This presentation takes its outset in two different all-male work settings; among electricians, smiths and motor mechanics at a Danish train maintenance workshop, as well as among chefs and apprentice chefs in two Danish professional restaurant kitchens (Frostholm & Krøyer, 2024; Frostholm, 2023).

The empirical excerpts and analyses presented throughout this presentation hence stem from two different research projects, with similar methodological frameworks: both are based on phenomenologically rooted and explorative ethnographic fieldworks, and both have been undertaken by the author. All workplaces referenced within this presentation, are all-male dominated work fields, it should be noted. 

The research I conducted in professional kitchens reveals a significant interplay between humour, masculinity, and the overall social dynamics of these places. On the first day at Restaurant French, one of the project’s field restaurants, the head chef exclaimed, "When you employ women, you employ trouble," followed by an experienced apprentice chef's comment: "The banter here is equal parts racism and misogyny!" These initial excerpts exemplify how humour is somewhat used to establish and maintain social hierarchies. Such statements, met with laughter from the other chefs, underscore the role of humour in reinforcing a particular cultural atmosphere within the kitchens researched in one of the projects framing this presentation.

At the train maintenance workshop, humour seems to play a crucial role in the workshop's social dynamics as well. As a newcomer, I was greeted with phrases like "Welcome to Denmark’s biggest circus" and "You guys have to be ready to get the piss taken out of you!" These expressions highlight the importance of understanding the workshop's specific, often 'masculine' humour, and as my analysis shows: humour is not just about fun; it serves as both a social leveller and divider, including or excluding individuals from groups.

The theoretical framework underpinning this research draws heavily on the works of Collinson and Baarts. Collinson's studies on masculinity and humour in working-class cultures reveal that humour often possesses a masculine and sexual character, fostering solidarity and group identity among employees (Collinson, 1992). Baarts further explores humour as a linguistic practice, noting its dual nature: it can be both inclusive and exclusive, depending on one's ability to adapt to community norms (Baarts, 2004; Baarts, 2006). This perspective is crucial for understanding how humour functions as a social practice in professional kitchens.

Humour serves as a critical tool for social acceptance and integration. Collinson's work highlights that the ability to engage in humorous exchanges is vital for social survival in male-dominated work environments. This is evident in the example of the apprentice chef above, who demonstrates his understanding of the social game by participating in the prevailing jargon, thereby securing his place within the kitchen community. 

Bourdieu's theory of linguistic exchanges provides additional insight into the power dynamics at play. He posits that language reflects the social and cultural context in which it is used, expressing inherent power relations. In the kitchens or the train maintenance workshop, this is evident in the way head chefs or experienced craftsmen dominate less experienced apprentices or other newcomers through practised jargon (Bourdieu, 1997). Collinson supports this view, suggesting that mastering humorous exchanges is a sign that one has internalised the social rules of the workplace (Collinson, 1992).

Cultural learning is another critical aspect of this research. Baarts' concept of social sense (sensus communis) describes how knowledge of social behaviour is developed through social interactions. This is essential for new apprentices or other newcomers, who must navigate the social and cultural landscape of the kitchen or the workshop (Baarts, 2004).

It is essential to highlight that this methodology encompasses two distinct projects, with both utilizing ethnographic fieldwork as their primary method. These projects both draw on classical ethnographic techniques such as full participation and participant observation provided a comprehensive understanding of the social and cultural practices both around the train maintenance workshop and the kitchens, ensuring depth and accuracy. Heavily inspired by Danish anthropologists Charlotte Baarts (2004) and Cathrine Hasse (2015), I sought to become an engaged anthropologist by using participant observation and full participation as methodological tools. As a learning individual and anthropologist in the professional restaurant kitchens, I took on the role of an apprentice chef as far as possible during my time in the restaurants (Hasse, 2015). In the train maintenance workshop alone a few semi-structured interviews undertaken with selected workers, added to the data, ensuring depth and accuracy (Davies 1999; Hastrup 2010; Andersen 2019). Inspired by Hastrup, significant time was spent in the field to identify meaningful questions, emphasizing inductive and exploratory inspirations and a phenomenological framework (Hastrup 2003). Phenomenology can be described both as a direction and a method, a style and a way of thinking used in many contexts, from art to more scientific fields. Within an anthropological frame, phenomenology has acted as scientific theoretical and philosophical inspiration and catalyst for decades (Atkinson and Hammersley 2007, p.2). Within these two projects, the phenomenological approach means taking on the fieldwork with a certain frame of mind or a special attitude toward gaining insight. This involves listening carefully and setting aside common assumptions, theories, and reflections (Jacobsen, Tanggaard, and Brinkmann, 2015, p. 218). My primary aim is to describe what happens in the fields, the context in which the action occurs, how the people involved perceive and discuss their own actions and those of others, and what results from it (Atkinson and Hammersley 2007, p.7). Through this interpretivist practice, I acknowledge that the social world cannot be understood in terms of simple causal relationships or by bringing social events under the purview of general law. Thus, I approach my fieldworks with an intentional phenomenological receptiveness to what the field conveys, allowing myself to spend sometimes months in the respective fields, to make an understanding of them(Hastrup, 2003, p.416; Frostholm & Walker, 2021, p.65). In conclusion, it is crucial to recognise that both projects have employed these methodological approaches to gain comprehensive understandings of their respective fields.

