Notes on Post-Irony
Many things in the world have not been named; and many things, even if they have been named, have never been described. One of these is the sensibility – unmistakably modern, a variant of sophistication but hardly identical with it – that goes by the cult name of “Camp”.
– Susan Sontag, Notes On Camp, 1964
In Peter Vack’s debut novel Sillyboy a phenomenon, which has been named but, to my knowledge (based on one arduous Google search) never properly described, appears – that of Post-irony. Like Camp, this too is unmistakably modern – indeed, it’s unmistakably postmodern, and invariably trendy amongst a younger generation of creatives. In the same way that Camp is a “private code, a badge of identity even, among small urban cliques”, Post-irony is also a if-you-know-you-know device downloaded straight from the internet onto the lips and notes apps of Downtown scenesters.
This piece is by no means as academically rigorous, comprehensive, or eloquently written as Sontag’s Notes on Camp. However, it’s an incomplete stab at capturing an in some ways similar phenomenon (and Sontag’s numbered format is a useful tool). Above all, to attempt to define Post-irony goes against its very core – and I take a certain pleasure in ruffling the die-hard proponent’s feathers.
To clarify: to take Post-irony seriously is for me an expression of fondness for the device and many of the personas (and people) tied to it. I believe it can lead to brilliant writing ripe with humor and complexity. Most just dismiss Post-irony as right-wing idiocy, due to its associations with a certain element of the political meme culture, or because they view it as a lesser artform. I quite like Post-irony. I do, however, take umbrage with the way it is employed by certain people.
I also share the relationship that Sontag has with Camp when it comes to Post-irony:
…To talk about Camp is [therefore] to betray it. That is why I want to talk about it, and why I can. For no one who wholeheartedly shares in a given sensibility can analyze it; he can only, whatever his intention, exhibit it. To name a sensibility, to draw its contours and to recount its history, requires a deep sympathy modified by revulsion.
To start as generally as Sontag: Post-irony is a certain mode of aestheticism. Its central device is to employ a form of calculated ambiguity, intentionally making it difficult for the audience to tell whether its user is ironic or sincere.
Post-irony can lead to hilarious ambiguity in playful literature and content demanding a sophisticated audience with a high tolerance for complexity. The ambiguity of Post-ironic speech acts can also be used for political purposes.
Random examples that could be considered Post-ironic without explanation:
Certain memes posted by @neoliberalhell
Peter Vack’s meme poem
Elis Monteverde Burreau’s online persona
Parts of Earth Angel by Madeline Cash
Certain things Donald Trump says
Many of the poems being performed at readings downtown
The Red Scare podcast
This piece
The Post-ironist sees much in quotation marks, with asterisks, or redactions. It’s not a reading, it’s a “reading”. It’s not irony, it’s ir*ny. It’s not Dimes Square, it’s [REDACTED] Square.
Unlike Camp, there is no unintentional or naive Post-irony. The intention of the person employing Post-irony is to create confusion through the usage of a calculated ambiguity and internal inconsistencies.
What makes Post-irony hard to talk about is precisely that it’s intrinsically tied to the intention of the speaker or writer. How much can we really say of the intention behind a person’s assertion? More on this in point 8.
We have to assume for the sake of argument that the consumer of Post-ironic content has an ordinary social ability and can distinguish irony from sincerity. Even so, she will have trouble determining whether a speech act is sincere or Post-ironic.
To answer the question of how much we can say of a person’s intention behind an assertion: often, not much. But this is simply a knowledge issue – we cannot know what the intention of a certain person’s assertion is unless they, without lying, tell us. This might be the biggest problem with ascribing the Post-ironic label – telling somebody what their intention is.
To keep up appearances and fully embody the act of Post-irony, the true Post-ironist will oftentimes assert the opposite intention of what seemed to be presented. It is fashionable for the Post-ironist to say they are sincere when it seems they are not, and vice versa, leaving the audience as confused as they were before the question was lodged.
Post-irony is the glorification of “character”. What the Post-ironic eye appreciates is the unity, the force of the person. The Post-ironic scene is ripe with self-mythologizing and persona building, the ego and the id blurring and merging in undetectable ways.
The Post-ironist offers for art (and life) a supplementary set of standards that often turns its back on any value axis. He believes himself to hold neither moral nor aesthetic values, an enlightened value nihilist; this is the moral imperative of Post-irony (they adore internal inconsistencies).
Post-irony is a solvent of morality. It neutralizes moral indignation and sponsors playfulness because we don’t know what the hell is going on half the time.
The whole point of Post-irony is to dethrone the serious. Post-irony is playful, antiserious. More precisely, Post-irony involves a new, more complex relation to “the serious”.
Sontag claims one is drawn to Camp when one realizes that “sincerity” is not enough. For the Post-ironist, sincerity is not only not enough but it is simply not okay – in itself an inescapably, maybe even sincerely, moral sentiment.
Not all liberals are Jews, says Sontag, but Jews have shown a peculiar affinity for liberal and reformist causes. Not all girls and gays like Charli XCX, but her fan base consist to a large degree by girls and gays. So, not all sub art world adjacents have Post-ironic taste, but sub art world adjacents by and large constitute the vanguard – and the most articulate audience – of Post-irony.
Camp, Sontag writes, is generous – it wants to enjoy. Post-irony, by contrast, tends to cater to a rather slim audience consisting of the ones “in the know” and those who understand the often reference-laden content. But it is hedonistic.
Post-ironists are often perpetrators of the tyranny of cringe. An assertion that is either clearly ironic or sincere is often considered cringe. Think sincere political activism or ironic millennial minion memes. TW, sincerity: The only way to avoid being cringe in certain scenes is to be Post-ironic.
To question the Post-ironist and ask for clarification is also to reveal that you are not “in on the joke”. By some of its proponents you are immediately deemed antisocial and shunned, and can expect to receive a slew of personal attacks – but perhaps they’re just a joke.
This is one of the reasons that people have ceased to question the Red Scare girls (although this seems to slowly be coming back in vogue). The Post-ironist defaults into a very comfortable position as a result, protected by layers upon layers of meta so that nobody questions them. If they are criticized, they can easily deflect with additional calculated ambiguity. This can either be bad, or not matter, depending on whether the person is utilizing the device in a political or aesthetic way.
What bothers the Post-ironist more than anything is to be labeled a Post-ironist. Labels, like definitions, uproot ambiguity – the Post-ironist’s instrumental tool without which the act falters on itself. Sontag touches on this in Notes on Camp – as with Camp, to talk about Post-irony is to betray it for somebody who truly wants to embrace it and live by it. Defining the term and ascribing it to somebody is therefore the strongest weapon against its problematic usages – the Post-ironist has no choice but to respond in vague ways devoid of any actual argument, since commenting on the subject matter in any real, earnest, and clear way would crumble the facade.
Post-irony is in no way inherently bad or good.
Why does somebody choose to be a Post-ironist? Because they want to utilize a simple device that makes for playful, fun literature and art. Because they’re not quite sure where they stand and want to avoid being questioned in a way that would demand that they figure it out. Because they know where they stand, and they want to spread a message but avoid taking responsibility for it.
I reserve the right to assert that intention doesn’t matter when assessing the literary quality of a work and that it is an aesthetic crime to ascribe beliefs expressed in a work of fiction or poetry to the writer.
I reserve the right to assert that intention means everything.
I reserve the right to change my mind on the matter and any definitions put forth herein.
I reserve the right to be internally inconsistent.
I reserve the right to love Post-irony.
I reserve the right to hate it.
I reserve the right to define Post-irony and to “contradict” in terms.
I reserve the right to employ the device in literary endeavors.
I reserve the right to assert that this whole piece was ironic.