Perpetration of prejudices - an objective study

I came across a paper by a Bosnian researcher on Ethnic jokes; Mr.Srdjan Vucetic, which done in the context of Bosnians, is quite analogic to the Sardar jokes. Also, much has been said on these 'stupidity' jokes by other philosophers and researchers. What emerges through their thesis is the belief that stereotypical intergroup jokes are “cultural signifiers” (Duara 1996: 165) or even invented traditions, which act to “socialize or inculcate beliefs, values, or behaviors” (Hobsbawm 1983: 9).

When you joke about Sikhs, you pretend to be referring to an objective thing, as if the person behind that joke is an inanimate object. But in joking, you socially construct and sustain relationships with them. According to Apte, who builds on Durkheim’s concept of collective representations, jokes “help define and redefine the boundaries of socially differentiated groups” and demarcating “us” from “them” (1985: 55).

And with the construction of difference comes the construction of the “other”, and hence, of hierarchy and exclusion (Berger and Luckmann 1996, Connolly 2002). Intergroup humor divides the social and political world into in-groups and out-groups, which by itself is an act deeply embedded in power relations (gender, centre vs. periphery, class).

Stereotypes (e.g. Marvadis are stingy, Sikhs are stupid, etc.) serve as boundary-builders and, as such, are an important basis for the construction of social identities and corresponding social relations. Of course, there are other narratives responsible for proliferating social stereotypes, such as newspapers, school textbooks, talk shows, commercials, and every-day conversations. The point is that by disseminating stereotypes jokes “contribute materially to the formation and perpetration of deep-seated prejudices” (Dundes 1987: 115). In this way, jokes also serve certain interests more than others.

 According to Davies (1990: 40, 2002: 8), jokes in which the object or the butt of the joke turns out to be primitive or stupid are the most common type. Jokes such as these lampoon the follies and failures in “others” not only in order to differentiate them from the self (i.e. the narrator) but also to impart values that the self uses to define his/her own group (1990: 7). The butt of the joke is thus habitually perceived as provincial, rural, backward, pre-modern, that is in contrast to the narrator who considers himself central, urban, progressive and modern (1990: 82-3).

posted on Wednesday,