As seen on the shelves of a bookstore in New York, sales of the George Orwell's "1984" have soared since the news that the White House used "alternative facts" to bolster its claims on the inauguration audience. Richard B. Levine/Press Association.All rights reserved.In 2016, with the Brexit and Trump stories at an
all-time high, post-truth politics was named word of the year by the Oxford
Dictionary. The term was originally coined by columnist David Roberts in
2010. It highlighted the change in politics whereby rhetoric was
increasingly becoming detached from policy ideas and focusing instead on
emotion.
More recently, a presidential aid of Donald Trump,
Kellyanne Conway, would use the term alternative facts (January 22,
2017) to defend the size of the inauguration crowd. The very notion of
alternative facts was immediately (and rightly) linked to George Orwell’s book 1984,
raising the book to most sold on
Amazon. The bleak world described in Orwell’s famous book is not one to be
taken lightly, but just how concerned should we be?
With this in mind, I turn to Hannah Arendt’s Truth
and Politics, originally published in 1967, but still very relevant today.
In her work, Arendt distinguishes between the non-political sphere, where a
singular truth reigns, and the political sphere where truth is plural and
factual. Factual truths are what arise when individuals come together in the public
space (publicity) with their differences (plurality) and through a discourse
come to a judgment. For example, global warming may be a truth in the
scientific sphere but once it enters the political sphere, it becomes factual,
open to debate and challenge. Factual truths
are what arise when individuals come together in the public space (publicity)
with their differences (plurality) and through a discourse come to a judgment.
In this sphere, through publicity, plurality and
discourse we form a judgment regarding the truth or shared reality. Separating
the political truth from the non-political truth prevents rational truth
from entering the political realm with an irrefutable claim to truth, thereby
silencing discussion and harming key aspects of a healthy democracy. This is
not to say that experts or facts have no place in the political. Arendt would
argue that rational truths serve to inform our opinions and strengthen our judgments. But
post-truth politics and the modern media environment have significantly
weakened the notion of publicity and plurality for several reasons, thereby
diminishing our ability to make a sound judgment. Arendt
would argue that rational truths serve to inform our opinions and strengthen
our judgements.
First, the incredible amount of user-generated
content on social media pages, tailored news feeds and news outlets with
substantive political interests have created an environment in which any
assertion can create ‘facts’ upon which to claim its ‘truth’. Second, the human
tendency to search for or readily accept what fits our world view and reject
what does not, commonly referred to as the confirmation bias, has diminished
discourse with individuals having opposing views, instead leading to a
convergence of likeminded individuals in homogenous systems of discourse,
creating the echo-chamber effect. The echo-chamber effect leads to the reinforcing
of ideas and convictions due to the homogenous and isolated nature of the
group. For instance, Facebook’s algorithm defines my newsfeed according to my
likes, history, views, gender and age, placing me within a system in line with
my world view. Strength of judgment comes from our
ability to come together with our differences and through discourse form a
judgment.
The combined nature of these effects creates an
environment in which our ability to form a judgement is significantly weakened
according to Arendt. Strength of judgment comes from our ability to come
together with our differences and through discourse form a judgment. However,
when both plurality and publicity are weakened, our ability to form a judgment
is crippled. As Arendt states, political thought is representative, meaning
that by considering something from other people’s standpoints I strengthen my
ability to form a valid opinion and judgement. Applying this to the
aforementioned conditions means that individuals are less able to take on other
people’s standpoints, less able to imagine how it would look from their
perspective and less willing to accept what other people’s standpoints would be.
All this means that political thought is no longer representative but isolated
and homogenous, akin to living in different realities. Political
thought is representative, meaning that by considering something from other
people’s standpoints I strengthen my ability to form a valid opinion and
judgement.
Second, in authoritarian-prone states such as
Russia or China, the flood of information has become a tool for suppression and
influence. Instead of relying on censorship which is inherently difficult to
target, regimes have relied on an overflow of facts to obscure and twist the
truth, a phenomenon referred to as gas lighting. The goal of the
overflow of facts is not to replace the truth with one created by the regime;
no power in the world is able to create a foolproof reality. Instead it aims to
disturb and distort reality, significantly effecting our ability to form a
judgement. Through gas lighting, individuals can find themselves in different
realities, depending on what distortion of reality has had an effect. By
creating a web of deceptions from which individuals take their bearings, the
validity of our judgments and political thought is impaired. How are we to
distinguish between truth and falsehoods; the basis on which we inform our
opinions and judgement.
Lastly, traditional filters of truths and
falsehoods matter less in this environment. In the Hybrid Media System, a
book by political scientist Andrew Chadwick, he identifies the declining role
of traditional gatekeepers of truth. These gatekeepers were reputable news
outlets, journalists or political pundits who acted as checks and balance on
politics. However, the increased role of the internet for the dissemination of
information means that political actors are able to reach their electorate
directly, think of Trump’s twitter habits, bypassing these gatekeepers.
Moreover, bloggers, self-proclaimed journalists and news outlets, cater to the
willing with punchy and attractive titles. It is
debate that constitutes the essence of the political.
In this environment, the right to question and
counter assertions is rejected, instead claimants are politically biased for
doing so. From a media perspective, the rejection of expertise is a logical
development of the situation in which we find ourselves. Traditional media are
struggling to compete with online platforms, leading them to focus heavily on
protecting their reputation. Continuously challenging assertions is a potential
minefield in which the potential ramifications for mistakes are quite serious.
Not to mention the ability of political actors to steer away from critical
platforms, as is the case in President Trumps branding the New York Times as
#fakenews. Arendt warns that a claim to absolute truth in the political sphere,
needing no support from the side of opinion, would afflict a terrible blow to
the political. For it is debate that constitutes the essence of the
political.
The combined nature of these effects is worrisome
to say the least. Our strength of judgment depends on our ability to reflect on
perspectives other than our own. Moreover, the very state of our democracy
relies on debate and the ability to debate and challenge each other. But in
a certain sense, we are living in different realities, which significantly
affect our ability to place ourselves in another’s shoes. Arendt describes the
inability to distinguish between truth and falsehood as the loss of sense from
which we take our bearings in the real world. The loss of the metaphorical land
on which we stand and the sky that stretches above us. Although a solution to
such an all-encompassing problem might seem impossible, for the sake of democracy
and society it is very important that we regain a foundation from which to take
our bearings in the world.
Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway who coined the term 'alternative facts', here seen at the American Conservative Union's 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference. Michael Brochstein/Press Association. All rights reserved.