Blurred Lines: The Ambiguity of Disparaging Humour and Slurs in Norwegian High School Boys’ Friendship Groups

Introduction

Today, possessing a sense of humour is valued. High status often aligns with the ability to make others laugh, while being accused of lacking a sense of humour can be seen as criticism (Billig, 2005). Billig (2005) asserts that humour, laughter and ridicule can bring people together or it can exclude, through shared enjoyment or through mockery, and further stresses the importance of group dynamics in theorizing humour. Humour must be interpreted by the receivers—the audience. Hence, for a joke to be funny, it must be accepted as just that.

The context and setting in which a joke is told are central to how the joke is perceived and interpreted (Pickering & Lockyer, 2005). Research in the school context in Norway shows that insults, mockery and discriminatory denigration based on stereotypes and prejudice occur frequently (see Eriksen, 2017; Myrebøe, 2021; Olsen et al., 2016; Slaatten et al., 2015). Many such instances happen under the guise of humour, especially among friends. However, teachers struggle to understand and deal with this phenomenon (Myrebøe, 2021; Røthing, 2017). According to Myrebøe (2021), teachers find it difficult to understand what is really going on when students use expressions including prejudice and stereotypes in their social interactions, and they experience discomfort and insecurity in such situations. While previous research has addressed disparaging humour and slurs in relation to bullying (e.g., Olsen et al., 2016; Slaatten et al., 2015; Slaatten & Gabrys, 2014) and how it is perceived from the teachers’ perspective, the present research focuses on the perspective of students who use this type of language when socializing with friends.

In Norwegian society, race-related words or other words that connote or signal difference (words referring to ethnicity, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc.) are often avoided, and a national cultural discourse of tolerance and equality is promoted, encouraged—and expected. In 2006, Norwegian anthropologist Marianne Gullestad argued that the national narrative and self-image in Norwegian society disregard the history of oppression of minorities in Norway. This entails that racism is regarded as a non-issue, and the self-image of a colour-blind nation acts as a barrier to engaging in critical discussions about issues concerning racism. The race word ‘neger’, for example, has been, and continues to be, the subject of heated debates in Norway. It derives from the English term ‘negro’ and is a contested word in Norwegian society (see Gullestad, 2006). According to Gullestad, many majority Norwegians claim that ‘neger’ is descriptive and neutral rather than racist, arguing that the term does not carry the same racist history as the English term ‘negro’. However, ‘the perceived neutrality of the word is connected to its traditional use in talking about Blacks.’ (Gullestad, 2006, p. 215). Gullestad claims that it is mostly used in non-public conversations about, and not to, people of colour. Regardless, an implication of this can be that the idea of Norway as a colour-blind nation without the presence of racism, as described by Gullestad, is uncritically upheld and remains unchallenged. Additionally, claiming ‘neger’ to be a descriptive and neutral term can be used as a ‘get out of jail free card’, possibly exonerating the one who used it from accusations of being racist. None of the students in my study used the words ‘neger’ or ‘niggah’ to refer to or describe specific people to me as the researcher. Rather, they arose in explanations of how the students use such words in humorous exchanges with their black friends. As such, there is a use–mention distinction regarding race words: the words were mentioned to me but used by students in interactions with their black friends.

In this article, I explore from the boys’ perspective how this form of humour is deployed and what functions this humour has in male friendship groups. I address two questions: What type of disparaging humour and slurs do the boys use? What are the functions (positive and negative) of this form of humour for the boys’ friendships and group relations?

On Humour and (Hetero-)Masculinity

Humour and joking are embedded in group life, and groups create their own humorous and jocular discourses and traditions (Fine & De Soucey, 2005). In groups, humour can be used, for example, to create community, lighten the mood and relieve tension, gain attention and status, display power, differentiate one’s own group from other groups, or shock and disrupt taboos (see Fine & De Soucey, 2005; Kotthoff, 2006; Moore, 2017; Phoenix et al., 2003; Søndergaard, 2018). Humour or jokes that play on one’s own identity, such as ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs, are considered more socially acceptable than humour or jokes told at the expense of others (Pickering & Lockyer, 2005). Research shows that when a commonly targeted group/person adopts disparaging humour, it can serve positive functions within the group (Bianchi, 2014; Galinsky et al., 2013; Rahman, 2012). Re-appropriating or subverting disparaging humour within a group can, for example, increase the perceived power of the group and, thus, ‘attenuate the stigma attached to the derogatory group label’ (Bianchi, 2014; Galinsky et al., 2013, p. 2028).

