Hi, I’m new to this forum. I came here because I’m looking for a good place to debate and discuss my proposal for a new, unified definition of irony. It is short and straightforward, but may require some unpacking before its accuracy and usefulness become apparent.
Here it is:
Irony — A subversive relationship between intention and action, expression or outcome.
Welcome! Well my first question would be: why? You mention better accuracy and usefulness, but that’s not obvious to me, so it would be good if you could take a (common) definition and show why yours is more accurate/useful.
There are some similarities and differences between irony and metaphor.
For example, the word ‘cat’ has an established literal history, while a jazz musician is a subject to which the word can be metaphorically applied. The metaphor extends the meaning of ‘cat’ which can be both entertaining and increase our understanding of cats and jazz musicians.
Also irony relies on change of reference or clash of contexts. But it doesn’t extend meanings from one realm to another but mocks or deflates something in the same realm.
For example, “After forty years of deconstructing harmony, the jazz musician’s greatest artistic achievement was the ‘snap’ of a well-opened beer can.”
No, because irony is a figure of speech which intentionally injects another meaning into a situation. So, a subversive relationship does not follow.
Thanks for responding. One problem with a lot of definitions is that they start listing types of irony and never get to the essence of what unifies the things we call ironic. The definitions give a cramped, incomplete & inaccurate view of irony. Take dictionary.com’s definition:
“the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.”
They start off with the crudest form of irony & don’t even describe it well. A better way to describe that sort of verbal irony is “the intentional subversion of the literal meaning of a communication.”
Opposite goes to far and glides past subtler forms of irony where the speaker intentionally undermines his apparent meaning or where the speaker’s intended meaning is subtly undermined by the context in which they are speaking or by an internal contradiction in what they are saying.
I think metaphor and irony are the main intellectual tools which allow humans to derive complex meaning from observation. I think without the ability to think metaphorically, we couldn’t make much sense of our observations & without a sense of irony we would have no sense of purpose. It is when intention, and action, expression, or outcome seem to be working at cross-purposes that we sense irony. Without irony there is no drama, no narrative structure really.
Irony is much more than a figure of speech. The ironic condition of the conscious being capable of self-reflection is captured in adages like “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Cancer is an ironic disease in that it hijacks the reproductive system of cells, the purpose of which is to keep an organism healthy, and turns them against the organism.
It is a figure of speech because the actual situation can have a more complex explanation not captured by irony. Irony is a non-literal rhetorical device to add humor, some drama, or imagination to a narrative or a conversation. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Do we really take this seriously? It is not an actual occurrence, but someone had decided to use a proverb as a caution to an overly enthusiastic visionary without insight.
Irony is not a simple literary device. It is a tension that arises naturally when one views the world as systematic and having purpose.
Your example at the end doesn’t present an ironic situation it merely phrases an observation about a musician’s lack of accomplishment ironically.
Welcome; philosophically interesting. Might we say “expectation” or “implication” instead of intention? Most action (or speech) is done without our “intending” to do it. When we raise our hand, it isn’t intention that makes it asking a question or hailing a taxi (or just stretching). In fact, we only ask about what you intended if what you did was unexpected (like ran a red light—“did you intend to do that?”, or, in a class, “Did you intend to ask a question?” “No, I was just stretching.”). We only ask what you are preparing (intending) to do, if you have choices or the situation begs the question (perhaps, when we don’t know what to expect).
With irony, we expect one thing, and we see something we didn’t anticipate, making our hope, tragic; the pedestrian, insightful; something boring, humorous. But it can be accidental, unintended (even, thus, all the funnier, or more tragic).
Isn’t it our shared expectations that make the world seem “systematic and having a purpose”? But it’s the nature of life to upset that, thus the catharsis of irony to take us out of “ourselves”. Which we can do on our own, like when you’re late, and you look at the traffic jam you get into, as Ms. Morissette suggests, from a humorous perspective (and not infuriating).
Hence irony is impossible for a person who doesn’t view the world as systematic and having purpose. Such a person doesn’t make ironic statements, nor are they in a position to understand other people’s statements as ironic.
This is too narrow, because it doesn’t differentiate between irony and manipulation (which is also a subversive relationship between intention and action, expression or outcome).
