Khrystyna ShkodynApril 28, 2016

Social Construction of Indian Identity through Standup Comedy

Abstract

Social constructionism theorizes how individuals and communities take a part in the creation and production of their social reality. Numerous influential researchers (Siegel, Dijk) argue that aspects of communication are symbolic and resourceful in constructing our own and others’ identities; that we constantly relate to one another by recognizing each other’s utterances and constructing each other’s identity by participating in situated social scenes (Carbaugh) and positioning (Davies and Harre) each other in certain ways. People have a tendency to create stereotypes and possess their own views - positive and negative - on certain cultures and their members or, be it based on personal experiences and encounters, whether through the media or personal interactions or occupational or educational contact.

This paper adopts a discourse analysis perspective in the analysis of performances of Canadian born Anglo-Indian standup comedian Russell Peters. Data illustrates how Indian identity is constructed through the use of humor directed toward members of the Indian community, including Peters himself, as well as his family. Drawing from discursive theory, this analysis incorporates frame and schema (Tannen), ethnic humor (Leveen), codeswitching (Siegel), and ideology (Dijk).

Russell’s humor offers a look into the world through a Hindu window and a unique introduction to the Indian stereotype possessed by many. Ethnic jokes may be offensive; however, they might also serve as a strategy for defining a specific ethnicity positively. This analysis demonstrates how Peters constructs a positive Indian identity through humor and highlights the larger role of humor in identity construction.

Introduction

Discourse analysis is a science of interaction and it is not just a study of language, but the study

of language beyond the sentence. It is considered to be the language of the world, the ‘language as it

functions is all aspects of human life’ (Atkinson, Okada and Talmy, 87). According to Gee, discourse

analysis is a method for finding out how language “gets recruited ‘on site’ to enact specific social

activities and social identities” (Alba-Juez, 16).

It is in oral folklore that we may expect to hear most precise barometer of public opinion on

various subjects (Dundes, 44). Standup comedy is the oldest and most universal significant form of

humorous utterance and jokes are absolutely vital part of every nation’s cultural life. Shared laughter in

response to utterances which deserves confirmation or ridicule implies sense of collective support for

shared belief or behavior. “The key to understanding the role of standup comedy in the process of

1

cultural affirmation and subversion is recognition of the comedian’s traditional license for deviate

behavior and expression.” To some extent we may identify with comedian’s identity and behavior,

therefore he/she may lead us in a celebration of a group of shared culture (Mintz, 74).

In early 20th century, vaudeville, burlesque and different theatres were popular types of

entertainment; standup comedy was their backbone. In post war period, contemporary comedy,

resorts, nightclubs, coffee houses, or so called ‘sites of new-wave comedy,’ all emerged as venues for

the stand-alone comedian; two-person comic team; or sketch ensemble (Lee, 110). Mintz introduces a

definition of standup comedy as follows: “A strict, limiting definition of standup comedy would

describe an encounter between a single, standing performer behaving comically and/or saying funny

things directly to the audience, unsupported by very much in the way of costume, prop, setting, or

dramatic vehicle. Yet standup comedy’s roots are … entwined with rites, rituals, and dramatic

experiences that are richer, more complex than this simple definition can embrace” (Mintz, 71-74).

An actor, producer, and most well known as standup comedian, Russell Dominic Peters was

born on September 29, 1970 in Toronto, Canada. His parents, Eric and Maureen, emigrated from India

into Canada about 50 years ago (Russel biography). The talent of telling jokes go back to when he was a

little boy making people laugh and even until this day he makes fun of his parents for making him

perform at the dinner table entertaining guests. It took him 20 years to get to where he is now and his

popularity manifests itself in full audiences he is greeted by on stages around the world. For example, in

2008, he gathered 30,000 people in two nights in Air Canada. To a question when he realized he was

funny, he replies: “Russell Peters and Russell are very similar people; this is who I am - a funny guy.

Peters is just a little bit more amplified version” (Riz Khan, interview). He calls himself the first godfather

of Indian comedy, while Forbes magazine calls Russell Peters ‘a master of cultural lampoons’ who jokes

about everyone including himself. His style of humor stems from Anglo- Indian heritage and upbringing

in Canada and is appealing to very diverse audiences. Fans enjoy Peters because he manages to portray

2

barriers and then breaks them down with the help of humor, implying a calming thought that in comedy

cultures can merge (Forbes, 2013).

According to Carbaugh, “there are ‘features of communication … symbolic resources of

identification that participants use in their routine communicative practices, as well as the meaning

system associated with those situated communication practices” (Carbaugh, 13,class handout).

Therefore part of having identity is to be able to share it with others. We need to show our identities by

using language, by participating, performing, and symbolizing our identities in social scenes.

Ethnic humor plays significant role in group identity formation. It works very well to mediate

conflicts between the groups by simply being adaptable, bringing together distinct cultures and being

flexible to fit potentially dangerous situations (Lowe, 441). The comedian establishes his persona by

discussing personal attitudes, beliefs, life style and background, allowing the audience to accept

him/her; and ‘works the room’ by asking questions of people close by, making statements about

audience (Mintz, 79).

Our identity is the core for everything and is being constructed and reconstructed as we create

ourselves in the relation to others. During live performances onstage, Russell Peters directs humor

toward members of the Indian community, including himself and his family, illustrating how Indian

identity is constructed through the use of this humor. Russell’s joke telling offers a look into the world

through a Hindu window and a unique introduction to the Indian stereotype possessed by many. Ethnic

jokes may be offensive; however, they might also serve as a strategy for defining a specific ethnicity

positively. Peters constructs a positive Indian identity through humor and highlights the larger role of

humor in identity construction.

Literature Review

Frame/Schema Related:

3

England’s string urge to Westernize India throughout 19th century to a great extent resulted in

the opposite: they de-industrialized India instead, causing poverty and subjecting its population to

famines and contagious diseases that killed millions (Chapter 3, p. 4, 12-13). Under British colonial rule,

Indians forcefully were detached from traditional sources of livelihood and taken abroad as labor to be

used as cheap force, or mere ‘units of production, not as people’ to work on colonial plantations

(Mahajani, 266). “Systematic degradation of the Indian labourers to wear convict uniforms, deliberate

attempts to destroy their very sense of identity; their loneliness, cruel methods of punishments, a high

rate of suicides, sexual oppression of Indian women driven into prostitution, abominably low wages and

dissimulation of ‘protection’ offered by the British ‘protectors’ “(267) and such, left negative footprint of

this westernization by British in many Indian’s minds.

