Affective spaces,humour and power in 24-hour care institutions for young people in vulnerable positions

Introduction

Laughter, jokes, jesting, irony, teasing, sarcasm, in short, an array of types of humour, plays an essential role in interpersonal relationships because humour often serves as a social bridge in facilitating social relationships. Multiple researchers have demonstrated how humour works as a lubricant in the establishment of a commitment to new relationships (Gitterman, 2003; Rocke, 2015; Ziv, 2010). Humour also has the capacity to highlight and make visible the less obvious dynamics of interpersonal, asymmetrical power dynamics. Jordan (2017) states that humour ought to be considered as a central aspect of social work, on a par with more commonly recognised features, such as empathy, perseverance and legislative competence (Jordan, 2017).

Humour is recognised as a social phenomenon (see, e.g. Ersfjord, 2018; Loizou, 2005) and research with sociological approaches to humour exist (Andersen, 2015; Mik-Meyer, 2007), but the spatial aspect of humour in social work research is a neglected topic (Ersfjord, 2018; Morriss, 2015), just as Jeyasingham (2014) and Warming and Fahnøe (2017) point out that the number of studies done on space in social work research is highly limited. Based on a comprehensive field study conducted in a social institution for children and youth in positions of vulnerability this article argues that adding a spatial perspective to humour makes the dynamics of affect, feelings and power more visible and sensed in the research process.

The article outlines a spatial perspective on humour that emphasises the connectedness of power and humour to space as an affective practice. The article draws on an understanding of affective spaces that focusses on: ‘how embodied emotions and affect are intricately connected to specific contexts and practices’ (Jayne et al., 2010: 540) due to the reliance of the current study on De Certeau’s notion of tactical behaviour in strategically dominated spaces (De Certeau, 1984). Hence this study takes the emotional turn (Bondi et al., 2005) in geography seriously by focussing on emotions from a broad perspective in which they occur or are felt more than just in the body. From this point of view, emotions are entangled with the construction of spatial structures and dynamics as the conditions that produce them is precipitated by spatiality. The article develops an approach that makes it possible to better identify the tensions and heaviness of situations, but also how moods and positions of power simultaneously are constructed, intensified, resolved and reconfigured.

Background

Bowles’ 1994 article, ‘Black humor as self-affirmation’ highlights, how black American comedians have embraced, but not accepted, culturally constructed stereotypes about the black community. When black comedians, using tokens of black humour, ridicule the constructions they experience in society, the jokes serve as self-affirmation, nullifying the constructions of how black people behave (Bowles, 2005: 8–9). Well-timed humour can release tension and diffuse conflicts. Rocke’s (2015) study of the use of humour in workshops in health care organizations argues that the use of humour can provide safe spaces and help promote consensus in discussions between staff on sensitive, potentially troublesome issues, for instance, social inequality, prejudice and asymmetrical access to treatment. Some researchers even argue that humour played (and still plays) an essential role in the development of advanced thinking and, as such, in the evolution of higher-order intelligence in human beings (Porteus, 1989).

Humour comes in many forms and is used in therapeutic social work (Longo, 2010), in social support contexts (Howland and Simpson, 2014), as a coping mechanism (Plester, 2009; Sanders, 2004) and as a basis for liking other people. For instance, Treger et al. (2013) note that the list of sought-after traits in friendships and romantic relationships is long and varied, but a good sense of humour is often found at the top of the list.

Jordan (2017) argues that humour always has played an essential role in social work practice but not necessarily an exclusively positive one because, while it can be conceived as a coping mechanism in managing the complexities of social work, it can potentially risk undermining what is otherwise a serious situation. Moreover, using humour deviates from standard approaches and may be perceived as unprofessional, especially if employed inappropriately with people in vulnerable positions (Jordan, 2017). Sullivan (2000), who draws a similar conclusion in a study on social workers’ use of gallows humour, finds that, although using humour can diffuse a difficult situation, gallows humour contains the risk of being prejudiced or patronising if used without reflection and used carefully. Sullivan (2000) also argues that reflexivity cannot perfectly prevent risk in its entirety and points out that gallows humour routinely is used among professionals to mitigate the potentially negative power of humour, helping social workers avoid the use of humour when working face to face with vulnerable individuals. Sanders’ (2004) study on female sex workers shows that humour shapes the emotions affiliated with executing sex work and that joking and jesting target multiple aspects of sex work, ranging from the personal (the clients’ physical appearance) to the institutional (why people buy commercial sex) to the societal (society’s attitude towards female prostitution) level. Finally, humour is also serving as a mechanism for establishing social relationships and as an emotional coping strategy (Sanders, 2004). As such humour is a multi-functional (Holmes, 2000), multi-dimensional (Gouin, 2004) and perhaps spatially embedded concept (Ridanpää, 2014).