Research indicates that both men and women utilize disparaging humour and slurs, but women in particular usually confine this to same-sex interactions (Hay, 2000). Some claim that role expectations shape how, where and when humour is used or not used, perhaps especially for women (Hay, 2000; Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 2006). Previous research also suggests that males more than females perform intimacy through transgressions of public taboos, mocking, and ridicule (see Cameron & Kulick, 2003; Kiesling, 2005; Kotthoff, 2006). This is often referred to as homosociality and is ‘defined as a mechanism and social dynamic that explains the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity’ (Odenbring & Johansson, 2020, p. 4). Homosocial bonds can be forged, for example, through humour and ‘insults, boasts, and other competitive linguistic forms’ (Kiesling, 2005, p. 721). According to a Finnish study, schoolboys’ use of humour is a ‘significant resource and strategy in procuring and maintaining masculine status and power’ (Huuki et al., 2010, p. 380). This coincides with findings suggesting that males seem to prefer humour that is competitive and that can impact power and hierarchical relations (Hay, 2000) and that more aggressive forms of humour are more common among males (Kotthoff, 2006). There is no clear answer as to why this seems to be the case, but a reasonable question is whether this form of humour serves other (or more meaningful) functions for males than for females. Or perhaps it has something to do with role expectations. As Lampert and Ervin-Tripp (2006) suggest, ‘role expectations of men and women in interaction shape their sense of whether their joking remarks will be understood primarily as humor’ (p. 57). Kuipers’ (2011) female interviewees underline decency and protecting their reputation when they discuss how they remain mindful of whom they re-tell filthy jokes to, for example. According to Kuipers, although differences in power between men and women have reduced, there are still differences in standards for feminine and masculine behaviours, and these are relevant to the humour domain.

In the school context, humour can be utilized to regulate social life through ridicule and shame. As such, it can ‘contribute to clarifying, manifesting, and replicating the boundaries of the community, the norms and rules’ (Søndergaard, 2018, p. 62). Consequently, humour can play a central role in adolescents’ friendship socialization as well as social exclusion in schools. Jonsson (2018) shows how male adolescents at a Swedish multi-ethnic school use language tied to stereotypes, prejudice and assumed traits of specific groups or identities. He finds that urban youth styles and previously taboo words tied to identities are reproduced or destabilized through humorous interactions and that identities can be utilized as tools in constructing social hierarchies. Thus, humour can be a way to express opposition and subvert and ‘flip the script’ (Roberts et al., 2008). Playing with identity-related words can also involve a balancing act where racist and anti-racist meanings are simultaneously (re)produced (Raby, 2004). Jonsson (2018) describes this balancing act as something that allows the students in his study to ‘laugh at the Other, but at the same time their jokes enable them to disrupt stereotypes and display the arbitrary that categorizations of ethnicity, gender, and race contain’ (p. 333). Similarly, Roberts et al. (2008) find that students at a multi-ethnic high school in the United States employ racialized jokes and name-calling as a strategy for challenging racism and so-called colour blindness: it can be a way for students to challenge tacit rules of ‘polite’ talk about race and racism. Self-directed humour is similar to subversion because it involves re-appropriating stereotypes and flipping the script. For people in minority groups, it can be a way of reducing or combatting tensions from stereotypes or prejudice or managing emotions by diffusing tension, thus functioning as an emotional defence (Ellithorpe et al., 2014).

By locating disparaging or derogatory language within a discourse of humour, one can mitigate the effects of the comments made (Burdsey, 2011). The receiver can shield themselves (at least externally) from hurt by downplaying it or categorizing it as ‘just a joke’. It can be a means of self-preservation and softening the blow. Similarly, categorizing it as ‘just a joke’ can offer a defence against accusations of being discriminatory, thus exonerating the one who made the insult (Pickering & Lockyer, 2005; Søndergaard, 2018). Homophobic and otherwise stereotyped and prejudicial language, for example, is often explained by adolescents as generic insults and innocuous banter (see Athanases & Comar, 2008; Cameron, 1997; Pascoe, 2011; Phoenix et al., 2003; Plummer, 2001). This suggests that these words can somehow lose their negative meanings through frequent usage and can instead be regarded as synonyms of ‘stupid’, ‘idiot’, ‘dumb’ and so forth (Athanases & Comar, 2008; Jewell & Morrison, 2010). Though this language use can be tied to anti-gay behaviour, attitudes and bullying (Odenbring & Johansson, 2020; Søndergaard, 2018), it is often seen as a means of asserting one’s own masculinity to comment on another’s non-masculine traits or behaviours (Birkett & Espelage, 2015; Kehily & Nayak, 1997; Nayak & Kehily, 1997; Phoenix et al., 2003) or to use outright slurs that have nothing to do with sexual orientation or behaviour (Evans & Chapman, 2014). In a study conducted in a US high school, Pascoe (2011) finds that homophobic epithets and slurs are uttered regularly among boys, who use ‘fag’ and similar words liberally. However, they claim they would never say these words to a person who identifies as gay. Nevertheless, the use of gay-related labels and slurs has a disciplining effect because of the inherent negative connotations of gay-related labels. This ambivalence in gay-related humour—its positive and negative functions—will be discussed later in the article.

