A Genealogy for Post-Truth Democracies: Philosophy, Affects, Technology

Abstract

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.

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.