Performing Appropriateness: Context, Authenticity and the Regulation of Communication
The Silent Discipline of Friendship in Professional Spaces
Introduction
Human beings are socialised, often implicitly, to act “appropriately” within particular contexts. From an early age, individuals learn how to behave and what to say depending on their surroundings and the people with whom they interact. This understanding of appropriate behaviour is not merely a social convention; it is also reflected in how communication theorists conceptualise human interaction. It is therefore unsurprising that many communication textbooks across various branches of linguistics begin with models such as the Components of Communication, which position contextually appropriate behaviour as both natural and essential to effective communication. In this sense, such theories have become standardised frameworks for defining what constitutes proper interaction.
Ironically, however, some of the most significant social transformations have emerged precisely from actions that defied contextual expectations. Figures such as Nelson Mandela, who resisted the oppressive context of apartheid and Rosa Parks, who refused to comply with racial segregation laws, demonstrate how acting out of context has often served as a catalyst for liberation. These moments suggest that deviation from socially prescribed norms can produce profound change.
On a more personal level, individuals can reflect on everyday instances in which they have not acted according to situational expectations. For example, making jokes in serious settings or expressing thoughts deemed inappropriate for a particular moment. Such actions frequently result in social disapproval or negative consequences. Yet these moments also raise important questions about authenticity, conformity and the limitations imposed by rigid communicative norms.
It is is important, then, that we interrogate the paradigms embedded within traditional communication theories that have become naturalised within academic discourse. Specifically, it questions the extent to which these models reinforce a prescriptive understanding of human interaction, thereby restricting the complexity and freedom inherent in communicative practices.
Through a critical examination of workplace interaction, supported by an auto-ethnographic case study of professional colleagues, this paper argues that contextual appropriateness functions as a mechanism of social control rather than a neutral communicative principle.
Statement of the Problem
Individuals who act outside contextual expectations are frequently judged as inappropriate, unprofessional or socially deviant, while those who conform to established norms are regarded as competent communicators. This paper argues for a critical re-evaluation of academic frameworks that conceptualise communication as a rule-governed process dictated by contextual appropriateness.
Such models risk positioning human beings as mechanistic, suggesting that only socially sanctioned aspects of identity may be expressed within particular settings. This perspective overlooks the multidimensional nature of human subjectivity, which continuously emerges across social interactions.
Accordingly, this study addresses the following research question:
- Is behaviour labelled as inappropriate within specific contexts an expression of authenticity, while strict adherence to contextual norms reflects performative conformity rather than genuine communication?
Literature Review
Jakobson’s (1950) Components of Communication model identifies six elements involved in any communicative act: sender, receiver, message, context, code and channel. Each element corresponds to a function of language, including emotive, conative, poetic, referential, metalinguistic and phatic functions. The model highlights the role of context as a central determinant of meaning and communicative effectiveness.
While Jakobson’s framework has been highly influential, it implicitly assumes that successful communication depends upon alignment with contextual norms. This assumption naturalises socially constructed expectations and frames deviation as communicative failure rather than as a potential site of expression or resistance.
Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical theory conceptualises social interaction as performance, in which individuals manage impressions according to situational expectations. He distinguishes between front-stage behaviour, where socially acceptable roles are enacted and back-stage behaviour, where suppressed aspects of the self may emerge. Within this framework, contextual appropriateness functions as a script governing acceptable conduct.
Butler’s (1990) theory of performativity extends this analysis by arguing that identity itself is constituted through repeated social acts. Behaviours perceived as natural are in fact produced and sustained through social regulation. Norms surrounding professionalism, emotional expression and appropriateness are therefore not inherent but continuously reinforced through disciplinary mechanisms.
Get Janine Harry’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Together, these theories suggest that communicative norms do not merely facilitate interaction but actively regulate how individuals are permitted to express themselves. Acts deemed inappropriate disrupt these performances and expose the constructed nature of contextual expectations.
Methodology
This study employs an auto-ethnographic case study approach, allowing the researcher to critically examine lived experience within a specific social context. Auto-ethnography is particularly suited to exploring social norms, power relations and identity performance, as it situates personal experience within broader theoretical frameworks.
Case Study
The researcher developed a close interpersonal friendship with a colleague within a professional workplace environment characterised by norms of emotional restraint and formal interaction. While the friendship involved open communication, emotional support and frequent personal engagement, it did not interfere with work responsibilities or organisational performance.
Despite this, the relationship became subject to informal scrutiny by those the researcher knew personally. They displayed discomfort through gossip, altered behaviour and indirect questioning regarding the nature of the friendship. The closeness was frequently interpreted as inappropriate or unprofessional.
These reactions functioned as regulatory practices aimed at restoring normative professional conduct. The judgement did not stem from formal policy violations but from a breach of unspoken contextual expectations, demonstrating how communicative norms are socially enforced.
Findings
The case study revealed that workplace communication is governed primarily by implicit contextual scripts rather than formal rules. Emotional openness and relational closeness were constructed as inappropriate, while detachment and performative professionalism were rewarded.
Judgement operated as a corrective mechanism, reinforcing acceptable communicative behaviour and discouraging deviation. Authentic relational expression was therefore marginalised in favour of conformity.
Discussion
The findings support Goffman’s assertion that professional environments function as front-stage spaces requiring controlled self-presentation. The friendship disrupted this performance by introducing back-stage behaviours into a public setting, prompting social discomfort and regulation.
Butler’s concept of performativity explains how judgement served to reproduce normative workplace identities. Through repeated social correction, the boundaries of acceptable communication were reaffirmed.
When considered alongside Jakobson’s emphasis on context, it becomes evident that traditional communication models may inadvertently legitimise such regulatory practices by presenting contextual conformity as natural and necessary.
Rather than fostering authentic human connection, these norms prioritise the maintenance of social performances.
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that contextual appropriateness within communication is not a neutral or natural phenomenon but a socially constructed and enforced performance. Through the integration of Jakobson’s model with Goffman’s dramaturgical theory and Butler’s performativity, it becomes clear that communicative norms function to regulate identity expression and relational behaviour.
Acts deemed inappropriate frequently represent moments of authenticity that challenge performative conformity. Communication theory must therefore move beyond rigid contextual frameworks to recognise the fluid, multidimensional nature of human interaction.
By reframing inappropriate communication as a potential site of authenticity rather than failure, this paper contributes to a more critical and human-centred understanding of communication.
