Is there any basis for talking about post-truth regime?

Abstract

The paper deals with the (im)possibilities of justifying the discourse of ?post-truth?. Its first part is dedicated to detection and understanding what (at all) one talk about when they use newly coined term ?post-truth?, as well as to the efforts to locate where that talking comes from: what social state it intends to describe and what social change it diagnoses or advocates for. In the central part of the paper, with references to the works of Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze and Jayson Harsin, the conception according to which we moved from the ?truth regime? to the ?post-truth regime?, and thus from the ?disciplinary society? to the ?society of control?, is presented and problematized. The final part of the paper emphasizes the dimension of the social status of truth and science. Having them in mind, the author believes that one cannot speak of an epochal novelty that allegedly occurs with their withdrawal at the expense of post-truth and alternative science, but of raising awareness of one relatively stable historical constant. On the other hand, the author points out that changes in the production and placement of information, as well as the professionalization of public communication based on service sciences, in a crucial way testify to its contemporary variant.