarity and establishing identity among parties in society. In another class I'm taking this semester, we read a book by Keith Basso about American Indian joking patterns. The population being studied made jokes at the "Whiteman's" expense by exaggerating characteristics of his culture. In this way, the American Indian community was able to define who they are as a people by joking about what they are specifically not.

!

!

!

Jill Coen

Radcliffe-Brown provides analysis of several interpersonal kin relationships to show the function of the joking relationship existent in each scenario. Joking is an example of Durkheim’s social facts, or the performance of contract or duty regulated by inherited, learned laws and customs (73). The function of the joking relationship, as Radcliffe-Brown illustrates, is a mode “of organizing a definite and stable system of social behavior in which conjunctive and disjunctive components…are maintained and combined” (200). In other words, there are interpersonal relationships that are at once challenged by a conjunctive (attached) and disjunctive (separated) element, such as the binding of families/clans through marriage. In one sense, Radcliffe-Brown says, the husband remains an outsider to his wife’s clan even after marriage. In another sense, the wife remains very much attached to her relatives who continue to take interest in her after her marriage. The attachment or conjunction creates a possibility for avoidance, and disjunction or separation creates a possibility for hostility and conflict. Radcliffe-Brown shows that “the alternative to this relation of extreme mutual respect and restraint is the joking relationship, one, that is, of mutual disrespect and licence. Any serious hostility is prevented by the playful antagonism,” and “a constant expression of teasing” (197). In other words, the joking relationship diffuses tension in interpersonal relationships where it exists and makes possible a relationship conflicted by conjunction and disjunction.

Another example of Durkheim’s social fact, “ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual, and endowed with a power of coercion,” also referred to as “moral maxims” and social “laws,” include such acts as paying gratuities. Regarding gratuities, the fact of tipping is not a law in the legal sense of the word, but it is something we are taught to do, something we are ought to do, and something we can be criticized, ostracized and given bad service for in the future if it isn’t paid. The function of gratuities in its most altruistic form is to acknowledge hard work and attentiveness in the service industry. Another realty of tipping is to keep cost of labor down for restaurant and bar employers when business isn’t booming. Either way, collective representations of tipping stare up at us every time we charge a service bill and see the line for “ TIP: ____ .” At restaurants, serves whisper about there tips. Cafes continually quip cuter and savvier lines to attract attention to the shared tip jar. Bell hops and airport curbside aids linger with strong eye contact after unloading your bags. Although it is not legislative, gratuity is law, and resistance to it does not go unpunished.

 

Lauren Deal

Throughout this essay, Radcliffe-Brown analyzes the many specific relationships that are negotiated by the "joking relationship." These vary as widely as inter-clan relationships, marital relationships, and cross-generational relationships such as that of child and grandfather. In the end, he comes to the conclusion that the “joking relationship” is one of four mechanisms for the maintenance of alliances. As Julia has mentioned above, he states that joking relationships “are modes of organizing a definite and stable system of social behavior” (183). In addition, he states on page 184 that these relationships are “a method of organizing a relation which combines social conjunction and disjunction.” In other words, the joking relationship brings together relationships that are in other ways separated by some other type of social convention. In this way, it seems to me that the “joking relationship” is perhaps primarily a leveling mechanism that has the secondary application of facilitating alliances.

“Social Facts,” being reflections of the existence of a social reality, are pervasive in all societies. In the case of the “joking relationship” as a leveling mechanism, the social fact of the “joking relationship” stands upon another social fact, which is that in a given society there exists an asymmetrical relationship between the people involved. As much as the use of the “joking relationship” to level this asymmetry is a social fact, so is the asymmetry itself. For example, it is not the decision of an individual grandfather to be in a position warranting respect in relation to his grandchild but rather a manifestation of a societal emphasis on generational respect. These social positions can only be leveled because they exist in society.

Lindsey Scott