Arranged marriages continue to be normative in Asian cultures, especially among Indians in

India. In India, they are the most popular form of organizing a marital relationship. Arranged marriage

and family outnumber ‘love’ or ‘self-arranged’ marriage despite forces of modernization and

liberalization. In India, arranged marriages are organized by elderly kin and parents and during last 20

years, parents even seek matches for their children through magazines, internet, and matrimonial

newspapers. Hindu marriage is believed to emerge from laws interpreted in the Dharmashastras, which

have their roots in the 3000 year old hymns called Vedas and Smritis. According to these scripts,

marriage was a duty and religious sacrament required for the well being of community (Chawla, 5-6).

Chawla interviews many Hindu women whose marriages were arranged and demonstrates that

arranged marriage is a very complex framework which sometimes even involves internal struggle.

For people of India, the cow is perceived as source of food and symbol of life and should never

be killed. In early centuries of AD, the cow was designated as the appropriate gift to the brahmans, or

high-caste priests. Soon after, to kill a cow became equal to killing a brahman. The sanctity of cow was

then reinforced even further as pastoral element in Krishna stories became important from 10 th century

4

and onward. Until this day, the cow remains a protected animal in India and Indians do not eat beef.

“Despite their sacred status, cows don't seem to be very appreciated in India. Visitors are often

surprised to see them walking neglected around city streets, living on garbage from the gutters. But the

cow is honored at least once a year, on Gopastami. On this "Cow Holiday," cows are washed and

decorated in the temple and given offerings in the hope that her gifts of life will continue” (Hindu Cow

Taboo).

In 1998, based on historical and literary evidence, Prabhakaran demonstrated that Indians used

surnames at least 40 centuries before the Europeans did. The history of Indian names is well

documented and goes way back, hence have significant value within Indian people (Prabhakaran).

Ethnic Humor (Stereotypes) Related:

Equating language and nation is a truism and is a historical and ideological construct. Language

varieties associated to specific groups of speakers are often misrecognized as “emblems … of social,

intellectual, or moral worth” (Woolard and Schieffelin, 60-61). In the Indian Journal of Political Science,

M. J. Vinod writes that Americans have distorted images of India representing the ignorance prevailing

in various American minds. He cites former Indian Ambassador, who once had said: “For most

Americans India is still an exotic and sordid land of poverty, disease and squalor inundated by ceaseless

torrent of babies” (Vinod, 380). Indians find it difficult to realize how little Americans know about them

and that the little they know is usually wrong. Studies in American public opinion showed that

‘overpopulation’ and ‘poor sanitation’ were dominant answers in questions about American image of

India – images which are mainly stereotypes having little connection to reality (381,385).

Cues such skin color and accent provide information about person’s belonging to a certain social

group. According to language perception studies, ethnic accent in particular is an evident cue to

ethnicity and social relations, and has a strong tendency to elicit stereotypes that one would expect to

be aligned with. An experiment by Riches and Foddy in 1989 on Anglo-Australian- and Greek-Australian-

5

accented speech supported their hypothesis that accented speech operated as a status cue which

triggered beliefs about status of ethnic groups (Riches and Foddy,203).

Humor challenges the discursive assumption of cultural dominance: “when confronted with an

ethnic joke, particularly one told by a member of the ethnic group to which it refers, members of the

dominant group are focused to consider the topic of ethnicity.” As the same time, jokes move away

from reality, and thus provide a different type of discourse, and this separation grows from “caricaturing

of stereotyping language and logic and results in the subversion of the authority of the stereotype”

(Leveen, 46). Making fun of minority groups reduces ambiguity and clarifies borders, what in addition

also makes ambiguity seem to appear less threatening (Davies, 400). It is important to realize that there

are numerous risks in telling jokes about one’s own ethnic group. For example, a joke may easily be

taken as a confirmation of a stereotype; or a joke told to out-group may be retold later in a context in

which the original in-group joker cannot control (Leveen , 42).

Ethnic jokes to some extent depend on stereotypes and assumptions about different ethnic

groups and can serve as an important strategy for portraying ethnicity in both positive and negative

ways. In 1990, Phinney reviewed over 70 studies of ethnic identity concluding that development of

identities was not easy for those who belonged to ethnic minority groups, what it turn led to negative

societal stereotypes and discrimination (Howard, 374). On the other hand, ethnic jokes can be treated

as means to overcome stereotypes of others. The chance to recognize and ridicule stereotype

outweighs the probable risk of confirming that stereotype (Leveen, 29, 35). It is impossible to challenge

an unspoken prejudice; however when it is made as object of consideration through humor, the

presence of stereotype is undeniable and revealed. Ethic jokes are often used to draw lines between

dominant and minority cultures and as Christie Davis writes, jokes “reflect the competing moral values,

uncertain social boundaries, and impersonal power structures” (38).

Lexical/Paralanguage Related:

6

According to pragmatic studies by Appel and Muysken, codeswitching is frequently used

“metaphorically” to communicate social meanings, and Basso states that when we use a particular code,

it may serve as a “framing device” and a “contextualization cue” (Siegel, 101).People codeswitch in

order to define who they are, to intimidate, to signal familiarity or to create intimacy; and in this

linguistic manipulation a speaker constitutes to share something with the audience (Christian, 2007).

