Comments on: Visible Man

By: rachel

rachel — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:22:06 +0000

As a comedian of sorts, I’ve done much thinking about the possibilities and limits of irony as an effective tool of change. What I have seen in my experience on stage (which might include the classroom sometimes as well), is that irony is incredibly effective when other, more “sincere” forms of communication meet with resistance due to blocks such as a group’s collective guilt, insecurity, fear of change, or desire to retain continuity or power. In the case where these sources of resistance prove to be nearly impenetrable, irony provides a “back door” to begin a dialogue.

Certainly we risk being thought “too clever” or “elitist” if we are too ironic (look at how poorly received Jon Stewart was on Crossfire, and Stephen Colbert at the President’s Press Dinner. Generally, the response was something like “You elitist, self-satisfied prick!”), but we also may find this is the only effective way to reach a demographic that is far to pleased with itself or ignorant of its failings to take criticism head on.

On a side note, “in-group” rhetoric is one of the most powerful foundations of a good joke (note how often a joke is only funny if you are a member of the groups being victimized or mocked in it).

By: Z.

Z. — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:41:03 +0000

I see your point; however, I would appeal to say this a kind of “satiric rhetoric,” which, by definition, uses irony to critique the discourse of “elitism” from within. Provided it doesn’t precipitate a slide into cynicism ( a form of conversation among people who don’t care about each other), irony can be a potent “menstruum universale,” and one of the only ways to crack the cycle of “in-group rhetoric.”

This is especially possible within a pragmatic framework that defines the common values as something like “opposition to suffering and cruelty” rather than communal “caring” or “justice” or “equality”–see Dewy, Popper, Rorty, et al. Considering these guys were all for “a rhetoric that aims to change minds, communicate,” as you put it, I have no choice but to understand your reaction as highly ironic in itself.

Now, if you want to argue, as some quite vigorously have, that the ironist herself is necessarily elitist, well . . .

By: matthew

matthew — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:51:48 +0000

I would, however, call this op-ed elitist. Defined as such: It speaks only to those already “in-the-know”… and condescends to (or speaks condescendingly of) the rest.

This is “in-group rhetoric.” While not unimportant or ineffectual, I prefer rhetoric that aims to change minds, communicate. At it’s best, I am talking about conversation between people who care about each other.