Published on 5/12/22 and edited on 3/3/23
![Thomas Krajna. (2021). Do you want to hear what I said again?. [Digital Manipulation]. MKE. MKE, WI/USA. : Meta-ironic meme](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/format:webp/1*izh-wE48hMllHaOkRv1Mxw@2x.jpeg)
Abstract
This article will investigate how meta-irony can be used for ethical correspondence and transfer. Specifically, it will look upon the regions of irony, how the artifice tethers, the didactic efficacy of mimetic judgment, and the cycle of how ethical treatment can flourish from meta-irony. Within the following sections, I will dissect pre-irony, irony, post-irony, and meta-irony. This will be formed from a definition of characteristics and then its relation towards ethical transfer. The translation of the artifice will follow through textual examples from Diana Taylor’s text The archive and the repertoire: Performing cultural memory in the Americas. The text will help formulate conceptual understandings of semiotics, mimetic transfer, and the role of meta-irony. The examples will be in relation to Victor Turner’s model of social drama and Emilio Carballido’s play Yo también hablo de la rosa. The main argumentation will be that meta-irony can elevate judgment due to its indecipherability and from that it cannot be determined by an authoritative participant. There is a gap within the script of meta-ironic memetic drive which can provide potential for the alteration of ethical practicality. This will also be supported with the 1974 text Theater of the Oppressed which was written by Augusto Boal. The section that will provide additional support to the main argumentation of this paper will delineate on the archetype of the “Joker” and how that character performance relates toward the artifice in a meta-ironic context. A personal archive of meta-ironic channels and bibliography assets can be seen through scanning the Are.na QR code in figure 1.
Keywords: Artifice, meta-irony, post-irony, dogma, judgment, tether, performance, “Joker”
Introduction
The foundations of landscapes or regions are built within semiotic exploration. The mounds of deconstructing rhetorical devices for communion are found within this paper. Due to the nature of language, it is important to dissect the power of each region of irony. The following content will be arranged by a few defining characteristics, the difference between other regions, and its ethical implications.
Sincerity
Pre-irony also known as sincerity is a judgment of the real through reality that can be seen with a dogmatic approach. Its aim is to be practical and aligned with truth. An example would be seen within the enlightenment philosophical tradition in which there was antitheses movement from mythology or religion into an era of science in which reality can be proven through natural law compared with divine law. Within the cultural expression, sincerity is to be also succinct with practicality. Sincerity is one of the standard modes of rhetoric since it gains authority through cultural performance. An example of rhetorical sincerity would be to compliment another participant in which the user means what they have said. While sincerity has the modality of a shared performance stage, it does not have the capacity for a rebirth and revision due to its limitation of affording to the materiality. Only the providence within idealism can shape form and in turn transfer ethical treatment for anew. This is because idealism or speculation can afford to be beyond natural law or universal constraints. The constraints of dogmatic presumptions is how sincerity is bolster within the phrase of practicality.
Irony
Irony is a rhetorical statement in which there is a contradiction between the outcome and the desire of the collective participants. For example, an ironic expression for having a cultural ritual of eating a ham sandwich every day for lunch would be said “Wow this is a great ham sandwich and one I get every day” if the participant didn’t get a ham sandwich at lunch. Irony deals upon the norms of the culture such as the participant’s ham sandwich. The statement is a reversal of the perceived reality of the participant among the collective. Irony is mainly used for humiliation and being sardonic rather than a pure negation. For this reason, it is not suitable for ethical transfer since irony by itself leads towards a script of determination. Irony acts as an authoritarian figure and alters the norm for its antithesis rather than basking in its potential. The antithesis of cultural propagation is not implemented into the core experience. The performance is not of the syntax of irony but of the desired outcome that is not able to come to fruition. This is common to hear within dogmatic propositions in which participants state that sincerity is lost within contemporary culture. There is a sense of loss within the participants that cry this out due to alterations of how reality has been changed. However, sincerity is not able to gain from demystification of the other as well due to the stated above affordance towards the perceived reality.
Post-irony
Post-irony is a guise of sincerity as it has the performance of the syntax of irony, but its intention is to be correlative with the perceived reality. Post-irony is more complex to discern due to its symbolic misnomer. An example of post-irony would be stating “Wowie! this rollercoaster is pretty scary” in relation to the participant feeling scared but doesn’t want others to know that they are scared. This guise or veil of ironic syntax helps the performer use irony to hide in the situation and in turn complicate intention. Post-irony also has an element of tethering since the trick of the artifice or “joker” archetype is to be veiled within the symbolic exchange. To use the syntax of irony for the goal of sincerity has ethical limits since stated above there is a determined interaction of intention and also there needs to be contextual evidence for that intention to be demystified.
