USING ETHNIC HUMOR TO

EXPOSE ETHNOCENTRISM:
JIM HASENAUER*

Those Dirty

DEGs

Did you hear about the member of the well-known ethnic group who
locked his keys in this car?
It took him four hours to get his family out.

(Dr. Victor Ehrlich, St. Eligius Hospital)

HE SOCIAL FUNCTIONS of humor, a complexformof communication, have

not been fully explored. In a pluralistic society, in which contact with
members of different ethnic, racial and cultural groups is inevitable, the use
and analysis of humor offers important insights into intercultural relations.
In ethnically diverse societies, contact between members of different cultural groups is frequently accompanied by talk about members of these other
groups. Using interview techniques, T.A. Van Dijk analyzed talk about ethnic
minority groups in the Netherlands and in the United States. (1) He argues
that dominant groups use talk to construct social knowledge about nondominant groups; i.e., dominant groups test, reproduce and reinforce attitudes,
beliefs and values that differentiate cultural groups, stereotype members of nondominant groups and enhance the value of membership in the dominant group.
As such, talk about non-dominant groups is often used to construaracist,prejudicial and ethnocentric social knowledge about them. While his analysis of
the interview data is rich, it is interesting that van Dijk's informants produced
few overt expressions of racism. ". . . the general tendency is to express negative feelings in rather 'soft' language, as we have also observed in the use of
semantic moves such as mitigation and vagueness." (2) He concludes that there
is a "moderation rule" prohibiting overtlyracisttalk among strangers or acquaintances, but that it is likely that such talk does take place with friends and femily
His interview methodology did not overcome the "moderation rule" and, thus,
did not allow the collection of much overtly prejudicial talk. In this research,
van Dijk encountered a problem that teachers and human relations trainers
confront regularly-how to get individuals to honestly express their beliefs,
attitudes and values toward members of ethnic, racial or cultural groups different from their own.

*Mr. Hasenauer is an assistant professor of speech communication at the California State

University, Northridge.
351

352

Et cetera WINTER 1988

As a teacher of courses in intercultural communication and as a trainer, I

encounter the same obstacle. This paper suggests that teachers, human relations trainers and researchers can use ethnic humor as a tool to overcome the
"moderation nile" in examining everyday talk about nondominant groups. This
approach is compatible with Nilsen et al., who have suggested that hiimor can
be used to develop student thinking skills and that "humor-whether it's being
analyzed, used, or created-forces peoples' minds into modes of thinking that
are investigative, seeking, grasping, and filled with trial-and-error." (3) A particularly powerful application of this insight is in the use of ethnic humor to
raise awareness of racism, prejudice and ethnocentrism.
Many university courses in communication, human relations, sociology,
anthropology, etc., attempt to broaden students' views by confronting their
"taken-for-granted" notions of culture. Similarly, much human relations training
begins with self-examinations of one's prejudices. One of the greatest challenges
in these kinds of interventions is getting students or trainees to honestly discuss their own stereotypes and beliefs about persons of other cultures. I suggest that instructors can utilize ethnic humor to facilitate the open discussion
of stereotypes, to illustrate a number of important intercultural communication concepts, and to provide a pro-social tool which individuals might use to
combat racism and prejudice in their interpersonal networks.
Circumventing the moderation rule and detoxification
A professional interested in working with prejudice initially faces two contradictory tasksfirst, to overcome the moderation rule; then, to detoxify the
blatantly offensive nature of most ethnic humor. One technique which facilitates both goals is to separate the joke (almost invariably a negative characterization) from the stereotype of a particular ethnic group (almost invariably not
one's own). In a joke-telling session one evening, a friend introduced the label
of hypothetical "DEGs" (members of Differentiated Ethnic Groups). In my
classes DEGs are the identified target of all ethnic humor. As I explain to my
students, DEGs have all the characteristics usually associated with other groups
in ethnic humor. At the beginning of each semester, I ask them to record ethnic
jokes they hear, but to translate them into DEG jokes so as not to offend other
students. I ask them to come to class with at least three such jokes during the
third week of the semester. The joke telling and discussion serve as a kickoff
to a unit on Intercultural Communication Barriers and provide material that
is used throughout the rest of my course in Intercultural Communication. I
have collected these jokes for several years and have found that students who
would never reveal their ethnic stereotypes and prejudices seem willing, in the
context of DEG joketelling, to provide much useful material, as the following examples indicate:
Two DEG garbage collectors were in a hurry because they wanted to attend
a baseball game. They overfilled their truck with garbage so that when they
drove to the dump they had to hold it down with their bodies. At an over-

USING ETHNIC HUMOR TO EXPOSE ETHNOCENTRALISM

353

pass, someone looked down and seeing them lying on top of the garbage said,
"Look at that, throwing away two perfectly good DEGs."
Q.
A.
Q.
A.

