IRONY
Irony is a key argumentative strategy, positioned somewhere between discourse destruction and refutation. It mocks speech that purports to be dominant or hegemonic, by implicitly referencing irrefutable material evidence available in the context.
1. Irony as Refutation
Irony originates from a hegemonic D0 discourse. A hegemonic discourse dominates a group, has the power to direct or legitimize its actions and opposes the discourse or the sentiment of a minority.
In a situation Sit_1, participant S1, the future « ironized » (= target of the irony) claims that D0.
S2, the future ironist, disagrees with D0. but submits to it, even though he is not convinced of its validity.
S1_1 (future target) — What about taking a shortcut to the top?
S2_1 (future ironist) — Hmm… It seems that there might be icy zones.
S1_2 — No problem, I know the place, it’s easy! (= D0)
S2_2 — Oh well then…
Later, in situation Sit_2, when the group finds itself on a rather slippery icy slope, the ironist adopts S1’s discourse, precisely when the circumstances render it untenable:
S2_Ironic — No problem, I know the place. It’s easy!
This last statement sounds strange.
— Under the current circumstances, it is absurd.
— If the original discussion has been forgotten, it is interpreted as a humorous euphemism or antiphrasis.
— If the original discussion is still fresh in the participants’ mind, then the statement is entirely ironic. S2_Ironic repeats S1_2, when the circumstances show that the statement is obviously, and tragically, false.
This mechanism is similar to an ad hominem argument in that what the target says is opposed to what he does, and this is obvious to all involved. Since the facts are self-evident, S1 is shown to be wrong and is seen as having misled the company. Irony combines malice and humor, see dismissal.
Ironic destruction and scientific refutation can be contrasted as follows:
| Scientific Refutation | Ironic Discourse Destruction |
| S1 says ‘D0’ | S1 says ‘D0’ in situation Sit_1 |
| The opponent S2 quotes D0, and explicitly attributes D0 to S1 | The ironist, S2, says ‘D’ in situation Sit_2: — D repeats, echoes D0 — D = D0 is not explicitly related to its occurrence in Sit_1, but the connection is easy to make. Either everyone remembers, or S2 provides a cue to remember (e.g. S2 imitates S1′s voice) |
| The opponent refutes D0 with explicit and conclusive arguments | Contextual evidence from Sit_2, destroys D = D0. This evidence is so obvious that (S2 thinks that) it needs no explanation. |
2. Countering the ironic move
Ducrot uses the following example,which consists of a statement and a description of its context:
Speaker – I told you yesterday that Peter was coming to see me today, and you didn’t believe me. Since Peter is here today, I can say to you in an ironic way,‘You see, Peter didn’t come to see me’. (Ducrot 1984, p. 211).
Some time ago, in S°, the speaker and his partner « You« debated about whether Peter would come. The speaker, the (future) ironist lost the debate. Now, Peter’s presence is offered as a conclusive evidence to prove You wrong and silence You.
However, the game may not be over yet. Irony is primarily studied based on isolated ironic statements, but it is a sequential phenomenon with two types of developments, depending on the target’s reaction. If the target remains silent and embarrassed, the ironist wins. If the target reacts, the game continues. Here, You could reply that one can certainly see that Peter is there, but that does not prove that Peter came to see the speaker:
— No, Peter did not come to see you. He actually came to see your sister.
This refutation or reversal of irony uses the motive substitution scheme.
3. Irony Can Do Without Markers
In 1979–1980, a youth protest movement In Zurich, Switzerland, made quite an impression on the city’s residents.
Two television programs caused extreme shock in German-speaking Switzerland. The first, a popular program, was disrupted by members of the “Movement”, who stopped it. The second program, later referred to as “Müller’s Show”[1], featured two militants dressed as members of the Zurich bourgeoisie. The militants seriously expressed the opinion that the ‘Movement’ should be repressed with the utmost severity, and that the autonomous center should be shut down. Following the shock of the second show, the sensationalist media and certain individuals orchestrated a defamation campaign. Incidentally, the term müllern entered the movement’s vocabulary. Creating paradoxical situations was one of the movement’s specialties.
Gérald Béroud, [Work Values and the Youth Movement], 1982[2].
The ironic discourse D consists of strictly repeating the primary discourse D0, with a straight face. D and D0 coincide perfectly. The « ironized » discourse D0 is the typical bourgeois argumentative discourse, taken with all its contents and modes of expression, its dress codes, gestures, body postures and modes of argumentation intact. It follows the bourgeois norms for maintaining a calm and courteous atmosphere, while ritually invoking a a ritual counter-discourse in the role of the “honorable opponent” while ignoring the real disagreements as well as the power and strength relations. Müller’s sarcastic behavior ironizes and negates the entire practice of the politely argued, contradictory, quasi-Popperian mode of discussion.
Irony is a borderline case of an argumentation based on self-evidence. It emerges dramatically in situations where arguing is futile or impossible. The following remarks were written in Czechoslovakia, when it was under the dictatorial rule of a communist regime.
In intellectual circles, the attitude toward official propaganda is often one of contempt, similar to the contempt one feels toward a drunkard’s drunkenness or a graphomaniac’s writing. Since intellectuals especially appreciate the subtleties of a certain absurd humor, they may enjoy reading the editorials in Rude Pravo [3] or the political discourse printed there. However, it is very rare to find someone who takes them seriously.
Petr Fidelius, [Lies Must be Taken Seriously], 1984[3]
[1] The names of the two delegates of the movement, Hans and Anna Müller.
[2] Gérald Béroud, “Valeur travail et mouvement de jeunes”, Revue Internationale d’Action Communautaire 8/48, 1982, note 62, p. 28. Television program (in German) available at: [http://www.srf.ch/player/video?id=05f18417-ec5b-4b94-a4bf-293312e56afe] (09-20-2013).
[3] Petr Fidelius, Prendre le mensonge au sérieux [taking lies seriously]. Esprit, 91-92, 1984, p. 16. The Rude Pravo was the newspaper of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, during the communist period.