The question obviously had its origins at last Thursday's White House coronavirus press briefing. Those original questions or assertions, whatever they were, were complicated, however, by the comments on Friday when the President claimed that they were sarcasm. In short, what he had said the day before regarding the use of UV light and disinfectants for the treatment of coronavirus were now he claimed, sarcasm.
So forget the original question of whether he was advocating drinking bleach or Lysol. Now we have to wonder whether the claim of sarcasm is plausible? Was the President in fact being sarcastic when he suggested the following:
"Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light ... and then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re gonna test that,” Trump said, addressing Bryan. “And then I see disinfectant, where it knocks it [coronavirus] out in a minute — one minute — and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because, you see, it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So, that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me."I don't think he was being sarcastic. But the question becomes: How did I arrive there? Why do I assert that the President was not being sarcastic last Thursday when he suggested the above. In short, we depart the political theater of the coronavirus press briefings and explore here what is required for something to be sarcastic. Basically, I am asking how sarcasm works?
Truth Conditions, Dictionaries, and Context. . .
Now for myself, a student of analytic philosophy and specifically philosophy of language back in the 90s, this brings up memories of "truth conditions". In semantics or pragmatics a "truth condition" is the condition under which a sentence is true (courtesy of Wikipedia). Such things are or were applied in a semantic theory of truth, which attempts a correspondence between meaning, language, and truth.
Now for our purposes here, we need not dig into such semantic theories of truth. I hope. Such is just beyond the scope of this essay. And I have not kept current on such topics. But my feint memories of "truth conditions" might just be adequate to arrive at a working theory of sarcasm. So here it goes.
For a sarcastic remark to work simply requires that it be obviously false. That is to say that its "truth condition" must be obviously false. You cannot, if my theory is correct, if it is true, utter a sarcastic assertion or statement that is true. For sarcasm to work requires that the claim be false.
But we have gotten ahead of ourselves. Before we go any further let's explore the definition of sarcasm. A quick look in Dictionary.com tells us that it is a noun and involves harsh or bitter derision or irony. It can also be a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark. It insults and can involve irony. Wikipedia points out that it is "most noticeable in spoken word, sarcasm is mainly distinguished by the inflection with which it is spoken[5] and is largely context-dependent."
I question the Dictionary.com offering that sarcasm can involve only harsh or bitter derision. To call someone stupid, to insult someone is not to be sarcastic. Sarcasm does insult and can be harsh, but it is more than either of those. Rather the sarcastic phrase, the sarcastic assertion, requires irony and as Wikipedia points out a certain tone or inflection. It is, Wikipedia says largely context-dependent. What I want to suggest is that the element of irony that Dictionary.com points to, is what I describe as the "obviously false" truth condition. Further, I want to merge this irony, this obviously false claim and put it within a certain context, a certain history. The false claim must context-dependent to be sarcasm.
The tale of Mr Clean and the Timekeeper
An example may help. Imagine a business office. One of the workers in this office is always late. Whether it be an early morning meeting, a client call or a lunch and learn event - he is late. Another of his co-workers is simply not the neatest of folks. Whether it is his desk, or his white shirt after lunch, or the amount of clutter in the back seat of his car. So one is late and the other is just a mess.
Now this office is also known among the network of various branches and offices it is a part of as the most sarcastic group. So with that our one coworker is known as the Timekeeper, because of his issues with time, and the other is known as Mr. Clean. Both names are courtesy of the sarcastic team that work with Mr Clean and the Timekeeper. Each has taken some verbal abuse in this vein regarding their habits and practices.
Two things can be gleamed regarding sarcasm from this tale, embracing the idea of truth conditions and context. We know that the Timekeeper is no timekeeper and that Mr Clean is not so clean. The assertion that the one is timely is false, and likewise the other being clean is also false. Likewise, their nicknames are only queerly or ironically appropriate. And we accept this because we are aware of an office staff that has embraced or given each their respective nickname and routinely does such. That is the context of these sarcastic assertions or in this case their respective nick-names.
