A Genealogy for Post-Truth Democracies: Philosophy, Affects, Technology
Article Sidebar
470)
Main Article Content
Authors
Abstract
743
How to make sense of post-truth? As the erosion of truth seems to be on the rise in contemporary societies, apparently threatening the deliberative function assigned to their public spheres and the health of democratic systems, it has become a necessity to deal with this controversial phenomenon. This paper provides a genealogy for post-truth, shedding light on its roots. It focus on three different dimensions of “post-truthfulness:” the philosophical dimension, which relates to the long theoretical debate about the possibility of truth, the conclusion of which is largely skeptical about a strong position on universally recognizable truths; the affective dimension, which takes into account the insights provided by contemporary literature on emotions; and the technological dimension, that is, the digital transformation of the public sphere. The convergence of these currents explains the rise of post-truth democracies. However, as the last section tries to demonstrate, a distinction between different types of truth is required, lest post-truth theories end up producing a nostalgia for something that never existed. After all, liberal democracies are themselves skeptical, their relationship with truth being unavoidably complex and ambiguous. Thus, distinguishing between post-truth and post-factualism can be useful for organizing the democratic conversation from a normative and practical standpoint.
Keywords
References
Arendt, H. (1978). The Life of the Mind. San Diego. New York & London: Harvest Book.
Arendt, H. (2006). Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. London: Penguin.
Beckett, Ch. & Deuze, M. (2016). On the Role of Emotion in the Future of Journalism. Social Media + Society, 2(3). https://www.doi.org/10.1177/2056305116662395
Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Coole, D. (2005). Rethinking Agency: A Phenomenological Approach to Embodiment and Agentic Capacities. Political Studies, 53, 124-142. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00520.x
D’Ancona, M. (2017). Post-Truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back. London: Ebury Press.
Dahl, R. (2005). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in the American City. Yale: Yale University Press.
Frankfurt, H. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J. (2011). Ideological Segregation Online and Offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1799-1839. https://www.doi.org/10.3386/w15916.
Greenwald, A. (2002). The Totalitarian Ego Fabrication and Revision of Personal History American Psychologist, 35(7), 603-618. https://www.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.7.603
Greene, J. (2013). Moral Tribes. Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. London: Atlantic Books.
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind. Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. London & New York: Penguin.
Han, B.-C. (2013). Im Schwarm. Ansichten des Digitalen. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz.
Hobbes, T. (1998). On the Citizen, ed. and trans. R. Tuck & M. Silverthorne. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (2000). Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London & New York: Allen Lane.
Kenny, M. (2004). The Politics of Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kolbert, E. (2017). Why Facts Don’t Change Our Mind. The New Yorker, 27th February.
Latour, B. (2004). Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Enquiry, 30(2), 225-248. https://www.doi.org/10.1086/421123
Lippman, W. (2009). Public Opinion. New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers.
Luhmann, N. (1996). Die Realität der Massenmedien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Marcus, G. et al. (2007). The Affect Effect. Dynamics of Emotion in Political Behavior and Cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Neuman, W. R. (2016). The Digital Difference. Media Technology and the Theory of Communication Effects. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.
Pariser, E. (2012). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. London: Penguin.
Popkin, S. (1994). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pörksen, B. (2018). Die grosse Gereiztheit. Wege aus der kollektiven Erregung. Munich: Carl Hansen Verlag.
Reese, S. et al. (2007). Mapping the Blogosphere: Professional and Citizen-based Media in the Global News Arena. Journalism, 8(3), 235-261. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1464884907076459.
Roberts, D. (2017). Donald Trump and the rise of tribal epistemology. Vox, 19th May.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. & Engel, P. (2007). What’s the Use of Truth? New York: Columbia University Press.
Sandvoss, C. (2013). Toward an understanding of political enthusiasm as media fandom: Blogging, fan productivity and affect in American politics. Participations, 10(1), 252-296. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1369148117701754
Sartori, G. (2005). Elementos de teoría política. Madrid: Alianza.
Sauerberg, L. (2009). The Gutenberg Parenthesis: Print, Book and Cognition. Orbis Litterarum, 64(2), 79-80. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0730.2009.00962.x
Simon, H. (1985). Human nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science. The American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293-304.
Sinclair, B. (2012). The Social Citizen. Peer Networks and Political Behavior. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Sunstein, C. (2008). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
The Economist. (2017). The power of groupthink. 1st July.
Thompson, M. (2016). Enough Said: What’s Gone Wrong with the Language of Politics. London: Bodley Head.
Watts, D. & Rotschild, D. (2017). Don’t blame the elections on fake news. Blame it on the media. Columbia Journalism Review, 5th December. https://www.doi.org/101017/CBO9781316493021.005
Webster, J. G. (2014). The Marketplace of Attention. How Audiences Take Shape in a Digital Age. Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.
Welch, S. (2013). Hyperdemocracy. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
Williams, B. (2004). Truth and Truthfulness. An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical Investigations. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wu, T. (2012). The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. London: Atlantic Books.
Zizek, S. (1989). The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso.
Metrics
|
|
Details
Article Details
RIGHTS TRANSFER
By submitting the article for evaluation and subsequent publication in Communication & Society, the AUTHOR exclusively assigns the rights of public communication, reproduction, distribution and sale for commercial exploitation to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, for the maximum legal term in force -the entire life of the author and seventy years after his death or declaration of death-, in any country, and in any of the current and future edition modalities, both in print and electronic versions.
In the event that the article is not accepted for publication , this transfer of rights lapses with the communication of the refusal to the AUTHOR.
The AUTHOR affirms that the article is unpublished, that it has not been sent simultaneously to another publication medium and that the rights have not been transferred exclusively previously. He is responsible to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service for the authorship and originality of his work, as well as for all pecuniary charges that may arise for the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, in favor of third parties due to actions, claims or conflicts arising from the breach of obligations by the AUTHOR.
