The universal popularity of ethnic jokes and in particular those about supposedly 'stupid' or 'crafty' ethnic minorities is to be explained in terms of the general characteristics of industrial societies rather than the particular circumstances of each separate society. The ethnic jokes of western industrial societies in both peacetime and wartime reflect the competing moral values, uncertain social boundaries and impersonal power structures of these societies. The corresponding eastern European jokes are in some respects similar but as one might expect highly politicized and reflect the deeper social and political divisions that characterize the socialist industrial countries. Ethnic jokes delineate the social, geographical and moral boundaries of a nation or ethnic group. By making fun of peripheral and ambiguous groups they reduce ambiguity and clarify boundaries or at least make ambiguity appear less threatening. Ethnic jokes occur in opposed pairs such as those mocking 'stupid' and 'crafty', or 'cowardly' and 'militaristic' groups respectively and express the problems and anxieties caused by the conflicting norms and values inevitably found in large societies dominated by anomic impersonal institutions such as the market place and bureaucracy.
For more than 50 years The British Journal of Sociology has represented the mainstream of sociological thinking and research. Consistently ranked highly by the ISI in Sociology, this prestigious international journal publishes sociological scholarship of the highest quality on all aspects of the discipline, by academics from all over the world. The British Journal of Sociology is distinguished by the commitment to excellence and scholarship one associates with its home at the London School of Economics and Political Science. http://www.interscience.wiley.com
Wiley is a global provider of content and content-enabled workflow solutions in areas of scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly research; professional development; and education. Our core businesses produce scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly journals, reference works, books, database services, and advertising; professional books, subscription products, certification and training services and online applications; and education content and services including integrated online teaching and learning resources for undergraduate and graduate students and lifelong learners. Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. has been a valued source of information and understanding for more than 200 years, helping people around the world meet their needs and fulfill their aspirations. Wiley has published the works of more than 450 Nobel laureates in all categories: Literature, Economics, Physiology or Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, and Peace. Wiley has partnerships with many of the world’s leading societies and publishes over 1,500 peer-reviewed journals and 1,500+ new books annually in print and online, as well as databases, major reference works and laboratory protocols in STMS subjects. With a growing open access offering, Wiley is committed to the widest possible dissemination of and access to the content we publish and supports all sustainable models of access. Our online platform, Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) is one of the world’s most extensive multidisciplinary collections of online resources, covering life, health, social and physical sciences, and humanities.
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
The British Journal of Sociology
© 1982 London School of Economics
Request Permissions
