Is (Post)Truth the Enemy of the Open Society? Knowledge, Fanaticism, and the Future of Democracy.

• In Event: Advocating for Science in Contemporary States of Authoritarianism

Abstract

Contemporary media is awash in expressions of mourning over the supposed demise of democracy in a “post-truth” era, full of eulogies over the purported “death of expertise.” Current politics is increasingly polarized, characterized by not merely anger but an indignant spite regarding political opponents. STS scholars, for their part, are divided over how to respond. Has opening the blackbox of scientific fact aided demagogues and unscrupulous doubt merchants? Is there a way of responding that does not reinforce scientism or otherwise undemocratically privilege narrow cadres of experts?

I combine insights from STS and political science to analyze the role of truth in democracy, unraveling the ostensible dilemma regarding public participation and informed policy. Not only is it questionable whether societies could ever enter a “truth era,” but the idea that politics aims at truth is itself dubious. The threat to democracy stems from not from citizens believing outrageous things per se but from the intransigence that develops when people think that the facts, common sense, or any other claimed deliverer of undeniable truth obviates the need to do democratic politics. Such truth fanaticism and allied ideas about the need for representatives and other experts to act as democratic guardians are rooted in Hobbesian beliefs about knowledge that undercut democratic pluralism.

Realizing more democratically pluralist societies, however, is no easy matter. Through an examination of relevant research from psychology, communications, and political science, I explore how societies could be feasibly reconstructed to enable more democratic forms of talk and political interactions.

Author

• Taylor Dotson, New Mexico Tech