 |
When you gather with friends, do you tell or hear ethnic jokes for fun and amusement? Should we laugh at these jokes, or should we fight against them? Mahmud Farjam, a satire researcher, and Mehrdad Darvishpour, a sociologist, discuss these very questions.
Interviewer: We begin with this question to Mr. Farjam: Can you provide us with a definition of why we are or should be sensitive to ethnic jokes? Aren’t these jokes simply meant as jokes? If they’re jokes, why should they be taken seriously, and why should we be sensitive about them?
Mahmud Farjam: You know, this is one of the very complex and global discussions. Almost no large nation or ethnic group exists that does not have ethnic jokes or jokes that could be categorized as ethnic humor. When we talk about ethnic jokes, we include racial jokes, which go beyond ethnicity—for example, jokes about Black people—down to jokes about specific ethnic groups and even smaller scales, like families. For instance, I spent some time researching the villages of Khorasan, where I come from, and I found that villages often have jokes about neighboring villages, which are based on stereotypes—the same stereotypes that serve as the foundation for ethnic jokes and studies.
 |
Mahmoud Farjami is an Iranian writer and humor researcher. |
There are, of course, very complex factors involved, including hostility and disdain, which sociology often addresses. However, recent research, especially over the past ten to fifteen years, led by figures like Christie Davies, has moved beyond the basic notions like “a group makes jokes about another group to belittle them.” While these ideas are not wrong, the field has advanced. Researchers have gathered complex and diverse elements of ethnic humor, which we will discuss further.
Interviewer: So, perhaps I should direct the discussion to Mr. Darvishpour with this question: Why should we take ethnic jokes seriously, despite them being called jokes?
Mehrdad Darvishpour: We know that language and literature not only reflect social relationships and realities but also act as part of them. If, in real-world relationships, a group is in a subordinate position and faces linguistic, ethnic, and cultural discrimination—as well as gender discrimination in the case of women—then jokes that perpetuate degrading and subordinate images of women or ethnic groups, in fact, play a role in normalizing and legitimizing these unequal relationships. Under the guise of humor or jokes, they define the subordinate position of an ethnic group in society as an eternal and natural status. Thus, language becomes a tool of power used to reproduce this inequality.
Therefore, just as we must critically confront serious texts that promote ethnic discrimination, we should also seriously oppose jokes and humor that seek to justify these unequal relationships and turn them into a source of laughter and entertainment.
Interviewer: The question that arises here, for critics of your perspective, Mr. Darvishpour, is that some may argue there is a boundary between mocking, belittling, or referring to the discrimination against subordinate groups and simply joking or using humor. Where is that boundary? Mr. Farjam, as a satire researcher, perhaps you’d like to address this boundary and tell us whether it’s even possible to create ethnic jokes that don’t carry the degrading features Mr. Darvishpour mentioned.
Farjam: Any form of social reaction—whether jokes, humor, or anything else—that amplifies the dominance and oppression of dominant groups over subordinate ones is morally reprehensible. I also hope that, to the extent possible, such behavior can be curtailed legally.
Let me be clear: I do not defend offensive or vulgar jokes. I have even written articles against them. However, not every joke is necessarily offensive, and not all jokes are equally harsh. For example, the jokes commonly told about Turks in our country are undeniably offensive and deeply insulting. But ethnic jokes about Qazvinis, while crude, are not as biting for a Qazvini as the jokes about “Turks” or “Rashtis.” Meanwhile, jokes about Shirazis are neither as vulgar nor as impactful as those about Qazvinis, let alone those targeting Turks.
When we talk about ethnic jokes, we often immediately think of the jokes about Turks. However, as someone who studies humor professionally, I consider a broader definition: any joke that uses ethnicity as a basis for humor. For instance, jokes about Isfahanis might be laughed at and repeated by Isfahanis themselves. In fact, I often hear firsthand Shirazi jokes from Shirazi friends because they generally don't feel sensitive about them.
Interviewer: Several issues have been raised, which I’d like to address gradually. I’ll return to Mr. Darvishpour and ask: Is the only issue the impact of these jokes on the people belonging to a specific city, region, or ethnic group? Or does the damage extend to social ethics as well? For example, many jokes about Qazvinis involve sexual behavior with children. Can this not have broader ethical implications for society?
Darvishpour: First, all jokes involve some level of irony, sting, or mockery. They are rarely entirely free of these elements. However, when jokes take on a systematic nature, exaggerating or stigmatizing certain traits, and become routine and normalized, they create a different meaning. They reinforce the subordinate position of a particular group across all areas.
 |
| Mehrdad Darvishpour is an Iranian sociologist based in Sweden. |
For instance, jokes claim Isfahanis are stingy, Shirazis are lazy, or Abadanis are boastful. These types of jokes are very common. However, they are not the same as what we call racist jokes. For example, jokes about Qazvinis often carry homophobic undertones, ridiculing sexual minorities by portraying them as pedophiles or reducing homosexuality to mere deviance.
