“If it’s a bad joke, is it still a joke?” A qualitative analysis of ethnic humor (de)legitimation by white Dutch students

Abstract

The ethnic diversity in the Netherlands has increased due to, amongst other factors, immigration. Intercultural communication has therefore taken a more prominent place in the Dutch society. This growing interculturalism has given rise to a discussion about how we should talk with and about each other in the Netherlands. Ethnic humor takes a specific place within this debate, because of the ambiguity in both society and scholarship about its purposes, meanings and arguable consequences. Some scholars argue that ethnic humor is used ‘just for fun’ and there should be no limitations on using such humor, as people have the right to freedom of speech (Davies, 2011; Prins, 2002). Other scholars claim that ethnic humor illustrates (often negative) beliefs in society about the ethnicity represented in the humor (Kuipers & van der Ent, 2016), which could result in discrimination, and hence there should be limitations on what you can and cannot say (Kretzmer, 1986). This thesis builds on these theorizations and focuses on the reception of ethnic humor. This reception was studied through a qualitative analysis of the ways in which white Dutch students (de)legitimized ethnic humor regarding Muslims, black people and Jewish people. These (de)legitimations were then compared to one another. Ten interviews were conducted with students who identified as ‘white Dutch’. During the interviews, participants were asked to comment on and compare three case studies of ethnic humor: one for each ethnic minority. As for this thesis, ‘real life’ public occurrences of ethnic humor were selected. Accordingly, the cases that participants were asked to reflect on did not only differ in terms of ethnicity, but also in terms of other factors like the speaker, the medium, and the context. These factors are part of the analyses. Responses were analyzed based on four (de)legitimation strategies: authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization and mythopoesis. It was found that participants formed a middle ground between analyses that see ethnic humor as essentially innocent, like Davies (2011) and new realist speakers (Prins, 2002), and critics of ethnic humor like Kuipers and van der Ent (2016) and Kretzmer (1986): though they did not favor legal limitations to these forms of ethnic humor, they favored social limitations. Findings showed that participants gave most weight to delegitimizing moral evaluations for the ethnic humor regarding Muslims and black people, and argued that these case studies were socially unacceptable. For the ethnic humor regarding Jewish people, participants gave most weight to delegitimizing authorizations within the context of the case study. In this context, participants felt that the humor was socially unacceptable. Regarding the humor itself, however, participants gave most weight to legitimizing rationalizations, and stated that this humor was part of ‘the way things are’ in the Netherlands. Future research could focus on how ethnic minorities (de)legitimize ethnic humor regarding their own ethnicity, or could focus on how intergroup contact between ethnic majorities and minorities could influence how these groups (de)legitimize ethnic humor.