Further, you see the other offices engage this sarcastic bunch in a certain fashion. You routinely witness people from other offices ask this office,"You are you serious? Right? You are not being sarcastic here?" The office that Mr Clean and the Timekeeper originate from are simply known for their sarcasm. Others know to confirm and qualify what is in fact the case.
So for sarcasm to be understood, requires that the person listening have some history, some prior experience with the speaker. They know that the person uttering this claim routinely utters such and they know that what is being uttered is not only not true but most likely the opposite of what he or she asserts. If they did not have this knowledge, then the speaker's assertion will simply be seen at some point as simply false, and not helpful to business or anything else.
Imagine a new employee arrives and is told that the Timekeeper would be on time at his client's meeting. Of course the Timekeeper is late, and the new employee has to wonder what happened. He did not know the history of the Timekeeper and his coworkers. It is all driven by the context of the office - it is context dependent.
The new employee who was not aware of that office's embrace of sarcasm brings us to one last point: the difference between sarcasm and lying. If no one informed this new hire of that office's practices, it could be costly. It could lead to embarrassment, or cost a deal. At the end of the event the newcomer could claim he was lied to. He was told that just the opposite would play out. For sarcasm to work requires ironically just the opposite. Again, it needs context and history, understanding, even if it requires that the speaker unveil the false statement, the sarcasm.
The only way one can routinely mix such obviously false statements into a business practice or any social interaction is for there to be some history between the speakers or interlocutors. Again, sarcasm entails obviously false statements uttered by a person who routinely utters such. And he or she is engaging an audience, a person, a date, a business partner, who knows that he or she does such. And all of that is sarcasm.
Our President, Hyperbole, and Fake News
We go back to our President and his claim that the above statement was in fact sarcasm. It could be. The suggestion that we use UV light or disinfectants to treat coronavirus internally does not sound too serious. So he might very well have been baiting the media and press. And he certainly has a reputation for asserting falsehoods. So he very well could be like the staff of our office above. The problem is how he uses those falsehoods, those truth conditions. He never at the end of a conversation flips them and acknowledges that the truth is in fact the other way. He never warned or hinted of his sarcasm.
He did not at the end of that series of suggestions acknowledge that it is unlikely that such cures will happen. Further, he does not have a history of being sarcastic. At least I do not see it. He does call people names. Typically, though, these names reference an actual personal characteristic, whether that be in regard to one's height, or one's personality, one's policy leanings, or energy levels. Typically he goes for the literal.
Likewise when he is caught lying, his supporters will simply defend him by asserting that he is engaging in hyperbole. He often exaggerates things, whether it be crowd numbers or testing numbers. Exaggeration is typically not seen as sarcasm. It may be close but they are not the same. The truth conditions again illustrate the point. To exaggerate a crowd size is to typically to want people to believe there were more people at an event. To be assert that the crowds were huge and be sarcastic would mean that no one was there.
Another area that could be sarcasm is his application of the term "fake news", which the President routinely applies to CNN and the like. If you consider our above discussion, you quickly realize, however, that he has no interest in this being sarcastically true. If it were the case that he was being sarcastic regarding what he describes as fake news, that would mean he perceives it as true.
Again, for the term or the assertion to work sarcastically requires that it be false. For the term "fake news" to be sarcastic requires that the sentence or attribute "fake news" be false. And this in turn would mean that report or the reporter deemed "fake news" is perceived by the President to be true or truthful. And we know that is not the case. The President does not apply the term "fake news" to reports and reporters that he deems truthful, or accurate. In short, the President is not being sarcastic when he asserts that a report is "fake news".
So in the end, we can agree that though the above series of questions or suggestions could be sarcastic, they probably were not intended as such. They largely are false. Neither UV light nor any type of disinfectant is going to be the cure for COVID 19. What is lacking for the statements to be seen as sarcasm is the history. The President just does not engage in sarcasm. Few Presidents do.
Now this President as we point out does engage in insult, name calling, hyperbole, and making false assertions. He does routinely claim that news reports are fake news. That said, I have not seen any case of sarcasm. And sarcasm, as we have illustrated above, requires some history, some standard usage, a context, and we have none here. In short, the President was not engaging in sarcasm and I am not exaggerating nor being sarcastic.