The abovementioned studies indicate that valuable lessons can be gained from the sensitive use of humour, but research on humour in social work nonetheless remains scarce (Andersen, 2015; Ersfjord, 2018; Mik-Meyer, 2007; Morriss, 2015). Expanding the discussion, Bell (2009) underlines that research on the absence of humour is notably non-existent from research in general. Admittedly, to some extent, humour has not been a core issue in research focussing on sociologically oriented social work (Jordan, 2017). One possible reason for this oversight is that social work typically is not associated with humour and laughter (Morriss, 2015; Witkin, 1999). Another reason for neglecting or treating humour as a secondary aspect of social work is that humour, like many other concepts, is simultaneously theoretically comprehensible and empirically elusive and only identifiable in specific context-bound social settings. From this perspective humour, like all other emotions, can entail any number of approaches (Olin, 2016) and often simultaneously consists of multiple, complex layers of meaning and interpretation (Ersfjord, 2018).

From an anthropological point of view Apte’s cross cultural study of humour serves as an exemplary guideline to how humour is closely connected to the social structures of a culture. Apte (1985), who notes that ‘culture constitutes the contextual, textual and technical bases of humour’ (1985: 263), explains that humour reveals and involves both individual and collective social structures, especially when social norms is violated or ignored. Notably, Apte’s study does not attempt to define humour in any specific way. Instead, he relies on the observation of participants in specific social settings to identify their reactions and judgements to determine what is funny, focussing on facial expressions and emotions. Apte’s spatial approach is useful in its focus on how humour is outlined in contextual settings. However, the study has weaknesses in that people do not necessarily laugh or smile when something is funny, just as they may laugh or smile when the use of humour is not present (Porteus, 1989).

Theoretical approach

To a large extent humour consists of a fabric of social constructions that reveal cultural codes as humour tend to restructure these constructions, making discrepancies and incongruities visible. Although humour is situational and spontaneous by nature, Bourdieu reminds us that humour also involves a knowledge of history:

[…] The art of making fun without raising anger, by means of ritual mockery or insults which are neutralized by their very excess and which, presupposing a great familiarity with which they use it, are in fact tokens of attention of affections, ways of building up while seeming to run down, of accepting while seeming to condemn – although they may also be used to test out those who show signs of stand-offishness (1984: 183).

In accordance with Bille and Simonsen (2019) we assert that humour is a spatially embedded and, especially, felt phenomenon, which means humour is understood here not just being in the relationship between different bodies, but rather, humour is the relationship. As a result humour produces spatial practices, with the emerging atmospheres stemming from this production of spaces affecting the human bodies present (Bille and Simonsen, 2019: 2, 9–10). Bille and Simonsen (2019) emphasises an active agent that both is affected by and affects the body. They treat affect, not just as a passive noun (with nearly ontological status) but as an adjective or verb, arguing that the lived body is a valuable point of departure for understanding how individuals attune themselves (and others) to and through the atmosphere. Bille and Simonsen (2019) understand affect and atmospheres as something people both feel and actively do in their daily practices. In this sense, practice is not merely equivalent to the local (Anderson, 2008). Being informed by and intertwined with power structures, discourse and bodily agency, space and practice are always relational and under construction. Thus, the link between the local and space is not fixed, but a result of complex dynamics operating at numerous levels and with multiple perspectives. In terms of humour, this dynamic between various structures is comprehended in a perspective where the culture of humour in the institution not only is a result of the everyday practices within the institution. The construction of the humour dispositions of the institution is based on complex never ending processes constituted by policy discourses, professional discourses, the relationships the young people and the social workers engage in outside the institution and much more. In such a dynamic perspective there can be no point of origin between the local and space.

To comprehend this dynamic process, the article draws on French geographer and sociologist De Certeau’s, 1984: xviii–xxii, 29–42) distinction between spatial strategies and situational, place-bound tactical behaviours. This study demonstrates how a spatial, humour-sensitive approach enables an understanding of emotions that include power dynamics and making the situation’s atmosphere sensible.

In The Practice of Everyday Life, De Certeau (1984) distinguishes between two types of actions that, when combined, constitute the production of space: strategical domination and tactical actions. The former, which deals with asymmetrical power relations, involves strategies of domination stemming from those in power. De Certeau states that a strategic action is possible: ‘as soon as a subject with will and power (a business, an army, a city and a scientific institution) can be isolated. It postulates a place that can be delimited as its own and serve as the base from which relations with an exteriority composed of targets or threats (customers or competitors, enemies, the country surrounding the city, objectives and objects of research etc.) can be managed’ (De Certeau, 1984: 35–36).