Studies in sociology and anthropology on codeswitching show that it may result in humor in three ways:

to simply signal joke is taking place; switch itself is seen as an object of humor; and language or varieties

to which one switches may be considered funny. Per Scotton, codeswitching is a tool and index: “For

the speaker, switching is a tool, a means of doing something (by affecting the rights and obligations

balance). For the listener, switching is an index, a symbol of speaker’s intentions. Switching, therefore,

is both a means and a message” (Siegel, 100-101). In his 1995 study on codeswitching and humor, Jeff

Sigel writes that a sure way to laugh when speaking Fijian is to just switch to Hindi and that

codeswitching from Fijian to Hindi is commonly used in joking among Fijians. When Fijians switch to

Hindi, it is a marked choice which confirms that the speaker is in a relationship with the listener that

allows joking (95,101). For Gumperz, “any verbal sign which when processed in co-occurrence with

symbolic grammatical and lexical signs serves to construct the contextual ground for situated

interpretations, and thereby affects how constituent messages are understood” (Slembrouck, 19).

According to Baynham, in some instances of a narrative, speaker mimics somebody else’s voice.

This helps both to bring speaker’s own position to the surface and to animate a certain speaking position

in a narrative, what is very crucial in identity theory (Baynham, 384).

Ideology Related:

Baker and Galasinski write: “Ethnicity is a relational concept concerned with categories of self

identification and social ascription. What we think of as our identity is dependent on what we think we

7

are not.” Therefore, it is very important to realize that we define ourselves in terms of what we are not

just as much as in terms of what we are (Baynham, 384). In addition, what we do know about ourselves

is mostly derived from others, and that influences us in the way we see ourselves as well. Charles

Cooney’s idea of ‘looking-self glass’ underlines this point: the behavior of others towards us serves as a

mirror in which we see a reflected image of who we are (Stets and Burke, 5).

“Ideologies mentally represent the basic social characteristics of a group, such as their identity,

tasks, goals, norms, values, position and resources” and are said to be basic frameworks for organization

of the social cognitions. These cognitions are shared by social members of groups and are gradually

acquired by members of culture. Even intonation, facial expressions and gestures signal social relation,

and thus ideological meanings (Dijk, 18, 24). Our ideologies are the basis of our social judgments which

show distinguishing structure between US and THEM, and central characteristic of all ideologies lies in

this ingroup-outgroup distinction. Social group attitudes consist of schematically organized opinions

about certain social issues and ideologies organize these social group attitudes. However, “while

underlying the self-serving interpretations of members of social groups, ideologies may in fact be the

same as the representation a group has of itself”(Dijk, 138-143). One of the discursive ideological

strategies involved in the description of THEM, or Others, is generalization. Generalization simply

means that we generalize from one person or group to a larger category or a group (155).

Collective identity is strongly emphasized through ethnic humor and is forged through united

laughter. When we tell ethnic jokes, we stress our own sense of collective identity by sharing

collaborative humor and these jokes confirm the boundaries that preserve the collective identity. Our

ethnicity is everyone’s goal of achieving ethnic identity in such divergent modern world. Collective

identity is very important aspect of the process where an ethnic comedian uses in-group humor in order

to win acceptance of his ethnic group: “it is only through the relation of collective identity that such

joke sharing can facilitate group acceptance.” For example, if a joke teller is black and the joke listener

8

is white or vice versa, there is a chance that the joke will be misinterpreted. According to Boskin, jokes

are based on incongruities and you almost must be a native in order to appreciate the full implications

of a joke.” If the audience is not too familiar with the context, they may have difficulty to decode the

joke right. For ethnic participants in joke acts, it is crucial to make sure they decode the messages

‘correctly,’ and therefore the person telling jokes must take into consideration the personality and

concerns of a potential listener in order to determine whether the joke he is about to tell can actually

be shared (Leveen , 34-37).

Data Analysis

The following data presented is mostly collected from an internet website

http://www.youtube.com. Data is derived from six lengthy video clips of Russell Peters’s actual live

recorded performances on stage in various countries, as well as from his interview with Riz Khan from Al

Jazeera. An interview with a personal acquaintance on what she thought of Hindus is also being used as

data in discussion of stereotypes. Data is analyzed through discursive analysis discussing frame/schema,

ethnic humor, codeswitching, and ideology. Since all data is based on video clips and oral interviews, it

is presented in transcribed format from oral speech into written text. Data is presented first and is

categorized by discursive strategy, followed by discussion right after.

Data/Findings

1. Frame/Schema

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=674AVMcPaSg

3.33 – “Arranged marriage is a big problem in my community, man…my mom came up to me: ‘you’re getting older now ... and you’re not married … what if I bring some nice girls for you? … no, I will bring few of them, and then we can choose?’ - My mom wanted to pick my own wife!!!”

5.15– “I just came back from South Africa - the motherland; not my motherland, obviously, you know what I mean, black people’s motherland, you know. I am Indian, we have our own motherland – England, you know.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgN6NlY_M7o&index=10&list=RD674AVMcPaSg

9

7.40 “If I had an Indian name I would wear it proudly. What is your name, Mr. India over there? Anit. Anit? That’s a neat name! - Patel … Anit Patel. That’s my brother - a messy Patel; that’s my big brother Aslob … I like Indian names; I think they have deep meanings and long history behind them. What’s your name? - Prep Joult ... Solid Indian name! You know what your name means? – God’s essence. God’s essence, God Damn! What’s your sister’s name – Herbal Essence?” Goes along that Indian people before moving to America need to know what their name means in America – Sukhdeep and Hardik, for example. Russel says Indian people have a problem with his name.

According to Tannen, in order to understand utterance, one must know which frame it is said

within, as a line intended as a joke may be comprehended as an insult and trigger a fight. “ … a hearer

must know what ‘frame’ s/he is operating in, that is, whether the activity being engaged in is joking,

imitating, chatting, lecturing, or performing a play” (Tannen, 137). In order to understand data jokes

above, Russell’s audience needs to be able to interpret it correctly and realize that his joke acts are

operated in the joking frame.

Arranged marriages are complex frameworks and continue to be normative in India; England’s colonization left not the greatest footprint in Indians’ mentality; Indian names have significant value among Indian people (see p.2-3 in this paper).

Comedian’s comments result in “late arrival of a spectator into the anecdote being told on the

stage” and “one can see how interactants attend to the layeredness and interdependence of frames and

play with the boundaries” (Dijk, 37). By understanding Russell is operating in a joking frame, his

audience is not to take joke acts pertaining to topics bulleted above personally, thus cannot get

offended. The fact that Russell talks about these topics in the first place, brings the social aspect of

arranged marriages, names, and colonization onto the surface. A listener whose ancestors went

through hardship during British colonial rule, may interpret the joke about England being Indian’s

motherland personally and take it as an insult toward hard times Indians had to face during colonization.