What's the definition of "shame"?

Abusloadof DEGs going ofT a cliff.
What's the definition of a "crying shame"?
An empty seat.

Q. Did you hear about the DEG athlete who won a gold medal at the
Olympics?
A. He had it bronzed.
Fundamentally, ethnic humor is based on stereotyping of outsiders. These
out-groups take on identity in part because of their differentiation from the
in-group. While clearly differentiated from the dominant group, in many cases,
one DEG group is not differentiated from another. The very same jokes are
told with only regional variation accounting for changes in the target group.
DEGs are often characterized as stupid, dirty, low-class, lazy, worthless,
cowardly, ugly, etc. Some particularly noxious racist and sexist humor focuses
on DEG females who are characterized as ugly, dirty, or animal-like.
On joke-telling day, students (probably sensitive to the moderation rule) are
sometimes reluctant to tell their jokes, so it becomes important for the instructor
to establish a joke-telling context. I come prepared to tell jokes to get things
started and I treat the joke-telling as I would a brainstorming session. When
a joke is told, I withhold evaluation; paraphrase the characterization, e.g.,
"DEGs are so stupid," "DEGs are so ugly," etc.; and write the characterization
on the board. Like brainstorming, joke telling tends to generate associations
that lead to new jokes. Students who were initially reluctant begin to participate. I've rarely had trouble collecting a number of jokes that are based on a
variety of characterizations.
Q. What do DEG women put behind their ears to attract men?
A. Their knees.
A woman saw three DEG junkies sharing a needle when shooting up. Reluctant to get involved, she shrieked, "Haven't you heard about AIDS?" One
junkie responded, "Don't worry, lady. We're wearing condoms."
Q. What are the first words of a DEG baby?
A. "Attention K-Mart Shoppers."

Analyzing the jokes

Analyzing the jokes begins with a discussion of the perceptual processes of
ethnocentrism, stereotyping and prejudice. I explain that ethnic humor usually
depends upon and then perpetuates these processes. There is an abundance
of folklore and humor literature that demonstrates the universality of ethnic

354

Et cetera WINTER 1988

humor and how it is based on insider-outsider differentiation. (4) Especially

useful is Brislin's application to prejudice of Katz's functional theory of attitudes. (5),(6) Prejudice serves its holder in some way. As manifestations of prejudice, ethnic jokes can be fruitfully examined in terms ofthe functions that
specific kinds of prejudice might play in the language community Brislin, like
Katz, identifies the adjustment, ego-defensive, value-expressive and knowledge
functions of prejudice.
The adjustment function of prejudice is based on the rewards available to
individuals when they adhere to group norms. Part of our socialization within
a group probably includes adopting stereotypes of members of certain outgroups. We are valued for maintaining those characterizations. When a group
of individuals engage in ethnic joke telling they are, among other things,
enhancing their status by demonstrating their adherence to group norms and
values.
Listening to family stories and jokes about DEGs may be one of a child's
first socialization experiences in in-group/out-group differentiation. Children
probably repeat these jokes without understanding the ethnic charaaerizations
involved. Participating in ethnic joke telling may be one ofthe most pervasive language games involving overt prejudice.
Consequently, if an individual were to balk at another's use of ethnic humor
or to assert that it was offensive, he or she might be castigated as not being a
"good sport." This kind of consensus maintains in-group cohesion. Those that
contribute to this cohesion are valued; those who resist are not.
My students often report that they have felt pressured to participate in ethnocentric or racist language and behavior by their families and peers. In the
context of training in intercultural awareness, the negative implications of this
type of behavior become clear. Collusion with the perpetuation of ethnocentric behavior promotes ethnocentrism. Van Dijk's analysis is particularly useful
here. He argues that "when White majority group members talk about ethnic
out-groups, they do not merely express their personal beliefs and attitudes.. . .
They reproduce ethnic opinions of their in-group as a whole, such as shared
stereotypes or prejudices and information they have heard or read from other
sources." (7) Virtually all ethnic humor serves this adjustment fiinction.
Often, prejudice serves the ego-defensive function. Ethnic jokes allow us to
feel superior and important at the expense of some non-dominant group. DEGs
are the "others" whose negative characteristics legitimize a positive view ofthe
in-group. DEGs are often characterized as stupid, dirty, worthless, or lazy. Sexist
humor often objeaifies women and racist/sexist humor often attacks a cultural
group by denigrating females of that group. The following jokes exemplify the
verbal aggression implicit in ego defensive prejudice.
Q. Why do DEGs smell?
A. So blind people can hate them, too.

