拥有权利:右翼政治话语中的后真相

K. Hartley
{"title":"拥有权利:右翼政治话语中的后真相","authors":"K. Hartley","doi":"10.4000/irpp.3510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Emerging in scholarly discussions about political discourse over the past decade, the terms ‘post-truth’ and ‘denialism’ refer to disagreement not on public policy strategies but on the nature of truth itself. Policy facts are now contested in ways that disrupt mainstream political narratives and weaken institutional legitimacy. In turn, the technocratic response of doubling-down on facts is faltering as the ‘burn it down’ vacuity of post-truth declares equivalent political legitimacy. This strident, self-assured irrationality offers few substantive policy visions, seeking only to bewilder and ‘own’ its perceived enemies including progressive ‘elites,’ science experts, and academics trying to understand the phenomenon. This article discusses disruption in the political discourse about fact-informed policy issues, focusing on a looming period of epistemic instability and the futility of using systematic analysis and logic to understand post-truth.","PeriodicalId":33409,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Owning the libs: Post-truth in right-wing political discourse\",\"authors\":\"K. Hartley\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/irpp.3510\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Emerging in scholarly discussions about political discourse over the past decade, the terms ‘post-truth’ and ‘denialism’ refer to disagreement not on public policy strategies but on the nature of truth itself. Policy facts are now contested in ways that disrupt mainstream political narratives and weaken institutional legitimacy. In turn, the technocratic response of doubling-down on facts is faltering as the ‘burn it down’ vacuity of post-truth declares equivalent political legitimacy. This strident, self-assured irrationality offers few substantive policy visions, seeking only to bewilder and ‘own’ its perceived enemies including progressive ‘elites,’ science experts, and academics trying to understand the phenomenon. This article discusses disruption in the political discourse about fact-informed policy issues, focusing on a looming period of epistemic instability and the futility of using systematic analysis and logic to understand post-truth.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.3510\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.3510","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过去十年关于政治话语的学术讨论中,“后真相”和“否认主义”这两个术语不是指在公共政策策略上的分歧,而是指在真相本身的性质上的分歧。现在,对政策事实的质疑扰乱了主流政治叙事,削弱了制度合法性。反过来,技术官僚加倍关注事实的反应正在动摇,因为后真相的“烧掉”真空宣告了同等的政治合法性。这种尖锐、自信的非理性几乎没有提供实质性的政策愿景,只是试图迷惑和“拥有”其感知的敌人,包括进步的“精英”、科学专家和试图理解这一现象的学者。本文讨论了关于事实知情政策问题的政治话语中的混乱,重点关注一个迫在眉睫的认识不稳定时期,以及使用系统分析和逻辑来理解后真相的徒劳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Owning the libs: Post-truth in right-wing political discourse
Emerging in scholarly discussions about political discourse over the past decade, the terms ‘post-truth’ and ‘denialism’ refer to disagreement not on public policy strategies but on the nature of truth itself. Policy facts are now contested in ways that disrupt mainstream political narratives and weaken institutional legitimacy. In turn, the technocratic response of doubling-down on facts is faltering as the ‘burn it down’ vacuity of post-truth declares equivalent political legitimacy. This strident, self-assured irrationality offers few substantive policy visions, seeking only to bewilder and ‘own’ its perceived enemies including progressive ‘elites,’ science experts, and academics trying to understand the phenomenon. This article discusses disruption in the political discourse about fact-informed policy issues, focusing on a looming period of epistemic instability and the futility of using systematic analysis and logic to understand post-truth.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Institutional Grammar: Evolving Directions in Current Research Pádraig CARMODY, Gerard McCANN, Clodagh COLLERAN & Ciara O’HALLORAN (Eds.), COVID- 19 in the Global South. Impacts and Responses Understanding the Effects of Social Value Orientations in Shaping Regulatory Outcomes through Agent-Based Modeling: An Application in Organic Farming Comparing and Analyzing Policy Formulation of Proposed and Final Public Policies Institutions, Voids, and Dependencies: Tracing the Designs and Robustness of Urban Water Systems
×
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