by odradek » Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:55 am
re: earnestness
i sometimes have some weird idea that i will lose and reform in a slightly different shape that irony or sarcasm don't really exist - they are just an expression of an earnest opinion. i am currently of the opinion that in one particular form, this is true: when an earnest opinion is held, the ironic or sarcastic expression of that will reveal the earnest opinion, only negatively (that is to say, the absence of). the problem i have with sarcasm, despite it being a favorite tool, is that as a negative expression it does not necessarily require a positive basis and through its becoming a regular means of expression, people no longer actually have to have an opinion. the absence of an earnest opinion is enough for discourse, especially on the internet.
a facile example. a question: do you like candy? a sarcastic answer: no, i don't like candy. because of the link between ironic and earnest expression and the binary choices of yes or no, the meaning is taken to be that one does like candy. the person could be ambivalent to candy, but through sarcasm makes an appeal to what the link should describe, which is to say what the other person or people as a whole would put there and without actually having said anything has made themselves agreeable to the community at large. they've instantly generated an opinion in the other person's view that is the "right one." the only way this system fails is if they were to sarcastically present the only option that the other person finds correct (assuming they have an opinion themselves) and then the issue is forced.
to combat this conversational laziness, i run on a pro-opinion platform. it is ok to take a stand and like or dislike things. there is a bravery in that when the prevailing method is to appeal to a crowd-sourced taste. this is not to say sarcasm as a tool is useless or dangerous but that in its use it should refer to a solid base. i recently read an essay on how a "philosophical moment" is when two people with different axiomatic beliefs collide. sarcasm and irony without earnestness avoid any collision - the moments it provides are when two people have axiomatic beliefs they don't have. it is a way to prevent intellectual conflict and has become so widespread that intellectual conflict, rather than an opportunity for growth, is viewed as being uncouth.
so dwindles, have an opinion. be earnest in your opinions. force other people to have opinions that aren't just the negative space of yours. it's not easier, but it allows the choices you make and the things you enjoy to be specifically yours, traceable, and not the products of things that they aren't.