USING ETHNIC HUMOR TO EXPOSE ETHNOCENTRALISM

355

Q. Did you hear about the DEG lesbian?

A. She liked men.
Q. What do you have when there are six DEGs buried up to their necks in
sand?
A. Not enough sand.
Q. Why do DEG football teams play on artificial turf?
A. So the cheerleaders won't graze.
The universality of ethnic prejudice becomes especially clear to students
when they hear jokes denigrating ethnic groups with which they are unfemiliar
and about whom they have no negative stereotypes. My West Coast students
were more confused than amused by a "Norwegian Pencil," which had no lead
and two erasers. Most had never encountered prejudice against Norwegians.
Similarly, to hear that French and Belgians or Canadians and Newfoundlanders
downgrade each other is astonishing to those who have never made distinctions between these groups. The ego-defensive function of ethnic humor
requires that one ethnic group target some other group as the brunt of its jokes.
This image-enhancing attack on the other is an important principle of intercultural relations.
The value-expressive function of prejudice is rooted in ethnocentrism. We
find the behavior of others to be strange, abnormal or perverse. We reify our
own values by collectively denigrating the practices of outsiders. Food, hygiene,
family size, work ethic, and criminal impulse are all thrusts of certain ethnic
jokes. The humor rests in the disparity between "our" way of doing things and
the bizarre behavior of DEGs. Most courses in intercultural awareness attempt
to show the contextual coherence of cultural practices. In ethnic humor, many
of the "abnormal" practices of outsiders are untrue or are exaggerations. Those
that may be true are decontextualized. In light of the insiders' cultural view,
DEG practices are judged inferior. The following illustrate this ethnocentric
value-expressive prejudice.
Q. Why are scientists breeding DEGs for experiments instead of rats?
A. They multiply faster and you don't get as attached to them.
Q. What do you call a DEG with six dogs?
A. A rancher.
Q. What's a DEG seven-course meal?
A. A puppy and a six-pack.
Q. How can you identify the bride at a DEG wedding?
A. She's the one with the braided armpits.
Q. What's the difference between a DEG funeral and a DEG wedding?
A. One less drunk.

356

Et cetera WINTER 1988

The knowledge flitiction of prejudice is based on stereotyped beliefs. What

are DEGs like? What kinds of occupations do they hold? What can we expect
from them? Jokes that fall into this category serve our need to reduce uncertainty about these strangers. Some negative stereotypes are applied to almost
any out-group while others are particular to certain groups. Consider that some
ethnic jokes do not translate well to DEG jokes because they are based on
specific rather than general stereotypes. I believe that this is often a function
of the history of interaction between the two groups. The longer the history
of interaction between the groups, the more specific the stereotypes. Kravitz
found this relationship in British ethnic jokes. Jokes about Irish, Jews and Scots
were quite specific; jokes about West Indians and Pakistanis were more generalized. (8) My West Coast students provided the following jokes which, based
on their experience, seemed specifically aimed at Blacks and Hispanics.
Q. What do you call a DEG test-tube baby?
A. Janitor in a drum.
Q. What do you call 5 DEGs and a white guy?
A. A basketball team.
Q. Why didn't the DEGs field an Olympic team?
A. Because everyone who could run, swim or jump is already here.
Q. What do you get when you cross a DEG with an octopus?
A. I don't know, but it sure picks tomatoes.
Clearly, these four functions of prejudice are not totally independent. The
same DEG joke might illustrate different functions. Jokes are not the only type
of symbolized prejudice. In a classroom or training context, it is easy to move
the discussion from ethnic humor to other forms (e.g., racist talk, ethnic slurs,
media images, etc.).
Most DEG jokes will probably be about non-dominant groups in that region.
Importantly, there is some ethnic humor told by non-dominant group members about members of dominant groups. The themes of these jokes are often
the difficulty of satisfying the dominant group, their arrogance or how the dominant group member was tricked or "made the fool." (9) Such jokes illustrate
the two-sided nature of verbal aggression and the role of joking (and other language games) in maintaining race, ethnic and class relations. The following
jokes, which target the dominant group, show that non-dominant groups also
construct social reality and power relations in talk.
Q. Why don't dominant group members get hemorrhoids?
A. Because God made them such perfect little assholes.
Q. How do you know when a planeful of the dominant group has arrived?
A. After they turn the engine off, you can still hear the whine.

