I suspect that the tension-relief of sarcasm used as a joke is mostly in the reassurance that other people ‘get it’, implying that they’re group members with whom one can be relaxed. (The sarcasm doesn’t even have to be about the unpleasant thing for it to work, though if it is, you get the added bonus of having your annoyance at the thing confirmed as understandable.)
If you mean “Isn’t this rain wonderful” is a way of commiserating about the annoyance of bad weather, I think you’re right. I’m not sure what you mean about the sarcasm being about something else. How would that give you reassurance that other people ‘get it’? Get what, if not getting your annoyance confirmed?
It can also involve putting the target in a catch-22 situation, where they have to either ignore the sarcasm and let the sarcasm-user treat them as out-group, or acknowledge the sarcasm and acknowledge that they did, or had a hand in, something wrong.
I’m not really understanding. If I say “Isn’t this traffic wonderful,” and someone says “you know, I actually kinda like traffic because it gives me a chance to listen to a book on tape, or talk to a friend, or listen to music,” I might agree or disagree, but I don’t see how that’s being out-group. I’m not sure what you mean about acknowledging that they did something wrong: could you elaborate?
If you mean “Isn’t this rain wonderful” is a way of commiserating about the annoyance of bad weather, I think you’re right. I’m not sure what you mean about the sarcasm being about something else. How would that give you reassurance that other people ‘get it’? Get what, if not getting your annoyance confirmed?
What I meant was, if you’re annoyed about one thing, you can be jokingly sarcastic about something else entirely and still get part of the benefit that you’d get from being sarcastic about the thing that annoys you: You get the reassurance that you’re interacting with fellow group members. It would be odd to do this about something as un-controversial as rain, but you might see it when the source of annoyance is something that there’s not such a clear consensus on.
I’m not really understanding. If I say “Isn’t this traffic wonderful,” and someone says “you know, I actually kinda like traffic because it gives me a chance to listen to a book on tape, or talk to a friend, or listen to music,” I might agree or disagree, but I don’t see how that’s being out-group. I’m not sure what you mean about acknowledging that they did something wrong: could you elaborate?
Saying “you know, I actually kind of like traffic” contains an implicit acknowledgment that you were being sarcastic and don’t—it’s phrased as a polite disagreement, which requires that the person sees something to disagree with. So it’s not a signifier of out-group-ness; it’s a signifier of a group member who’s aware of the norm and happens to disagree with it. (I’d also expect this only among people who are reasonably close friends; expressing disagreement in response to sarcasm is very nearly countersignaling.)
I was thinking of a situation more like one might encounter when dealing with an employee tasked with enforcing a particularly obnoxious policy of the company that they work for, in a situation where they’re obligated to be polite to keep their job, meaning that they can’t easily use any of those other options I mentioned. If you make a sarcastic comment about the policy, they basically have a choice between ignoring the sarcasm and coming across as dense, or acknowledging the sarcasm and admitting that the policy they’re enforcing is obnoxious, which implies (though not especially strongly; this particular example gives them some extenuating circumstances) that they’re wrong to enforce it. Either way, you get to feel superior to them.
If you mean “Isn’t this rain wonderful” is a way of commiserating about the annoyance of bad weather, I think you’re right. I’m not sure what you mean about the sarcasm being about something else. How would that give you reassurance that other people ‘get it’? Get what, if not getting your annoyance confirmed?
I’m not really understanding. If I say “Isn’t this traffic wonderful,” and someone says “you know, I actually kinda like traffic because it gives me a chance to listen to a book on tape, or talk to a friend, or listen to music,” I might agree or disagree, but I don’t see how that’s being out-group. I’m not sure what you mean about acknowledging that they did something wrong: could you elaborate?
What I meant was, if you’re annoyed about one thing, you can be jokingly sarcastic about something else entirely and still get part of the benefit that you’d get from being sarcastic about the thing that annoys you: You get the reassurance that you’re interacting with fellow group members. It would be odd to do this about something as un-controversial as rain, but you might see it when the source of annoyance is something that there’s not such a clear consensus on.
Saying “you know, I actually kind of like traffic” contains an implicit acknowledgment that you were being sarcastic and don’t—it’s phrased as a polite disagreement, which requires that the person sees something to disagree with. So it’s not a signifier of out-group-ness; it’s a signifier of a group member who’s aware of the norm and happens to disagree with it. (I’d also expect this only among people who are reasonably close friends; expressing disagreement in response to sarcasm is very nearly countersignaling.)
I was thinking of a situation more like one might encounter when dealing with an employee tasked with enforcing a particularly obnoxious policy of the company that they work for, in a situation where they’re obligated to be polite to keep their job, meaning that they can’t easily use any of those other options I mentioned. If you make a sarcastic comment about the policy, they basically have a choice between ignoring the sarcasm and coming across as dense, or acknowledging the sarcasm and admitting that the policy they’re enforcing is obnoxious, which implies (though not especially strongly; this particular example gives them some extenuating circumstances) that they’re wrong to enforce it. Either way, you get to feel superior to them.