Postmodernism, Poe’s Law, and Post-Irony
No lukewarm takes this week; my brain is getting a bit of R&R as I share some collected musings on a current ‘issue’.
I’ve heard somewhere that “The more someone uses the word postmodernism, the less they have any idea what they’re talking about.” This is true on the surface level, because one of the key tenets of postmodernism is the subjectivity of most, if not all, ideas, structures, and values. This is a double entendre of sorts because postmodernist texts are notoriously difficult to read and summarize (an anachronism from the previous movement). This is a triple entendre of sorts because the word ‘postmodernism’ itself has become a shibboleth used by every self-proclaimed intellectual and their father.
I do not profess any sort of understanding of postmodernism, except as an interested observer, hoping to chortle along when a Slate Star Codex piece makes a reference, and studying vocabulary lists with the intention of sprinkling them into conversation. Thus, everything below this point is not only unoriginal, but also potentially inaccurately lifted and remembered, so please don’t go around telling people I’m a pseudo-intellectual who doesn’t understand postmodernism. That’s a fact which doesn’t really bear repeating.
In the 21st century, many philosophers and pundits claim that we are moving beyond postmodernism into something else entirely. The joke is on them as I can’t read philosophical writing. As I see it, many contemporary phenomenon can be interpreted through a postmodern framework. One I find amusing along the vein of subjectivity brought up earlier is the deconstruction of grand narratives: the idea that society is fed supposed truths, but these are surreptitious lies to maintain the stability and power of the ruling class while subjugating the already oppressed.
Depending on how far right along the political spectrum one falls, this has all but been completely accepted. Recently however, the remainder who didn’t subscribe to this idea has also been infected with the postmodernist bug, but in a completely different way. Yes, I’m referring to the climate change denying, election result rejecting, and Donald Trump embracing members of our society. I find a sort of perverse humour in watching the political right insisting on facts and logic when the political left embraces the spirit of postmodernism and then pivot to alternative facts, conspiracy theories, and post truth, all the while disavowing any sort of perceived bias.
Another aspect of postmodernism is the concept of intertextuality, the connection between what is contained within the body of an art piece, and something external to that, usually another work. The focus on these relationships and derivative works lends itself to the thesis of many a dense book and obscure neologism, but is well applied in perhaps the most kitschy of all modern entertainment, the internet meme.
Baudrillard’s concept of sign-order stages applies perfectly to the internet meme, when a representation of a thing, turns into a misrepresentation of the thing, then into a copy without an original, and finally something so far removed from the original that there is virtually no connection. And we haven’t even touched on deep-fried memes or loss.
At the intersection of these two ideas (a minor, not major intersection) is Poe’s Law, which states that parody and sincerity are virtually indistinguishable without context over the internet, without a clear indicator such as an emoji. This is especially true within internet text communication because it is likely shorter than other forms of written communication, therefore lacking context. A Modest Proposal could be read seriously, but would much more likely to be correctly assessed compared to a tweet.
This brings me to the anecdote that inspired this week’s post. A few days ago, I was trying to justify to some friends why it was okay for me to say a certain behaviour was gay. I argued that only context I would do it in was when a friend who was confident in his heterosexuality did something that some men would have trouble doing because they could be perceived as gay, but that in itself was laughable. Some recent examples are: wearing something very fitted or loud, going to a spa with other men, and being comfortable communicating affection to other men.
I’d stop suddenly to draw attention, and then say something to the effect of: “yo bro, that is so gay,” or look around, shifty-eyed, and ask “hey uh, you aren’t gay, are you?”, sarcastically employing a homophobic comment. The intended joke was the apparent incongruity between his sexuality and behaviour, which wasn’t indicative of sexuality.
In the end however, I ceded that this joke was inappropriate despite endeavouring only to mock fragile masculinities. The first reason was an application of Poe’s Law: “What if someone gay heard and felt unsafe?” That in itself would have been enough, but my friend convinced me that by repeating this statement, however sarcastically, I was also reinforcing the idea of judging someone’s sexuality through superficial behaviours.
That second one took a bit more time to digest, because of course I wasn’t! I was lampooning homophobic tropes and making fun of the bigots! That is when I familiarized myself with post-irony. There are varying definitions across the internet and a sparse Wikipedia page, so as per the postmodern tradition, I’ve decided to contribute to the various competing narratives. Post-irony is application of postmodern principles to ironic humour.
All irony rests upon a truth and content that runs counter to that truth. What happens to irony in a postmodern, post-truth world? Instead of taking a position, post-irony plays both sides of the joke, simultaneously entertaining conflicting viewpoints without repudiating either. Further reduction comes from the appropriating of perspectives, or in some cases theft of rhetoric altogether, rendering the comment meaningless without any intercontextual understanding.
The statement “bro, being at the spa with you right now is so gay,” can only be ironic if the group is not gay and implicitly understands that two males going to the spa together does not equate homosexuality. However, the statement can only be understood in reference to the belief that straight men do not go to the spa together.
The literal interpretation is that this is “homosexual behaviour”, whatever that means. The ironic interpretation is that homosexuality is not defined by irrelevant behaviours. But at the same time, the literal interpretation acknowledges that idea without truly renouncing it, aware that the ironic interpretation is no longer a novel point. The speaker is then detached from both positions, simply making a self-aware observation about the dearth of straight men going to spas together.
And that’s post-irony, the reduction of satire into a self-aware comment where intent is missing: somehow, both ideas exist simultaneously, but the comment means nothing.
None of my friends will listen to me pontificate anymore, so that’s why I’m here. One less bit of homophobia in the world, and one more piece of esoteric knowledge securely lodged in my head through application.
