Today, a single ironic sentence is enough to trigger an investigation. The case of media theorist Norbert Bolz stands less for judicial arbitrariness than for a cultural symptom: we have lost confidence in our own ability to interpret.
Irony as Risk
Irony relies on shared foundations — knowledge, context, education, and a minimum of intellectual agility. When these foundations erode, irony is misunderstood – or worse, perceived as suspicious. The fact that a media theorist, whose work has always revolved around language and perception, could become the target of an investigation shows how fragile the symbolic space of communication has become. Today, language is no longer seen as a medium of mediation but as potential evidence. The gesture of irony, once regarded as an expression of intellectual sovereignty, has thus turned into a risk.
Mistrust of Irony
Cases like this are no longer exceptions. When satire, art, or literature provoke outrage today, it is rarely because of their content but rather because of the inability to maintain distance. An ironic remark, a double entendre, or a sarcastic punchline is often enough to force apologies, cancel appearances, or remove works from programs. Reactions no longer respond to meaning, but to mood. Thus, the principle of ambivalence — once an expression of intellectual freedom — itself becomes suspect, along with the capacity to endure contradiction.
The Acceleration of Misunderstanding
In social media, misunderstanding is not an accident but part of the system. What was once ironically layered in the analog world becomes digitally cemented in real time. Platforms like X or Instagram generate a structure of permanent immediacy in which every statement merely aims at eliciting a reaction. Interpretation — which requires time — is replaced by emotion. As a result, the criteria of judgment shift: what counts is no longer what was meant, but what could be read under collective affect. Misunderstanding thus becomes a second-order truth — algorithmically amplified, morally charged, and legally exploitable.
From Hermeneutics to Morality
In classical hermeneutics, understanding is conceived as a circular process in which text and context, intention and interpretation mutually influence one another. This movement has come to a standstill in digital discourse. It has been replaced by an immediate morality that no longer reads language but inspects it. Words have become signals of social affiliation, and irony an act of suspicion. Those who play with language are seen as cynical; those who differentiate, as insincere. Thus, the cultural climate is no longer shaped by a desire for understanding but by a need for control.
The Erosion of a Shared Horizon of Meaning
As shared interpretive horizons fade, the space of trust that sustains communication disintegrates. The public sphere increasingly becomes a juxtaposition of moral micro-collectives that understand only their own grammar. Words lose their openness and become doubly charged — semantically and politically. Thus, language turns into a field of latent conflict, where every nuance becomes a statement. The Bolz case is emblematic of this condition: it does not mark the collapse of irony, but the impossibility of applying it. A society that reacts instead of listening has already forfeited the precondition for dialogue.
From Enlightenment to Suspicion
Irony was not always endangered. During the Enlightenment, it was considered a tool of reason because it linked truth with distance and exposed contradictions. In the works of Heine or Karl Kraus, it became a form of critique — both attack and self-examination. Poststructuralism saw irony as a method for revealing power structures and breaking the deceptive clarity of language. Today, however, irony itself is under suspicion because it guarantees no fixed position. What was once a sign of intellectual freedom is now seen as an escape from responsibility — a mirror of an era that can no longer cope with ambiguity.
The Duty of Ambiguity
Perhaps the defining task of our time is to defend ambiguity. Clarity is not a sign of truth, but of fear. A culture that criminalizes irony loses its ability to think in shades — and with it, its intellectual self-respect. Without nuance, there is no freedom of judgment, no genuine communication, and no culture. We must relearn how to endure the ambiguous, the unfinished, and the misunderstood. The question, then, is not what Norbert Bolz meant — but what we no longer wish to understand.
