Post-Factual Humanity

One of the buzz concepts of our time is the idea of post-truth and the newly arisen post-factual age. The absurdities and implications of this have been discussed at length and we can see its effects all around us and in the news. It is already a destabilizing force in our world and there are many actors rising to the occasion to exploit and disseminate more such elements to gather power around themselves and move political currents in ways to benefit their interests. Despite the horrible and disheartening effects this is having on political debate around the world, and no matter the foolishness it inspires and the many politicians willing to play along, it is still something to be taken very seriously and understood so as to develop countermeasures to push back and, down the road, re-route debate back to the firmer footing of known historical and scientific facts. People really do feel this distrust, people really are confused, and unfortunately there are plenty of dubious characters out there who are more than willing to play on this to further their own goals, no matter how short-term or ill thought out they might be. When laid out, however, the causes for this environment can be seen to be quite clear and very human, and stability in thought and argument as something that can be achieved by taking a step back and soberly spelling out who is saying what and how.

When looking back at the last 10 to 15 years, it is not very surprising that such hostility towards experts should arise. People have been flooded with a tsunami of relentless, never-ending information and opinion without ever having been given any form of real education or filter with which to deal with it, while at the same time larger cultural shifts and debates have taken place very publicly – all this combining to create an atmosphere where every news story, every opinion, is felt in a hyper-personal way, and where normal citizens continuously feel the pressure to have an opinion on everything. Exacerbated by perceived political disarray that is now felt globally, and with people having access to a wealth of unchecked, unfiltered information that can tell you whatever you want to hear, a growing dissatisfaction with overarching structures and institutions dictating how national and international problems will be dealt with has taken place. This results in large groups of the populace simmering in confusion and dissatisfaction, and waiting for an opportunity to lash out. It then makes sense that people should grow to distrust the traditional institutions responsible for laying out societal structures. That this should lead to people doubting facts, meaning the structures of acquired knowledge and reality that humanity and countless cultures around the world have spent thousands of years piecing together, is not a given. We have short-sighted, opportunistic leaders and media to thank for this and their ploys, referendums and everything else they’ve put together that have given a voice to all those who can shout the most nonsense the loudest. Let’s set aside the absurdity of arguing about expertise and doubting facts when everything that is allowing one to have these debates – the technologies, stable societies and health standards, and the boundless wealth of knowledge and knowledge constructs that make up our world – are the result of such expertise and of these very facts. People definitely do have the right to doubt experts, but this is not the Middle Ages, we are not going to burn all doctors because some doctors make false diagnoses, or at least I hope we aren’t anytime too soon. Experts did get things wrong, many things even – large regional and global undertakings were badly mishandled – but to then doubt everything and all similar undertakings in their entirety is a fairly primal, foolish instinct, as well as being incredibly lazy.

So what do we have to show for our denial of experts and our newly chosen post-factual world? The obvious cases are Brexit or a President Trump, both cases where the pressures of highly complex problems with a spectrum of causes and effects, some with long historical trajectories and implications, were boiled down to a simple binary choice. The negation of the complexity of the problems and even the problems themselves – with the campaigns devolving into bone-headed mudslinging, unrealistic promises and simple old school, and completely misplaced, nativism – already displayed people’s rejection of reality in favor of simple answers, even when these had nothing to do with the reality at stake. These knee-jerk reactions are increasingly the only way people seem to think they can express their dissatisfaction. The impeachment of Dilma Rousseff in Brazil was another populist reaction to a real problem and would have made sense had she, who was not personally implicated in the corruption of her government, not been replaced by even more corrupt politicians that were already known to be so. The referendum in Italy was a second example of a European politician not gauging the situation correctly and, like David Cameron and Brexit, staking his reputation on a referendum that had nothing to do with the political situation at large and, again, tying a complex issue with many facets to a simple binary choice in a time when people were dissatisfied. So, on the one side there are inept leaders and on the other there are the opportunists who see the time is rife for them to push their own agenda. Trump, who is both boisterous and exceptionally inept, will be the historical poster boy for the bumbling results of these knee-jerk decisions. Russia and Putin, for their part, are the actors who fostered post-truth, as we know it now, into adolescence in the Russia of the 2000’s and are now the proud parents watching their little boy go out into the world and make his mark on it. Nothing is true and everything is possible (see/read Peter Pomerantsev), the code by which control and the status quo is kept in Russia, seems like it will be the global motto for the next years. The objective in this approach being that, if the people don’t feel that they have a 100% grasp of what is going on, then they will look to a strong entity or person to at least have one constant in the confusion. If that person is telling you that you are a great nation at that, then so much the better. Erdogan has been more than happy to pick this approach up in Turkey and with Duterte in the Philippines, as well as growing patriotic boasting in China and India, we see that we are entering a world of controlled insanity that most Russians will feel at home in. So this is the world that we have chosen, whether we voted for the people or not, this is the world that was made on our watch and so it is therefore our responsibility. It seems best to look at it in this way, as it helps us see what these circumstances reflect about ourselves. A denial of our complicity in this reality, pushing blame on other side, is a denial of the truth and itself a post-factual attitude.

The modus operandi of our day, no matter what one is arguing about, from the far left all the way to the far right, is to cut corners, to lie or grab and interpret whatever information one might be able to find so as to undermine the other side. The point is to “win” the argument, even though the other side will use the same tactics and neither side will actually really be listening, nor would they ever admit to having been convinced. It ends up feeling like a fight for the very right to existence, and in this existential, life or death struggle everything becomes hyper-personal. Apart from being endlessly tiring, this intensely personal approach to debate we are currently using is not meant to work towards a solution, or at least not anymore, it has become a defense, a way of protecting our truth, to safeguard our own views, our own sphere or even our own person or heritage. This is not only exhausting, but highly confusing and completely unnecessary. Yet, we have to deal with it if we want to stabilize our societies and communities and understand what the driving forces are. Once we understand this defensiveness it becomes easier to interpret the undertakings of the various parties and we know who we are dealing with, no matter what facts they are bringing to the table.

Taking another step into the quagmire of present-day societal discourse, one can also begin to recognize that the concept of post-truth as a simple rejection of facts seems too narrow, too short-sighted. It appears that this is more than just a denial of a communicated reality or truth, but something more emotional, that we are becoming unnerved by so many truths in our world. As humans we build our stability around steady pillars – religion, ideology, family, identity. For the last decade or more, though, we have had to face the complexity of the world and this unnerves everyone, from the "conservative" to the "liberal". We bristle to think that other ideas could possess some degree of validity within their own context. We hang on to the notion of one truth, one answer, but deny any other opinions on what that truth can be. It is, however, also widely accepted that we all have our own, very individual truths that are shaped by our childhood, family, culture, education and so on and so forth. There is a reason that you are not the same person as your sister or your brother or your cousin or your parents. This is because you have had a different life experience than them. You all have your individual truths, your lives then dictate what kind of person you become, insecurities and fears influence decisions your parents or you make and set off chain reactions that pull you down a certain life path. Tragic events may starkly shape your opinions. That is your individual truth. These overlap with some, and depending on who you are and what your needs may be, you may feel more of an affinity with some of these overlaps than with others. You may define yourself, or be defined, by your ancestry, your vocation or sexual orientation, or some negative event or circumstance may play the defining role in shaping who you become in life. This is normal, this is human, this is who we have always been. We try to make sense of our circumstance with overarching structures and ideas, but at this present moment we are having to face the friction between a truth and a world of truths and values all offering their opinions on local, national and global events, past and present. The resolution of how we come to understand this circumstance on a personal level, one which has essentially been the motor for much of the political friction of the last centuries, is key.

The internet and social media are filled with boundless celebrations of ideas, identities and circumstance, juxtaposed against endless outrage at other ideas, other facets of identities and peoples of another circumstance. We are in the equivalent of a digital-psychological manifestation of World War I. We have drawn up trenches and launch attack after attack at the other side with no visible gains, the only result being an awareness of the futility of this exercise and the erosion of trust in societies at large. We are currently reaching the bottom of our most base psychological instincts, where we head out on scouting mission into no-man’s land, looking for whatever facts might give us a slight advantage, disregarding the ones that won’t, so we can sling them at our opponents. It then makes sense that we should tire of facts, that we be drawn to the concept of post-truth and the gathering of information, true or false, simply as a tool which only serves to support our own truths – the possible total negation of our selves feels so close and threatening. A hopeful mission, here and now, would be to save everyone from the endless self-congratulatory jubilation and mind-numbing outrage, to end this world war of idiocy. Not just because it could already be too late in the real world and there really are people in positions of power who are not capable of upholding proper relations with their peers, but because we need to combat those who seek to take further advantage of the chaos, those who want to use old school Realpolitik to further spheres of influence and return us to baser power politics. In combating this we may also acquire a tool with which to navigate ourselves back to calmer tempers so we can actually tackle the real problems of our time and not just stick our heads in the sand, or worse yet, set ourselves back a century or two (something which humans are prone to do regularly and something that we are not immune to).

