pain’?” (p. 79). Thus, we hear 21st-century echoes of H. G. Wells’ (1914)condemnation of “those perpetual children who live in a dream world ofmake-believe . . . It is almost as if there was no pain in all the world” (p. 6).In spite of the similarities in these critiques, our world differs signifi-cantly from Wells’ world. At the beginning of the 21st century, global eco-nomics, communication and culture are vastly more integrated than theywere in 1914. Indeed, constant and unavoidable encounters with differentperspectives may contribute to our emphasis on irony. Still, like Shaw’sreaders in 1914, when we feel threatened, we are understandably temptedto demonize the enemy, divide the world into “good” and “evil” and throwout the complexity of ironic thought.As previously discussed, another difference between 1914 and todayis our concept of irony. Wells attacked a single man for his views anddid not mention the word “irony”; whereas, Rosenblatt attacked a wholeclass of people, specifically for their emphasis on irony. Earlier, I explainedthat we could look at much of Shaw’s ironic thinking as a combination ofcertain definitions of paradox and wit. I now qualify that statement, forI also believe that our current concept of irony has distinct advantages.Today’s irony goes beyond the endless loop associated with paradox, and,therefore, accommodates solutions more readily. And, although irony mayjuxtapose frivolous with serious perspectives, it does not lean so stronglytoward the frivolous as does wit. Rosenblatt’s critique shows that, today,even the critics of irony take it seriously.In this context, I believe that Shaw’s insights concerning WWI are in-structive for us. Whatever the uncertainties facing our culture now or inthe future, we should appreciate our hard-won and broad concept of irony.That concept provides a lens on a particular way of thinking creatively, oneway of questioning assumptions and searching for new solutions. Further-more, as Shaw’s case demonstrates, irony is not necessarily just a detour,however fruitful, from nonironic thinking. It can also be a driving force inthought with its own “logic,” providing frameworks for exploring ideas.I am not contending that irony is infallible. The ironic point of viewis not necessarily right, and, by definition, cannot be the rule. Nor can wesimply go back to Shaw’s solutions as we face our own conflicts. Irony bytoday’s standards is always specific to context (the element of sophistica-tion) and unexpected (a twist on current event scripts).For those very reasons, it is important to include ironic points of viewin our deliberations, especially when the need for creative solutions isurgent. Twenty-first-century situations like the U.S. led “war” on terror-ism, the vicissitudes of a global economy and the rapid growth of world-wide communication—not to mention the explosion of human populationaccompanied by dramatic demographic shifts—all include unexpected