The reader might ask why not engage on a pre-ironic level since there is a correlation between perceived reality and communication? Why go through irony to only muddy the interpretive power of participants?
The main reason why post-irony is fruitful is because there are unsaid truths within contemporary culture that are misguided, and the performance of post-irony can generate minor literature. The dominance of cultural attitudes might not align with minor cultures in which the performance of ironic syntax can help generate ethical norms through a collective participation. The setback of post-irony is that without the collective participation and underlying solidarity, the error for misinterpretation becomes large. The culture surrounding it needs to be ethically sound due to its dependence on sincerity as a medium of engagement for speculation.
Meta-irony
Meta-irony differs from post-irony due to amorphous performance. Meta-irony is confusing, complex, chaos, and the artifice itself. The repertoire of this performance is founded on an unchanged and unknowingly intentionally from the participant. It is cultivated from the negation of intention from the participant itself. The meta-ironic performance is to be cultivated and then set towards judgment for an ethical transfer. For example, a statement that could be interpreted as meta-ironic would be “Golly gee, my life is a box of chocolates, and someone only ate a few”. This statement could be true or false in a strict sense but there is an element of unknown. Is the participant being post-ironic through the memetic cultural expression from the 1994 movie Forest Gump? Or is there an ironic bent where the reversal of determined desire is present through the expression of life has already preceded fate? There is power in the unknown or the trick within this hypothetical meta-ironic performance. It can be either noise or signal for the participant or collective spectator. Therefore, it can generate possibilities. The contextual evidence is the judgment and effected tracer that can either guide for ethical treatment or not. The following sections will deal with how the judgment of meta-irony can be swayed towards ethical treatment.
Meta-irony has potential compared to the other forms and sincerity. It is not determined till there is a participant that dictates authority on the rhetoric. Meta-irony can aid in rhetorical ecology as it alters social norms. The performance of absurd or speculative comments from the artifice alters the tendons of the living modular cultural exchange. It breaks the mold and mildew of what is perceived to be practicality. However, there is a limiting factor within the use of meta-irony within conversation. There must be a collective solidarity for speculations and reality building. An ethical limit for meta-irony is the disruption of how sincerity functions. Meta-ironic performances are meant as a tool or program for the further development of ethical transfer rather than the transfer itself. This is more of a benefit than a hindrance due to the possibility of speculation that is developed from meta-irony.
The artifice’s speculation is tethered to our current sincerity since it is in response towards social mores and learned behavior. There is a conceptual gap within meta irony that contradictory leads towards a revisioning of what is happening or current. Its potential is not necessarily to obfuscate but to elevate judgment. It is hard to get outside of a framework that has been deeply guided and is mediated through sincerity. It is the judgment of authority that is of question and meta-ironic has the potential for a modality of creation. This also relates upon mimetic forms since a shared behavior is a meme and to alter memes the participant could alter ethical outcomes.
Social Drama and Mimesis
Diana Taylor summarizes Victor Turner’s model how social drama or in other words the performance of alterations of reality compresses back into social norms, “We can easily recognize the four phases he identifies: (1) the breach, or social rupture and flouting of the norm; (2) crisis, in which the breach widens and escalates; (3) redressive action, which seeks to contain the spread of the crisis; and (4) the reintegration, the reordering of social norms” (Taylor, 2007, p.137). A diagram of the cycle can be seen on figure 2. This cycle of reintegration of the mimetic desire can provide a template for an ethical transfer. Noted within Victor Turner’s teleology of the world is the surface of order compared to chaos which should be investigated and not treated as dogma.
But first, what even is a meme? A meme within the colloquial sense is a shared cultural exchange through the symbolic register and often subsides within minor literature. A few examples of this would be slang, jargon, and esotericism. A meme is also an interface for the parasocial and even parasitic drive of the meme-in-itself. The content needs us to replicate itself. Instilled within the meme, a form can sublimate away from a death-drive and into a mythical resonance determined by affected ethical concerns. The ethical concerns are placed upon the form of a meme and is transferred through the act of performance. Turner’s model of social drama affects meta-irony as a path that is hard to quantize and would suffer within the third stage of redressive action. Could an unintentional memetic action be determined? This is a central question to the paper since there is deviation of participant judgment. Speculation within the meta-ironic form participants within the first section of Turner’s model as these ruptures the social norms of practicality and the region of sincerity. The crisis is formed through the judgment of intentional rhetorical since the artifice hold the lack of authoritative evidence. The contextual ethical transfer is embed within the third stage and has the potential for a rebirth. However, would the reorganization of social norms be successful or be negated. This is the true liability of the ethical transfer due to its nature of collective solidarity. This is also in relation to the didactic efficacy of mimetic judgment through the meta-ironic performance of the artifice. This comes into question also the strength of using placebo as a metaphor for meta-irony. Is the system of a placebo ethical or is it a medium for greater ethical transfers? The placebo registry of meta-irony is founded upon the misnomer or unintentional veil that is confronted by what shapes perceived reality and what is the idealistic immaterial consequence.