Humour seems to play a crucial role in the social dynamics of vocational and craftmanship-based workplaces dominated by an all-male cast. From my analyses, I find that skilled craftsmen evaluate apprentices and newcomers not only on their work skills but also on their ability to engage in shop floor banter. This 'masculine' humor is part of the cultural apprenticeship necessary to become a skilled worker, I claim and learning the humour practices, getting the jokes, and making witty ripostes are essential for social integration within the workshop or in the professional restaurant kitchen scene. Carty and Musharbash emphasise that understanding and participating in humour is central to achieving social acceptance and belonging in social relationships. They argue that the core of social integration lies in picking up the laughing lines, understanding the jokes, and developing a shared sense of humour (Carty and Musharbash, 2008). This is evident in the kitchens and the workshop, where humour is used to establish and negotiate social relations. Willis also highlights the importance of humor in workplace interactions. He notes that on the shop floor, conversations often revolve around joking, piss-taking, and winding up, rather than serious work activities. The ability to engage in these humorous exchanges requires a particular skill, which is crucial for being accepted in the work community (Willis, 1977). Ingold supports the idea that humour and social interaction are integral to the practical work in kitchens or other vocational work settings (Ingold, 2000). Humour practices reflect broader themes of masculinity within the workshop and kitchens, where being able to participate in this humor is a key aspect of being accepted and respected by peers. This type of humour goes beyond mere amusement; it acts as both a social equaliser and a divider, determining who is included or excluded from groups.

Andersen, I. (2019). Den skinbarlige virkelighed: vidensproduktion i samfundsvidenskaberne (6. udgave). Samfundslitteratur. Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Taylor & Francis Ltd. Baarts, C. (2004). Viden og kunnen: En antropologisk analyse af sikkerhed på en byggeplads. København: Institut for Antropologi. Baarts, C. (2006). Druk, bajere og løgnehistorier: Om humour og fællesskab på en byggeplads. Dansk Sociologi, 1(17), pp.68-83. Bourdieu, P. (1997). Language & symbolic power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Carty, J., & Musharbash, Y. (2008). You’ve got to be joking: Asserting the analytical value of humour and laughter in contemporary anthropology. Anthropological Forum, 18(3), pp.209-217. Collinson, D.L. (1992). Managing the shopfloor: Subjectivity, masculinity, and workplace culture. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Davies, C. (1999). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. Routledge. Frostholm, P. H. (2023). The practical craftmanship and social practices of apprentice chefs in a professional kitchen setting. Education in the North, 30(1), 3-18. Artikel 1. https://doi.org/10.26203/b42z-qx61 Frostholm, P. H., & Rauff Krøyer, T. (2024). Så hang den bare ned! Mytiske fortællinger fra et værksted. Tidsskriftet Antropologi, 2023(88), 45-61. Artikel 5. https://doi.org/10.7146/ta.vi88.144064 Hasse, C. (2011). Kulturanalyse i organisationer: Begreber, metoder og forbløffende læreprocesser. Samfundslitteratur. Hastrup, K. (2003). Ind i verden: En grundbog i antropologisk metode. Hans Reitzels Forlag. Hastrup, K. (2010). Feltarbejde. In S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (Eds.), Kvalitative metoder: En grundbog. Hans Reitzels Forlag. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge. Jacobsen, B., Tanggaard, L., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Fænomenologi. I S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (Red.), Kvalitative metoder: En grundbog (2. udg., s. 217-239). Hans Reitzels Forlag. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs. Hampshire, England: Gower Publishing Company Limited.