The standard, high-school English definition of irony is "saying-one-thing-meaning-another." From there, it gets complicated. Satire is one form of irony, and perhaps the iconic example is Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal." In it, after describing the economic plight of the Irish and dismissing many viable solutions to their plight, he suggested that they could solve all their problems by selling their children as comestibles to the much more prosperous British. Or, as Swift himself put it, "A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout." The satire works, in part, because there was a sort of factual "truth" to the economic plight, and a sort of metaphorical "truthiness" to the solution -- the British were already consuming the children of Ireland, if not at table, then in other ways. The satire also works, in part, because it could be taken at face value. Those who do, of course, are outraged at the suggestion. Having taught the essay on a couple of occasions, I can attest that there are those who DID take it at face value, despite its outlandishness, and who WERE consequently outraged. There were also those who took it at face value and dismissed it as irrelevant to their current concerns -- "who cares what they did in 18th century Europe? We wouldn't do that today, would we?" My goals in teaching the essay were historical and technical, with perhaps an emphasis on the latter -- this is how satire works -- but the forces of ignorance and apathy were too powerful for my uninspired teaching.
Nevertheless, from there, it gets even more complicated. The very outlandishness of Swift's proposal signals that we are not to take it at face value or, as the vernacular today might have it, "seriously." The outlandishness signals, in other words, that we are to interpret it as something other than a straight forward proposal, but the signal depends on the possibility of a straight forward proposal in the first place, one that actually means what it says. It assumes, in other words, the possibility of a direct representation of an "actual" proposal, one that we are to take "seriously" at face value -- one that can be debated, its potential merits analyzed and ultimately implemented in the "actual" world where we share space. There is, however, a vein of post-modern philosophy that would suggest every statement should be treated ironically, that we can REALLY take nothing seriously or at face value. For those statements that are "intended" to be taken at face value, there is a sort of subversion or deconstruction of the "intended" meaning. I wrap "intended" in scare quotes because the whole notion of "intention" is problematic as well. In a freudian scheme, for example, my superego might intend one thing, only to be subverted by my id. In a nietzchian scheme, my Apollonian intent might be one thing, only to be subverted by my Dionysian will to power. I am not necessarily aware or conscious of the subversion. To the extent that I am aware, I buttress argument to fortify my intent, but ultimately the attempt fails. Once written, the text floats free of my "intent" and the astute reader will see and reveal the irony of my argument, reveal how it says one thing but means another. One should be cautious in suggesting that the astute reader reveals the "hidden" meaning of my argument, nor does he reveal the "true" meaning of my argument. If there is "truth" in the revelation of irony, it goes no further than the truth of subversion's inevitability, the impossibility of an actual proposal that is free of irony and can taken "seriously" simply at face value.
And from there, it gets yet even more complicated. I mention this, in part, because the internet troll, particularly the alt-right internet troll, is the apotheosis of the post-modernist philosopher. A recent Vox article delves into the realm of the internet troll. They define the troll as "web-speak for that one rude commenter on a forum who just wouldn’t shut up or go away; the one who kept trying to goad the average reasonable person into a fight — and often an absurd one based on absurd logic, or a twisting of your assumptions regarding the basic principles you were arguing about." At one level, they are merely the merry prankster's of the internet generation, providing an on-going satirization of the "establishment," goading those who have fallen prey to "political correctness" in much the same way that Swift goaded the establishment of his day with the absurd logic of eating children. Though it can be very annoying at times, it's not necessarily a bad thing to be confronted with a gad-fly, to have one's basic assumptions challenged. The provocations themselves, however, are not to be taken "seriously," except insofar as they serve to discredit basic assumptions that are equally absurd, and consequently initiate an more nuanced examination of the issue at hand.
At another level, however, something more pernicious, more nihilistic may well be afoot, particularly among the alt-right trolls. The Vox writers go on to suggest that their use of irony creates "a sincerity-proof chamber of distortion" and "they do this by pretending that what they’re really doing is satirically spoofing how progressives and members of the media view conservatives." They give an example:
For example: say I Photoshop a picture of Hillary Clinton so that she’s being chased by rabid wolves [or worse, facing a firing squad, or wise yet dangling from a rope]. You come along and claim that my image is alarming and sexist. I might then claim that the joke’s on you, because my image was really just a way to bait and skewer liberal hysteria and “the media’s” hyperbolic, distorted image of how the alt-right treats women and Clinton in particular.