This study deals with an institution for vulnerable children and youth and hence an institutional practice that primarily is defined by the adult staff and by the rules of the institution. As a result, the daily life of the children and youth can be comprehended in terms of this dominant practice that to a high degree structures and organizes the young people’s lives.

However, De Certeau also talks about tactical actions, which represent a form of practice that relates to subjects who live in strategically dominated spaces. Tactical actions are the dominated subject’s chance to act (at least to some degree) freely in strictly dominated spaces. However desirable tactical actions may be, they come with a shortcoming in that they can only persist for a limited time. To succeed and become accepted, tactical actions must dislocate the dominant structure and begin to function as new strategies of domination (Colebrook, 2005: 547). De Certeau corroborates this in that ‘It [the tactical action] operates in isolated actions, blow by blow. It takes advantage of “opportunities” and depends on them, being without any base where it could stockpile its winnings, build up its own position, and plan raids. What it wins it cannot keep’ (De Certeau, 1984: 37). This quote indicates that tactical actions are closely connected to situations and context, given that tactical actions are entwined with the possibilities of the moment. In the present study, the use of humour can be understood as a tactical device and, in some instances, as an act of resistance towards the dominant logic of the institution. This is not the same as saying, however, that the use of humour only is a matter of functionality and that humour only belongs to the dominated subjects. On the contrary, the following will contain examples of that using humour may have unexpected consequences, can be spontaneous and not pre-meditated, and may derive from many sources.

Method

As the research deals with spatial structures and tactical behaviors in complex institutions in which individual and structural dynamics affect the culture of humour, the article is empirically based on a comprehensive field study undertaken in a social institution. The social institution deals with children and youth in vulnerable positions who have committed crimes such as shoplifting, street assault and even arson. Further some of the young people have a psychiatric diagnosis. The fieldwork was conducted as a part of the research project Citizenship on the Edge (Citizenship on the Edge, n.d.) and was reported to the Danish Data Protection Agency, in order to secure formal protection of personal information during the research process. Furthermore, the researchers in the project formed a research group in which ethical considerations were discussed and debated. Recognising the futility of trying to be aware of and avoid all potential ethical issues (Fine, 1993), the intent of the group was to secure that whenever each researcher either faced an ethical research issue, or could foresee a potential ethical conflict it was to be raised in the research group. In case of doubts of what kind of action should be taken as regards to the issue at hand, the ethical board of the research institution was to be involved. For instance, the group discussed how to behave whenever a distressing situation would arise in the fieldwork. The group developed various strategies in order to cope with such situations (e.g. withdrawal from the situation, addressing the situation, engaging in the resolvement of the situation, etc.). When such a situation occurred, the researcher discussed the solution with the research group afterwards.

The research method was partly based on six months of participant observations, with the researcher taking on the role Mandell (1988) describes as ‘the least social worker’. The ‘least social worker’ role was adopted because it was possible to play a more authentic role in which the researcher was not expected to do social work but to participate in daily activities (e.g. attend school and prepare dinner) like the residents. In doing so the children and young people, as well as the social workers’ were aware of my position as a researcher. As the observational study progressed, this research position was gradually accepted. This constituted a risk of violating other actors’ personal space, as the research position almost became a natural part of the institution, and therefore created a relation where the young people and the social workers forgot that there was a researcher present. However, as troublesome as the position was, this approach allowed the researcher to dissociate oneself from the social workers and their realm while still being situated within the institution.

Prior to the observational study, empirical material was collected from the descriptions on the various institutions’ websites and from an analysis of the daily electronic files. The observations comprised short daily visits and overnight stays lasting three to four days at the institution. Daily fieldnotes were taken to obtain a balance between thick and thin descriptions (Denzin, 2001; Ehn and Löfgren, 2001; Geertz, 1973) of the situations and interactions observed. A central aspect of gathering data involved the small talk that took place during field work, an approach inspired by Spradley’s (1979) notion of talking with people and friendly conversations. Follow-up interviews at the institution with staff and children and youth at the institution were supplement to the observations and small talks. Themes in the interviews were related to events and incidents that occurred during fieldwork and in doing so, the interviews underpin the dialogical and constructivist aspect of the fieldwork (Mauksch and Rao, 2014). The interviews lasted between 20 minutes and an hour. Here ethical issues arise, as both the small talks during fieldwork and the interviews might touch on potentially vulnerable information. As such, the ethical task was to balance the need for information with the sensitivity of the situation and the vulnerability of the informant. All names and genders are randomly anonymised, as the article does no attempt to analyse whether the humour used is gender-specific.

Empirical examples

Two empirical examples demonstrate the connectedness of humour to the production of spatial structures and how a spatial, humour-sensitive approach makes power relations and emotions visible.

Affectional spaces and the ability of humour to diffuse tension

This example clearly illustrates that not everything is funny to everyone. As Apte indicates, it is not everyone’s business to determine what is funny. In the example, only the people in a dominant positions determine what is funny, whether it is the social workers jesting with each other or Emil, whose remark positions him above Trine and, as the article will argue, at the top of the hierarchy of young people). When the social workers joked about their weekend, Trine sat quietly and was the only person who did not participate in the conversation. Instead, she stared at her coffee mug, even though most the others apparently saw the situation as cosy and comfortable, the social workers likely working to establish or maintain a sense of camaraderie (Plester, 2009). No one was paying attention to Trine and her unease. The young people and the social workers were caught up in the moment, the story about their weekend dissolving time and space by pulling a private experience into the space of the institution. Arguably, the social workers forgot to be professional when they overlooked the exclusionary nature of their conversation. Trine’s reaction causes enormous tension in that everyone freezes and appears to be weighing in on the atmosphere. According to my interpretation of the social workers’ facial expressions and especially the atmosphere, they became aware of excluding Trine in the exact moment she made her outburst, which instantly jerked Janni and Bjarne away from the story about their weekend and into the present.

The social workers were unable to prevent the outburst because they were unaware of the tension building up until the outburst occurred. In a follow-up interview, ² Trine said she was irritated with the social workers for describing their fun and interesting weekend because she had argued with her mother over and over the same weekend. She was also dissatisfied with how the social workers conducted themselves, stating: ‘They have no right to talk about their own perfect lives (…). They don’t know how we feel and they, uhm, they should be more careful about what they talk about’. Although the approaches of professional social workers concerning what can and cannot be talked about at work may differ, Trine’s interview statements position her in opposition to the social worker. Her reaction, which involved abruptly getting out of her chair, expresses her dissatisfaction with the social structure. Porteus (1989) argues that analysing infractions in response to humour allows identification of the underlying norms of the responses. Janhonen (2017) also shows that this type of analysis provides insight into what children view as appropriate behaviour and rules. Applying De Certeau’s approach, Trine’s outburst represents an unsuccessful attempt to resist the practice of humour as sanctioned by the social workers. Instead of triumphing, Trine’s tactical action results in her withdrawing from the situation, which underpins her unease and marginal position.

In the example, Emil demonstrates reflexive knowledge about the situation and the contextual power dynamics, his comment showing how humour can instantly serve as a tension breaker. By referring to coffee, his tactically humoristic remark points out Trine’s behaviour (and further excludes her) and also acknowledges the tension present in the situation as a whole. The subsequent tittering can be read as a sign of relief in the group due to the unease, inertia and negative tension caused by Trine’s actions. Emil’s comment and the subsequent giggling also help the social workers regain their professional equilibrium and approach.

Altering the power dynamics: humour and revelation

The above example demonstrates how humour simultaneously can serve to break the tension and be exclusionary, while the next one shows how humour is also a powerful device in terms of revealing and altering asymmetrical power relations. The distinction this study makes between strategies and tactics is applied to the empirical example.

It is early afternoon and time to make dinner. Danny [boy, age 12] and Nicolai [boy, age 14] are in charge of preparing dinner. Andrew’s [social worker] task is to help them with dinner. Nicolai is already on his way into the kitchen. Danny is playing cards with two other boys and another social worker named Jacob. Andrew [over 2.10 m tall] approaches the table where they are playing cards and asks Danny, in a somewhat strict, perhaps unintendedly overly commanding voice: “Why’re you sitting here and playing cards? You know you’re supposed to make dinner – get a move on. NOW!” At first Danny does not respond to Andrew’s command and continues to play cards. After a few seconds [rhetorical pause], Danny looks up from the cards and replies with studied indifference: “You may have a point about me playing cards, but why’re you always acting so tall? [making a double entendre as the same word in Danish (kort) is used for both ‘playing cards’ and ‘short’].” Jacob and the other guys playing cards loudly burst out laughing in response. Andrew’s facial expression shows that he is angry, and he begins clenching his fists. Danny focuses on the game again and, not looking at Andrew, assures him that he will join them in the kitchen when the hand is over. Danny states this in a serious, though casual tone, followed by a subtle hand gesture pointing toward the kitchen, still without looking at Andrew. Andrew walks into the kitchen and Danny joins them shortly. When Danny enters the kitchen, Andrew hugs him, puts his arm around him and says playfully, “You’re an idiot”. (Fieldnotes)

