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
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
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
The joking relationship can be seen as a way to keep peace among certain members of society, epspecially between the conjunction and disjunction relationships. Without the joking relationship tension between members of these two groups could escalate to the point where coexisting could become difficult, or even impossible. One specific example brought up by Radcliffe-Browne is "an alliance by exchange of goods and services may be associated with a joking relationship" (187). A joking relationship can often provide a topic of conversation for people who would normally have nothing to discuss.
Savannah Fetterolf
Lauren, Jill, and Julia did an excellent job of covering Radcliffe-Brown’s discussion of the “joking relationship” and how it pertains to both the individual and society. I think Jill’s discussion of the practice of tipping is quite applicable to the discussion of a social fact. In my own experience, a social fact that I commonly think about is metro etiquette. For example, on the escalators the common procedure for riders is to stand on the right and let those who want to walk up the escalator pass on the left. For frequent metro users, tourists who block the left side of the escalator are quite a nuisance and are often the recipients of a frustrated stare and a brusque “excuse me.” Like Radcliffe-Brown’s discussion of joking relationships, there are no means of enforcing metro etiquette and there is no written law, but it is a commonly accepted fact amongst members of the metro “culture.” In addition, going against the social norm of proper metro etiquette often ends in the deviant feeling uncomfortable with their inability to blend in with the experienced metro user.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.