Also, if Prep Joult deeply values his name and truly believes the meaning ‘God’s Essence’ is carried and

manifests itself throughout his all life, by dismissing the fact a joke is being told in a joking frame, Prep

Joult may take Russell’s comments “what’s your sister’s name – Herbal Essence” and “God’s Essence –

God damn!” as an insult toward Prep’s heritage as well as a long history the name might carry. By

10

engaging his Indian audience to talk about their names, Russell highlights the importance of this aspect

for Indians as well as adds more credibility to his joke act; he is not just talking about names: by making

audience speak and laugh about their names proves that indeed names are big for Indians. Peters even

states that Indians have a problem with his name as it doesn’t sound authentic enough.

On the other hand, schema is expectations people have about objects, other people, events and

concepts in the world: “what individuals choose to say in an interaction grows out of multiple

knowledge schemas regarding the issues under discussion, the participants, the setting, and so on”

(Tannen and Wallat, 2013). Peters personally states in his interview with Riz Khan from Aljazeera, that

he doesn’t just make fun of his observations but instead, investigates the other side before making fun

of it, therefore Russell makes sure his audience will understand his jokes. Shared laughter throughout

his joke acts involving bulleted points above confirms the fact that his audience ‘gets the joke’ and

therefore underlines that performer and his audience share same schemas about subjects that are to be

laughed at in the text. If one has a different schema for arranged marriages, he/she may not find

Russell’s comments about his mother taking to him into getting married soon funny at all. If a listener’s

schema for arranged marriage is very conservative, perhaps she is a parent who strongly associates

herself with Russell’s mother or has a son who is not married yet and feels as if she has to be the one

making it happen, Russell’s joke may be interpreted by her as an attempt to break or corrupt the Indian

tradition of arranged marriages. “My mother wanted to pick my own wife!!!” This statement underlines

that Indian mothers sure do participate in their kid’s partner choice, or at least, try very hard. Russell’s

use of word ‘own’ really emphasizes that it is kids’ ‘own’ partner, not his mother’s, and even seems to

protest that he himself should be the one picking the wife, and no one else. Therefore, it is normal for

Indian parents to suggest the kids what they think is best, as parents always want only the best for their

kids, but on the other side, Indian sons and daughters must be allowed to pick their ‘own’ partners.

Again, the fact that Russell brings arranged marriages onto the floor reveals that this topic continues to

11

be sensitive for Indians until this day. Russell and his audience operate in the same frame and share

same schemas about arranged marriages, colonization, and Indian names – collective laughter

supporting every joke regarding these topics confirms it.

2. Ethnic Humor (Stereotypes)

Indians are cheap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=674AVMcPaSg

9.44 “It’s in our blood to be cheap! People say Jews are cheap. Jews aren’t actually cheap: Jews will spend the money if they think it’s worth… versus an Indian will say: ‘I don’t know, I can probably get this made for 4 dollars,’ and then when you are not looking, he’ll pull out a knife: ‘how much now, it’s ripped?’ ”

10.31 “My dad is so good in being cheap, that he can convince you you’re wrong” Waitress (W) says to his dad (D) he owes her for a beer: “It’s $ 4.50, sir” and his dad answers: “here is $ 3.00” W: “What about the other $ 1.50?” D: “Don’t worry about it!” W: “No, you owe ME $ 1.50!” D: “I owe you, you owe me, it’s the same thing, don’t be so cheap!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=674AVMcPaSg

11.29 “Chinese people and Indian people cannot do business together cuz Indians cannot live without the bargain, and Chinese will not give you a bargain.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVX_3amQ6P8&list=RD674AVMcPaSg&index=3

2.55 “When God was making Asians, he created two kinds: … ‘We take eyes!’ [implying this is Chinese-/Japanese looking Asians talking to God]; [God talking to Indians]: ‘you can have noses and hair!’ [Excited Indians among themselves]: ‘Two! We got 2!’”

Personal Acquaintance interview: “In the interview with a personal acquaintance on what she thought of Hindus, first thing she said was: “They are cheap!” She is a massage therapist and their facility offers variety of massages which each lasting certain amount of time and priced accordingly: “They want to pay the least possible, and get the most, and by most I mean more than the service may allow.”

The data above pertains to a stereotype that Hindus are cheap. The idea of an Indian man in the

store ripping completely perfect piece of clothing just to get it for cheaper, underlines Indians are

money efficient, rather than cheap. The line where Russell states that this Indian can make the shirt for

$ 4 dollars, brings up a schema about Indians making clothes for export. Just as Indians, Chinese people

are well known for their worldwide export of merchandise, hence a joke that Chinese will not give an

12

Indian a bargain implies that people from both cultures LOVE to bargain. There has even been a

research done in 1976 by Mehrota in which he describes sociolinguistic context of the use of Hindi yes

and no in bargaining in the wholesale silk trade in Varanasi. He finds that communication between buyer

& seller is a tug of war in which the game is won by exposing the opponent's point. Frequent uttering of

nahin 'no' by the seller, where it is not a simple act of negation, but involves stress, intonation, & other

prosodic & paralinguistic characteristics is constantly present. Similarly, almost every sentence the

buyer utters will contain the word han 'yes' (Mehrotra). Therefore, Indians were always well known as

bargainers and they love to bargain! Even in the example with the waitress, Russell’s dad bargains with

her in the context where bargaining is not a norm - $ 4.50 is $ 4.50 for a beer, period, it’s not a market!

Russell’s joke act about Indians being happy they got two Asian features implies they are greedy –

they got two features instead of one and two is always better than one. He positions Indian people as

being cheap by uttering lines above which include a specific interpretation of cultural stereotype and

Indians in the audience are invited to conform to it or not to conform. The fact that cheap Indian

stereotype is made as object of consideration through humor by Russell, shows the presence of

stereotype is undeniable and revealed. Peters recognizes and ridicules this stereotype, and thus

attempts to outweigh the risk of confirming it.