The Intermediary
Taylor also writes about the performance of unity between personal and collaborative efforts through Emilio Carballido’s play Yo también hablo de la rosa. The Intermediary functions as narrator and often has monologues throughout the play in which Taylor writes, “As she describes the workings of her heart…it becomes clear that her body functions as the site of convergence binding the individual with the collective, the private with the social…She embodies the locus and means of communication” (Taylor, 2007, p.80). The intermediary can be seen in figure 3. Taylor is explaining more of the collective spirit of the Intermediary and the functions of communication. The Intermediary generates the scene such as the artifice alters the rhetorical ecology but for embodied spectatorship. Taylor elaborates more on the function of the character within the play and the story titled “two who dreamed”, “The Intermediary appears four times in the play…with warnings, with stories, with enigmatic interpretations…This story, with roots back to the sixteenth century, speaks to both the multiplicity of signs and systems as well as the ensuing problems of decipherability” (Taylor, 2007, p.85). Taylor begins to talk about one of the functions of meta-irony which is indecipherability and can be formed with the help of dreams. The contextual story that Taylor talks about is called “two who dreamed” within the play. Two men presented within a dream told by the Intermediary in which they are asked to pray to each town’s sanctuary that is next to the other person’s house. The two men wake up and meet each other at the middle point between the two sanctuaries not knowing how to interpret the dream. In response to hearing each other having the same dream, they flip a coin to look for a sign. This is where the meta-ironic can be displayed since there is a realm of subjecting one’s experience to the authority of the sign rather than generating one’s own appeal for ethical transfer. Within the story, the sign and dream never came to the two men’s aid, so they made their own sanctuary for prayer and celebration. This narrative discusses the role of meaning creation within language and how authority can seep within signs. The role of the meta-irony alters this relationship by decontextualizing the script such as the author of the dream and into an agent generating ethical transfer for their own collective performance. The next section will deal with Augusto Boal’s role of the Intermediary within a collaborative performance.
The “Joker” Archetype
The artifice is also known to be conveyed as the “Joker” within a performance and holds a certain structure for the relation among the collective. Augusto Boal transcribed a modular mode of production for performance that helps guide people that are oppressed. The general performance is made within a narrative that becomes explored through audience influence and common experience. The Theater of the Oppressed becomes involved by setting up a scene that is in relation to the audience’s daily experience. For example, a scene where a person goes to court needs to defend themselves from a judge to see their children again. There are pauses within the play to have a conversation upon what the main character could do or what the audience members would have done. Within this structure of the mode of production there is a “Joker” character that can embody speculative actions. Boal writes within the text Theater of the Oppressed, “The ‘Joker’s’ is a magical reality; he creates it. If necessary, he invents magic walls, combats, soldiers, armies. All the other characters accept the magic reality created and described by the ‘Joker’. To fight, he uses an invented weapon…to kill himself, he believes in the dagger that does not exist. The ‘Joker’ is polyvalent’’ (Boal, 1974, p.159). An image of Boal within the act of performing can be seen in figure 4. The role of the “Joker” within the Theater of the Oppressed program positions itself for the introduction of the performance as a symbolic intensive and simple narrative for the intervening of a scenario. The performance becomes narrative and is followed by the “Joker” facilitating discussion. This is the key moment for the “Joker” since this is where potential solutions and intervention can be shared. The “Joker” asks the audience to share similar experiences and what was observed. The discussion is paired with roots and causes of the event and then is connected to what authority figures are doing to help solve the problem. This is then shared with the group for a reenactment and intervention of the play’s narrative with different characters performing different generative actions. This helps the participants see beyond their own experience and can lead to a participator sense making. This all can lead towards empathy and collective brainstorm for a final output regarding a proposal for systematic or environmental change. The “Joker” can alter the practicality of intervention. The creation can either tether to reality or flourish within a speculative frame. This is one of the interesting aspects of the mode of production since there is shared cultural experience, the realm of accepting meta-ironic performance can lead towards a tethering of an ethical transfer.
