Nearly eight years ago, Donald Trump was elected president, and in that same year, Oxford Dictionaries chose ‘post-truth’ as their word of the year, marking the dawn of a new era. Today, terms such as ‘fake news’ and ‘disinformation’ have become firmly ingrained in public discourse. The US appears more divided than it has been since the Civil War, a fact that makes last year’s release of a film by the same name all the more unsettling. As the upcoming elections approach, we will explore various perspectives that shed light on this post-truth era. In this brief article, Sebastiaan provides an overview of the historical threads that we will explore in the coming weeks, helping us understand today’s post-truth politics.
In our age, we experience a severe crisis of truth, as Byung Chul Han argues in his essay on the information age. The problem is not so much that so many people lie, but rather that society hardly seems to care what is true and what is false anymore; we are, in that sense, truly beyond truth. That is, according to Byung Chul Han, every lie presupposes the truth as it works so very hard to hide or twist it; lies can only exist when there is still a truth to lie about. To illustrate his point, he cites the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century and the ‘Ministry of Truth’ from the dystopian novel 1984. The aim of mass propaganda was to create the illusion of what Hitler termed the ‘Big Lie’. However, as the officials in the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's novel understood very well, sustaining such a lie demands relentless and systematic institutional effort, focused on censorship, mass propaganda, rewriting history, and controlling all channels of information.
But that was the past. Today, the real issue, as Han observes, is that we no longer care about truth—the truth no longer appeals to us. As a result, the distinction between truth and lies has become irrelevant. As long as Big Lies exist, so do Big Truths. Yet, both now operate predominantly within a new, very odd context of anomy and anger blended with the typical irony and sarcasm of the digital realm, rather than 20th-century totalitarianism. The lies have largely degenerated into shit, fostering what Cory Doctorow terms the ‘enshittification’ of media, primarily referring to the deterioration of quality with regard to services and content on online platforms but also aptly describing the broader decay of societal discourse. We only have to remember to famous dictum of Steve Bannon: “Flood the zone with shit.”
Many histories of this post-truth society are currently being written. The comedian Stephen Colbert already coined ‘truthiness’ in 2004, which is the belief a statement is true because of a feeling of intuition. However, most often we let this ‘new age’ begin in 2016 after the turmoil around fake news and disinformation with regard to the Brexit and US elections. In that year, the above-mentioned declaration of ‘post-truth’ as the Word of the Year in 2016 by oxford dictionaries, highlights a cultural shift in which emotions and personal beliefs are prioritized over objective facts. This trend, commonly observed in political discourse, suggests that we now live in an age where feelings and personal experiences take precedence over truth. The concept of ‘truthiness’ closely aligns with what philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre termed ‘emotivism,’ an ethical stance where moral judgments are reduced to expressions of personal preference rather than rooted in objective standards or common goods.
As pointed out by many, this crisis surrounding the notion of truth has of course deeper historical roots. According to MacIntrye, one can go back to modernity or to enlightenment to disclose the first sign of this ‘truthiness’ of ‘emotivism’ in moral ethics, but most obvious is the choice for 19th century nihilism, particularly through Nietzsche’s philosophy, when he so decisively challenged the idea of absolute truths. Instead, he prioritized pleasure and pain and a metaphysics of (blind) power as the ultimate forces in reality. Truth was exposed as an effect, a historical product, often used to domesticate the strong wills. Nietzsche predicted that this existential shift would take time to fully manifest. By the end of the 20th century, the institution of science, long regarded as the custodian of truth, was increasingly questioned and, in several instances, exposed. It became clear that science is often biased towards specific worldviews, but also strongly entangled with social and political interests, power dynamics and most importantly, capital. This demystification of science enabled all sorts of interest groups to question the validity of any scientific finding, and research-based policies, they did not like. And if someone doesn’t like something—the principle of truthiness reminds us—they probably deem it untrue.
Today’s post-truth condition is, in many ways, the political ‘inevitability’ of these developments. Postmodernity has become mainstream, permeating not only intellectual discourse but also everyday life. Contemporary media, with its emphasis on sensationalism and emotional appeal, has further accelerated this dynamic. In this regard, social media is preferably seen as an accelerator, exploiting the vulnerabilities of society. Blaming everything on social media would overlook the significance of these historical threats.
In conclusion, we are facing a ‘crisis of truth.’ While we hold on to a general understanding of truth, facts, and objectivity, it is often unclear what we mean by them and how these are valued by society. In a bit of a straightforward manner, we’ve outlined some historical and cultural factors that have contributed to this situation. In the upcoming weeks, we will probe deeper into these themes and highlight their significance for the upcoming US elections.
Sjoerd Bakker will advance the idea that leftist scientists invented the post-truth era. Indeed, progressive scholars in the field of science and technology studies successfully managed to deconstruct the scientific ‘facts’ that underpinned the development, and societal acceptance, of technologies such as nuclear energy and biotechnology. The toolbox they created, exposing how science is affected by ideals and interests, is now used by conservative scientists, journalists, and politicians to, for instance, discredit climate science and to question the efficacy and safety of vaccines. For the original developers of this toolbox, the dilemma is now whether they should use their tools to defend ‘good’ science or continue to remain critical of all science.
Sebastiaan Crul will focus on today’s social media landscape and further explore Byung-chul Han's concept of the fading distinction between truth and lies. Using the work of Johan Huizinga, he argues that the real challenge facing democracies today is not primarily the presence of cheaters that lie, but the emergence of ‘quitters’ who have abandoned the ‘game’ of shared truths altogether, fracturing our collective discourse. By deeply examining three strategies for addressing the post-truth condition—(1) accelerating chaos to ‘fix’ issues, (2) retreating into waking-up revelations, and (3) using humor and irony as coping mechanisms—Sebastiaan analyzes the complexities of our current landscape. He reveals how these dynamics not only reflect but also exacerbate societal enshittification. Ultimately, he prompts us to reconsider the role and relationship of truth to community in a fragmented political landscape.
Pim Korsten responds to this appeal by examining how network analysis and a pluralistic or ‘modal’ ontology can help to distinguish the various ideas and values we have around truth, truthfulness, and objectivity.