By bringing cheap Indian stereotype onto stage, Russell point is that underneath our differences

in cultures, people are the same and we all can be laughed at as different cultures have different

stereotypes. Even though ethnic stereotypes are often unsupported by empirical evidence, Vinackle

believes they “should properly be regarded as concept-systems, which positive as well as negative

functions, having the same general kinds of properties as other concepts, and serving to organize

experience as do other concepts (Lowe, 449). Through the use of humor in ethnic jokes about his own

people allows Russell Peters to develop a context in which ethnicity is introduced, as well as any

prejudice they might exist against his ethnic community.

13

Indians stink.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcyPEaV9r20&list=RD674AVMcPaSg&index=8

8.45 “Airline lost my suitcase on the way to China … I get to China – I have nothing with me … all I had was portable CD player … magazines... but my underwear, socks, tooth paste, my deodorant; my deodorant will be in my suitcase which will meet me in China; which never meet me in China!!! And I gotta be honest with you: as a brown man, we need our deodorant, all right? … Rumors go around: oh, Indian people they stink! Indian people don’t stink – let me tell you what happened to my people: we expire quicker than other people!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVX_3amQ6P8&list=RD674AVMcPaSg&index=3

3.10 “[god talking to Indians]: ‘you can have noses and hair!’ My people are greedy: ‘Two! We got 2! That’s a good deal – 2!’” … “We didn’t know it will be big noses and body hair – that’s shit deal!” It’s hot as hell in India, and we are hairy – men and women!”

From the data above another Indian stereotype emerges – Indians stink. The fact that Indians

are hairy and it’s hot in India goes along with a stereotype that Indians stink. Russell is Canadian, but on

the other side, he is also a part of Indian community and shares his culture and heritage with other

Indians. By bringing listener’s attention to this stereotype, Peters suggests that he can easily be

perceived by others through a stereotype of being a stinky Indian with big nose and body hair all over.

By operating in a joking frame and by telling self-ridiculing jokes, Russell underlines his self-awareness to

outsiders in regards to this stereotype.

According to Tannen, the use of the word ‘but’ is an important kind of evidence of expectations

(Tannen, 151). Russell was expecting all the listed items to arrive with him to China and the fact they did

not, brought up the topic of deodorant onto the joke act. According to Labov, repetition may be

effective when trying to accentuate ‘the point’ of the story (167) and repetition of the word ‘deodorant’

twice in the row emphasizes Russell’s point of the story: Indians need their deodorants in order not to

stink, or not to ‘expire’. The addition of ‘all right’ at the very end with question mark also supports this

point. On the other hand, by making what Dijk calls Apparent Honesty move (‘And I gotta be honest with

you: as a brown man, we need our deodorant, all right?), Russell Peters disclaims possible negative

14

statement of Indians being stinky, therefore, “the ‘honesty’ involved here is therefore purely …

rhetorical: no ‘real’ honesty is involved” (Dijk, 155).

Russell’s jokes here remind us that physical traits are neither chosen by individuals who posses

them, nor do they indicate the character of that individual. We are all humans and are no different from

each other: all of us stink and use our deodorants, and have big noses and body hair; hence we all can

be laughed at. Peter’s jokes about his own ethnic group serve as acknowledgement of existing

stereotypes against that group and, at the same time, demonstrate how he tries to overcome them

through humor. More importantly, Russell Peters indicates that it is not a certain ethnicity that is

laughable, but the stereotype and those who believe the stereotype to be truthful. Therefore, “by

revealing how ridiculous, how laughable, this extreme is, the in-group joke teller makes both the

stereotype and its proponents the true butt of the joke” (Leveen , 43).

Indians worship cows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msu_rknsuMs

1.03.35 “India is insane! In India we have a system called: ‘create a lane.’ ‘If you see an open space - take it and go!’ Traffic never stops in India; it’s not that we don’t have red lights … The only time the traffic stops is when a cow is crossing the street … and a cow will cross the street! You don’t need to be in a country in India to see a cow, you can be in a city… I was in Bombay in the heart of a city and I saw a … cow. In all fairness, you will never see two cows together; it is like one cow here and then like eight blocks later there is another cow … but that cow looks like it’s looking for another cow: ‘did anybody see my cousin?’ And the cows in India are skinny as shit ... skinny! That’s why we don’t eat beef; that has nothing to do with religion! It’s common sense! … And the cows are assholes in India, they are! Cuz they know they are saint. Nobody fucks with a cow in India: when a cow is crossing the street – that’s it! Traffic stops. I was in a taxi and a cow cross the street – my driver shut off the engine. I go: ‘what are you doing?’ - ‘saving petrol.’ ‘Well, how long is this going to take?’ - up to her.’ Nobody honks their horn at them, nobody pushes them … they know they are saint; they move slow, look at the traffic …”

Mintz writes that comedian’s role as social commentator goes back as far Shakespeare:

“Shakespeare made extensive use of the fool’s tradition license to have the innocent but sharp, shrewd

observer speak the ‘truth’ which was universally recognized but politically taboo.” Violations of taboos

result in pleasure for the audience – if a struggle is going on “between our instincts and our socially

developed rules of behavior, comedy provides an opportunity for a staged antagonism” (Mintz, 76-77).

15

Stereotypes make others think that Indians worship cows, however it is more accurate to say the cow is

taboo in the Hindu religion, rather than sacred. By describing what would seem endless traffic in India

and bringing a cow crossing the street in heart of India - Bombay - into a context, Russell tries to break

an existing stereotype which exists about Indians and cows. He makes it a true butt of a joke when he

utters: “and cows in India are skinny as shit. Skinny!” Outsiders might think that because Indians do not

eat beef, they take a very good care of the cows in India and treat them like pets. However Russell

demonstrates that cows just wonder around India neglected and apart from each other, almost like

homeless dogs, thus leaving a stereotype of Indians worshiping these animals far behind. By talking

about a taxi driver who shuts off his engine and not intends to start it back up until cow crosses the

street, Russell emphasizes that people in India do pay their respects to cows and despite fast going

street traffics, even drivers will stop and wait as much time as needed until cow crosses. As

mentioned earlier in the paper, Indians even have a ‘Cow Holiday’ on which “cows are washed and

decorated in the temple and given offerings in the hope that her gifts of life will continue” (Hindu Cow

Taboo).