Such a claim puts one in a double bind. If you continue to insist that the image is alarming and sexist, by "reacting to it and getting upset, you fell for it, proving that liberals are overly sensitive crybabies who habitually whine about trivial or nonexistent issues." You, like so many other Americans, are irony deficient, but if you capitulate and say, "ok, I get the joke," and ask, "what is the more accurate, undistorted truth?" -- what exactly is the alt right position on women and what is their view of Clinton in particular? -- one never quite gets an answer, just more hyperbole, more goading, more ironic satire. As a consequence, the Vox writer claims that the irony itself, the satire, is the ironic pretense. The troll's comments taken at face value, ironically, ARE the "real" point. The provocations themselves, ironically, ARE to be taken "seriously," and the "picture of Clinton and the wolves, and many more like it, continue to promote violence against women and a hatred of Clinton." If that "was, of course, [the] real goal all along," the Vox writer, as an astute reader of internet trolls, has revealed the real meaning of their posts, hidden in plain sight all along. If that was the goal, the ironic subversion of irony with "sincerity," albeit a noxious "authenticity," I would suggest that we are left nowhere, with only the inevitability of subversion, with irony subverting "sincerity" and "sincerity" subverting "irony," endlessly vacillating between "oh my god, they can't be serious!" and "oh my god, they're serious!"
Here I want to completely change the subject, but then again, not so much. I want to say "suffering is 'real,' and the only legitimating purpose of any political action is to reduce suffering." Of course, a good deal follows from that, not least the questions "for whom?" and "how?" There are any number of nuanced conversations that follow -- on the notion of utility and utilitarianism as one such conversation. If the purpose of political action is to reduce suffering, then shouldn't we aim at those actions that reduce suffering for the maximum number of people, even if it induces suffering in a small minority? For those more attuned to popular culture, it's Spock's admonition that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." The answer is yes, but only contingently so, and the contingency is always changing. We would want to respond to the contingency and attend to the needs of the many, but if we are aware that our action induces suffering, even in a small minority, then morally our actions are imperfect, and it is our moral duty to seek perfection, no matter how difficult or unattainable it may seem. The conversation does not end when we have satisfied the needs of the many. Language is a tool for conversation, no more, no less. It is an important tool, one that creates social consensus, and worthy of a great deal of thought in that regard, but in the end it is only a tool with pragmatic value. Just as a hammer can be used to drive nails in the creation of a homeless shelter, or smash a skull in the perpetration of a robbery, language itself can be used to alleviate or create suffering.
In this respect, Swift's satire held a moral purpose. Its provocations were aimed, ultimately, at the reduction of suffering among the Irish people. The satire of the alt-right, not so much. Perhaps someone wiser than me can point to it ultimate good, but I have difficulty seeing it, with perhaps one exception. It aims to further an ideological goal, which is taken to be "good" among those who adhere to the ideology, and so the actions are justified against that future "good." For those more attuned to the popular culture, it's the admonition that one has to break a few eggs to get an omelet. For the alt-right, who clearly advocate racial and ethnic and gender hierarchies, that ideological goal has long since been discredited. Indeed, although there was a strong vein of sympathy for the national socialist party within the US, particularly among the executives of many major US corporations, we nevertheless fought a world war to prevent the dominance of just such an ideology. Although that ideology may attend to the needs of the majority, we cannot feign ignorance that the sort of apartheid social structure they imagine does not induce suffering in the minority. Clearly it does, and so, just as clearly, it is imperfect, and we have a moral duty to develop a more perfect union, one that addresses their suffering, no matter how difficult it may seem. Anything less shirks our moral duty, and if it does so intentionally, it is actively immoral.
The conversation, in short, does not end when we have satisfied the needs of the dominant racial and ethnic majority. The language of the alt-right, however, aims not at a continuation of the conversation, not at social consensus, but solely at contention. If it has a satirical purpose, and is aimed at the over-bearing sanctimony of the liberal left, OK. At times it can be over-bearing in its boo-hooing over "victimization" when so many of the victims seem to have brought it on themselves. The alt right does not, however, propose an alternative conversation, one that actually does address the real suffering of racial and ethnic minorities, or for that matter the real suffering of the dominant racial and ethnic majority, and it ends smugly with the contentiousness. If the satirical purpose is a ruse and the real message is a sort of apartheid social structure, it directly advocates for the suffering of the few and does so for the benefit of the racial and ethnic majority. In either case, their trolling is ultimately immoral. They are using the hammer of language to smash skulls, little more.
