Abstract: In this paper I will present preliminary analyses of data from two Farsilanguage classrooms (so- called mother tongue education or complementaryeducation) in Copenhagen, Denmark. The fieldwork was carried out primarily byresearch assistant Narges Ghandchi. The paper will focus on two inter-relateddimensions of the observed interactions in and around the classrooms which bothrelate to ideologies and politics. They will be discussed with a focus on bothexplicit metapragmatic (Silverstein 1996) messages and implicit signs ofideology. Among the implicit signs are unmentionables, which become salient andanalysable when they occasionally surface in social interaction and therebycreates ‘breaching moments’ (Garfinkel 1984 [1965]). The first dimension ofinterest concerns ideologies of language and culture (Jørgensen 2012; Kroskrity2000). This part of the paper illustrates that despite the intentions andexplicit wishes of the adult participants (principal teacher and parents),linguistic, religious and political ideologies pervade the classroom. It alsodemonstrates the difficulty in distinguishing between linguistic andnon-linguistic ideologies. The second dimension takes issue with theparticipants’ complicated relations to the state of Iran, and more specificallywith what they seem to perceive as threats associated with Iran and otherIranians. I argue that political sensitivities, fear and an understanding ofdanger affect the ways that the participants engage with each other, with thefieldworkers, and with language teaching. Overall I argue that participants’expressed ideologies and political sensitivities influence the particularorganization and unfolding of classroom interaction, the type of social groupthat forms the basis for the classes, and the content through which Farsi istaught. In all the paper adds to the understanding of the fundamentalideological basis of language use and language education, and it gives a uniqueinsight into the unfolding of these in classrooms characterized by politicallysensitivities and (potential) conflict. I also suggest that we use thepresented insights and analyses as a starting-point for re-considering thearray of possible and fruitful approaches to language teaching in general.