3. Ideology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVX_3amQ6P8&list=RD674AVMcPaSg&index=3

2.48 – “When I say ‘Asian’, especially in America, people automatically picture [Peters utters the Japanese-/Chinese-like music sound] – which is messed up, because India is a part of Asia.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu8FrRNi4M4&index=16&list=RD674AVMcPaSg

3.00 “white folks will see a group of Indian people together and think: ‘oh, look at all those brown people, they are probably very happy together’… and then you get in that group: ‘hey! Are you from India?’ ‘I am from India!’ ‘What part? Oh that part? Go to hell you dirty bastard! I don’t want to know you.’ “

Often, variation within the group is ignored and results in overgeneralization (Lowe, 451). From

data above, we can derive that Indian identity is separate from that among all the rest of Asians, which

are not all the same as might be thought of them. Peters himself states that he does cultural and not

16

racial comedy “because race and culture are two different things; black people from America and black

people from Africa: racially they are the same, but culturally they are completely different.” Therefore

Asians from China and Asians from India significantly vary culturally. Indian asking another Indian

where he is from demonstrates how his behavior confirms his Indian identity: when other people

generalize Indians as all same, they dismiss the fact that these people’s ideologies as Indians stem from

different parts of India, resulting them to have different goals, values, norms and identities. Russell

successfully demonstrates ideology of US vs THEM by drawing a line between ‘white folks’ and ‘Indians,’

and ‘Chinese/Japanese Asians’ vs ‘Indian Asians.’ Generalization of all Indians as same by others in the

data above simply means that people tend to generalize from one person or group to a larger category

or group (Dijk, 155).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=674AVMcPaSg

34.43 “My dad’s been in this country for 40 years now! 40 years! … I think he is starting to turn into a redneck now … He was sitting by the phone holding a newspaper that had a circled ad: he was trying to buy a couch. So he calls and this Eastern European lady answers and all I hear: ‘hello I would like to purchase your couch.’ [on the other side of the phone]- ‘hello’. ‘Hello, I want to know about your couch.’ – ‘hello.’ ‘Ok, I said hello twice, I want to pu-r-cha-se your co-uch!’ – ‘eh, no English. ’ ‘I am sorry?’ - ‘eh, no English’ ‘Then why the hell did you answer the phone???? You don’t come to my country if you can’t speak the language!’ Click. My dad looks at me - ‘immigrants!’”

The data above brings up Russell’s personal experience of visiting his parents’ house. Being

credible or not, the data clearly presents an ideology of an Indian family living in Northern America. We

can interpret from this example that what Russell’s dad thinks he is not, he actually is – he is also an

immigrant and his identity is dependent on what he thinks he is not. The fact that a lady on the phone

knows no English demonstrates that boundaries exist to guide ethnics through uneasy process of

familiarizing with a new culture while allowing them to still keep their strong ethnic identity at the same

time. Russell Peter’s jokes stress the evidence of displacement minority groups go through: they are

challenged to overcome deterritorialization to succeed within the dominant culture and more

importantly, they try to be more like the majority and less deterritorialized, what may be injurious to

17

ethnic individual’s identity (Leveen, 48). Russell’s dad has a schema of what it means to be an

immigrant, hence his expectation of an immigrant goes along with being able to communicate in a

dominant language. Peters highlights that we are all immigrants, despite us speaking proper English or

not, as we all came in to a dominant culture and are being perceived as minority regardless of us having

lived in that country for as long as 40 years. It also can be said that Russell’s dad belongs to different

groups (he is an immigrant, he is Indian, he is Canadian, he is a parent, he is a businessman etc), and

thus he shares different ideologies: for example, his ideology of being a Canadian conflicts with his

ideology of being an immigrant in Canada.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=674AVMcPaSg

7.37 “Indian people were taken to South Africa as slaves… who the hell uses an Indian slave??? … give us a calculator, we’ll do your taxes… we make shitty slaves…” Russell goes on by talking about how an Indian slave is given some physical work and he refuses, pretending he hurt his back. “We don’t do physical job man ... have you even seen an Indian athlete or an Indian in the NFL?”

From data above, it can be said that identities do not just emerge within a single interaction, but

are “rather forged through the accretion of interactional stances and positionings over time” (Bucholtz

and Hall, 155). During British colonization, Indians were positioned to be slaves and Russell tries to bring

up the topic into audience’s attention by attempting to portray an Indian slave as smart-lazy and not

miserable oppressed slave. Most importantly, Peters highlights that his ethnic and cultural community

is much more capable of than just being used for labor – they are smart and very good with numbers.

Russell sheds the light on his people and tends to describe them in positive terms: “give us a calculator -

we’ll do your taxes;” we are smart, we are successful without doing any physical job, and we do not

need to be athletes in order to make millions; yes we are different from Others, however this is who we

are and this is our identity.

“In India we have a system called …”“Let me tell you what happened to my people”“we expire quicker than other people!”

18

“we got 2! We didn’t know it will be big noses and body hair “ “It’s in our blood to be cheap!”

Joke telling itself, as Sollors writes, is “an ethnicizing phenomenon,” as “we develop a sense of

we-ness in laughing with others” (Leveen, 50, 52). Joke acts are rather spoken than written texts which

include complicated coding and demand multiple layers of interpretation and a single joke may be

interpreted differently depending on who is being included in this joke act. Russell clearly demonstrates

collective identity type for Indian people in his texts and few examples presented above demonstrate

how the use of pronouns ‘we,’ ‘our,’ ‘my’ underline the presence of collective identity in Russell’s

ideology. So called ‘we-ness’ of a community is stressed through Peters’ mutual attributes and

similarities he shares with Indian Community. “It is only through the relation of collective identity that …

joke sharing can facilitate group acceptance” (Leveen, 34). Russell Peters performs collective identity on

stage and his jokes are expected to be interpreted and decoded correctly. As it was mentioned earlier in

the paper, Russell doesn’t just joke about people: he investigates the other side before he makes fun of

it and therefore takes into consideration personalities and concerns of listeners, attempting to

determine whether the joke would actually succeed and be shared with the targeted audience. It is

important to keep in mind that despite Russell being an Indian, he grew up in Canada and might not

share same exact experiences about certain things as Indians from India do, thus it is important for him

to investigate what seems odd to him and normal to them and figure out why it is normal to them but

odd to him and only then bring it to the stage.

