propose this motivation in lieu of the often cited ironic “detachment.”Shaw’s case demonstrates the insufficiency of detachment as a descriptionof an ironic point of view. Yes, Shaw himself emphasized that, as anIrishman, he had a detached perspective on the conflict. But, in reality,his attitude toward the war was anything but detached. His attempts toinfluence British war policy were one of the most passionate, challengingand frustrating undertakings of Shaw’s life. Passionate irony might beparticular to Shaw or Swift or Voltaire or Shakespeare or Baudelaire, butthe demands of ironic perception imply otherwise. The rubbing togetherof perspectives that occurs in irony—as well as the knowledge about thesituation that is required—indicate a form of complex engagement, notdetachment. In its more defensive functions, irony may make the speakerappear aloof, but a truly detached stance should lead to withdrawal fromthe situation (literally “detaching”), not ironic engagement.Shaw might have better described his Irish perspective asdistinctive.His point of view was distinct enough to juxtapose with prevailing opinion.He was also motivated to make that juxtaposition. Hewantedto redefinesocial and conceptual boundaries—the lines between us and them and thelines between is and is not.Finally, the ironist has to have an ironic sensibility—an awareness thatthere might be an ironic way to see the situation. Such an awareness prob-ably develops along multiple dimensions. Certain individuals, like Shaw,are known for their sense or irony. Shaw’s case tends to support the viewthat childhood experiences contribute to ironic sensibility. He rememberedlearning his particular humor when he was very young, from his father(Shaw, 1949). Shaw was also influenced as a child by his “Rabelaisian” un-cle Walter and his mother’s strongly non-conformist attitudes (Shaw, 1949;Holroyd, 1988). Overlapping the story of the individual’s development arecultural dimensions. Remember that Lucariello (1994) concluded from herresearch that various forms of irony are culturally recognized. Therefore,most people within a given culture should have some ability to recognizeirony. In addition, certain cultures seem to emphasize irony more than oth-ers. For example, the Irish are known for their extensive use of irony. Thiscultural influence probably helped make Shaw’s ironic sensibility particu-larly keen, as it probably did that of his fellow countrymen, such as Swiftand Wilde.Withsophistication,motivationandsensibility,ironycan“happen”forthe individual. The perceptual dynamic can then continue as the observerre-presents the situation with an ironic “wink.” The ironist may therebystimulate the ironic perception of others. Aha! They see the irony as well.Or . . . they do not “get it,” or they see irony, but not the irony that theinitial observer intended (Hutcheon, 1994). In other words, the audience’s

34MICHAEL HANCHETT HANSONknowledge, motivation and sensibility have to align to some degree withthose of the ironist to facilitate further irony.Such alignments, or misalignments, can vary widely. As a result, ironicperceptions from a given situation can take on multiple lives—in differentvariations with different audiences. Furthermore, as we will see in Shaw’sthinking, one ironic perception can lead to others within a single observer’sthought. Thus, the ironic dynamic occurs both within thought and withingroups, cognitively and socially.If we could take a minds-eye snap-shot of irony when it “happens,”we would see the ironic structure of meaning described earlier. Beyondthat basic structure, the particularities of any given irony would corre-spond to an entry on one of the many typologies that the long tradition ofstructural analysis has produced (e.g., Muecke, 1969; Booth, 1974; Wilde,1981; Lucariello, 1994). The ironies in our minds-eye photos might includeSocratic Irony, ing ́enue irony (emperor’s new clothes), ironic dilemmas,sharp aesthetic juxtapositions, role-reversals, Catch-22s, stable or unstableirony, premodern, modern or postmodern irony . . .All irony involves both structure and dynamic. Which aspect is mostapparent depends in part on whether we are looking at overt or covertirony. As I will describe, the dynamic aspects of ironic perception becomeparticularly illuminating at the covert end of the irony spectrum. The iden-tification of ironic structures is easiest at the overt end, where the “wink” ishard to miss. The conventional markers of overt verbal irony and the struc-tures of explicit descriptions of ironic situations allow strong argumentsfor both ironic intention and interpretation. We can follow the clues in thetext, verify the structures and, thereby, identify the irony. Our examinationof Shaw’s thinking about the war begins with his extensive overt irony. Buteven that task is not easy.