USING ETHNIC HUMOR TO EXPOSE ETHNOCENTRALISM

357

Does the classroom discussion of DEG humor promote racism and prejudice? I think not. I believe that students' intercultural awareness is enhanced
by the instructor's demonstration ofthe universality of ethnic humor and the
relativity of its targets. Some students report that they introduced the label
"DEGs" into their own social networks. DEG jokes transcend prejudice against
specific groups. They reduce the collusion typically involved in ethnic joketelling. The prejudice itself becomes the focus ofthe joke.
Researchers, teachers and trainers may all wish to elicit examples of prejudicial talk, but respondents are reluctant to contribute such material. Since
ethnic humor is a pervasive language game that circumvents the rules of politeness and moderation, respondents, in the context of joke-telling, are likely to
reproduce examples of personal and social prejudice. The term "DEG"
(member of a Differentiated Ethnic Group) helps detoxify the offensive material
and allows for the collection of overtly prejudicial talk. Analysis of DEG jokes
is useful in illustrating several important principles of intergrouprelations.This
technique may be especially useful to teachers, human relations trainers and
researchers seeking to identify and remedy prejudice and racism.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. T.A. van Dijk, Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk (Newbury
Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1987).
2. Ibid., 100.
3. A. Nilsen, K. Donelson, and M. Donelson, "Humor for developing thinking skills," Etc.:
A Review of General Semantics, 44 (1987): 63.
4. See for example: A Dundes, "A Study of Ethnic Slurs: The Jevir and Polack in the United
States" Journal of American Folklore 84 (1971), 186-203; A. Dundes, "Slurs International: Folk Comparisons of Ethnicity and National Character," Southern Folklore Quarterly 39 (1975), 15-23; S. Kravitz, "London Jokes and Other Ethnic Stereotypes," Western
Folklore 36 (1977), 275-301; C. Davies, "How Do They Tell Polish Jokes in Poland?"
The Language of Humor and the Humor of Language Proceedings ofthe 1982 WHIM Conference, Arizona State University (1982); E. Claire, What's So Funny? A Foreign Student's Introduction to American Humor (New Rochelle Park, New Jersey: Eardley Publishing Company, 1984); P. Dickson, Jokes (New York: Delacorte Publishing Company,
1984); J. Dorinson, "The Gold Dust Twins of Marginal Humor: Blacks and Jews,"
Maledicta 8 (1984-5): 163-192; C. Davies, "Why Are the Poles and Newfies Filthy and
the Irish and Belgians Merely Stupid?" Contemporary Humor Proceedings ofthe 1984
WHIM Conference, Arizona State University (1985): 52-53.
5. R.W. Brislin, "Increasing the Range of Concepts in Intercultural Research: The Example of Prejudice," in Intercultural Theory and Practice, ed. W. Davey (Washington, DC.
Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research, 1979).
6. D. Katz, "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes," Public Opinion Quarterly
24 (I960): 275-301.
7. T.A. van Dijk, Communicating racism,- 23.
8. S. Kravitz, "London Jokes and Ethnic Stereotypes," Western Folklore 36 (1977): 275-301.
9. J. Dorinson, "The Gold Dust Twins of Marginal Humor: Blacks and Jews," Maledicta 8
(1984-5): 163-192.