---
# System prepended metadata

title: Irony Evolves
tags: [Higher Ironies Project]

---

# Irony Evolves

###### tags: `Higher Ironies Project`

[TOC]

## Irony Saturation on the Internet

<p align="center">  <img width="690" height="550" src="https://i.imgur.com/4ewcOlP.jpg"> </p>

At some point around the turn of the decade, **traditional irony** became so ubiquitious on the internet that it became the default, expected mode of communication.  Unlike every other medium of communication in human history, in which **sincerity** was the norm and **irony** the exception, now **irony** for the first time had become the norm, at least in many internet circles.  

This shift and causes several problems.  The first is that, when **ironic** communication becomes just as common as **sincere** communication, it can become very difficult to determine when someone is being serious, or to ascertain what a person's **sincere** message (and, remember, even **traditional irony** does contain a **sincere** message) really is.

<p align="center">  <img width="690" height="200" src="https://i.imgur.com/vbEXRsp_d.jpg?maxwidth=520&shape=thumb&fidelity=high"> </p>

But in addition to this problem of understanding for the audience of **ironic** messages, there is also a major problem for the *authors* of those messages.  As discussed in the chapter on **[Traditional Irony](/jsglmXe9SvKVl4f2HI7JJA),** such irony operates by **subverting** expectations.  This **subversion** is what gives **irony** its utility as a mode of communication.  But when **traditional irony** becomes ubiquitous, it becomes *expected*.  And if something is expected, by definition it cannot be **subversive.**  

To put this another way, as **irony** becomes the norm, it loses its edge.  As it becomes expected, it loses the weight it used to carry.  **Subversion** is not **subversive** when an audience *expects their expectations to be **subverted.***  And on the internet today, this is very often precisely what audiences *do* expect.

**Subversion** is founded on the thwarting of expectations or of the norm.  But now **subversion** itself has become the norm, and *is* expected.  The question, then, for those who still wish to be **subversive** is: how can one ***subvert subversion** itself?*

It is the attempt to answer this question that has led to the development of the evolved forms of irony.

## Irony Evolves

This point is worth reiterating: when the audience has an expectation that they will recieve a **sincere** message, **traditional irony** is **subversive**, because it thwarts that expectation.  However, when the audience has an expectation that they will recieve an **ironic** message, then **traditional irony** is no longer **subversive**, because it merely gives the audience exactly what they expected.  To be **subversive**, some new form of **irony** that ***subverts subversion*** is needed--and the internet has provided:

* **Meta-Irony** -- Irony that **subverts** *the idea of using **traditional irony** to convey a **sincere** message.*
*  **Post-Irony** -- Irony that **subverts** *the expectation* that **traditional irony** will be used to **subvert** a **sincere** message by *actually conveying the original **sincere** message that the **traditional irony** was mocking*.

```mermaid 

graph TD

A(SINCERITY <br/> Saying what one actually means <br/> Doing what is expected) -- SUBVERSION --> C[TRADITIONAL IRONY <br/> Saying the opposite of what one really means <br/> Doing the opposite of what is expected]
B(Original Sincere Message)
C -- SUBVERSION <br/> of the idea of having <br/> a sincere message at all--> D{{META-IRONY <br/> Saying nothing at all <br/> Doing things randomly}}
C -- SUBVERSION <br/> of the expectation that <br/> TRADITIONAL IRONY will be used--> E{{POST-IRONY <br/> Saying what one actually means, ironically <br/> Doing the opposite of the opposite of what is expected}}
B --> F[Opposite Sincere Message]
F --> G{{META-IRONY: No Sincere Message <br/> POST-IRONY: Original Sincere Message}}

```
Both **[Meta-Irony](/CiYW-9KJQNOvIXv_HbnVlg)** and **[Post-Irony](/YI8fzFBRS4KUdc6YFnuQfQ)** are **subversions** of **traditional irony**, which is itself a **subversion** of **sincerity**.  But this ***subversion of subversion*** takes two different, and in many ways opposite, forms.

I will deal with these presently.  But before proceeding, it is worth exploring the philosophical reasons for this evolution of irony as well.  Just as **traditional irony** is in many ways a reflection of the dominant **Post-Modern** philosophical framework of the modern day, so too **Meta-Irony** and **Post-Irony** reflect a philosophical shift--although in opposite directions--as the problems with **Post-Modernism** have begun to make themselves clear.

## Post-Modernism's Fundamental Flaw

**[Post-Modernism](/2dAVGsHITN6uCoIMInRJHg)** claims to be a philosophy that liberates people from primitive superstitions (Pre-Modernism) and false hopes (Modernism), and it does so by rejecting the notion that we can ever discover any objective truth.  It uses **deconstruction** to expose the **sincere** beliefs of those previous philosophical frameworks as falsehoods.  **Deconstruction**, remember, is a method of exposing falsehoods by breaking down things that are falsely held to be true into their component parts and demonstrating the absurdities and contradictions they contain.

But here is problem: this notion of exposing falsehoods ***rests on an unspoken assumption that such a thing as truth exists.***  

**Deconstruction,** while it *is* used to break down and expose the contradictions and falsehoods of other **sincere** beliefs, fundamentally rests on *its own **sincere** belief that exposing falsehoods is a worthwhile thing to do.*  The **Post-Modern deconstructionist** may claim that he does not believe in objective truth, but whether he admits it or not, he *does* believe in the opposite: objective falsehood.  His mission to **deconstruct** falsehood would not make any sense otherwise; why devote oneself to **deconstruction** if falsehood, like truth, is a purely subjective matter, unique to each individual?  

And indeed, the notion that there is even such a thing as "falsehood" suggests the existence of the opposite, namely truth.  Or, to look at the problem from another angle: *The belief that one can never discover objective truth is, itself, a belief in objective truth.*

<p align="center">  <img width="450" height="700" src="https://i.imgur.com/TRF6a7q_d.jpg?maxwidth=520&shape=thumb&fidelity=high"> </p>

This is the fundamental problem at the heart of **Post-Modernism**.  Philosophically, it ultimately runs into a dead end.  It claims that we can never objectively know the truth, yet this is a claim that it implicitly believes to be objectively true.  Its **deconstructive** impulse rests on the implicit belief that the objects of its **deconstruction** are objectively false--which implies the existence of objective truth.  **Post-Modernism** rests on a philosophical contradiction.  

So, what happens when *that* contradiction is **deconstructed?**   What happens when one ***deconstructs deconstruction** itself?*

Well, when **deconstruction** is, itself, **deconstructed**, this unspoken claim to objective truth--that there is such a thing as objective "falsehood," and that it is worth exposing--is laid bare beneath the **deconstructionist's** microscope.  And the **deconstructionist** must proceed to ask: from where does this idea of truth derive?  And what claim does it have to being objective?  What is this truth that it purports to have an existence beyond and above the subjective emotional "truths" of others?

**Post-Modernism** has no good answers to these questions.  And it is the failure of **Post-Modernism** to address them that has, in part, led to the rise of **Meta-** and **Post-Irony,** both of which do provide answers, but in opposite ways.

Next Chapter: **[Meta-Irony](/CiYW-9KJQNOvIXv_HbnVlg)**