Jokes about Turks or Azerbaijanis, on the other hand, are explicitly racist. They are rooted in the notion that this social group lacks the intelligence, wisdom, and judgment of others. These jokes institutionalize this image by perpetuating it repeatedly and systematically.
Many people downplay these jokes as "just jokes" and urge us not to take them too seriously. Yet this normalization of discrimination is significant, regardless of whether women themselves repeat sexist jokes or an oppressed ethnic group tells jokes about their own people.
Interviewer: This ties into another question: Mr. Farjam noted that some communities produce these jokes themselves. What difference does it make? Perhaps now would be a good time to hear your response, Mr. Farjam. Additionally, as a humor researcher, could you also address whether it’s even possible to create humor without relying on stereotypes?
Farjam: The issue arises when we pick a single word or concept from a discussion and build conclusions around it. For instance, Mr. Darvishpour linked jokes about Qazvinis to homophobia, but this connection is misplaced. The problem with such jokes, if they have one, is that they normalize certain behaviors, such as same-sex relations in the sense implied by these jokes—not homosexuality per se.
The real issue is this: any mention of women is labeled as sexism, anything about homosexuality becomes homophobia, and so on. The discussion seems to revolve around what are known as “stupid jokes.” These jokes are a significant area of humor research and often involve discussions about power dynamics. However, in many societies, these jokes are less about asserting power and more about expressing fear.
For instance, Turks are not depicted as foolish anywhere in Persian literature. In the works of Ubayd Zakani, you will not find a single joke about Turks being stupid. On the contrary, Turks are portrayed as violent, ruthless, and sexually attractive—sometimes in contexts of pedophilia or other taboos. Ethnic jokes about Turks began during the reign of Mozaffar al-Din Shah, when central Iranians faced migration from Turkish-speaking regions such as Tabriz. These jokes emerged as a reaction to the perceived threat to their own status.
Interviewer: Mr. Darvishpour, you may want to briefly respond to what Mr. Farjami said, but my question for you is this: you mentioned that jokes can be a tool of power. Could they also be a tool for critique? Often, we use jokes, humor, and satire to challenge issues, even those related to social groups. What is your view on this?
Darvishpour: Absolutely. Jokes can indeed be used for critique, whether in the realm of politics or even in cultural spheres, and this can have a very positive impact. The point Mr. Farjami made about "fool jokes" is valid—any humor targeting a group's ignorance is not necessarily racist. However, my point is that when we refer to a specific ethnic group and attribute ignorance or lack of understanding to them, it’s no coincidence.
In the past, such jokes were predominantly told about Turks, but today, they are often directed at Lors. One reason for this shift is the growing awareness of anti-discrimination among Azerbaijani people, leading to strong reactions against these jokes, which are seen as racist and demeaning. Now, instead of attributing these traits to Turks, people tell similar jokes about a fictional character like "Qazanfari," who lacks any real identity. This way, everyone laughs without the same backlash.
Farjami: If I may, before you proceed with your question, I think I need to address something briefly.
Interviewer: Please go ahead.
Farjami: I want to point out that what’s being said is technically correct, but it’s more of a side discussion. It’s like the story of the merchant in Tehran who asked a cleric to give a sermon on the indisputable facts of the Karbala event. The cleric simply said, "In such and such year, Imam Hussain was martyred in Karbala," and then stepped down. When asked why, he said, "That’s the only part that’s completely undisputed; everything else is supplementary."
Similarly, we’re talking about supplementary points here. There's no doubt that society should not oppress any group, whether this oppression is psychological, emotional, or offensive. But the point is that these jokes aren’t part of an organized conspiracy by one group to demean another. Turks in Iran, after all, have held ministerial and high-ranking positions.
In studies of Polish jokes in the United States, for instance, it was found that the jokes were rooted in two main factors: a large migration of Polish people, which led them to take jobs from earlier settlers, and their resistance to American customs, unlike other immigrant groups who assimilated more readily. In a way, they were perceived as looking down on Americans, which fueled such humor.
Interviewer: Let’s turn to Mr. Darvishpour. Mr. Farjami argues that not all ethnic jokes are intentional or targeted. What’s your response?
Darvishpour: Yes, the reason jokes about groups like Esfahanis, Shirazis, or Qazvinis don’t provoke the same sensitivity is that they aren’t perceived as ethnic groups. Additionally, there’s no structural dominance-subordination dynamic in these cases. However, when ethnic minorities in Iran—such as Turks, Kurds, or Baluchis—are denied basic rights like education in their mother tongue, it becomes clear how jokes are used to normalize inequality and reinforce this dynamic of subordination.
Interviewer: Mr. Farjami, you briefly mentioned that Turkish-speaking groups in Iran aren’t necessarily marginalized. What’s your take?
Farjami: The argument that a lack of education in one’s native language equates to marginalization is a very simplistic and generalized conclusion. Many people repeat this notion without considering the broader context. Marginalization of a large ethnic group isn’t determined by a single factor.
