No Tone Unburned

Thorough-irony versus rigid and ironic-literalism
in debate

After writing my previous mental health article, I remembered that I was going to write something about the vital element of irony in debate, and about being thorough, penetrative, and leaving no stone unturned. This important element of intelligent irony in debate, is about thoroughly challenging the real validity of an argument or agenda by questioning others, seeking a new synthesis or alternatives of opposing views, but not necessarily or entirely rejecting what is being challenged or questioned.

It is a debating style that can be misunderstood as to its functions and benefits, or it is unrealised on a group level, and carried over into passivity, disorganised chaos, or over-literal interpretations. This is what I call literalism in debate.

Without intelligent and creative irony in debate, there can’t be any solid, dynamic, or constructive common ground, because we can’t identify or weigh up all aspects of the opposing issues. Intelligent irony also guards against being naive and gullible towards posed agendas and statements, and safeguards against ourselves being literalist and thinking that we are always right. This is also what it is genuinely and positively ironic, and irony is such an important aspect of debate, because it allows us to explore all areas and stones unturned, uncover hidden or suppressed areas or dilemmas, to create a degree of thoroughness, and to also question ourselves as part of the self-thinking process.

A more rigid or narrow approach to debate that polarises issues and individuals, is what often leads to literalism - a view that everything has to be literally interpreted as merely an opposing factor, or stated and perceived in terms of either-or, instead of either-or-or-or terms. In this respect, you could also say that literalism is a black and white way of thinking, and a conservative or reactionary response, although any dogma can fall prey to it. Irony is dynamic, and I would argue it is the essence of debate, whilst literalism is polarising, narrow, and static, and doesn’t progress or shift much from the agenda-setters.

Some individuals in the psychiatric and medical profession use irony as a one-sided weapon to suppress rational, trans-rational, creative, and shared dialogue, because they want others to think that only they are right. This is another form of literalism, and it is a misuse of irony in dialogue or debate, which can only then lead to conflict, repression, ignorance, or to a kind of neutralism in order to evade or counter-pose it.

This form of ironic-literalism is often used to intimidate, provoke, or catch people out, but if we can point out or identify this misuse of irony in questioning and debate, then we can protest that it is an unsatisfactory or corrupt method, play those who use it at their own game (leaving no tone unburned), apply an appropriate use of ironic dialogue and debate, or go elsewhere for what we need or want.