This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by HOLMES, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Politeness, Power and Provocation: How Humour Functions in the Workplace

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON

This article examines verbal humour in routine interactions within professional workplaces, using material recorded in four New Zealand government departments. The problem of defining humour is discussed, followed by a brief outline of the theoretical models which underpin the analysis of the various functions which humour serves in professional organizations.

Humour can express positive affect in interaction. It can also facilitate or `licence' more negative interpersonal communicative intent. While politeness theory can account for the former, as a means of expressing collegiality at work, or de-emphasizing power imbalances, in its standard form politeness theory does not explain barbed, competitive or confrontational humour. For this it is necessary to look to `the dark side of politeness' (Austin, 1990). An alternative perspective thus examines the extent to which humour functions, especially in unequal encounters, as an acceptable strategy to help superiors maintain a position of power but also as a strategy used by subordinates to licence challenges to the power structures within which they operate, and as a legitimizing strategy in attempts at subverting the repressive or coercive discourse of superiors.

Key Words: contestation • critical discourse analysis • humour • politeness theory • power • resistance • workplace

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Guowei Jian, A. M. Schmisseur, and G. T. Fairhurst Organizational discourse and communication: the progeny of Proteus Discourse & Communication, August 1, 2008; 2(3): 299 - 320. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Cooper Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process model Human Relations, August 1, 2008; 61(8): 1087 - 1115. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Swann and J. Maybin Introduction: Language Creativity in Everyday Contexts Applied Linguistics, December 1, 2007; 28(4): 491 - 496. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Holmes Making Humour Work: Creativity on the Job Applied Linguistics, December 1, 2007; 28(4): 518 - 537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. D. Bell Book review: MICHAEL BILLIG, Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. London: Sage, 2005. 264 pp. $39.95 (pbk), $104.00 (hbk) Discourse Society, July 1, 2007; 18(4): 508 - 510. [PDF]

				J. Watts IV. Can't Take a Joke? Humour as Resistance, Refuge and Exclusion in a Highly Gendered Workplace Feminism Psychology, May 1, 2007; 17(2): 259 - 266. [PDF]

				J. Holmes Humour and the Construction of Maori Leadership at Work Leadership, February 1, 2007; 3(1): 5 - 27. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Prichard Challenging Academic Imperialism: Some Tactics for Constructing an Organizational Communication of the Elsewhere Management Communication Quarterly, November 1, 2005; 19(2): 270 - 278. [PDF]

				N. D. Bell Book Review: Laughter in Interaction Discourse Studies, February 1, 2005; 7(1): 137 - 138. [PDF]

				A. Chapple and S. Ziebland The Role of Humor for Men with Testicular Cancer Qual Health Res, October 1, 2004; 14(8): 1123 - 1139. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. R. Gouin What's So Funny?: Humor in women's accounts of their involvement in social action Qualitative Research, April 1, 2004; 4(1): 25 - 44. [Abstract] [PDF]