Do you consider irony to be malicious/malignant?
Not in a postmodern world. Note the phenomenon of post-irony.
Hi. With the word intention I am trying to capture purpose, meaning, and desire. Irony is frequently defined as a gap between expectation and outcome or a reversal of expectation and outcome, but I really don’t think that captures it. Frequently our expectations are not met without ironic implications. If a little boy is really looking forward to spending the night at his friend’s house and then his sleepover is cancelled because his friend is sick his expectations aren’t met, but it isn’t ironic. But if you look closely you will find that where there is irony there is intention in some form and it a subversive relationship between that intention and how that intention is manifest that produces the irony. Irony is not a literary device so much as a phenomenon of meaning making that is frequently exploited in literature. Irony happens to people all of the time. You are in a hurry to get to work so you drive over the speed limit and get pulled over by a police officer making you much later than if you’d driven the speed limit. The irony occurs because you had an intention – to get to work quickly, and you took an action in furtherance of your intention – speeding, and your action in furtherance of your intention moved you further away from your intention. That’s why I think subversion is the right word. Subversion is opposition from within and there is an element of self-defeat to irony. If you wanted to be sure to get to work on time and left extra early to get there, but got stuck in traffic and were late anyway, that wouldn’t be ironic because it wouldn’t be your effort to be on time that caused you to be late.
“Subversive relationship” is also flexible enough to capture irony created by other kinds of interactions between intention and action or expression. Take sarcasm for example. Sarcasm is produced by offering praise as mockery. In that case our meaning or intention is produced by subversive action. We offer the praise in a context where we could not possibly mean it or we undermine our words with a sardonic smile. And the words are ironic because we know they are an expression of what the recipient in his heart desired when he took action. He wanted to do a good job. He wanted his actions to be praiseworthy, but when we serve those words of praise up to him in the face of his failure, what he wanted now tastes bitter.
I think my definition does a better job of helping distinguish irony in all of its forms from non-irony better than any other definition I’ve seen.
I think any being capable of forming an intention, acting upon the intention, and reflecting upon the result is capable of understanding irony if it is properly explained.
If anything the idea that my definition could cover manipulation as well as irony suggest my definition is too broad, but I don’t think it is. I think you just have to understand that the subversive relationship has to be between an intention and an action in furtherance of that intention or between an expression and the intention of that expression. In the case of manipulation intention and action are not subverting one another, they are working together for the purpose of subversion.
I don’t consider irony to be malicious or malignant. I do, however, think that irony is a product of a futility at the core of conscious existence. I think a key aspect of consciousness is desire. It is desire that takes observation and translates it into intention which prompts action. It is the ultimate insatiability of desire that leads to futility. Our ultimately futile pursuit of satiation of desire is the fool’s errand that is the essence of irony.
What is not the case in a postmodern world? Shared expectations? What would be some examples?
And I’m not familiar with “post-irony”.
I agree that unmet expectations do not necessarily lead to irony, but unmet expectations are necessary for there to be irony.
But Wittgenstein shows that our shared interests (desires) and purpose and what is meaningful are captured in our culture, our language, our activities, and our shared standards for judgment. And so we don’t need individual “intent”, though our individual expectations may be thwarted. As you said, the nature of cancer is ironic, but this doesn’t need an individual, and we expect cancer to do certain things, without it needing that framed as a “purpose”.
Perhaps what we are trying to get at, with framing this from an individual standpoint, is there is a part that the observer plays (either me or someone else), taking a position towards the situation, as we can see the irony in it or miss it, ignore it, not appreciate it. This is a provisional idea.
The role that expectations generally play in irony is that actions taken pursuant to intention will not undermine that intention.
In the case of verbal irony, the expectation that is undermined is the expectation about the intent of use of certain words or phrases, and that expected intent is somehow undermined by the speakers delivery of those words.
You are absolutely right. Irony isn’t always about the subversion of an individual’s intent. It is frequently produced by the subversion of the meaning that is culturally imbued in words and images. But that culturally imbued meaning is another example of expectations about intent.
The intentions of healthy cells and cancerous cells are personification & it is the personification that allows us to see irony. Or if you believe in a creator, the belief in the purpose of cells becomes more literal.