At this point any small-level argumentation seems irrelevant, any shared articles or comments online are wasted energy and time. All of the last years’ culture, technology and discourse has lead us here, so it doesn’t seem that doubling down is any kind of option, carrying on in the same way even less so. Taking a step back and simply watching people, really listening to their words and phrasing presents a clarifying approach to any heated subject. What are people really saying? Who are they, what is their background, their interest in this topic and why would they be weighing in like they are? You listen to what people claim they want and then you listen to what the tone of their speech says about the underlying emotion and one begins to find firm footing. It is the importance of how they frame their argument, the vocabulary used or emitted, which allows you to at least tune out the white noise being employed to distract. This is not some conspiracy theory, this is a tool against the conspiracy theorists, this is the championing of knowledge, of big ideas, of history, of understanding basic human psychology, and taking those to task who so obviously argue from a position of defensiveness in view of a world of complexity and diversity they do not want to accept. The question becomes if you want your world to be a better place, are you concerned with the well-being of people, or do you simply just want to be right? This is a way to get ground beneath our feet in a politically tumultuous time and a way to establish what people really mean and what they are actually aiming for.

This ground-level strategy of taking these frames and tones of speech and extrapolating what they are articulating, allows one to make a serious judgement on where a person is coming from. It also lets you gauge whether someone is genuinely interested in a subject, and the discussion thereof, or simply temporarily irritated about having to question themselves. With the larger political institutions becoming more splintered under the influence of irrational currents and bias, it falls to this same ground-level, the communities, to form the solid base from which societies can ensure the well-being of others until the storm of irrationality has passed. Anyone still willing to stay in the trenches and focus on their own self-interest is not needed now. The foot soldiers for the well-being of society are the ones who will hold the line until the tide turns in the favor of the value of truths again, which it will. We just need to hope that it won’t take anything too catastrophic to wake us up to the need for this. Vigilance should be geared to really listening to the other, hearing what they are saying, seeing if they are willing to actually listen or are they just waiting to tear down whatever argument you are making simply because you are quoting a thinker they don’t like, making an uncomfortable point or challenging their value set. This is not exclusive, this is maximally inclusive, no one should get away with shutting someone out without proper argumentation and no one should be allowed to challenge lessons learned from the past as a simple aside. No one group should feel superior to the other, no matter how big or small they are and everyone can be just as guilty as the other. There is no righteousness in humanity, just our basic selves. If we cannot come to terms with that, then we won’t be able to push back this wave of denial. As a whole, this can only be a short-term solution, a way to move beyond fake facts, or even real facts for that matter, a way to expose the superficial argumentation of our time as the defensiveness or distraction that it is and see what the real underlying values are that are being discussed and which ones are presently at stake.

We have never known as much about our world, ourselves, our own past and the consequences of our actions as we do now. We still have living witnesses to some of humanities hugest mistakes and tragedies, there has never been so much knowledge to draw on for a more dignified and less violent future than there is now, yet we seem inclined to take the road most traveled. We need not be stopped by post-factual argumentation. We have the tools and intellect to circumvent it, exposing what the arguments say about the people using them and what their intentions plainly are, moving the discussion to a different plain. An understanding of their emotional and psychological triggers and causes for insecurity and rage allows for a better understanding of their state of mind, allowing for more appropriate discussion and argumentation to take place. If this can be done for a prolonged period of time, we can diffuse the power of false claims and loud opinion and hopefully return value to facts in the long run. We can see through the obvious falsity of so many claims, and call out all those who employ them on their even more obvious rejection of societal values. Values that were molded by our greatest thinkers and from lessons learned through the crimes of the past and the deaths of millions. It is not difficult to differentiate the people who actually want to help from those who want to attack; those who base their value-system in the positive elements of ideas and knowledge constructs from those who simply want to disable their presumed enemies; the crocodile tears from sincere concern for the well-being of other humans. We are at a crossroads, we are looking into the future and many feel we are looking down the barrel of a gun. In a time of disarray we need people who want to solve bigger problems and build long-lasting structures with which we can flourish, as opposed to hot-headed power politics made for people who run scared and just want to know that they are right to be angry. There is no post-factual reality; there are only heads in the sand. Right now our tendency, all along the political spectrum, is to exclude to fuel our own fire, to say ‘I told you so’. A simple step back, a move beyond our historical impulses, away from the hyper-personal, an understanding of how we are framing our arguments, and we move above the noise, out of the trenches to engage with this age where absurdity and stupidity are a strategy and resign it to the history books where it can live together with oracles, witch trials and human sacrifices.

Image credit: Lee Miller, “Fire Masks, Downshire Hill, London, England 1941” (© Lee Miller Archives, England 2015)