In the example, the prevailing power relationship and social structure instantly change due to the Danny’s bold remark. As De Certeau points out, the production of spaces is based on the manipulation of power relationships and the rationalisation of space: ‘The division of space makes possible a panoptic practice proceeding from a place whence the eye can transform foreign forces into objects that can be observed and measured, and thus control and ‘include’ them within its scope of vision’ (1984: 36). Thus, Danny’s tactical remark demonstrates frustration with the prevailing social structure, that is how the preparation of meals is organised at the institution. Danny also displayed dissatisfaction with the way Andrew approached him about helping to prepare the evening meal. His bold, sarcastic comment about Andrew’s height challenged Andrew’s position as a powerful adult, creating a situation that could go two ways. Either Andrew could become angry about the remark or find it funny. Andrew’s facial expressions and bodily agency strongly indicated that he was indeed angry, but the loud burst of laughter from his colleague and the two other boys playing cards, prevent Andrew from overtly showing his reaction. Danny’s tactical wordplay affects Andrew’s dominant position as an adult, blocking him from executing his power to delegate work in the situation and thus challenging the spatial modus in order to subvert this dynamic. From a Freudian perspective the loud, spontaneous laughter from the other card players strongly resembles a discharge of embodied, stored energy (Freud, 1999). ³ Freud describes how wit is deeply connected to the unconscious state of experiencing undesirable structures, indicating that the laughter was the expression of a satisfying release of tensions. The other social worker, Jacob, also laughed, which reveals that he too felt the tension in the air (and thus in the space). Like Danny he felt uneasy about the situation’s affective spatial dynamics.

The humoristic remark dissolved the social structure completely and switched the roles structured by practice (modus operandi). Jacob stepped out of his professional role as a social worker when he joined in the laughter, undermining Andrew’s authority, which was also questioned and made fun of by Danny’s wordplay. The other young people’s laughter emphasised the ridicule and underpinned Danny’s powerful position. As in the first case with Emil, the ensuing response to a powerful, humoristic comment revealed and diffused the tension. In keeping with De Certeau’s assertions, Danny’s comment clearly completely altered the social dynamics, dissipating the tension and allowing Danny to win the battle.

Concluding remarks: space, affect and the performative nature of humour

This study demonstrated that a spatial, humour-sensitive approach is capable of making power relations, the dynamics of the modus operandi and, not least, emotions visible and tangible in the research process. By violating norms, the use of humour provides insight into the social structure of the situation and, in turn, the (historically contingent) production of space. Here, humour almost takes the form of moral resistance, though which subversive attempts to change the modus of the institution take place. This approach, however, also contains a dialectical dynamic because the performative nature of humour also has a darker side in that humour has the ability to conceal displeasure, mask dissatisfaction and exclude those who do not find a particular phenomenon funny or exclude people from the space where the humour takes place. Although humour may serve to reduce tension, the dynamics behind the production of spatial dynamics may result in the opposite effect, that is, a reduction in tension may in fact produce more tension than was originally the case. As such, when defined as being affective, the body produces affective spaces while simultaneously being affected by the same spaces. This point highlights the complex underlying dynamics involved in the production of humour-affective spaces and how this production affects each individual differently.

Considering the performative nature of humour, the concept of intentionality must be addressed because the approach presented in this study may lead to an assumption about intentionality in the use of humour. As a result, taking a strictly functionalistic view on the use of humour must be avoided. Likewise, the empirical examples presented above bear witness to the presence of unintentionality and the unforeseen consequences of humour. Hence, in our approach, humour, as a tactical device, may intentionally be deployed to demonstrate resistance and create another conceptualisation of the fabric of the spatial dynamics. But it may also be of a spontaneous nature. Regardless, we gain insight into the cultural norms and existing structures that define the dominant spatial modus.

In conclusion, this study indicates that there is a lack (with some exceptions) of social work research focussing on the relationship between humour and space. As outlined in the theoretical part of the article, the complex dynamics between space and the local needs to be addressed more carefully. Special attention and questioning need to be addressed to what we make of, how different spaces affect the modus of the institution. How does young people navigate between different spaces of humour (i.e. therapeutic spaces, spaces of kinship, spaces of care and spaces of other institutions)? And in addition, how does the different spaces of humour affect the space of the institutions? Additional research on these topics is therefore called for as the approach can provide a theoretical lens that has the potential to uncover the power dynamics of resistance and the dynamics involved in inclusion and exclusion. Further, the approach can shed light on the culturally contingent construction of spatial dynamics that make emotions sensible and visible.