Abstract
This paper on post-truth politics argues that to the extent that one wants to understand political discourses generally (post-truth political discourses in particular), it is crucial to see them as circulating talk that performs rather than reports. This implies a shift in focus. Many react strongly to ‘post-truth’ assertions by appealing to evidence, objectivity, facts and truth. In this paper, it is suggested that, when analysing political discourses, there is no point asking, ‘Is it true?’ One should rather ask, ‘What happens as a result?’ Understanding political discourses as performative demands that the resulting doing, transforming and changing may transcend established parameters and known patterns. That also means problematising the types of argument allowed, or discourse considered appropriate, in a given situation. What, then, is the force within the performative discourse driving transformation? What role does intention play? And who—if anybody—can be designated as the master of the discourse? One way of answering these questions is to broaden the perspective of what happens in verbal exchanges. The hearer-speaker relation is fundamental, one in which meaning is shaped and the performative force is formed. A political discourse in general, and a post-truth political discourse in particular, cannot do and perform—cannot function—in a vacuum. This evokes serious questions about accountability and responsibility and also about human action and freedom.
Highlights
A ‘post-truth society’ has been defined as one in which ‘“objective facts” are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.1 The loaded term ‘posttruth’ is used to describe a broad stream of events and attitudes frequently perceived as a threat, to science and politics
This paper on post-truth politics argues that to the extent that one wants to understand political discourses generally, it is crucial to see them as circulating talk that performs rather than reports
Austin suggests that some conventions and certain circumstances must be present in order to make a performative utterance function happily: an issue concerning the force it has and how well it functions
Summary
A ‘post-truth society’ has been defined as one in which ‘“objective facts” are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’.1 The loaded term ‘posttruth’ is used to describe a broad stream of events and attitudes frequently perceived as a threat, to science and politics. Even if the situation is not absolutely new, ‘post-truth’ may be a useful notion in a particular way by making us understand a possible situation regarding the cognitive relation humans have with the surrounding world and with themselves, he suggests.10 Another debate is the one around the relation between bullshit and post-truth. A good example of post-truth politics is, provided by President Donald Trump, who was for many years before entering politics a well-known public person and businessman. Of his way of working and making deals he observes:. This evokes serious questions about responsibility and about human action and freedom, given the limitations of space, only a few can be considered here
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