Regarding whether satirists must consider all these aspects—such as the religion or educational opportunities of the group they’re targeting—John Morreall’s book Philosophy of Humor addresses this very question. He even provides examples of jokes and argues that if the ultimate effect of a joke is to further oppress a marginalized group or elevate an already dominant one, then it’s unethical. Whether Turks in Iran face specific pressures compared to others in cities like Zahedan, Mashhad, or Esfahan is a question for deeper sociopolitical analysis.
Darvishpour: I want to emphasize that society cannot reject humor or satire altogether, nor can it completely avoid tensions. Humor often serves as a release for social tensions that might otherwise escalate into more severe conflicts. However, we aren’t advocating for a police state where certain jokes are banned. Instead, we need to understand how language and humor can contribute to perpetuating negative stereotypes about social groups. If they do so, these should be subject to serious critique.
Interviewer: Mr. Farjami, as someone who researches humor, have you ever felt that society has taken on a policing attitude, where every joke or piece of humor is misinterpreted because it is open to multiple interpretations?
Farjami: Yes, that has happened. It’s fine to have sensitivity and provide reminders, but honestly, the issue of Turks and ethnic jokes about them has become politicized and exploited for political purposes. Some groups with very dangerous political intentions—those who openly declare they seek the disintegration of the country—have latched onto this issue because, frankly, they don’t have substantial evidence to show that Turks in Iran have been oppressed in the way, for example, Chinese minorities in Malaysia, Kurds in Turkey, or even African Americans in the U.S. have been.
As they lack concrete evidence, they focus intensely on two topics: one is the issue of education in one’s mother tongue, which, to be fair, is gradually being addressed. Their second focus is ethnic jokes, which they present as a structured insult by Persian speakers. The entire issue has been tainted. Ethnic jokes, like gender jokes, are a global phenomenon. Sometimes they go too far and deserve criticism, but it’s not always a calculated insult.
Interviewer: Let me ask one final question to wrap up our discussion. Advocates of an open society argue that nothing should be off-limits for humor. Nothing should be immune to jokes because that leads to sanctification and fosters dogmatism and prejudice. What is your response to this?
Darvishpour: Let me first address a point. Much of what Mr. Farjami says indicates that our perspectives are fundamentally different. To think that addressing ethnic discrimination inherently leads to separatism is, in my view, a red flag.
In my opinion, denying ethnic discrimination in Iran creates the worst grounds for separatism. While I am firmly against separatism, I strongly believe that combating it requires ensuring equality for all ethnic groups and eliminating ethnic discrimination.
Secondly, if we reduce the issue of language and overlook how language forms part of identity and how the lack of access to education in one’s mother tongue erodes opportunities for equality, we are missing the point. To dismiss it as a minor matter is, again, a red flag.
Farjami: See, this is, unfortunately, not the first time I’ve encountered this. Every time this discussion arises, someone broadens the topic into a general discourse on ethnic oppression. But that’s not what we’re discussing here. If you want to talk about oppressed groups, I can cite Kurds, Baluchis, and Baha’is as examples, none of whom are the subjects of specific jokes in Iran. So, please don’t tie the oppression of Turks in Iran, whether real or imagined, to ethnic jokes.
Darvishpour: No, sir. You explicitly said Kurds in Turkey are oppressed…
Farjami: Yes, but you know these jokes have existed at least since Reza Shah’s time. If such jokes were meant to perpetuate systemic oppression, they would have targeted groups like Kurds, Baluchis, Sunnis, or Baha’is, who have historically faced much greater oppression in different periods.
Interviewer: Let’s aim for a final wrap-up here. Do you think that banning certain subjects from being joked about leads to dogmatism and rigidity of thought in society?
Darvishpour: Let me briefly say this: the fact that, in Iranian society, a mere reference to a cockroach in a newspaper can lead to widespread protests in Azerbaijan demonstrates how crucial language is in either creating or resolving tensions.
This discussion is about a real social issue. I am a strong proponent of freedom of expression in its broadest sense. At the same time, I must remind everyone that, under international human rights laws, whenever there is a conflict between two fundamental human rights—freedom of expression and equality—the United Nations has recognized that the right to equality must take precedence.
Interviewer: Mr. Farjami, your concluding thoughts?
Farjami: My conclusion, like that individual’s sermon, is: “In the name of God, the Most Merciful, Imam Hussein was martyred.” I think we’ve said what needs to be said. There are differing opinions, and that’s fine. Establishing a policing system over humor is neither feasible nor possible. Even under the strictest regimes, such as in the Soviet Union or communist states, it was never entirely achievable. This is a complex issue that touches on both humor and the experience of oppressed ethnic groups—provided the discussion remains grounded and not overly politicized or fictionalized.
Interviewer: Thank you very much, Mr. Mahmoud Farjami and Mr. Mehrdad Darvishpour, for joining us on Taboo for this discussion.
The link to the original article in Farsi on Radio Farda:
جوکهای قومیتی؛ بخندیم یا مخالفت کنیم؟