Intent is essential in any form of writing, as it guides the writer’s approach to achieve the purpose behind their work. Generally, intent is clear to the reader, allowing the message to be conveyed directly and understandably.
However, in satirical writing, intent can be elusive, as the satirist often expresses one idea while implying its opposite, or exaggerates descriptions to use as a shock tactic to provoke change in the reader.
The role of intent in satirical writing is therefore vital and influential. Abbas Mahmoud Al-Aqqad[1] found a book that encapsulates the sources of emotions intertwined with arts and literature, such as the senses of beauty, grandeur, and humor. The book explains types of satire based on intent: some satirists seem to explore human flaws with ease, as if accepting and expecting their existence, while others do so reluctantly, like a father who exaggerates his son’s flaws with the hope that he may prove him wrong.[2]

Insult for Reform

French philosopher Henri Bergson suggests that the intent behind satire is insult as a means of reform, stating that even the pleasure derived from laughter in theater isn’t pure joy. He means that laughter is not a purely artistic delight with no purpose but rather carries a subtle intention of insult for the sake of correction.[3]

Semantic and Pragmatic Components

Researcher Kerbrat Arecchioni[4] examined satire as a metaphor that combines semantic and pragmatic properties. She noted that satire, semantically, employs a structure of inverted meaning, where there’s a contrasting and paradoxical relationship between the apparent literal meaning and the implied, hidden meaning.
This involves focusing on the notion of contradiction between an obvious, clear meaning and an obscure, implied one, relying on an antiphonal structure as its central framework.[5]
Yet, through her examination of language in journalistic or ordinary discourse, Arecchioni observed that identifying the exact nature of oppositional relationships presents challenges for analysts. She found that while most satirical discourse didn’t rely on semantic opposition, some only employed hyperbole or litotes without necessarily establishing semantic distance.[6]
Thus, the pragmatic component, which entails intentionality, must be considered. Arecchioni emphasizes that pragmatic value often dominates over semantic value, stating that “the pragmatic value of a sequence often makes us perceive it as satirical, suggesting that satire entails ridicule more than it does mere contradiction.”[7]

Arecchioni identifies two types of context that can help the reader decode satirical messages:

1. Linguistic Context: Through which the form of inverted meaning is determined.
2. Extra-Linguistic Context: Consisting of two elements:
o Contradiction between expressed intent and reality: For example, the phrase “What beautiful weather!” can be interpreted as sarcastic if the weather is actually poor, leading the reader to infer sarcasm.
o Contradiction between expressed intent and what is known about the speaker: This includes personal traits, ideology, psychological characteristics, and intellectual competence.[8]
Hence, various approaches are necessary to grasp the secondary meaning in satirical messages, which is more frequent and accessible.[9]

Feigned Ignorance

The satirist often minimizes reality or diminishes its importance, concealing knowledge by feigning ignorance. This technique, called “Socratic irony,” involves pretending humility, fabricated ignorance, and questioning—reflecting the satirist’s stance. Here, the intent is to encourage the reader to seek and deduce the truth independently, providing an educational goal but leading the reader through a challenging journey. For instance, when Socrates writes satirically, his intention is to dismantle fixed beliefs through successive questioning, which may unsettle the reader, ultimately encouraging them to confront logical fallacies.[10]

Stylistic Refinement

Some writers regard satire as a stylistic enhancement and a rhetorical tool, humanizing it and making it widely accessible. Quintilian[11] considered satire a branch of rhetoric, viewing it as a humorous style belonging to jest rather than serious thought. This opened the doors of literature to satire as a full-fledged genre.[12] Similarly, literary theorist and philosopher Kenneth Burke listed satire among the four major tropes: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony.[13]

Mere Amusement

Others view humor as closely tied to sudden relaxation, transitioning from seriousness to lightheartedness.[14] In this case, humor may veer from constructive satire, which builds thought and contributes to societal advancement.
________________________________________
References:
[1] Egyptian writer, thinker, journalist, and poet.
[2] Abbas Mahmoud Al-Aqqad, Jouha the Laughing and Laughable (Cairo: Dar Al-Nahda, March 1997), p. 29.
[3] Henri Bergson, Laughter, trans. Sami Al-Droubi and Abdullah Al-Daem, p. 107.
[4] Media researcher.
[5] Poetics of Arabic Documentary Narrative – University thesis – Chapter 3.
[6] Robert Escarpit, Humor, trans. Huda Ali Jamal, p. 12.
[7] Poetics of Arabic Documentary Narrative.
[8] Samira Al-Kanoushi, The Rhetoric of Satire in Moroccan Popular Proverbs.
[9] Poetics of Arabic Documentary Narrative.
[10] Mohammed Azbagh: Satire in Modern Arab Theater, p. 185.
[11] Philosopher, novelist, playwright, literary critic, Nobel Prize laureate in 1964.
[12] Robert Escarpit, Humor, p. 106.
[13] Raman Selden, Contemporary Literary Theory, trans. Jaber Asfour, Cairo: Dar Al-Fikr, first ed., 1991, p. 159.
[14] Zakaria Ibrahim, The Psychology of Humor and Laughter, p. 110.

Dr. Salam Najm Al-Din Al-Sharabi

View Profile