4. Lexical (Codeswitching)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=674AVMcPaSg

3.33 “You’re getting older now, and you’re not married; what if I bring some nice girls for you? … no, I will bring few of them, and then we can choose?’ Well, I bring nice girls all the time, mom ... they just leave in the morning! My mom wanted to pick my own wife!!!”“I don’t know, I can probably get this made for $4 dollars;”“I owe you, you owe me, it’s the same thing, don’t be so cheap!”“You don’t come to my country if you can’t speak the language!”

19

26.50 “Indian people are fully aware of what their accent sounds like … we know exactly how it sounds like. It’s not the coolest accent in the world … you never gonna see two Indian guys standing in the club thinking: ‘Aren’t we cool? Don’t we sound really hip? We’re going to meet all the bitches tonight!’ ... and we know you are mocking us behind our backs, but we know what’s its good for: to release tension. You’ve got a tense situation – pop in an Indian accent – tension’s gone!“

The data above highlighted in red, are some examples of Russell Peters’ codeswitching to an

Indian accent during his performances. His main code on stage is unaccented Northern American

English, however throughout his shows he constantly codeswitches to various ethnic accents, most

frequent of them being an Indian one. This switch defines who he is and signals his familiarity with

Indian culture and people, while at the same time, positions Peters as an observer to an Indian culture.

Peter’s codeswitching fits Siegel’s notion that shifting to a particular code, in this case, an Indian

accent, serves as a framing device and contextualization cue. The example with Russell’s mother

convincing him to get married brings up existing expectations regarding this topic and demonstrates

how the switch to an Indian accent helps to enhance the topic’s frame and schema. Imitating his

mother’s voice by switching to an Indian accent during this joke act, creates a visual and a frame of not

just any mother, but the Indian mother, which simultaneously indexes Peters’ intentions to awaken

existing schemas about arranged marriage. The mother-son frame of Russell’s mother and Russell may

also be interpreted as being parallel to Indian mothers and sons having different schemas about the

question of arranged marriage nowadays. Mothers’ schema of their sons getting married inevitably

includes them in a process: they see themselves being the main part of picking wives for their sons,

while sons’ schema of them choosing their wives does not include their mothers in it and is solely up to

them. Russell ridicules the idea that his mother wanted to pick his own wife, thus by switching to an

Indian accent when imitating his mother’s voice positions Russell and many Indian men not necessarily

supporting the Indian ‘tradition’ and the parents mindling in kid’s life choices. In this linguistic

manipulation, Russell constitutes to share a problem of arranged marriages in his community and its

20

complex framework which sometimes even involves internal struggles, resulting in unhappy marriages

and lives for parties involved (p.3 this paper).

Lastly, Russell’s codeswitching to an Indian accent simply signals the joke is taking place,

indexing relationship with an audience that allows joking. Russell acknowledges that an Indian accent is

good for releasing tension in stressful situations (court rooms, for example): “but we know what it’s good

for: to release tension. You’ve got a tense situation – pop in an Indian accent – tension’s gone!“ Therefore,

Indian accent itself is considered funny, what was also found in Siegel’s study on codeswitching and

humor among Fijians (p.4 this paper). Collective laughter during each codeswitch implies that the

audience supports Russell’s positions on various topics. By codeswitching, Peters’ own positions in

regards to certain social aspects are brought up to the surface while at the same time, an animation

underlines Indian people’s positions about these aspects, contributing to construction and manifestation

of Indian identity.

5. Paralanguage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msu_rknsuMs

1.05.50 “When a cow is crossing the street – that’s it! Traffic stops … they know they are saint; they move slow, look at the traffic …” - at this moment Russell impersonates that cow that was crossing the street and looking at the traffic; he then mimics the cow by making cow noises (‘moooh’) and, most importantly, he mimics a cow that makes an authentic to Indians circular head motion.

From an interview with personal acquaintance: “My best friend is a waiter and he told me about two months ago he was waiting on a group of Hindus (5-6 people). They ordered bottle of wine and he was pouring few drops for one among them to taste it first. The man who did the tasting, immediately made a circular-like head motion from left to right after a first sip, what appeared as he was negating the taste of wine. Waiter asked: ‘You don’t like it, sir?’ To what the man replied: ‘No, I like it a lot!’ Waiter: ‘Then why you go like this? [imitating the exact negating head motion the man just did after the sip] and everyone around the table starts sincerely laughing.”

As Gumperz wrote, “any verbal sign which when processed in co-occurrence with symbolic

grammatical and lexical signs serves to construct the contextual ground for situated interpretations, and

thereby affects how constituent messages are understood” (Slembrouck, 19). Russell Peters uses

phonological structures (stress, pitch, intonation), as well as interactive (non-verbal communication

21

(face and gestures)) discourse structures to demonstrate judgments about Indians. The head shaking

particular to Indians is noticeable by others right away and can be said to be authentic feature of

Indians. Russell’s imitation of a cow doing this head motion automatically targets the audience familiar

with this so called ‘feature’ and the fact that he is even imitating a cow doing it clearly implies a cow is

Indian. Paralanguage adds to defining what it means to be an Indian: they do head motion when they

like something a lot and this ‘feature’ is authentic and particular only to their people and culture.

