Comments on: Getting under the Skin http://www.participationliteracy.com/2006/05/19/getting-under-the-skin/ A Research 2.0 Project about Participation in Web 2.0 Environments Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:00:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Peter Giger http://www.participationliteracy.com/2006/05/19/getting-under-the-skin/#comment-39 Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:31:55 +0000 http://www.participationliteracy.com/2006/05/19/getting-under-the-skin/#comment-39 First, I agree that my usage of Irony is un-orthodox. Perhaps I am too bold or something less flattering. My goal was to reconstruct a concept somewhat to get new meanings from it. This is of course extremely difficult. Whether or not it is smart, that depends of the word and the context. I can use two of Donna Haraway's reconstructions as examples. 'Diffraction' is a concept Haraway has lifted out of a natural science-context and reconstructed as a rhetorical trope. This is quite un-problematic because the context has changed. However, when she used the cyborg-figure she did something more complex. The trope contains both the old and Harways added meaning. That is why the figure can be confusing, but in the same time this blurring of the boundaries is very creative. The concept cyborg constantly produce new meanings for me. Thinking of it now, I guess my usage of the concept Irony can be compared to Haraways usage of the cyborg, even though it does not even get close to be as creative and as illustrative. Perhaps the knowledge I try to communicate with the concept would be easier to understand if I had performed a formal reconstruction as well - something like "Ironcy". Then it would be quite clear that the word "Ironcy" was a sibling to "Irony", but not the same concept. What do you think of that? But as I decided to use "Irony", I have to communicate with the concept. Perhaps it would be somewhat enlightening if I illustrated it with the relation to sarcasm, satire, irony and provocation. The way I constructed "Irony", it is a tool without values. The tool is purely linguistic. In this meaning I would say that Jaques Derrida and Donna Haraway use the linguistic function "irony" to produce sarcasm, satire (perhaps not Haraway) and provocation. My reconstruction of "Irony" is a function of the language, which can be used to create rhetorical figures like satire, irony and provocation. It can aslo be used to write love poems or demonstrating power. I hope the concept is i little bit more communicative now. I certainly understand it better myself... Thanks! First, I agree that my usage of Irony is un-orthodox. Perhaps I am too bold or something less flattering. My goal was to reconstruct a concept somewhat to get new meanings from it. This is of course extremely difficult. Whether or not it is smart, that depends of the word and the context. I can use two of Donna Haraway’s reconstructions as examples. ‘Diffraction’ is a concept Haraway has lifted out of a natural science-context and reconstructed as a rhetorical trope. This is quite un-problematic because the context has changed. However, when she used the cyborg-figure she did something more complex. The trope contains both the old and Harways added meaning. That is why the figure can be confusing, but in the same time this blurring of the boundaries is very creative. The concept cyborg constantly produce new meanings for me.

Thinking of it now, I guess my usage of the concept Irony can be compared to Haraways usage of the cyborg, even though it does not even get close to be as creative and as illustrative. Perhaps the knowledge I try to communicate with the concept would be easier to understand if I had performed a formal reconstruction as well - something like “Ironcy”. Then it would be quite clear that the word “Ironcy” was a sibling to “Irony”, but not the same concept. What do you think of that?

But as I decided to use “Irony”, I have to communicate with the concept. Perhaps it would be somewhat enlightening if I illustrated it with the relation to sarcasm, satire, irony and provocation. The way I constructed “Irony”, it is a tool without values. The tool is purely linguistic. In this meaning I would say that Jaques Derrida and Donna Haraway use the linguistic function “irony” to produce sarcasm, satire (perhaps not Haraway) and provocation. My reconstruction of “Irony” is a function of the language, which can be used to create rhetorical figures like satire, irony and provocation. It can aslo be used to write love poems or demonstrating power.

I hope the concept is i little bit more communicative now. I certainly understand it better myself… Thanks!

]]> by: The Opponent http://www.participationliteracy.com/2006/05/19/getting-under-the-skin/#comment-30 Tue, 30 May 2006 21:21:38 +0000 http://www.participationliteracy.com/2006/05/19/getting-under-the-skin/#comment-30 "I could write a longer text about the concept, with examples and stories..." Please, elaborate. It would be very interesting to hear more. Your "many researchers are too much politicians" example, and your modification of Sassure's sign model implies that your usage of "irony" is rather un-orthodox. I would like to understand your usage better. Another interesting issue related to this would be to see how you relate the following words to each other: Sarcasm Satire Irony Provocation “I could write a longer text about the concept, with examples and stories…”

Please, elaborate. It would be very interesting
to hear more. Your “many researchers are too much politicians” example, and your modification of
Sassure’s sign model implies that your usage of
“irony” is rather un-orthodox. I would like to
understand your usage better.

Another interesting issue related to this would be
to see how you relate the following words to each
other:

Sarcasm
Satire
Irony
Provocation

]]> by: Peter Giger http://www.participationliteracy.com/2006/05/19/getting-under-the-skin/#comment-29 Tue, 30 May 2006 05:58:39 +0000 http://www.participationliteracy.com/2006/05/19/getting-under-the-skin/#comment-29 You could say that my usage of the word irony is an interpretation leading to thoughts of the mechanisms behind the usage of the word. Perhaps you also could say it is a widening of its meaning, but first of all it is an interpretation based of experience. With experience I mean literature as Rabelais, Swift and basically most literature, critics as Jaques Derrida and Donna Haraway, encyclodedic definitions, but most of all how language works in real life. This experience is condensed in the image illustrating a modification of Sassure's model of the sign. I could write a longer text about the concept, with examples and stories, but I do not want to give an ultra-condensed definition. You could say that my usage of the word irony is an interpretation leading to thoughts of the mechanisms behind the usage of the word. Perhaps you also could say it is a widening of its meaning, but first of all it is an interpretation based of experience. With experience I mean literature as Rabelais, Swift and basically most literature, critics as Jaques Derrida and Donna Haraway, encyclodedic definitions, but most of all how language works in real life. This experience is condensed in the image illustrating a modification of Sassure’s model of the sign. I could write a longer text about the concept, with examples and stories, but I do not want to give an ultra-condensed definition.

]]> by: The Opponent http://www.participationliteracy.com/2006/05/19/getting-under-the-skin/#comment-24 Sun, 28 May 2006 21:24:46 +0000 http://www.participationliteracy.com/2006/05/19/getting-under-the-skin/#comment-24 You have better define the term "irony". Your usage does not match either the definition of Donna Haraway or that of Merriam-Webster. You have better define the term “irony”. Your
usage does not match either the definition of
Donna Haraway or that of Merriam-Webster.

]]>