For example, a narrative of domestic abuse is introduced by the “Joker” in which there is one role playing the oppressor, one role playing the oppressed, and then the audience. The performance is portrayed and discussed in states with shared personal experience of domestic abuse. Then there is an intervention of different audience members in which they play as the oppressor, the oppressed, or any third-party agent. The goal for a meta-ironic “Joker” discussion is to be rhizomatic to the extent where the intentionality is lost within the participant. This is not to obfuscate such as stated before but to broaden the possibility of alternative action within the scene. With continuation of the domestic abuse example, a meta-ironic possibility could formulate the position of being a cat within the scene and becoming a witness from the cat’s perspective. To what extent could a cat aid within the scene? Could the oppressed participant witnessing a cat on the floor in where it adds to the catalyst of leaving an abusive relationship due to seeing their abuser provide a virtualized violence to the living non-human animal? In other performative functions, a cat could be seen as not practical, but it could provide a generation in which the oppressed participant empathizes as the cat and becomes embodied in a situation of the cat field of vision. This will then become brought up within the secondary discussion and unfold within the dialectical process.
This is an example of how meta-irony can be used for ethical transference within a personal tragedy. However, how could the actor of the cat become seen within a systemic critique and proposition for change? A cat is a participant within the non-human animal kingdom in a correlation between authoritarian practices and the treatment of other species. A question that could come up within the discussion for that is mediated by the “Joker” could be how is domestic abuse seen outside the home and where can the region of the home be delineated? A home could be seen as the terrestrial Earth and where the mother could be the radiation from the sun. Domestic abuse within a system analysis could lead towards combating climate change if this would be the path of the participants. This question of who is our mother could be one of the paths within a collaborative solidarity that can lead towards an ethical transfer and material alterations. Memetic transfer such as a final proposition that can spread onto other mediums such as a keyword within protests or a meme for the socially determined actor. This transfer would branch not from judgment of what is practical but alterations to what’s possible.
Displace Judgement and Speculate!
Through the archive and repertoire of meta-irony, one can displace judgment for the betterment of the collective. There is a script that can be rewritten for ethical transfer among personal and systemic encounters. Meta-irony is tethered in relation to the perceived reality of practicality and can be entwined for a new era of materiality that is built upon the speculation of alternative regions.
Appendix
Figure 1
Note. Contents contain bibliography links and meta-ironic examples
Figure 2
A Visual Of Victor Turner’s Social Drama Theory
Note. Picture came from Junesse Crisostomo’s paper that was published by the University of Arizona Press in 1985.
Figure 3
Image Of Julieta Egurrola As The Intermediary
Note. Picture created by Rose Campiglia
Figure 4
Image Of Agusto Boal
Note. Picture came an interview with Boal
Bibliography
Boal, A. (1970, March 6). Sur le théâtre populaire en Amérique latine. Entretien avec Augusto Boal. Accueil. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from http://revueperiode.net/sur-le-theatre-populaire-en-amerique-latine-entretien-avec-augusto-boal/
Boal, A. (1979). Theater of the oppressed: Transl. from the Spanish by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride. Pluto Pr.
Boyle, C. A. (2018). Rhetoric as a posthuman practice. The Ohio State University Press.
Crisostomo, J. (2018). In Court, On Air, On Trial: The Impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona as Social Drama. Humanities Diliman: A Philippine Journal of Humanities. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/humanitiesdiliman
Deleuze, G., Guattari, F., & Brinkley, R. (1983). What Is a Minor Literature? Mississippi Review, 11(3), 13–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20133921
Felluga, D. (2015). Modules on Lacan: On the Structure of the Psyche. Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/psychoanalysis/lacanstructure.html
Lacy, R., & MacLennan, A. R. L. R. L. (2017, February 7). DC theatre scene. DC Theatre Scene. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from https://dctheatrescene.com/2017/02/07/yo-tambien-hablo-de-la-rosa-i-speak-rose-gala-review/
Palaver, W., & Borrud, G. (2013). René Girard’s Mimetic Theory. Michigan State University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/j.ctt7zt8kp
Roth, E., & Groom, W. (1994, July 6). Forrest Gump. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0109830/
Taylor, D. (2007). The archive and the repertoire: Performing cultural memory in the Americas. Duke University Press.
Unknown. (2020, May 11). I’m worried about someone else. Womens Aid. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from https://www.womensaid.org.uk/the-survivors-handbook/im-worried-about-someone-else/
Unknown. (2022). Minorliteratures.org. minorliteraturesorg. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from http://www.minorliteratures.org/
YouTube. (2021). Joker — Tutorial (Theatre of the Oppressed). YouTube. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oGLF-RnQXo&list=WL&index=99&t=36s&ab_channel=Hang-KepEgyesulet.
