Irony has been studied since at least Classical Greece. There are a few different types of irony, including dramatic irony, where the words or actions of the characters are clear to the audience, though unknown to the characters themselves. Particularly important for us is the concept of verbal irony.
Verbal Irony
The Oxford English Dictionary defines verbal irony as “A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used”; thus we note in irony a discrepancy or gap between two (or more) possible meanings that vie for audience acceptance:
- the stated and
- the (potentially) intended.
Based off this definition, many scholars put irony and parody under the umbrella of Incongruity theory – because the stated cannot be taken at face value, there is a paradox. However, fans of the Tension Relief theory argue that the stated creates tension, which the act of “getting it” releases. And then, of course, fans of Superiority theory will argue that “getting it” makes us feel better than those who don’t. And maybe all of these can be true simultaneously.
Opposite meanings
It is the idea that the two meanings are “opposites” that causes problems. If one meaning is opposite another, then the two meanings are usually thought to be mutually exclusive and therefore – if it is to serve a persuasive purpose – the intended meaning negates the stated meaning.
Political tools
We know that irony does not need to have any deep political import or satiric intent; however, some scholars, including those who study rhetoric (from Socrates and Quintilian through Wayne Booth, and beyond), focus on serious intention and thus characterize verbal irony, along with its cousins satire and parody, as political tools (see for instance Muecke and Booth).
Inserting outrage
It is in this vein that James Ettema and Theodore Glasser argue that for journalists, irony is merely a way to insert their outrage (easily visible to the discerning reader) into their reporting, while seeming to maintain the convention of objectivity.
However, outrage and criticism need not evoke humor. As we can see, the conventions of humor – like the comic’s intention to make people laugh first and foremost, which John Limon argues means that in its absolute form, stand-up is never political – create problems for the application of this simple, oppositional model of verbal irony to stand-up comedy.
Wayne Booth’s Irony
Wayne Booth comes to the conclusion that there are four steps that an audience member must complete in lock-step with the ironist for irony to be received – for us to “get it”:
- They must reject the literal meaning
- They must try out alternative interpretations, none of which seem to fit
- They must make a decision as to the author’s intended meaning, and
- They must choose which meaning to accept.
The ironist thus has two rhetorical goals:
- To create a complete, coherent text, and
- To somehow signal to the audience (or a portion thereof) that the first text is untrue or the opposite of that which is intended and thus settle the contradiction (Freud).
Booth describes irony in terms of two binary relations: stable/unstable and local/infinite. In stable ironic texts, the alternative interpretation is clear to a “reasonable,” “qualified reader” (Gournelos, 2). Unstable irony, on the other hand, is less clear; clearly the literal meaning must be rejected, but multiple interpretations are possible. Local irony deals with specific events, places and times, whereas infinite irony deals with subjects that span space and time, such as life or the world in general.
For Booth, the best (most rhetorical, political or pragmatic) irony helps its reader to a stable conclusion the rhetor actually intends, while maintaining some plausible deniability of this intention, at least for a time. This deniability is essential as it creates the space where such a critique can be made.
Claire Colebrook has further suggested that all language is ironic as it is potentially unstable. [This is a concept I will discuss soon.] It’s not just that we can take any statement as a joke – we can guffaw, or laugh it off – but that we can take any statement as ironical, as having a different meaning that the one stated. This is the benefit of studying humor, as it reveals the limits and possibilities of all communication.
However, deniability also creates new problems. While irony can be employed to further satire, what we will call satiric irony, the satirist may also invite a reading as ironic, performing, in a sense, ironic satire. [I’ll talk about each of these soon.] Both of these readings pose problems for the bona fide political speaker.
Comments? Questions? Thoughts? Additions?
References:
Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1975.
Colebrook, Claire. Irony. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Ettema, James S. and Theodore L. Glasser. Custodians of Conscience: Investigative Journalism and Public Virtue. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.
Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. 1905. Trans. James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton, 1963.
Gournelos, Ted. “Irony, Community, and the Intelligent Design Debate in South Park and The Simpsons.” Electronic Journal of Communication, 18 (2, 3 & 4), 2008: 1-18.
Mueke, D. C. The Compass of Irony. London: Methuen and Company LTD., 1969.
Wilson, Nathan. Was That Supposed to be Funny? A Rhetorical Analysis of Politics, Problems and Contradictions in Contemporary Stand-Up Comedy. Dissertation in partial completion of the Ph.D. August, 2008.