Summary

This paper demonstrated how Russell Peters’ use of humor toward members of the Indian

community, as well as himself and his family, constructed an Indian identity. Discursive practices used

in analysis of Russell’s use of ethnic humor onstage offered a unique introduction to the Indian

stereotype possessed by many and constructed a positive Indian identity. He highlighted stereotypes

not to offend, but to demonstrate how silly stereotypes and those who possess them are. The use of

humor in Peters’ jokes served as an outlet that released repressed feelings about social topics in a safe

way and allowed him to develop a context in which ethnicity was introduced, as well as any prejudice

that existed against his community. Russell’s humor aids in comprehension that Indian Identity is not

about an individual identity alone: it is flexible, rich, and multimodal co-construction which also includes,

but is not limited to, national, historic, lexical, and ideological identities. Indian Identity doesn’t develop

in a single context, but instead is co-constructed in the relationship to variety of contexts: ethnic,

cultural and social. The paper mainly focuses on Indian identity as a whole and lacks thorough

discussion of identity Russell Peters performs on and off stage. The fact that Russell tells self-ridiculing

jokes underlines his self-awareness to outsiders, and thus signaling to observes that aspect of his

identity. It would be worth to investigate Russell’s identity through the use of his own humor and try to

determine if there are any identities that conflict with each other and how; and what norms and values

he personally respects and how it manifests itself in his joke acts.

22

References

Alba-Juez, Laura. “Perspectives on Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice.” Tyne, NE: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009.

Atkinson, Dwight, Hanako Okada and Steven Talmy. “Ethnography and Discourse Analysis.” Capter 6, Jan 2011. University of British Columbia – Vancouver (D2L).

Baynham, Mike. “Performing self, family and community in Moroccan narratives of migration and settlement” (D2L).

Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall. “Finding Identity: Theory and Data.” Multilingua 27, Walter de Gruyter 2008, University of California, Santa Barbara, 151-163.

Carbaugh, Donald. Situating Selves: The Communication of Social Identities in American Scenes. 1996, New York: Suny (class handout).

Chawla, Devika. “I Will Speak Out: Narratives of Resistance in Contemporary Indian Women’s Discourses in Hindu Arranged Marriages.” Women and Language, Vol. 30, No. 1, (Spring 2007), pp. 5-19.

Christian, Sue Allen. “Defining Identity: In Changing how We Speak, We put Accent on Connecting.” Chicago Tribune, October 28, 2007.

Davies, Christie. “Ethnic Jokes, Moral Values and Social Boundaries.” The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Sep., 1982), 383-403. Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science. JSTOR.

Dijk, Teun A. Van. “Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis.” Language and Pace (D2L); 17-33.

Dijk, Teun. A. van. “Ideological Discourse Analysis.” University of Amsterdam (D2L).

Dundes, Alan. “Six Inches from Presidency: The Gary Hart Jokes as Public Opinion.” Western Folklore, Vol. 48, No. 1. (Jan., 1989), pp. 43-51. JSTOR.

“Hindu cow taboo.” ReligionFacts.com. 10 Nov. 2015. http://www.religionfacts.com/cow-taboo (4/8/2016).

Howard, Judith A. “Social Psychology of Identities.” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26 (2000), pp. 367-393. Annual Reviews. JSTOR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKXxiccJx9c (4/8/2016).

Identity, Positioning, and Agency. Power Point (D2L)

23

Lee, Rachel. C. “ ‘Where’s My Parade?’: Margaret Cho and the Asian American Body in Space.” TDR (1988 -), Vol. 48, No. 2 (Summer, 2004), pp. 108-132. The MIT Press. JSTOR.

Leveen, Lois. “Only When I Laugh: Textual Dynamics of Ethnic Humor.” MELUS, Vol.21, No. 4, Ethnic Humor. (Winter, 1996), pp. 29-55. JSTOR.

Lowe, John. “Theories of Ethnic Humor: How to Enter, Laughing.” American Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3 (1986), pp.439-460. The John Hopkins University Press. JSTOR.

Mahajani, Usha. “Review: Slavery, Indian Labour and British Colonialism.” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Summer, 1977), pp. 263-271. Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia. JSTOR.

Mehrotra, R R. “Negation in a Buying and Selling Situation.” Indian Linguistics, Vol. 37, No. 3-4 (1976), pp.206-2010.

Mintz, Lawrence E. “Standup Comedy as Social and Cultural Mediation.” American Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1, Special Issue: American Humor (Spring, 1985), pp. 71-80. The Johns Hopkins University Press. JSTOR.

Prabhakaran, Varijakshi. “An Introduction to Indian Hindu Surnames.”Nomina Africana, Vol.12, No. 1, (1998), pp. 33-47.

Riches, Phoebe, and Margaret Foddy. “Ethnic Accent as a Status Cue.” Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 197-206. American Sociological Association. JSTOR.

Riz Khan. “One on One with Russell Peters.” Al Jazeera English, Sep. 13, 2008

“Russell Peters. Biography.” IMDb. http://imdb.com/name/nm0992289/bio?ref_=nm_ql_1 (3/3/2016).

Siegel, Jeff. “ How to Get a Laugh in Fijian: Code-Switching and Humor.” Language in Society, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp.95-110. Cambridge University Press. JSTOR.

Slembrouck, Stef , copyright. “What is meant by ‘discourse analysis’?” 1999-2003. Pp. 1-48. http://bank.rug.ac.be/da/da.htm (D2L).

Stets, Jan E. and Peter. J. Burke. “A Sociological Approach to Self and Identity.” Chapter for Hanbook of Self and Identity, edited by Mark Leary and June Tangney, Guilford Press, Forthcoming (D2L).

Tannen, Deborah. “What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations.” New Directions in Discourse Processing, Ed. Roy Freedley.Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1979, 137-181.

Tannen, Deborah and Cynthia Wallat. “Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from Medical Examination/Interview.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 1987, Vol.50, No.2, 205-216.

24

“The Economic and Social Impact of Colonial Rule in India Chapter 3 of Class Structure and Economic Growth: India & Pakistan since the Moghuls Maddison (1971); pp.1-30. http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/articles/moghul_3.pdf (4/13/2016).

Vinod, M.J. “Images of India in the United States: Retrospect and Prospect.” The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, No. 3 (July – September 1989), pp.376-388. Indian Political Science Association. JSTOR.

“Why Russell Peters Is Notoriously Unknown.” Forbes, 2/14/2014. http://onforb.es/1eyZzAh (3/2/2016).

Woolard, Kathryn A., and Bambi B. Schieffelin. “ Language Ideology.” Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 23. (1994), pp.55-82. JSTOR.

25