Methods and Data

This article is part of a doctoral dissertation investigating students’ experiences with and perceptions of stereotypes and prejudice tied to minority groups and identities. The data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with 28 high school students (16 girls and 12 boys) from three high schools in different parts of Norway, in addition to participant observation in one class at each of the three schools. I followed one class at each school for three weeks. Interviews with the 12 boys and observation data provide the empirical basis of this article.

The inclusion of three schools ¹ in the data collection—one school in northern Norway, one in western Norway, and one in eastern Norway—was a deliberate decision to capture as much complexity as possible. The first school is located in a relatively big city and has a large, heterogeneous student body. The students in the class under study at this school have backgrounds from Scandinavia, the Middle East and Asia, and their various ethnic and religious backgrounds were frequently brought up in casual conversations and banter among students. Here, the phenomenon of disparaging humour and slurs was overt for me as the researcher and partly for teachers as well. The two other schools differ from the first one and are similar to each other in many ways. One is located in a rural area and the other in a small city—both areas with much smaller populations than the first school. These two schools, and the two classes under study, are predominantly white. This is especially true of the small city school. The rural school of approximately 500 students also has a smaller student population than the two other schools. As opposed to the big city school, the use of disparaging humour and slurs at the two predominantly white schools was not apparent or visible to me as the researcher, but it was conveyed through individual interviews and informal conversations with students.

Schools are social spaces that reflect and are interwoven with the wider social setting in which they are located. Thus, a broad geographical selection of schools is a strength because a wide geographical scope opens for more variation and richer empirical material. In this study, the geographical variation combined with variation in terms of the student population (including background, skin colour, sexual orientation, etc.) provided insight into how complex the use of disparaging humour and slurs is in different environments and groups of friends. However, the selected classes at each school were within the same educational programme ² and year ³ in order to strengthen the foundation for comparing data from the different school contexts and classes.

The interviews were semi-structured with some topics and questions set beforehand (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; O’Reilly, 2009). I asked questions on topics ranging from the students’ upbringing, family, interests, and hobbies to education and school-specific questions. These latter types of questions were oriented towards their feelings of well-being and safety in school and their relationships with peers and teachers. This was intended to gain insight into the students’ experiences with and perceptions of stereotypes and prejudice tied to minority groups and identities in school. I also asked about their experience of contentment in school and perceptions of the school environment. Initially, I did not ask about humour in the interviews. However, as the topic of disparaging humour and slurs stood out in the initial interviews and observations, I implemented it in the interview guide to learn about how and why students use disparaging humour and slurs. I did not observe any girls in any of the classes use, for example, gay-related or racial humour or slurs, and in the interviews, most girls explicitly stated that, in their opinion, this is more of a ‘boy thing’ and not terminology that they themselves use. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The average length of an interview was approximately one hour. The transcribed interviews with boys amount to approximately 128,000 words ⁴ and the field notes, 45,000 words.

This article draws primarily on interview data because the boys’ joking was covert at the two predominantly white schools. I did not observe any use of disparaging humour or slurs at either of these schools. At the heterogeneous school, however, this humour was overt and an apparent part of the boys’ everyday socialization practices both in and outside of the classroom. Thus, observation data from this school provides the backdrop for my presentation and analyses of the compiled data, even if I mainly present the data through interview excerpts.

I analysed the interview transcripts and field notes thematically, as described by Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Charmaz (2006). The first step in the data analysis process involved coding the material. I used the software HyperRESEARCH 4.0.2 in both phases of coding. In the initial phase (Charmaz, 2006) of coding, I read and re-read the material extensively and coded the material by line or smaller segments of data, making the coding ‘close’ to the data. In the focused phase (Charmaz, 2006), the codes from the initial phase were integrated and synthesized into broader themes and sub-themes according to the most frequent and significant codes from the initial phase (Charmaz, 2006). During the processing in the initial phase, humour/joking stood out as a central theme. In the focused phase, three main sub-themes were discerned from this main theme, and the results will be presented according to these themes: (a) racial humour and slurs, (b) gay-related labels and slurs and (c) ambiguity tied to boys’ humour practices. In the following analyses, I use excerpts from interviews with a select few boys from each school to illustrate broader findings and to highlight individual reflections that can shed light on the complex nature of disparaging humour and slurs used among male friends.

All students were accurately informed, both in writing and orally, about the project and research ethics. All students gave consent in writing. Information about research ethics and rights was repeated orally to interviewees, and their provision of consent was recorded. To ensure anonymity, I have assigned pseudonyms to all students. As the empirical material for this study is in Norwegian, I have chosen to show the race- and slang words as they are used in Norwegian throughout the article. These emic terms are enclosed in quotation marks. The first time a term is used, I will provide an English translation, within quotation marks, in brackets.

The topic of this article is undoubtedly sensitive, and though I focus on how and why boys use disparaging humour and slurs, this does not mean that I dismiss the importance of discussing the topic in terms of racism, prejudice, discrimination and bullying. However, researching the topic from the students’ points of view and focusing on how they describe their intentions and perceptions of their language use is an important part of understanding the phenomenon of disparaging humour or slurs.

Racial and Gay-Related Disparaging Humour Among High School Boys

In the following, students’ use and mentions of racial and gay-related disparaging humour and slurs are presented, analysed and discussed. In the first two sub-sections, I highlight how the boys developed friendships and utilized social competencies, such as sensitivity and affection, through the use of racial and gay-related disparaging humour and slurs. Lastly, I discuss the apparent complexity and ambiguity entrenched in their use of disparaging humour and slurs.

Discussion and Conclusion

This article has shown the complexity and ambiguous nature of boys’ use of disparaging humour and slurs among friends. The cases show what demands boys might have of their friendships—namely, you should be able to joke about anything with any of your friends.

We do not know how any of the boys would react if they learned that one of their friends did not like, or was hurt by, the jokes made. Is it risky to tell your friends to stop joking about certain things? Will it change the nature of the friendship, or might you even stand to lose that friendship? The friendships that these boys have with each other seemed important, and having close friends in school has a great impact on whether or not students experience the school context and learning environment as positive and meaningful.

Perhaps the most striking finding from the analysis of this empirical material is the difference in uses of racial and gay-related humour and slurs. The latter are used to laughingly point out and make fun of someone who, in various ways, has broken norms of presumed masculinity but more so to serve others with what is regarded as synonyms of more common generic insults and put-downs. Racial humour and slurs, however, are directed at those with darker skin. This means that those with darker skin are less likely to escape being targets of disparaging humour and slurs because it is, in fact, the colour of their skin that makes them targets. As such, the boys’ use of racial humour and slurs exemplifies how race still matters and carries significance in contemporary Norway.

The cases of gay-related humour and slurs indicate a significant difference between the predominantly white small city school and the heterogeneous big city school: gay-related name-calling was in most parts used towards the white, presumably heterosexual, males mainly for generic insults and put-downs. Despite the insistence that this form of humour is used without malice or negative intent, and while seemingly serving positive functions for the friendship group as a whole, it is important to note the disciplining effect that it nonetheless can have. The words’ negative connotations make social disciplining unavoidable. As such, the use of gay-related humour and slurs contributes to upholding and constructing a specific (hetero-)masculine norm in the school space and within the friendship groups.

In schools, teachers often crack down on the language used in disparaging humour. This is likely because of the common (and logical) link to bullying, racism, and discrimination. Changing attitudes and behaviours, however, is a difficult task, and the positive functions that disparaging humour and slurs seemingly have in many male friendship groups suggest that the use of this form of humour is not easy to eradicate. The data evince that boys do not talk to each other about the humour they use. They make jokes, laugh, shrug or make comebacks, and then seemingly move on. Through the lens of humour, I have shown that sexuality and gender norms, and race, still matter, and is basis for or target of disparagement in the empirical material. This disturbs a common notion of Norway as colour-blind, anti-racist and equal. Devoting attention to the topic of disparaging humour and slurs as part of the teaching, where the focus is not only on the negative functions of this humour but also on the positives, could be beneficial in working with issues such as racism, discrimination and equality in schools. Acknowledging that this form of humour, for many people, does serve positive functions could lead to more fruitful discussions and reflections on the ambiguity of disparaging humour. What is apparent, however, is that there is a need to gain broader knowledge of the topic of disparaging humour and slurs used among friends in the school context and perhaps especially from the ones subjected to it.