Neoliberalism and Post-Truth: Expertise and the Market Model

Jan Strassheim
{"title":"Neoliberalism and Post-Truth: Expertise and the Market Model","authors":"Jan Strassheim","doi":"10.1177/02632764221119726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contrary to widespread assumptions, post-truth politicians formally adopt a rhetoric of ‘truth’ but turn it against established experts. To explain one central factor behind this destructive strategy and its success with voters, I consider Walter Lippmann and Friedrich Hayek, who from 1922 onwards helped develop and popularize a political rhetoric of ‘truth’ in terms of scientific expertise. In Hayek’s influential version, market economics became the crucial expert field. Consequently, the 2008 financial crisis impacted attitudes towards experts more generally. But even sweeping rejection of experts continues to use the rhetoric, by now dominant, of expert truth. Paradoxically, this bipartisan language fuels division as opponents accuse each other of disregarding ‘truth itself’. Against the underlying metaphysics of context-free ‘facts’, John Dewey and Alfred Schutz recommend understanding truth as ‘presumptive’ knowledge produced within human practices, which can be robust but requires a readiness to engage in pluralistic and open-ended processes of (re-)contextualization.","PeriodicalId":227485,"journal":{"name":"Theory, Culture & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory, Culture & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221119726","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Contrary to widespread assumptions, post-truth politicians formally adopt a rhetoric of ‘truth’ but turn it against established experts. To explain one central factor behind this destructive strategy and its success with voters, I consider Walter Lippmann and Friedrich Hayek, who from 1922 onwards helped develop and popularize a political rhetoric of ‘truth’ in terms of scientific expertise. In Hayek’s influential version, market economics became the crucial expert field. Consequently, the 2008 financial crisis impacted attitudes towards experts more generally. But even sweeping rejection of experts continues to use the rhetoric, by now dominant, of expert truth. Paradoxically, this bipartisan language fuels division as opponents accuse each other of disregarding ‘truth itself’. Against the underlying metaphysics of context-free ‘facts’, John Dewey and Alfred Schutz recommend understanding truth as ‘presumptive’ knowledge produced within human practices, which can be robust but requires a readiness to engage in pluralistic and open-ended processes of (re-)contextualization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新自由主义与后真相:专业知识与市场模式
与普遍的假设相反,后真相政客们正式采用“真相”的修辞,但却将其与权威专家对立起来。为了解释这种破坏性策略及其在选民中的成功背后的一个核心因素,我考虑了沃尔特·李普曼(Walter Lippmann)和弗里德里希·哈耶克(Friedrich Hayek),他们从1922年起就在科学专业知识方面帮助发展和普及了“真理”的政治修辞。在哈耶克颇具影响力的版本中,市场经济学成为至关重要的专家领域。因此,2008年的金融危机更普遍地影响了人们对专家的态度。但是,即使是对专家的全面否定,也在继续使用专家真理的修辞,现在占主导地位。矛盾的是,这种两党语言助长了分歧,因为对手互相指责对方无视“真相本身”。与上下文无关的“事实”的潜在形而上学相反,约翰·杜威和阿尔弗雷德·舒茨建议将真理理解为在人类实践中产生的“推定”知识,它可以是强大的,但需要准备好参与(重新)语境化的多元化和开放式过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
With and against Max Weber: A Conversation with Wendy Brown on Politics and Scholarship in Nihilistic Times Inheritance at the Limits Deep Time and Microtime: Anthropocene Temporalities and Silicon Valley’s Longtermist Scope The Antinomy of the Anthropocene: The Narrative of Enlightenment in Dipesh Chakrabarty’s Ecological Theory Vitalist Marxism: Georges Canguilhem and the Resistance of Life
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1