Having said that, part of the difficulty lies in the whole notion of an "ideological goal." If they are smashing skulls in the furtherance of an "ideological goal," which is taken to be good, the brain spatter is justified, even called for, as a step in the direction of that good. The white nationalist ideology simmering under the surface of the alt-right has long since been discredited, but I would suggest ANY set of end-game, ideological goals are a problem. Perhaps I should clarify and suggest ANY set of ideological goals that purports to put an end to "contingency" once and for all are the problem. I have suggested in previous posts that there is only the status quo, and the only question that arises against a political proposal, no matter how modest, is this: "who benefits and how?" Phrased in that way, it simply reveals my own enduring cynicism and skepticism toward those in power, insofar as they tend to act in ways that benefit themselves, often at the expense of the broader public. As a positive justification for the proposal, I might add that the only question is this: "does it alleviate suffering? for whom and how?" Implicit in both statements is an ideology of sorts -- the a priori assumption that we, together, have an moral duty to alleviate suffering, to form a more perfect union, and there are . "More perfect" implies an on-going struggle against the suffering implicit to the existing status quo, but I refuse, more or less on principle, to imagine the end game, the final state of perfection. Implicit in any such imagined perfection is the "if only everyone" syndrome -- as in "if only everyone were white and christian and gladly followed biblical law, then what a wonderful world it would be" -- as in (you can fill in the blank with your own imagined implausibility or impossibility). Implicit in any such imagined perfection is a limited world where suffering is eliminated by eliminating those who would suffer under the imagined perfection. What to do with the blacks? What to do with the muslims? What to do with headstrong women and overt gays under a biblical law that would repress and demonize them? The national socialists of yore had an answer, and it is not an answer that we should resurrect.
So, in the end, I am, like Richard Rorty, I believe that "the task of the intellectual, with respect to social justice, is not to provide refinements of social theory," though the on-going critical examination of the status-quo, can help "sensitize us to the suffering of others, and refine, deepen and expand our ability to identify with others, to think of others as like ourselves in morally relevant ways." Critique implies change, which often has unintended consequence, and necessitates more change. To change one status quo, even for the better, simply creates another status quo, with its own set of beneficiaries and sufferers. And there will always be the on-going moral imperative to address the needs of those who suffer. Consequently, like Rorty, I am "a self-proclaimed romantic bourgeois liberal, a believer in piecemeal reforms advancing economic justice and increasing the freedoms that citizens are able to enjoy." Not unlike Rorty, I am "sceptical toward radicalism" and the radical solution. It plays well, particularly in the appeal to simplistic solutions, in the outraged appropriation of frustrated idealism and too often justifiable rage, but the simplistic solution rarely acknowledges the full complexity of any problem. The insistence on complexity, on examining the problem from multiple perspectives and deliberating on the moral and technical merits of various potential solutions, all seems like obtuse pedantry to idealists who really want to believe its really that simple -- to the angry who want retribution, want it now, and want it in full measure, and want someone or something to take retribution against.
Nevertheless, "political thought purporting to uncover hidden, systematic causes for injustice and exploitation, and on that basis proposing sweeping changes to set things right," always -- at least within human experience through the 20th century -- go awry. Still, it is difficult, as Spock might tell us, to insist on LOGOS, the on-going critical examination, when there is so much PATHOS, so much misdirected and malignant emotion to overwhelm the mere pedantry of logic, and the outsized ETHOS of the latest demagogue to orchestrate it. It takes little moral strength of mind to believe in to those who insist that the problems really are simple, when they are not -- to capitulate to one who believes that he and only he holds the keys to their solution, when he does not -- and to feel that THEY are the impediment to the imagined paradise, whether it be the jews, the catholics, or the muslims -- whether it be uppity blacks, or women, or their elitist sympathizers -- when they are not. Democracy ends when the on-going critique is silenced to maintain the illusion of simplicity -- when we give over our own rational insight and moral authority to another -- when we allow ourselves to ignore and perhaps even celebrate the suffering of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment