Sarcasm: What past, any future?
Donald Zhang Osborn
some of "the best literature of the human race." Yet Thomas Carlyle
(1795-1881) once wrote that "Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the
language of the Devil" (_Sartor Resartus_, Bk ii. Chap 4).* I'm
interested in exploring opinions on the role of sarcasm in the past and
present (including the above statements), as well as what future there
may or may not be for it in this "shrinking" world in which technologies
like the one we're using now permit us to communicate with many more
people much more immediately than ever before. My particular reason for
wanting to go into this is my interest in understanding the import of
the high standards for speech and social interaction that I read in the
Baha'i scriptures. But this is not a topic intended for Baha'is only --
I'd be interested in input from any and all (as indicated by the
cross-posting**).
A dictionary definition of sarcasm concludes this post. I had thought
of including several passages from the Baha'i scriptures (esp. those
from Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha) on words and utterance, and on not
causing pain to others, but then thought that it might be better
to allow those who wish to bring up quotes they feel are relevant from
Baha'i writings (search at http://sunsite.unc.edu/Bahai/TrueSeeker/ ) or
other scriptures, philosophy, commentary on literature, etc.
Thanks in advance for any input (other than the inevitable flame...)!
DZO
From WWWesbster Dictionary:
Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin
sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to
tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh;
probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or
give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter,
caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an
individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to
indulge in sarcasm>
synonym see WIT
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
* Many thanks to Keith Clark of South Australia for his help with this
reference.
** Also submitted to the moderated ng, news:soc.religion.bahai
JUST AN H
serious discussion or in personal confrontations.
Steve Pritchard
Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message
<35D0B5...@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>...
>A few months ago, someone on Usenet opined that sarcasm was
important to
>some of "the best literature of the human race." Yet Thomas Carlyle
>(1795-1881) once wrote that "Sarcasm I now see to be, in general,
the
I've never trusted anyne that does not like sarcasm in some form or
other. All the "lowest for of wit" stuff is generally spouted by
people who;
a) Don't understand sarcasm
b) Have tried to use it but end up sounding hurtful and stupid, or
c) Tend to lack anything resembling a sense of humour when it comes
to something not written by a team of writers and featuring a host of
"beautiful people" and which appears on your TV in weekly
installments.
>From WWWesbster Dictionary:
>Main Entry: sar·casm
>Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
>Function: noun
>Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin
>sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to
>tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh;
>probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
>Date: 1550
>1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut
or
>give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
"to cut or give pain"? I'd disagree with that version of events.
Often sarcasm is best used to burst the bubble of pomposity that some
people have. Other times it can be used to belittle an outrageous
opinion without entering into a protracted argument. Usually though
good sarcasm is a quick retort aimed at an "opponent" in order to
raise a laugh or to win over to your side those that may be listening
.
>2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter,
>caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against
an
>individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to
>indulge in sarcasm>
A much more preferable definition for me, particularly the part about
it being ironic.
(Steve, who once almost fell off his chair when told in this Ng that
he didn't understand sarcasm despite it being the founding stone of
his conversational ability.)
CaseyKCKC
>I've never trusted anyne that does not like sarcasm in some form or
>other. All the "lowest for of wit" stuff is generally spouted by
>people who;
>a) Don't understand sarcasm
>b) Have tried to use it but end up sounding hurtful and stupid, or
>c) Tend to lack anything resembling a sense of humour when it comes
>to something not written by a team of writers and featuring a host of
>"beautiful people" and which appears on your TV in weekly
>installments.
So true! But those who truly _hate_ sarcasm (or any form of irony or, for that
matter, any humor that questions the status quo) are those who are dimly aware
that their own pompous self-righteousness has made them the targets of sarcasm.
What I appreciate most about sarcasm is that it often provides an outlet for
the powerless. (I don't think I could have survived my adolescence without it.)
Karen
Donald Zhang Osborn
one principal question is whether one can say that there are different
kinds (identifiable, definable) of sarcasm ... and what these would be.
Steve Pritchard wrote:
>Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message
><35D0B5...@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>...
>>A few months ago, someone on Usenet opined that sarcasm was
> important to
>>some of "the best literature of the human race." Yet Thomas Carlyle
>>(1795-1881) once wrote that "Sarcasm I now see to be, in general,
> the
>>language of the Devil" (_Sartor Resartus_, Bk ii. Chap 4).*
>
>I've never trusted anyne that does not like sarcasm in some form or
>other. All the "lowest for of wit" stuff is generally spouted by
>people who;
>a) Don't understand sarcasm
I had hoped this thread might contribute to more understanding -- not
that necessarily would lead to liking it or not.
>b) Have tried to use it but end up sounding hurtful and stupid, or
If one uses sarcasm against another individual, does it not necessarily
involve a certain amount of sting? Does it matter if the clumsy
bludgeon where the skilled might just jab?
>c) Tend to lack anything resembling a sense of humour when it comes
>to something not written by a team of writers and featuring a host of
>"beautiful people" and which appears on your TV in weekly
>installments.
IMHO, it might also be possible to understand sarcasm and not like it.
>>From WWWesbster Dictionary:
>>Main Entry: sar·casm
>>Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
>>Function: noun
>>Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin
>>sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to
>>tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh;
>>probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
>>Date: 1550
>>1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut
> or
>>give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
>
>"to cut or give pain"? I'd disagree with that version of events.
>Often sarcasm is best used to burst the bubble of pomposity that some
>people have. Other times it can be used to belittle an outrageous
>opinion without entering into a protracted argument. Usually though
>good sarcasm is a quick retort aimed at an "opponent" in order to
>raise a laugh or to win over to your side those that may be listening
>.
I've heard your description before, but have also seen sarcasm used
apparently quite intentionally to cause pain ("bad sarcasm"?).
Of course no one likes pomposity and the impulse to bring them to some
sort of humility (so as not to say humiliate) is easily understandable.
I'm interested here at the link between use of sarcasm in this way and
the traditional one side vs. another kind of division on issues. Where
the style of problem solving is confrontational, sarcasm (among other
things) may indeed make points and gain support. In a more
consultational style (to the extent one can create & maintain it),
sarcasm may be more likely to reduce the level of trust and cooperation
necessary to maintain and enhance unity in decisionmaking...
>>2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter,
>>caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against
> an
>>individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to
>>indulge in sarcasm>
>
>A much more preferable definition for me, particularly the part about
>it being ironic.
This raises a question of definition. In a parallel thread on this
subject, a researcher on discourse analysis drew a distinction between
irony (saying one thing while meaning another) with sarcasm (a personal
and negative use of irony):
:Sarcasm is a sub-category of "irony"; as such, it is echoic speech used
:for the purpose of rejecting, with scorn and ridicule, the words,
:thoughts, attitudes or character of someone, or some society. The main
:difference between sarcasm and, say, satire, is that satire may be
:directed toward social evils, but sarcasm is always personal. That is,
:it is always directed at belittling and criticising and rejecting an
:individual. That's one of the reasons it hurts so much, and why we are
:so "allergic" to its being used on us.
I'd be interested in more input on this.
DZO
sheepdog
<osbo...@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu> wrote:
> If one uses sarcasm against another individual, does it not necessarily
> involve a certain amount of sting? Does it matter if the clumsy
> bludgeon where the skilled might just jab?
**I took out some boring crapola here to make room for my stuff [better!]
underneath.
> Of course no one likes pomposity and the impulse to bring them to some
> sort of humility (so as not to say humiliate) is easily understandable.
**Had to take out even more crapola, these boys ramble some.
> I'd be interested in more input on this.
>
> DZO
OK, so here's your input, ya pointy-headed pinko:
A REAL MAN don't need no sarcasm, when a knuckle samwitch gets the message
delivered and no room for misunderstandings, if you get my drift.
Watch your six, gomers-- out.
Michael Buskirk
"Buzz Blueball, Fighter Jock"
Nancy B. Wood
accidental, or circumstances dictating events. "Scarcasm" (it's cheap, but
it helps students remember) is personal, yes, but always intentional, too.
And, as my husband the therapist often points out to me, the critical
English teacher: it's also passive/aggressive.
Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <35D4D3...@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>...
>Steve, Thanks for your response. I have a few thoughts below, but
>one principal question is whether one can say that there are different
>kinds (identifiable, definable) of sarcasm ... and what these would be.
>
>If one uses sarcasm against another individual, does it not necessarily
>involve a certain amount of sting? Does it matter if the clumsy
>bludgeon where the skilled might just jab?
>
>Of course no one likes pomposity and the impulse to bring them to some
>sort of humility (so as not to say humiliate) is easily understandable.
>I'm interested here at the link between use of sarcasm in this way and
>the traditional one side vs. another kind of division on issues. Where
>the style of problem solving is confrontational, sarcasm (among other
>things) may indeed make points and gain support. In a more
>consultational style (to the extent one can create & maintain it),
>sarcasm may be more likely to reduce the level of trust and cooperation
>necessary to maintain and enhance unity in decisionmaking...
>This raises a question of definition. In a parallel thread on this
>subject, a researcher on discourse analysis drew a distinction between
>irony (saying one thing while meaning another) with sarcasm (a personal
>and negative use of irony):
>
>:Sarcasm is a sub-category of "irony"; as such, it is echoic speech used
>:for the purpose of rejecting, with scorn and ridicule, the words,
>:thoughts, attitudes or character of someone, or some society. The main
>:difference between sarcasm and, say, satire, is that satire may be
>:directed toward social evils, but sarcasm is always personal. That is,
>:it is always directed at belittling and criticising and rejecting an
>:individual. That's one of the reasons it hurts so much, and why we are
>:so "allergic" to its being used on us.
>
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<nbw...@tez.net> wrote:
>Interesting. I also think of "irony" as being beyond someone's control, even
>accidental, or circumstances dictating events. "Scarcasm" (it's cheap, but
>it helps students remember) is personal, yes, but always intentional, too.
>And, as my husband the therapist often points out to me, the critical
>English teacher: it's also passive/aggressive.
Not at all like "What are *you* staring at?" in fact.
Steve Pritchard
Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message
<35D4D3...@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>...
>Steve, Thanks for your response. I have a few thoughts below, but
>one principal question is whether one can say that there are
different
>kinds (identifiable, definable) of sarcasm ... and what these would
be.
I would say absolutely. Some people can't use it well, and though
they try to extort humour from it, they fail and end up hurting
instead of amusing. One type or different types? Some people
intentionally use sarcasm as an attacking force - that for me
suggests there are different types of sarcasm more than anything
else.
>I had hoped this thread might contribute to more understanding --
not
>that necessarily would lead to liking it or not.
Let's hope it might.
>>b) Have tried to use it but end up sounding hurtful and stupid, or
>
>If one uses sarcasm against another individual, does it not
necessarily
>involve a certain amount of sting? Does it matter if the clumsy
>bludgeon where the skilled might just jab?
That can very much depend upon the "target". I choose mine carefully,
ensuring that anyone I make suck a comment towards will be able to
smile along with me. Laughing with people, not at them, makes sarcasm
less offensive.
>>c) Tend to lack anything resembling a sense of humour when it comes
>>to something not written by a team of writers and featuring a host
of
>>"beautiful people" and which appears on your TV in weekly
>>installments.
>
>IMHO, it might also be possible to understand sarcasm and not like
it.
Agreed, but I wasn't trying to be too serious there.
>>"to cut or give pain"? I'd disagree with that version of events.
>>Often sarcasm is best used to burst the bubble of pomposity that
some
>>people have. Other times it can be used to belittle an outrageous
>>opinion without entering into a protracted argument. Usually though
>>good sarcasm is a quick retort aimed at an "opponent" in order to
>>raise a laugh or to win over to your side those that may be
listening
>
>I've heard your description before, but have also seen sarcasm used
>apparently quite intentionally to cause pain ("bad sarcasm"?).
I'd class it as "nasty sarcasm". If it's used to inflict pain
intentionally and it does just that, it isn't bad but effective.
Pleasant? Nope.
>Of course no one likes pomposity and the impulse to bring them to
some
>sort of humility (so as not to say humiliate) is easily
understandable.
>I'm interested here at the link between use of sarcasm in this way
and
>the traditional one side vs. another kind of division on issues.
Where
>the style of problem solving is confrontational, sarcasm (among
other
>things) may indeed make points and gain support. In a more
>consultational style (to the extent one can create & maintain it),
>sarcasm may be more likely to reduce the level of trust and
cooperation
>necessary to maintain and enhance unity in decisionmaking...
I think that is a very fair comment. Sarcasm never solves arguments,
but it can end them.
>>A much more preferable definition for me, particularly the part
about
>>it being ironic.
>
>This raises a question of definition. In a parallel thread on this
>subject, a researcher on discourse analysis drew a distinction
between
>irony (saying one thing while meaning another) with sarcasm (a
personal
>and negative use of irony):
>
>:Sarcasm is a sub-category of "irony"; as such, it is echoic speech
used
>:for the purpose of rejecting, with scorn and ridicule, the words,
>:thoughts, attitudes or character of someone, or some society. The
main
>:difference between sarcasm and, say, satire, is that satire may be
>:directed toward social evils, but sarcasm is always personal. That
is,
>:it is always directed at belittling and criticising and rejecting
an
>:individual. That's one of the reasons it hurts so much, and why we
are
>:so "allergic" to its being used on us.
I wouldn't say sarcasm is *always* personal. I can be sarcastic about
just about anything if I wish. Let's say I am fed up with public
transport, or queues, or the government - whatever it may be, I'm
sure I can summon a sarcastic remark without even intentionally
trying to. of course, this is much more easily done in conversation
than with the written word (for me at least).
Bill McCray
>A REAL MAN don't need no sarcasm, when a knuckle samwitch gets the message
>delivered and no room for misunderstandings, if you get my drift.
>
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY