InternationalTheory (2024), 16 (1),102–121
doi:10.1017/S1752971923000040
Post-truthpoliticsandneoliberalcompetition: thesocialsourcesofdogmaticcynicism
SebastianSchindler
GeschwisterSchollInstituteofPoliticalScience,LMUMunich,Oettingenstr.67,80538Munich,Germany
Authorforcorrespondence: SebastianSchindler,E-mail: sebastian.schindler@gsi.lmu.de
(Received26January2021;revised7September2022;accepted24February2023; firstpublishedonline12April2023)
Abstract
FromTrump’sAmericatoPutin’sRussia,fromclimatechangedenialtocoronadenial, so-calledpost-truthpoliticsareexperiencingaglobalrise.Howcanweunderstandand explainthisphenomenon?Intheattempttoanswerthisquestion,thisarticleadvances twocoreclaims.First,itsuggeststhatpost-truthpoliticsis(despiteitsname)marked notonlybythedenialofclaimstoobjectivetruth,butalsobythenaturalizationof onespecifictruthclaim:namely,thecynicalbeliefthatself-interestsarebehindallpublic discourse.Second,itlocatesthesocialsourcesofthisdogmaticcynicismintheglobal expansionofneoliberalcompetition.
Keywords: Competition;criticaltheory;cynicism;ideology;naturalization;neoliberalism;post-truth politics
Introduction
Oneiconicsceneofso-calledpost-truthpoliticsisthecoiningoftheterm ‘alternativefacts’ byKellyanneConway,anassistantofPresidentDonaldTrump,inaCNN interviewinearly2017.1 ConwaywaspressedtoexplaintheclaimthatTrump’ s inaugurationhadwitnessedthepresenceofthelargestcrowdeverinhistory,a claimthatstoodinapparentcontradictiontophotospublished interalia inthe NewYorkTimes.Ratherthanadmittingthatthephotoswereacorrectdepictionof factualreality,oralternatively,todenytheirfactualvalidity,Conwaymadethecurious claimthattherewere ‘alternativefacts’,asiffactssupportedboththeclaimandthe counter-claim.WhileConway’sclaimwasmetwithmuchoutragebyobservers,it iscrucialtonotethatherstatementdoesnotnecessarilyexpressbeliefinanepistemologicalrelativism,thatis,abeliefthattruthisirrelevantbecausethereis,forepistemologicalreasons,noobjectiveknowledge.Rather,theideathatfactshave ‘alternatives’ seemscloselytiedtoaspecificinterpretationofpoliticalcontestationaccordingto whichjournalistsarenotobjectiveobservers,butmerelyrepresentthisorthatside
1CNN 2017
©TheAuthor(s),2023.PublishedbyCambridgeUniversityPress.ThisisanOpenAccessarticle,distributedunderthe termsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionlicence(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ),whichpermitsunrestrictedre-use,distributionandreproduction,providedtheoriginalarticleisproperlycited.
ofthepoliticalspectrum.Inotherwords,whattheexpression ‘alternativefacts’ evokes isthatthe NewYorkTimes andCNNmaypresentfactsinoneway,but ‘alternative’ sources – including,forinstance,thealt-rightblogBreitbart – presenttheminanother way.Conway’sexpressionthensignifiesnothingelsebutthenormalizationofacynicalviewofpoliticsaccordingtowhichpublicstatementsaremerelytheexpressionof theinterestsofoneortheotherpoliticalfaction.Nothingsaidinpublichas,according tothatcynicalview,truthvalue,becauseeverythingispotentiallymanipulatedinthe senseoffavoringonesetofinterestsoveranother.
Theroleofcynicisminthespreadofpost-truthpoliticshasbeeninsufficiently understood.In2016,whentheexpression ‘post-truth’ cameinwidespreaduse,it wasdefinedasthebeliefthattruthingeneralisirrelevantandasemotionshaving greaterappealthanfacts.2 Thisunderstandingledmanyobserversbothinsideand outsidetheacademytolaytheblameoncritical,constructivist,andpoststructuralisttheoriesthatallegedlyhadsownthedoubtconcerningobjectivetruth. Postmodernismwasthuscastas ‘thegodfatherofpost-truth’3 andmaderesponsible forthe ‘deathoftruth’ . 4 Alreadypreviously,prominentscholarssuchasBruno Latourhadassociatedthespreadofrelativistattitudeswithaproliferationofcritical thinkinginsociety.5 Thiswidespreadviewcametoaheadinthemuch-quoted statementofaphilosopherofscience,whosaidinaninterviewinearly2017 that ‘whatthepostmodernistsdidistrulyevil’ 6 However,thiswidespreadinterpretationobscuresthefactthatpost-truthdiscourseismarkednotonlybythedenialof objectivetruth,butalsobythedogmaticbeliefincertaintruthclaims.Indeed,the relativizationoftruthisaneffectofthenaturalizationofoneveryspecific ‘truth’–namely,thecynicalviewthatself-interestedmanipulationsarebehindallclaims thatpurporttobeobjectiveandselfless.Comingtotermswiththisdogmatic cynicismiskeytounderstandingtheglobalriseofpost-truthpolitics.
Dogmaticcynicism,asIunderstandthetermhere,istheuncritical, taken-for-grantedbeliefthatallpublicdiscourseisfake,thatwordsdonotmatch actions,andspecificallythatself-interestisbehindallclaimstoselflessnessand objectivity.Dogmaticcynicismstandsinarelationshiptocriticalsocialtheories andtheir ‘hermeneuticsofsuspicion ’ , 7 butitisnotthesameascritique.Where criticsaskquestionsandraisedoubts,dogmaticcynicismisrecognizableinanattitudethatpretendstohavedefiniteanswersbeyondallreasonabledoubt.8 Inother words,theterm ‘dogmaticcynicism’ ismeanttodirectattentiontoaphenomenon thatcriticaltheoriesdescribeas ‘naturalization’ , ‘normalization’ , ‘reification’,oralso ‘ideologization’:dogmaticcynicsconsiderasnaturalandnormalsomethingwhich isinrealitytheproductofsocietyandhistory.9 Thisdoesnotimplythatcynicism
2Flood 2016;OxfordDictionaries 2016.Foraninsightfulreviewofseminaljournalisticaccounts,see Crilley 2018.
3McIntyre 2018,150.
4Kakutani 2018
5Latour 2004;Aupers 2012
6Dennett 2017
7DroletandWilliams 2022;Conway 2021;Meyer 2018;Bewes 1997
8CappellaandJamieson 1997
9Fluck 2016;Wendt 1992. ‘Reification’ ornaturalizationcanbedefinedas ‘theapprehensionoftheproductsofhumanactivity asif theyweresomethingelsethanhumanproducts – suchasfactsofnature,
presentsanentirelyinaccuratedepictionofsociety.Claimsaboutselflessnessand objectivitymayoftenbehypocritical.Whatisfalseaboutcynicismisnotnecessarily itsempiricalinaccuracy,buttheideologicalhardeningofbelief,toapointwhere doubtsconcerningthecynicalassumptionsthemselvesbecomeinconceivable. ThehunchthatIpursueinthispaperistheideathatanexaminationofthis naturalizationcanhelpusunderstandtheostensiblyrelativistaspectsofthecontemporarypoliticalclimate – theveryaspectsthatarecommonlydescribedas ‘post-truth’ .
Makinganargumentaboutthenaturalizationofcynicism – itsbecoming ‘dogmatic’– isdifficultbecauseself-interestednessiswidelyperceivedtobeanaturalandnormalformofbehavior.Cynicismisperhapsespeciallyprominentin conceptionsoftheinternational.Narrativesaboutself-interestedmanipulators andconspiratorialactivitiespervadepopularunderstandingsofworldpolitics.10 Cynicalattitudesformpartandparcelofcontemporaryright-winginternationalism,11 buttheycanbedetectedalsowithineliteliberalinternationalinstitutions. 12 CynicismhasacrucialimplicitpresenceinseminaltheoriesofInternational Relations(IR).Rationalisttheoriesmaketheassumptionthatnormsarefollowed onlyifthisisusefulforactors;normative ‘talk’ isthususuallycastas ‘cheap’ . 13 Constructiviststudiesofinternationalorganizationsassumethatthereisanirreduciblegapbetweentheiraltruisticpublicdiscourseandtherealityoftheirsocial power. 14 Realistscholarshavesuggestedthattheinternationalrealmisoneof ‘ organizedhypocrisy’ inwhichpublicclaimsaboutadherencetonormsservemerely instrumentalpurposes,15 andthatliberalforeignpolicydiscourseislargelyrhetoricalanddoesnotmatchpractice.16 Rationalist,constructivist,andrealistcontributionstoIRtheoryallrelyonassumptionsthatcanbeinterpretedasimplicitly cynical.17
Criticalsocialtheories,popularaccountsoftheinternational,aswellasimportantstreamsofIRscholarshipareallpervadedbycynicalbinaryassumptionsabout powerlurkingbehindnormativediscourse,self-interestbehindclaimsabout
resultsofcosmiclaws,ormanifestationsofdivinewill’ (BergerandLuckmann 1966,89;quotedinWendt 1992,410).Akeycounter-strategytonaturalizationisde-naturalizationorhistoricization(Fluck 2016),a strategyIwillapplytodemonstratethatcynicismisthehistoricalproductofspecificsocialinstitutionsand experiences.Forarecentcalltoapplyseminalprinciplesofcriticaltheorytothecurrenthistoricalconjecture,seeJahn 2021.
10AistropeandBleiker 2018;Fluck 2016
11DeOrellanaandMichelsen 2019;FreisteinandGadinger 2020.
12Christian 2022
13FearonandWendt 2002,61–62;Schimmelfennig 2001.
14BarnettandFinnemore 2004;Weaver 2008
15Krasner 1999.
16Mearsheimer 2014,25–27.
17Myclaimhereisnotthatrationalism,constructivism,andrealismarenothingbutexpressionsofcynicalviews.AllIclaimisthatcynicism(notnecessarilythedogmaticvariant,butcynicismingeneral)is centraltoseminalarticulationsofthesetheories.Foreachtheoreticalstream,counter-examplesfornoncynicalinterpretationscanbecited.Forinstance,inthecaseofrealism,thenowdominant,neorealist, andcynicalinterpretationhasbeencontestedbyscholarswhohavesoughttoreviveinsightsoftheclassical realists(TjalveandWilliams 2015;Cozette 2008;Scheuerman 2007).Certainly,thedegreeofcynicismis differentforeachstream,anissuethatwarrantsfurtherexaminationbutliesbeyondthescopeofthispaper.
impartialityandobjectivity,selfishnessbehindapostureofselflessness.Againstthis background,theoutrageaboutpost-truthpoliticsappearstobepartlymisdirected. Whiletheexcessiveandideologicalcharacterofcertainrelativistclaimsneedstobe acknowledged,itiscrucialtounderstandthatthephenomenonhassocialandculturalrootswithinliberalculture.Post-truthpoliticsisnotsimplyanexternalthreat totheliberalinternationalorder,asdepicted,forexample,byEmanuelAdlerand AlenaDrieschova.18 Inanimportantsense,itistheproductofonecoreliberal institutioninitscontemporaryneoliberalmanifestation:themarket.19 Those whoareconcernedaboutpost-truthpoliticsmustrecognizeinitnotonlythe epistemologicalmisguidednessofilliberalactors,butalsoapathologyinherentin theexpansionof(neo)liberalmarketrationality.
Thepaperfallsintotwoparts.Itwillfirstseektodevelopanaccountofcontemporarypost-truthpoliticsthatmakescleartheroleofnaturalizedbelief – thatis, dogmaticcynicism – inthephenomenon.Second,itwillseektoshowthatone likelyoriginofthisnaturalizationistheunleashingofneoliberalcompetition.
Post-truthpoliticsanddogmaticcynicism
Mostaccountsofpost-truthpoliticsfocusontheaspectofrelativism,thatis,the denialofclaimstoobjectivetruth.Whatneedsexplanationisdramaticallycast as ‘thedeathoftruth’ . 20 Thisiswhymanyobservershaveblamedacademictheories likepostmodernismandconstructivismfortheemergenceofpost-truth.21 Even criticsofthisdominantinterpretationdonotdenythatrelativismiscentralto thephenomenon.Ratherthanquestioningtheimportanceofrelativistattitudes, theyobjectthatsuchattitudesmaynotbenew.22 Accordingtothecritics,itismisleadingtoseparateaneraofpost-truthpoliticsfromearliertimes.23 Humanhistory hasbeenmarkedbyrecurrentstrugglesoverwhatistrueandwhatnot.Doubts aboutclaimstoobjectivetrutharenotthehallmarkspecificallyofourtimes.
Thecriticscertainlyhaveapointwhentheyrejecttheall-tooeasyseparation betweenpost-truthandtruth,whichdeniesthefundamentallyproblematicrole
18AdlerandDrieschovadeliberatelyrefrainfromusingtheterm ‘post-truth’,butsuggest ‘truthsubversionpractices’ asanalternativetermtocharacterizediscursivestrategiesusedbyilliberalactorsto attackliberalinternationalorder.However,theydefinetruthsubversioninpreciselythesamewayasdictionariesdefinepost-truth,namelyasmarkedby(a)ignoranceoffactualtruthassuchand(b)appealto emotionsratherthanfacts.SeeAdlerandDrieschova 2021,369–70.Foranalyticalreasons,theydecideto focusexclusivelyontheconsequencesoftruth-subversionpractices,ratherthanontheircausesandorigins. Butthisanalyticalchoicehasconsequences.Itcreatestheimpressionthatthephenomenonispurelyan attackbyoutsidersonliberalism,ratherthanitsproduct,asthisarticleclaims.
19Thelinkbetweenneoliberalismandpost-truthpoliticsisalsoexaminedbyMavelli 2020.However, Mavellianalyzesthislinkonadifferentlevel.Hedoesnotconceivedogmaticcynicismascrucialtothis link,butinsteaddescribesadynamicof ‘sacralization’ inneoliberalmarketsoftruth.Seeespecially Mavelli 2020,67–72.
20Kakutani 2018
21Meyer 2018;Fuller 2017;Wight 2018;McIntyre 2018,123–50;Calcutt 2016;Scruton 2017;Sismondo 2017;Mair 2017;Tallis 2016
22RennerandSpencer 2018;CrilleyandChatterje-Doody 2019;Wight 2018,22;MichelsenandTallis 2018,8;Hanlon 2018.
23Vogelmann 2018;AdlerandDrieschova 2021,359,fn.1.
thatclaimstoobjectivetruthplayinpolitics.24 Still,itisequallyunsatisfactoryto rejectthepost-truthdiagnosisinitsentiretyandclaimthatnothinghaschanged. Thiswouldignoretheexcessiveandproblematiccharacterinwhichcertain facts – fromtherealityofclimatechangetothedangersofCOVID-19 – have beenrelativizedinrecentpublicdiscourse.Thereisaremarkable,noteworthytransformationinpublicdealingswithtruth.Thistransformationhasbeenaptly describedbyaFinnishIRscholarasan ‘erosionofsimplefactualtruths,truths thattechnicallyanyonecouldverify’ . 25 Whilethisexcessiverelativismiscertainly notentirelynew,itishardtodenythatithasbecomemoreprominent. 26 Comingtoconceptualtermswiththisrelativismishenceacrucialtaskforsocial andpoliticaltheory.Giventheprominentroleof ‘truth-subversionpractices’ in internationalpolitics,27 thisisanimportanttaskforinternationaltheory,too.
Inpursuingthistask,itiscrucialtorecognizethatrelativismisnottheonly noteworthyandimportantaspectofpost-truthpolitics.Accountsthatfocusmerely ontherelativistaspectareincomplete.Theexcessiveformofrelativismtowhich theterm ‘post-truth’ pointsiscombinedwithwhatseemstobeitsopposite:an excessiveformofdogmatism.28 Asdescribedaboveforthe ‘alternativefacts’ scene,theclaimthatthepublicdiscoursecannotbetrustedisnotnecessarily foundedonepistemologicalarguments.Quitetothecontrary,itseemsmoreprobablethatthisdistrustisaccompaniedandproducedbythemanifestsuspicionthat certainactorstamperwiththisdiscourse.Relativistattitudeshaveacynicalcontent. Theyseemtorelativizeeverything,butindoingsotheynaturalizeoneveryspecific viewofpolitics.
TwofurtherexamplesdrawnfromformerPresidentDonaldTrumpandhis entourageillustratethispoint.Thefirstexampleishisextensiveuseofthe ‘fake news ’ slogan.Inthisslogan,boththerelativistandthedogmaticaspectofposttruthpoliticsareencapsulated.Ontheonehand,ifallnewsisfake,nothingis true – thereisnotruth.Ontheotherhand,itisclearthatthesloganinvolves theclaimthatthenewsismanipulated.Ifthesloganisappliedtoall(liberal,public) news,itnaturalizesonespecific ‘truth’:theclaimthatthewhole(liberal,public) discourseisjustfakeandfulloflies.Thesecondexampleequallyillustratesthe connectionbetweenrelativismanddogmatism,betweentheclaimthat ‘thereis notruth’ andtheuncriticalbeliefinthevalidityofoneveryspecific ‘truth’.Ina conversationwithNBChostChuckTodd,Trump’slegaladvisorandformer NewYorkCitymayorRudyGiulianiliterallyclaimedthat ‘truthisn’ttruth’ . 29 At firstsight,thisclaimclearlyseemstoconstituteanoutrightdenialofthepossibility ofobjectivity.However,Giulianihimselfutteredthesewordsafterhehadexplained thatthetestimonyofSpecialCounselRobertMuellerwouldjustconstitute ‘ somebody’sversionofthetruth’ . 30 Inotherwords,itisnottruthassuchthatisindoubt,
24Foraseminalaccountofthatrole,seeArendt 2006
25Hyvönen 2018,33.
26Baron 2018;MarshallandDrieschova 2018,92–96;FielitzandMarcks 2019;AdlerandDrieschova 2021,372.
27AdlerandDrieschova 2021
28Schindler 2020
29QuotedinWight 2018,17. 30Ibid.
butthecredibilityofspecificactors(journalists,experts, ‘somebody’).31 Excessive doubtofseeminglyuncontroversialfactsresultsfromthebeliefthatcertainactors cannotbetrusted.
ItisnotalonethedomesticpoliticsofTrumpthatismarkedbythiskindof cynicism.32 Arecent,in-depthstudybythepoliticaltheoristHelmutKönigreveals thatthereisacrucialsimilarityinthemannerinwhichTrumpandPutindealwith liesanddeception.33 Bothtakeanattitudeaccordingtowhich ‘nothingistrue’ and ‘everythingisalie’,andbothdosointheinternationalaswellasthedomesticpoliticalrealm.InhisspeechthatjustifiedtheRussianmilitaryattackagainstUkraine inFebruary2022,PutinspentconsiderabletimetodefendtheclaimthatWestern promiseswereanempty,hypocriticaldiscoursethatcouldnotbetrusted;thepromiseswere ‘justwords’,Putinsaid.34 Putin’sclaimscontrastsharplywithnuanced academicanalysesofwhetherspecificpromisesweremadeandkept.35 Hisclaims aregeneralizedandappeardogmatic,notanalyticalandcritical.Therelativist aspectofpost-truthpoliticshasadogmatictwin.Nothingisbelievedtobetrue onlybecauseeverythingisconsideredalie.
Howcanwerecognizetheideologicallyhardened,dogmaticversionsofcynicism anddistinguishthemfromaccuratesocialcritiquesofpowerandself-interests?Thisis certainlynoeasyquestion,aschargesofcynicismanddogmaticthinkingserveas markersofpoliticaldistinction – theyareusuallydirectedagainsttheothersidein apoliticaldispute.AistropeandBleikerhaverecentlyshownthisforthechargeofconspiracytheoreticalthinking,which(inWesterndiscourse)isoftendirectedagainst so-calledIslamicextremistsandtheirtheoriesabout9/11,butonlyrarelyagainst Westernintelligenceagenciesandtheirtheoriesaboutweaponsofmassdestruction inIraq.36 Yetdespitethepoliticizationofchargesofmanipulation,weshouldnot renouncethetaskofsearchingfordistinctions.Afterall,withoutdistinctions,we havenotooltoseparateexcessiveideologicalclaimsaboutconspiraciesfromnuanced journalisticoracademicanalysesofpowerstructures.Whilewehavetobewareofthe politicaluseofdistinctions,renouncingthemwouldleaveusinanutterlyuncritical andincapacitatedstate.
Infact,anestablishedandwidespreadconceptcanhelptocapturetheproblematiccharacterofspecificcynicalbeliefs.Thisistheveryconceptofdogmaticbelief, oftaken-for-grantedness.Wealltakecertainthingsforgrantedandcannotquestioneverythingallthetime.Still,itmakesadifferencewhetherwearereadyto entertaindoubtsorwhetherwesticktocertainbeliefswithoutevenconsidering objections.Inthelattercase,cynicalassumptionsbecomeuncriticalanddogmatic. Excessiveinsistenceoncertainbeliefs,irrespectiveofexperienceandobjectionsthat contradictthem,isonehallmarkofdogmatism.
31Inmorebluntterms,forpoliticianssuchasTrumpandGiuliani ‘thereistruth:Truthiswhattheysay andtherestissimplywrong’.RennerandSpencer 2018,320.
32SeealsoDeOrellanaandMichelsen 2019;FreisteinandGadinger 2020
33König 2020
34Thespeechisavailableat https://www.c-span.org/video/?518097-2/russian-president-putin-recognizes-independence-donetsk-luhansk-ukraines-donbas-region (accessed25February2022).
35Trachtenberg 2020.
36AistropeandBleiker 2018
Aspecificstreamintheliteratureonconspiracytheorieshelpsmetomakethis point.Thereisacloselinkbetweencynicism(asunderstoodhere)andconspiracy theories.Bothoperatewiththeassumptionofpowerlurkingbehinddiscourse,selfinterestedmanipulationsbehindofficialnarratives.AsHyvönenexplains,posttruthpolitics ‘harksbacktothetraditionoftheparanoid/conspiratorialstyle’ . 37 AnunderstandingofthistraditioncandrawonRichardHofstadter’sseminal examinationofthe ‘paranoidstyle’ inAmericanpolitics.38 Hofstadteremphasizes thepathologicalandideologicalnatureofspecificconspiracynarratives.As AistropeandBleikerpointout,thisspecificviewofconspiracytheoriesasideologicalyields ‘sophisticatedsociopoliticalinsightsthatremainrelevant[…]inthe analysisofresurgentpopulisminWesternpoliticalculture’ . 39 Theparanoidstyle has ‘goneglobal’ . 40 ‘ThelikesofTrump,PutinandOrbánrelyonaspectsofthe paranoidstyle’ . 41 Onecanrecognizethisstyleinprominentinternationaldiscursive formationslikeclimatechangedenialand,inrecentyears,coronadenial.42 Inother words,wecanrecognizeitintheverydiscoursesthatarecommonlyassociatedwith post-truthpolitics.
Likecynicalbeliefs,conspiracytheoriesrelyonabinaryofrelativismanddogmatism.Theyrepresenta ‘hybridofscepticismandbelief’ . 43 Inmorenegative, morallychargedterms,theycombinetwo ‘epistemicvices’ , ‘paranoia ’ and ‘naïvety’ 44 Whiletheskeptical,orparanoid,aspectofthesetheoriesconsistsin thebeliefthatnothingabouttherealityasweknowitcanbetrusted,their naïvecomponentconsistsintheideathatsomeevil-spiritedenemyisbehind allthemanipulations.Conspiracytheorieslocatemysteriousforcesnotinnature butinsociety.Theyassumethat ‘ immenselypowerfulforcesareoperativebehind theculturalscreens, underneath and beyond theempiricalsurfaceofmodern life’ . 45 Itisacharacteristicfeatureofmanyconspiracytheoriesthattheseforces arebelievedtoconsistinsomepersonalizedfigureofageneralizedadversary, whoispresumedtomanipulatereality,suchas ‘ theJews ’ intheProtocolsof theEldersofZion.46 Thesteptowardpersonalization,towardthenaturalization ofanenemy,isattractive,sinceitmakescontrollableandcombatablewhat otherwiseisbeyondone’sreach.Ittransformsanxiety(i.e.ageneralfeelingof
37Hyvönen 2018,42.
38Hofstadter 1964
39AistropeandBleiker 2018,170.
40Drezner 2010
41Hyvönen 2018,41.
42So-calledclimatechangedeniershaveformanyyearsusedrelativistargumentstodiscreditoverwhelmingscientificevidenceforanthropogenicclimatechange(McIntyre 2018,27–30).InthepresentCOVID crisis,averitable ‘misinfo-demic’ hasbeensaidtoaccompanyandworsentherealpandemic(Guterres 2020).Inthelattercase,commonconspiracyallegationsincludethebeliefthatthecoronavirusoriginated insecretChinesemilitarylabs;rareronesallegethatthepandemicwasplannedbyBillGatesonbehalfof pharmaceuticalcompanies.SeeFisher 2020;Schmidt 2020
43Aupers 2012,30.
44Coady 2006,10;PelkmansandMachold 2011,68.
45Aupers 2012,30,originalemphasis.
46Boltanski 2014,146–50.
vulnerabilitythatlacksaconcretereferenceobject)intofearofaconcrete,personalizedother.47
Ofcourse,conspiracytheoriescanbetrue.Theuncoveringofafactualconspiracy,namelyPresidentNixon’sattempttomanipulatethe1972electioncampaignof hisadversaryGeorgeMcGovern,actuallyencouragedaproliferationofdoubtthat motivatedSteveTesich’swarningofa ‘post-truthworld’– thatis,thefirstuseofthe termpost-truthinitscurrentmeaning. 48 Yetfromtheviewpointoftheparanoidstyle literature,itisofcrucialimportancetodistinguishtheunveilingofspecific,factually existingconspiraciesbyjournalistsfromthemoodofgeneralizeddisbeliefdeplored byTesich.SuchadistinctioncanrelyonadifferentiationthatrecentworkinthetraditionofHofstadterhasintroduced,namelythatbetweenconspiracy hypotheses andconspiracy ideologies.Thelatter,ideologicalformofconspiracybeliefisrecognizablein particularintwofeatures:first,inits ‘immunization’ againstfalsification,whichimplies thatallcounter-evidenceisinterpretedasmanufacturedbytheconspirators,withthe consequencethatnoevidencecanevershatterthebeliefintheexistenceoftheconspiracy;second,inthedeterminationofenemieswhoaresuspectedtowieldtremendous power. 49 Inotherwords,thedogmaticnatureofbothdisbelief(inthetruthofanypossiblecounter-evidence)andbelief(intheexistenceofanenemymanipulator)iswhat rendersconspiracytheoriesideologicalintheviewofthesescholars.
Thisinsightisimportantbecauseitshowsthatnoteveryclaimthatpowerful forcesareatworkandmanipulatecertainoutcomesisideological.Thisclaim becomesideologicalwhenitisimmunizedagainstfalsificationandwhentheeversameenemyfiguresaredeclaredtoberesponsiblewithoutempiricalverification. Ideologicalconspiracythinkingcreatesaformof ‘falseclarity’ accordingto whichthenatureofacomplexrealityistotallytransparent.50 Conspiracyideologies donotrevealthecomplexnatureofmanipulationanddeceit,buttakeforgranted thatmanipulationsexist.Theeasewithwhichsomequiteunfoundedandimplausibleassertions – forinstance,that ‘theChinese’ inventedclimatechange,orthatBill Gatesinventedcorona – metwithbeliefonsocialmediaisanindicationofthis taken-for-grantedness.51 Thiseaseindicatesthatthedeeper,cynicalassumption thatconspiraciesandmanipulationsareeverywhereisnotquestionedandcritically interrogated,butacceptedasself-evident.
Thedistinctionbetweenconspiracyhypothesesandconspiracyideologiesis epistemological.52 Itconcernshowknowledgeisdealtwithbythosewhobelieve
47KinnvallandMitzen 2020,243–44;Rumelili 2020,258–59.Brighi(2016,424–26)reflectsonasimilar transformationwithadifferentsource:ofresentment(afeelingofinjustice)into ressentiment (which involves ‘theproductionofscapegoats’).
48Tesich 1992.
49KrügerandSeiffert-Brockmann 2018,75;Pfahl-Traughber 2002
50Fluck 2016,68–73.
51TrumpsharedhisviewthatclimatechangewasahoaxinNovember2012: ‘Theconceptofglobal warmingwascreatedbyandfortheChineseinordertomakeU.S.manufacturingnon-competitive’ , Trumptweeted.Hismessagewasretweetedover104,000times,and ‘liked’ over66,000times.See https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385 (accessed6December2017).Forconspiracytheoriesaboutcorona,seeFisher 2020;Schmidt 2020
52Thedistinctioniscertainlyalsopolitical,anissuethatwarrantsexaminationsintheirownright (c.AistropeandBleiker 2018).Iinsistontheepistemologicalcharacterofthedistinctionhere,because itseemsessentialformyclaimaboutnaturalization/dogmatism.
intheexistenceofaconspiracy.Hypothesesneedtobeconfirmedorrefuted dependingonempiricalevidence.Incontrast,ideologiestendtomakethemselves independentfromempiricalverification.53 AccordingtoHannahArendt,the natureofideologicalthinkingisan ‘emancipationfromrealityandexperience’ . 54 Ideologicalclaimsareconsideredtobetruenomatterwhatrealityislike;theycannotbefalsified.TheresultisanattitudethatArendtandErichFrommhave describedasa ‘mixtureofgullibilityandcynicism’ . 55 Ontheonehand,thetruth ofpublicandofficialclaimsisrejectedinitsentirety;there’snothingbut ‘fake news ’.Arendtspeaksof ‘apeculiarkindofcynicism – anabsoluterefusaltobelieve inthetruthofanything,nomatterhowwellthistruthmaybeestablished’ . 56 Fromm mentionsa ‘cynicismtowardseverythingwhichissaidorprinted’ . 57 Ontheother hand,thereisanastonishingcertaintyaboutcertainkindsof ‘facts’,suchas,notably, theideathatsomeone’sself-interestisbehinditall.Inthecaseofthetotalitarian ideologiesofthe20th century,theconspiraciesandmanipulationsof ‘Bolsheviks’ , ‘Jews’,orthe ‘classenemy’ weresuspectedtobeaprimemovingforceofhistory.58
Theterm ‘cynicism’ cancapturebothsidesofthephenomenonthatArendt, Frommaswellasstudentsofconspiracytheorieshavedescribed.Intheirbook SpiralofCynicism,CappellaandJamiesonassociatecynicismwithbothdisbelief andbelief,bothparanoiaandnaïvety.Cynicismisadogmaticformofdisbelief thatrejectscertainclaimstotruthinageneral,blanketmanner.Yetthisrejection isbasedonaspecificformofdogmaticbelief – itisfoundedonabeliefthatone knowssomethingwithabsolutecertainty.AsthejournalistThomasFriedman explains,while ‘skepticismisaboutaskingquestions,beingdubious,beingwary, notbeinggullible’,cynicismis ‘aboutalreadyhavingtheanswers – orthinking youdo…’ 59 Cynicsrejectthetruthbecausetheybelievetheyhavefoundananswer toeverything.Whatisthisanswer?Accordingto Webster’ s,thecynicisa ‘faultfinding,captiouscritic,amisanthrope’,andspecifically ‘onewhobelievesthathuman conductismotivatedwhollybyself-interest’ . 60 Thespecificassumptionofcynical beliefishencethathumansseekonlytheirown,narrowlydefinedself-interests,no matterwhattheysayorclaiminpublic.Andthisisultimatelywhynothingthat peoplesayinpubliccanbeconsideredtrue.Everythingisalie,it’sall ‘fake news’– exceptfortheultimatefactthatmanipulationiseverywhere,whichis thesoletrueknowledgethatexistsfromacynicalperspective.
Cynicismcancertainlybedefineddifferently. Webster’ s actuallygivestwodefinitions,ofwhichIhavecitedonlythesecond.Thefirstreferstothecynicasa memberoftheAncientGreekschoolofphilosophythatcriticizedsocialcustoms
53Behr 2020.
54Arendt 1979,471.
55Arendt 1979,382;c.Fromm 1965,276.
56Arendt 2006,252–53;quotedinHyvönen 2018,44.
57Fromm 1965,276.
58Theconspiracy-theoreticalmotiveplaysanimportantrolealsoinHorkheimerandAdorno’s(2002) DialecticofEnlightenment andspecificallythechapteronthe ‘Elementsofantisemitism’
59QuotedinCappellaandJamieson 1997,26.
60Ibid. Webster’ s definitioncertainlycapturesonlyonepartoftheconcept’smeaning.Cynicismcanalso becausalandheedless,evenlight-hearted(c.OscarWilde).ThisisonereasonIwillsubsequentlyintroduce thenotionof ‘dogmaticcynicism’
aswellasotherphilosophies.61 Contemporaryresearchon ‘organizationalcynicism’ highlightsthatcynicismcanserveanemancipatoryfunction.62 However,cynicism ininternationalorganizationshasalsobeendescribedasahindrancetoproductive critique.63 WhenIusetheexpression ‘dogmaticcynicism’ (ratherthanjustcynicism)inthispaper,Ihaveinmindaspecificideologicalmindsetthatischaracterizedbythreeelements:first,thebeliefthatbehaviorisself-interested(inthenarrow senseofegoistic);second,thedisbeliefinvariouspubliclystatedclaimsaboutreality,facts,orselflessintentions;third,thetaken-for-grantednessofthesefirsttwo beliefs(ormoreprecisely,ofbeliefanddisbelief),whichmakescynicism ‘dogmatic’ . Inbrief,dogmaticcynicismisthetaken-for-grantedbeliefthatself-interested manipulationsarebehindallclaimsthatpurporttobeobjectiveandselfless.
Noteveryexampleassociatedwithpost-truthdiscourseunambiguouslyandobviouslyexpressesallthreeelements.Yetthethreeelementsformadeeperideological mindsetthatcanlendcredibilitytomanyclaimsthatotherwiseappeartobequitesurprising,nottosaycrazy – claimsthatthereare ‘alternativefacts’ orthat ‘truthisn’t truth’,claimsthat ‘theChinese’ arebehindclimatechangeorBillGatesisbehindcorona.Astheseexamplesshow,dogmaticcynicismcanexpressdoubtconcerninghuman motivesingeneral,oritcanbedirectedagainstspecificactors(onlyinthelattercase doesitoverlapwith ‘conspiracyideologies’ asdiscussedabove).Thesetwoaspectsof thephenomenonclearlyreinforceeachother.Specificallegationsagainstspecificactors becomemoreplausibleinaclimateofgeneralizedcynicalsuspicion;andinturn,the generalclimateisfueledbyspecificallegations.64 Hencetheobjective,tobepursuedin thenextsectionofthepaper,toinquireintotheoriginsofthisgeneralclimate.
Obviously,noteverykindofhatredofspecificothers(xenophobia,racism)is rootedsolelyindogmaticcynicism.Angerandresentmenthavemanyfacesand manyorigins.65 However,whileitisaworthwhiletasktofocusontheroleof theseemotions,associatedastheyarewithconspiracytheoreticaldiscourse,66 it isequallyimportanttocometogripswiththesimplerationalinterpretations thatmakepost-truthdiscourseplausibleandevenself-evident.67 Thisistheavenue tobepursuedintheremainderofthispaper.Itwillseektoshowthatdisbeliefin claimstoobjectivityandselflessnessisnotsimplyanirritatingandoutrageousrhetoricaltoolusedinthecontemporarybacklashagainsttheliberalworldorder,but possiblytheproductofonecoreliberalinstitution:themarket.
Dogmaticcynicismandneoliberalcompetition
TheunleashingofmarketcompetitionisoneofthemostimportantsocialandpoliticaldynamicsthathavemarkedbothWesternandnon-Westernsocieties,both internationalanddomesticcontexts,bothpersonalandpublicspheres,inrecent
61Ibid.
62Dean etal 1998
63Christian 2022
64Anotherwaytoputthisistosay,withthewordsofRingmar(2018,459),thatdogmaticcynicismconstitutesa ‘fertilefield’ inwhichaconspiratorialorpost-truth ‘mood’ grows.
65Brighi 2016
66Crilley 2018;LemanandCinnirella 2003;Abalakina-Paap etal. 1999.
67Fluck 2016
decades.Thissectionofthepaperwillarguethatthisdynamicisonelikelyoriginof theideologicalmindsetdescribedthusfar.Unleashedneoliberalcompetition fostersthepropensitytoadoptdogmaticcynicalbeliefs,becauseitnaturalizes (i.e.makesappearasnaturalandnormal)anassumptionthatiscentraltocynical convictions:theassumptionthatallhumanbehaviorisself-interestedinanarrow, egoisticsense.
Noonewillcontestthategoisticself-interestisonekeyprincipleofactioninthe economicmarket.68 Theassumptionofself-interestisfoundationalofmodern microeconomictheory.69 Thereismuchdebateonhowbenevolentmarketcompetitionis.AdvocatesofthemarketoftenrefertoAdamSmith’sfamousnotionofthe ‘invisiblehand’,bywhichtheegoisticbehaviorofeveryoneistransformedintothe benefitofall.70 Skepticsreplythatmarketcompetitionproduces ‘winnersand losers’ . 71 Thedebateisnotaboutwhetheregoisticbehaviorcharacterizesthemarket,onlyaboutwhetherandhowitcanbetamedandturnedintoproductiveoutcomesforsocietyasawhole.72
Noonewillcontestthatthemarkethasexpandedoverrecentdecades.The expansionofthemarketistypicallyanalyzedunderheadingssuchas ‘marketization’ , ‘privatization’ or,somewhatmorecontroversially, ‘neoliberalization’ . 73 Whileinthe1980s,theexpansionofthemarketwasakeyitemontheagenda ofthepoliticalright,associatedwithUSPresidentRonaldReaganandUKPrime MinisterMargaretThatcher,inthe1990sitbecamecentralinthesocial-democratic questtooccupythepoliticalcenter,initssearchfora ‘ThirdWay’.Theleadersof left-centerpartieslikeBillClinton(USA),TonyBlair(UK),andGerhardSchröder (Germany)adoptedtheideathatindividualresponsibilityisfurtheredthrough competition,andintegrateditintotheirpoliticalagendas. 74 The1990sand 2000srepresentedthehighwatermarkofprivatization,thatis,theoutsourcing ofpublicresponsibilitiestoprivateactorswhocompetedonamarket.75 ThisdevelopmenttookparticularlyextremeformsinBritain,where interalia therailwaysystemwasprivatized,butthetoolofcompetitionwasintroducedtoorganizeallkinds ofdomainsthathadpreviouslybeenexemptedfromcompetitivepressures,from thewatersupplytopostaldelivery,publictransport,socialservices,anduniversity
68Thetermself-interestcanbedefinedinabroadway,asencompassingaltruisticmotivations.The assumptionofeconomictheoristsisusuallythatevenaltruisticbehaviorultimatelymaximizesaspecific personalutilityfunction – andis,inthissense,egoistic.Thetransformationofself-interestinthisbroad senseintoanarrowerformofselfishness,wherethelatterimpliesthereadinesstodeceiveandhurtothers, isakeypartofneoliberalmarketrationality.SeeAmadae 2016.
69Friedman 1953,19–22.
70The ‘invisiblehand’ describes ‘ahappycoincidenceofprivateinterestandcommongood’;Herzog 2013,33.
71Sandel 2020,19.
72Thisdebatehasatwinintheacademicdebatebetweenneoliberalismandneorealismininternational theory.Bothsidesagreethatself-interestistheprincipleofaction,buttheydisagreeonwhetherthisnecessarilyleadstozero-sumconfrontationswithwinnersandlosers(asneorealistsclaim)orabsolutegains – i.e. gainsforeveryone – arepossibleundercertainconditions(asneoliberalshold).SeeKeohane(1984)fora seminalstatementofthisdifference.
73Amadae 2016,Biebricher 2015;Brown 2019
74Sandel 2020,20–21.
75Hacker 2004
education,incountriesallaroundtheglobe.76 Perceivedpressuresstemmingfrom globalcompetitionplayedacrucialroleinthisdevelopment,asthey – allegedly –leftnoalternativetoliberalization.
Whileneoliberalcompetitionisexperiencedglobally,itseffectsareunevenand dependonspecificcultural,historical,andmaterialcircumstances.Theexpansion ofthemarkethasundoubtedlyimpacteddifferentcountriesandsectorsofsociety differently.Forinstance,intheformerEasternblocmorerecentlyconvertedtocapitalism,themarketizationofthe1990swasexperiencedasanespeciallyjarring shock.Neitherherenorelsewheredidmarketizationproduceentirely ‘fair’ results, inthesensethatcompetitivelawswereappliedtoallequally.Thisunfairness,especiallyvisibleintheformercommunistcountries,certainlycontributestocynical reactions,asitshowsthatnoteventheliberalcompetitivenormsthemselvesare respected.However,evenifcompetitionwerefair,themerefactofitsexpansion wouldstillcontributetothenormalizationofcynicism.Thereasonisthatthis expansiontransformsandshapesinterpretationsofhumanbehaviorand experience.
Theunleashingofneoliberalcompetitionisaccompaniedbyanormativetransformationthathastakenplaceonthelevelofindividualandcollectiveexperience. Thecategoryofthemarkethasbecome ‘astandardforcomportmentwhichis appliednotonlyinthebusinessworldbutwithinmanyothersocialspaces, someofwhichwerepreviouslyinsulatedfromsuchforces’ . 77 Competitionhas become ‘akindofgoverningethicforallindividualsandorganisations’ . 78 Differentsocialtheoristshavesoughttocapturethistransformation.Theyhave pointedtotheemergenceofa ‘newspiritofcapitalism’,toa ‘newcultureofcapitalism’,toa ‘performancesociety’ whereeveryoneconstantlyneedstoprovehis orhervaluethroughcompetitiveperformances,or,inmorepejorativeterms,to anew ‘precaritycapitalism’ whereuncertaintyisfeltnotonlybythelowerclasses, butbythemajorityofthepopulation – the ‘99%’ . 79 Thesedifferenttheoreticalanalysesallsharethebasicdiagnosisthatrelationshipsbetweenvariousactorshave becomemorecompetitive.Notonlyfirms,butalsoorganizationalunitswithin them,publicinstitutions,wholestates,andnotleastindividualhumanbeings increasinglyfindthemselvesinmarket-likeinteractionsandperceivethemselves asmarketactors.80 Inordertokeeptheirjobs,musterthefundsnecessaryforinstitutionalsurvival,orattractkeyforeigninvestments,theycannotrelyonpublic guaranteesandsafeguards.Instead,theymustprovetheircapacitiesincompetitive circumstances,andhenceexperienceapressuretolookaftertheirownegoistic self-interests.
Underconditionsofneoliberalcompetition,theassumptionofegoisticselfinterestisomnipresent.Itisastandardforone’sownbehaviorandaninterpretive framethatservestoexplainthatofothers.Thisomnipresencemakesitlikelythat
76Harvey 2007
77Eagleton-Pierce 2016,125.
78Ibid,33.
79Forthe ‘newspirit’,seeBoltanskiandChiapello 2005;forthe ‘newculture’,seeSennett 2007;for ‘ performancesociety’,seeBauman 2016 andHan 2015;for ‘precaritycapitalism’,seeAzmanova 2020
80TheindividuatingaspectoftheneoliberaltransformationhasbeengraspedascrucialbyUlrichBeck, ZygmuntBauman,andMichelFoucault.SeetheilluminatinganalysisbyElisabettaBrighi 2016
theassumptionwillbecomenaturalized.Themorepeopleexperiencemarket-like interactions,themoretheywillcometobelievethatthemaximizationofindividual competitivereturnsisanormalandnaturalformofbehavior,despiteitbeing shapedbythespecificsocialandhistoricalconditionsoflatemodernneoliberalism. Butwhyshouldthenaturalizationofself-interestleadtocynicalinterpretations ofclaimsaboutselflessnessandobjectivity?Quitesimply,withthenormalizationof self-interestastheassumedmotivationforbehavior,itislikelythatcynicalreactionstootherallegedmotivationsgrow.Afterall,ifeveryoneeverywhereisassumed tomaximizeonlytheirowncompetitiveprofit,thenwhyshouldwebelievethat anyoneanywherecanenterarealmofselflessnessandobjectivity?Themorethe selfishnessofcompetitivebehavioristakenforgranted,themoresuspectbecome thoseclaimsthattranscendthesubjective – whetherinanormativeoranepistemologicalsense.
Asharpseparationbetweenself-interestandthecommongoodisattheheartof thecynicalviewthatisexaminedinCappellaandJamieson’sbook Spiralof Cynicism.CappellaandJamiesonshowthatastrategicframeinnewsreporting aboutpoliticscanfurthercynicalattitudesamongmediarecipients.Thisstrategic newsframereduces
themotivationforaction(ofanysort,whetherapolicyorpersonalchoice) … toasingle,simplehumanmotivation – thedesiretowinandtotakethepower thatelectedofficeprovides.Insuchaninterpretiveframe,allactionsare tainted – theyareseennotastheby-productofadesiretosolvesocialills, redirectnationalgoals,orcreateabetterfutureforouroffspringbutare insteadviewedintermsofwinning.Winningisequivalenttoadvancing one ’sownagenda,one’sownself-interest,sotheactionsstandnotforthemselvesbutforthemotivationalsystemthatgivesrisetothem – narrowselfinterest.Inthisway,actionsarereinterpretableasservingthecandidate’ s underlyingmotivations.81
Theinterpretationofbehaviorthatisattheheartofthestrategicnewsframe –‘narrowself-interest’– istheveryinterpretationthatisnaturalizedthroughthe unleashingofcompetition.Thisinterpretationcontributestothelikelihoodofcynicalreactionstoclaimsaboutselflessgoalsandobjectivefacts.
Theexpansionofthemarketdrivesawedgebetweentheselfishandtheselfless, betweenthesubjectiveandtheobjective.Itiscertainlyimplausibletoassumethat thesepoleswereinharmonybeforemarketization,andcameintoconflictonly throughtheunleashingofcompetition.WithinthetraditionofWesternmodernity (andnotonlythere),itisanimportanttoolofsocialcriticismto ‘unmasktheallpowerfulselfishintereststhatlurkbehindfine,altruisticdiscourse ’ . 82 Cynicismis distinctlynotanewphenomenon,createdwithinthepastfourdecadesalone.83
81CappellaandJamieson 1997,34.
82BoltanskiandThévenot 2006,114;Unrau 2018
83Arendt 1979;Fromm 1965.Thequestionofthesocialsourcesofearlierformsofcynicismliesbeyond thescopeofthispaper.Myhunchisthatwemaybeabletodetectthesesourcesinothersocialdynamics that,likemarketization,driveawedgebetweentheselfishandtheselfless.Forinstance,experiencesofprotractedconflictoreconomicuncertaintymayequallyhavetheeffectofleadingtoabeliefthateveryone
However,whentheexperienceofmarketinteractionsbecomesomnipresent,itis morelikelythattheexistenceofanirreduciblegapbetweentheselfishandtheselflessbecomestakenforgranted.Thenitisnolongeraquestionofwhether,inaspecificinstance,thereisacontradictionbetweenself-interestandthecommongood. Instead,thecontradictionbetweenthetwopolesisassumedratherthaninterrogated.Theveryideathatself-interestandthecommongoodcan(ifonlytemporarilyandincompletely)beinharmony,theveryideathatfactualclaims(ifonly temporarilyandincompletely)canapproachtheidealofobjectivity,comestobe seenasnaïve.Thistaken-for-grantednessisthehallmarkofdogmaticcynicism. Dogmaticcynicismdeniesthefundamentaldynamicofsubject–objectrelations, markedby(neverpermanent,nevercomplete)reconciliationandcontradiction. Ittreatsasfixedabinarywhosedynamiccharacterisconstitutiveofsocialandpoliticalinteraction.Thisideologicaltendencyhascertainlymorethanoneorigin.But oneimportantsocialsourceofitinourtimeisneoliberalcompetition.
Thereareempiricalindicatorswhichprovidesupportfortheclaimthatcynical disbeliefisnotnaturalandnormal,buthasbeenreinforcedbyneoliberalcompetition.Forinstance,opinionsurveysfromtheUSdocumentaremarkableincrease indistrusttowardpublicandgovernmentinstitutionsamongtheAmericanpopulationbetween1964and1997.Inthistimespan,trustinthefederalgovernment declinedfrom75to25%,inuniversitiesfrom61to30%,inmedicalinstitutions from73to29%,andinjournalismfrom29to14%.84 Whilecorrelationisnotcausation,itisnoteworthythatthisistheverysametimespaninwhichmarketization transformedalloftheinstitutionsmentionedandsocietyasawhole.Moreover,the impactofmarketizationisalsodirectlydiscernibleinpoliticalpractice.Richard Sennettsuggeststhat ‘theneweconomymaybebreedinganewpolitics’ 85 Marketinghasbecome ‘thecruxofpolitics’,with ‘themerchandizingofpolitical leaders’ resemblingthatof ‘sellingsoap’ . 86 Itisawell-documentedfactthatmarketingandbrandinghavebeguntoplayabiggerroleinpoliticsovertime.Precisely thosepoliticianswhoadvocatedmarketizationinthe1990s – Blair,Clinton,and Schröder – werecriticizedfortheemphasistheyplacedonstrategiesofimagemanagement.87 Butwhenweknowthateventhepersonalitiesofpoliticiansarebranded andmarketized,isitnotnaturaltosuspectthattheirbehaviorismerelydrivenby selfishinterestsinwinning?
Whyaresomepeoplemorepronetosuchviewsthanothers?Noteveryonewho experiencesmarketcompetitionbecomesautomaticallyandnecessarilyadogmatic cynic.Weshouldnotimaginedogmaticcynicismtobeapersonalbeliefsetthatone personeitherholdscompletelyornotatall.Theindividualbeliefsofapersonare usuallycomplexandmanifold.However,themorepeopleexperiencetheirlifeas being ‘just’ markedbycompetitiverelationships(fromschooltothejobmarket,
needstolook ‘only’ aftertheirownegoisticinterestsandthatnoclaimaboutselflessnessiscredible.Inthis respect,SonjaAmadae’sstudyoftheoriginsofneoliberaltheoryinColdWarthinkingisinstructive.See Amadae 2016
84Kramer 1999,588–89.
85Sennett 2007,131.
86Ibid,135.
87Needham 2005
fromemploymentrealitytosocialmedia),thelikelierisitthatself-interested behavioristakenforgrantedinmanyrealmsofsociallife.
Oneimplicationofthisargumentisthatcynicalviewscarrywiththemakernel oftruth.Selfishnessisnotonlyacharge,butalsoarealityinamarketsociety.The logicof(market)thinkingissuchthatitinspiresandencouragesselfishbehavior. Ifnoonebelievesanylongerthatanybehaviorislinkedtothepublicgood,then thepoliticalsphereisindangerofbecomingakindofself-servicebusinessnotonly inimagination,butalsoinreality.Inthisbusiness,itisassumed,publicgoodsexist merelyforthepurposeofself-helpandself-gratification.Eventhoughcontemporarycynicismassumesadogmaticform,itmayquitesimplyreflectthedeepertruth thatthedominantnormativelogicofourtimepushesustobehaveinaselfishway. Theincreasingpressuretoprioritizeselfishcompetitiveinterestsisnotonlyacause oftheriseincynicism,butalsoafeltrealityinthepersonallivesofthemembersof amarketsociety.Whyiscynicismnonethelessfalseandideological?Becauseit takesforgrantedsomethingwhichisaproductofsocialinstitutionsandthus canbechanged.
OnestudyinwhichthesocialproductionofcynicismbecomesperhapsespeciallyevidentisCatherineWeaver’sexaminationof ‘organizedhypocrisy’ inthe WorldBank.88 Asaphenomenon, ‘organizedhypocrisy’ istheflipsideofcynicism. Wherehypocrisy(i.e.thegapbetweentalkandaction)isorganized,cynicismis alsoorganized,inthesensethatallnormativetalkappearsdubious.Weaverexamineshypocrisyasasociallyproduced,changeablephenomenon.ShetracesitsoriginsanditstransformationsinthehistoryoftheWorldBank.Fromtheviewpoint ofthisarticle,oneespeciallyinterestingaspectofWeaver’sstudyconcernsthe effectsofaspecificinternalmanagementreforminsidetheBank.Inthelate 1990s,WorldBankPresidentJamesWolfensohnintroduceda ‘Strategic Compact’ thatentailed,asoneofitscoremeasures,increasinglycompetitiverelationshipsbetweenindividualstaffmembers.Staffwereto ‘bidagainsteachother forcertainjobs,thuscreatingacompetitiveinternalmarketthatwasexpectedto improvethequality,efficiency,andcost-effectivenessofprojectmanagement’ . 89 InWeaver’sempiricalaccount,thisreformdeepenedhypocrisyintheBank.Itreinforcedthewedgebetweenofficialpublicclaimsandinstitutionalreality.Internal evaluationsshowthattheStrategicCompactledto ‘considerablestaffuncertainty andanxietyresultingfromperceivedmissioncreep’ . 90 Thecompetitivepressures weresostrongthatstaffmembersevenhesitatedtoshareknowledgewiththeircolleagues;theyfearedit ‘mightbeusedbyotherstafftobidforthesamework’ . 91 PreciselyatthemomentwhentheinternalstructuresoftheBankbecamemore competitive,staffmembersquestionedmoreintenselythanbeforethehonestyof theircolleaguesandthecredibilityoftheBank’sofficialmission.Perhapsthey wererighttodoso – itisnotpossibletotraceany ‘excessively’ cynicalclaims here.Still,Weaver’sstudysupportstheconclusionthatcynicismisaproductof socialinstitutionsandissubjecttohistoricalchange.
88Weaver 2008 89Ibid,149. 90Ibid,153. 91Ibid,161–62.
Conclusions
Therehasbeenmuchoutrageoverpost-truthpoliticsinpublicandacademicdiscourse.Giventherecklessnesswithwhichcertainempiricalfactshavebeenquestioned,andgiventherolethatthisquestioningplaysinimportantpolitical matterslikeclimatechangeandtheCOVIDpandemic,thisoutrageisunderstandable.However,theoutrageismisdirected.Itisfocusedexclusivelyontherelativizationoffactsandignoresthehardeningofideologicalbeliefthatunderliesthis relativization.Itblamesexclusivelyilliberalforcesandtheiranti-liberalpolitics andfailstoseethatthephenomenonhasoriginswithinliberalismitself.
Theoutrageoverpost-truthpoliticsshouldbedirectedagainstthenaturalization ofcynicismandthesocialsourcesofthisnaturalization.Theideathathuman behavioris ‘merely’ and ‘exclusively’ self-interested,andthat ‘all’ normativediscourseis ‘merely’ rhetoricalandfake,doesnotreflectaneternal,naturaltruth abouthumanbehavior.Thisideaissociallyproduced.Thispaperhasattempted toshedlightononespecificsocialsourceofcynicisminourtime:theinstitution oftheeconomicmarketanditsexpansiontomanyrealmsofsociety.Theimportanceofthisinstitutionforthespreadofcynicismcanbededucedfromthesimple factthatitfostersapervasiveinterpretationofhumanbehaviorasself-interestedin thenarrowsenseofegoistic.Thisinterpretationcastsdoubtonthecredibilityof otherdeclaredmotivations – oftheexpert,thescientist,orthejournalistwho claimtobeinterestedinobjectiveknowledge;ofthepoliticianwhoclaimstobe interestedinthepublicgood.Thisdoubtisnotalwaysexcessiveandideological. Themorecompetitivebehaviorisnaturalizedandseeneverywhere,however,the morelikelyisitthatsuspicionswillbecomeexcessiveandideological.
Awarenessoftheexcessivecharacterofcertaincynicalinterpretations,andoftheir productionthroughaspecifickindofsocialinstitution,opensuptheviewforthe importanceofalternativeinterpretationsandalternativeinstitutions.92 Whatisnaturalizedcanbede-naturalized.Thecynicalinterpretationofmarketinteractions (asofothertypesofinteraction)isfoundedonastarkbinaryofpartvs.whole,of egoisticunitvs.commongood,ofsubjectivevs.objective.Certainly,analternative tothisbinarycannotandwillnotconsistinitsuncriticaldissolution.Rather,what isneededisastandpointfromwhichneitherthe(cynical)separationofthese polesnortheir(naïve)unificationistakenforgranted.Acquiringsuchastandpoint isacontinuous,criticaltaskthatinvolvesboththeoryandpractice.
Acknowledgments.
EarlierversionsofthispaperhavebeenpresentedattheGeneralConferenceofthe InternationalRelationssectionoftheGermanPoliticalScienceAssociationinOctober2020,attheresearch colloquiumoftheChairsforGlobalGovernanceandInternationalRelationsatLMUMunichinNovember 2019,attheEuropeanConsortiumforPoliticalResearch(ECPR)GeneralConferenceinWroclaw,Poland,in September2019,andataworkshopoftheworkinggroupNormsResearchoftheGermanPoliticalScience AssociationinHamburginOctober2018.Ithanktheparticipantsintheseeventsforvaluablefeedback.Iam particularlygratefultoFelixAnderl,BenChristian,RaymondDuvall,BeateJahn,PaulaHofmann,Rainer Hülsse,BenjaminMartill,HolgerNiemann,JensSteffek,MonikaSus,ChristianVolk,andBernhardZangl forcriticalcommentsandin-depthdiscussions.Moreover,Ithankthreeanonymousreviewersandtheeditors of InternationalTheory forvaluableadvicethathelpedmetosharpenandfocusmyargument.Finally,I wouldliketothankRoxanneZarotiadisforbringingthearticleinlinewithformaljournalrequirements, andCiaranCroninforcarefullyeditingthefinalversion.
92Boswell etal 2019
Conflictofinterest. Theauthordeclaresnone.
References
Abalakina-Paap,Marina,WalterG.Stephan,TraciCraig,andW.LarryGregory.1999. “Beliefsin Conspiracies.” PoliticalPsychology 20(3):637–47.
Adler,Emanuel,andAlenaDrieschova.2021. “TheEpistemologicalChallengeofTruth-Subversiontothe LiberalInternationalOrder.” InternationalOrganization 75(1):359–86.
Aistrope,Tim,andRolandBleiker.2018. “ConspiracyandForeignPolicy.” SecurityDialogue 49(3):165–82. Amadae,Sonja.2016. PrisonersofReason:GameTheoryandNeoliberalPoliticalEconomy.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
Arendt,Hannah.1979. TheOriginsofTotalitarianism.Neweditionwithaddedprefaces.SanDiego: HarvestBooks.
Arendt,Hannah.2006. BetweenPastandFuture:EightExercisesinPoliticalThought.London:Penguin. Aupers,Stef.2012. “‘TrustNoOne’:Modernization,ParanoiaandConspiracyCulture.” EuropeanJournal ofCommunication 27(1):22–34.
Azmanova,Albena.2020. CapitalismonEdge:HowFightingPrecarityCanAchieveRadicalChangeWithout CrisisorUtopia.NewYork,NY:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Barnett,Michael,andMarthaFinnemore.2004. RulesfortheWorld:InternationalOrganizationsinGlobal Politics.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress. Baron,IlanZvi.2018. HowtoSavePoliticsinaPost-TruthEra:ThinkingthroughDifficultTimes Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
Bauman,Zygmunt.2016. StrangersatOurDoor.Cambridge,UK:PolityPress. Behr,Hartmut.2020. “Theoryvs.Ideology:ValidityCriteriaforKnowledgeClaimsandNormative ConditionsofCritique.” In TheoryasIdeologyinInternationalRelations,editedbyBenjaminMartill andSebastianSchindler,19–33.London:Routledge.
Berger,Peter,andThomasLuckmann.1966. TheSocialConstructionofReality.NewYork:AnchorBooks. Bewes,Timothy.1997. CynicismandPostmodernity.London:Verso. Biebricher,Thomas.2015. “NeoliberalismandDemocracy.” Constellations(Oxford,England) 22:255–66. Boltanski,Luc.2014. MysteriesandConspiracies:DetectiveStories,SpyNovelsandtheMakingofModern Societies.Cambridge:PolityPress.
Boltanski,Luc,andEveChiapello.2005. TheNewSpiritofCapitalism,transl.GregoryElliott.London:Verso. Boltanski,Luc,andLaurentThévenot.2006. OnJustification.EconomicsofWorth.Princeton,Oxford: PrincetonUniversityPress.
Boswell,J.,J.Corbett,K.Dommett,W.Jennings,M.Flinders,R.Rhodes,andM.Wood.2019. “Stateofthe Field:WhatCanPoliticalEthnographyTellUsAboutAnti-PoliticsandDemocraticDisaffection?” EuropeanJournalofPoliticalResearch 58:56–71. Brighi,Elisabetta.2016. “TheGlobalisationofResentment:Failure,Denial,andViolenceinWorldPolitics.” Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies 44(3):411–32. Brown,Wendy.2019. IntheRuinsofNeoliberalism:TheRiseofAntidemocraticPoliticsintheWest NewYork,NY:ColumbiaUniversityPress. Calcutt,Andrew.2016. “TheSurprisingOriginsof ‘Post-Truth’– AndHowItwasSpawnedbytheLiberal Left.” TheConversation.Availableat http://theconversation.com/thesurprising-origins-of-post-truthand-how-it-was-spawned-by-the-liberal-left-68929.Accessed27September2017.
Cappella,KathleenHall,andJosephN.Jamieson.1997. SpiralofCynicism.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Christian,Ben.2022. “AThreatRatherthanaResource:WhyVoicingInternalCriticismisDifficultin InternationalOrganisations.” JournalofInternationalRelationsandDevelopment 25(2):425–49. CNN.2017. “Conway:TrumpWhiteHouseOffered ‘AlternativeFacts’ onCrowdSize.” 23January2017. Availableat https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts.Accessed6 December2017.
Coady,David.2006. “AnIntroductiontothePhilosophicalDebateaboutConspiracyTheories.” In ConspiracyTheories:ThePhilosophicalDebate,editedbyDavidCoady,1–12.Burlington,VT:Ashgate. Conway,PhilipR.2021. “CriticalInternationalPoliticsatanImpasse:Reflexivist,Reformist,Reactionary, andRestitutivePost-Critique.” InternationalPoliticsReview 9:213–238.
Cozette,Murielle.2008. “WhatLiesAhead:ClassicalRealismontheFutureofInternationalRelations.” InternationalStudiesReview 10:667–79.
Crilley,Rhys.2018. “InternationalRelationsintheAgeof ‘Post-Truth’ Politics.” InternationalAffairs 94(2): 417–25.
Crilley,Rhys,andPreciousChatterje-Doody.2019. “SecurityStudiesintheAgeof ‘Post-Truth’ Politics:In DefenceofPoststructuralism.” CriticalStudiesonSecurity 7(2):166–170.
Dean,JamesW.Jr.,PamelaBrandes,andRaviDharwadkar.1998. “OrganizationalCynicism.” Academyof ManagementReview 23(2):341–52.
Dennett,Daniel.2017.Interviewwith TheGuardian.Availableat https://www.theguardian.com/science/ 2017/feb/12/daniel-dennett-politics-bacteria-bach-back-dawkins-trump-interview.Accessed7September 2018.
DeOrellana,Pablo,andNicholasMichelsen.2019. “ReactionaryInternationalism:ThePhilosophyofthe NewRight.” ReviewofInternationalStudies 45(5):748–67.
Drezner,DanielW.2010. “TheParanoidStyleinWorldPolitics.” TheSpectator(London),5May.Availableat www.spectator.co.uk/features/5972613/the-paranoid-style-in-world-politics.Accessed19August2022.
Drolet,Jean-François,andMichaelC.Williams.2022. “FromCritiquetoReaction:TheNewRight,Critical TheoryandInternationalRelations.” JournalofInternationalPoliticalTheory 18(1):23–45.
Eagleton-Pierce,Matthew.2016. Neoliberalism:TheKeyConcepts.London:Routledge.
Fearon,James,andAlexanderWendt.2002. “Rationalismv.Constructivism:ASkepticalView.” In HandbookofInternationalRelations,editedbyW.S.Carlsnaes,52–72.London:Sage.
Fielitz,Maik,andHolgerMarcks.2019. “DigitalFascism:ChallengesfortheOpenSocietyinTimesof SocialMedia.” BerkeleyCenterforRight-WingStudiesWorkingPaperSeries,publishedJuly16. Fisher,Max.2020. “WhyCoronavirusConspiracyTheoriesFlourish.AndWhyItMatters.” TheNewYork Times.8April2020.Availableat https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/world/europe/coronavirusconspiracy-theories.html.Accessed9May2020.
Flood,Alison.2016. “‘Post-Truth’ NamedWordoftheYearbyOxfordDictionaries.” TheGuardian,15 November2016.
Fluck,Matthew.2016. “Theory, ‘Truthers’,andTransparency:ReflectingonKnowledgeintheTwenty-First Century.” ReviewofInternationalStudies 42:48–73. Freistein,Katja,andFrankGadinger.2020. “PopulistStoriesofHonestMenandProudMothers:AVisual NarrativeAnalysis.” ReviewofInternationalStudies 46(2):217–36. Friedman,Milton.1953. “TheMethodologyofPositiveEconomics.” In EssaysinPositiveEconomics,edited byMiltonFriedman,3–43.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Fromm,Erich.1965[1941]. EscapefromFreedom.NewYork,NY:AvonBooks. Fuller,Steve.2017. “IsSTSAllTalkandNoWalk?” EASSTReview 36(1):21–22. Guterres,António.2020. “ThisisaTimeforScienceandSolidarity.” StatementbytheUNSecretary-General on14April2020.Availableat https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/time-scienceand-solidarity.Accessed5January2021. Hacker,Jacob.2004. “PrivatizingRiskWithoutPrivatizingtheWelfareState:TheHiddenPoliticsofSocial PolicyRetrenchmentintheUnitedStates.” AmericanPoliticalScienceReview 98(2):243–60. Han,Byung-Chul.2015. TheBurnoutSociety.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress. Hanlon,Aaron.2018. “PostmodernismDidn’tCauseTrump.ItExplainsHim.” TheWashingtonPost.31 August2018.Availableat https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/postmodernism-didnt-causetrump-it-explains-him/2018/08/30/0939f7c4-9b12-11e8-843b-36e177f3081c_story.html?noredirect=on &utm_term=.31b24fa0be4b.Accessed6September2018. Harvey,David.2007. ABriefHistoryofNeoliberalism.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Herzog,Lisa.2013. InventingtheMarket:Smith,Hegel,&PoliticalTheory.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Hofstadter,Richard.1964. TheParanoidStyleandOtherEssays.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress. Horkheimer,Max,andTheodorW.Adorno.2002. DialecticofEnlightenment:PhilosophicalFragments, trans.EdmundJephcott.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress. Hyvönen,Ari-Elmeri.2018. “CarelessSpeech:ConceptualizingPost-TruthPolitics.” NewPerspectives 26(3): 31–55.
Jahn,Beate.2021. “CriticalTheoryinCrisis?AReconsideration.” EuropeanJournalofInternational Relations 27(4):1274–99.
Kakutani,Michiko.2018. TheDeathofTruth:NotesonFalsehoodintheAgeofTrump.NewYork:Tim DugganBooks.
Keohane,Robert.1984. AfterHegemony:CooperationandDiscordintheWorldPoliticalEconomy. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Kinnvall,Catarina,andJenniferMitzen.2020. “Anxiety,Fear,andOntologicalSecurityinWorldPolitics: ThinkingwithandBeyondGiddens.” InternationalTheory 12(2):240–56.
König,Helmut.2020. LügeundTäuschungindenZeitenvonPutinundTrump.Bielefeld:Transcript. Kramer,RoderickM.1999. “TrustandDistrustinOrganizations:EmergingPerspectives,Enduring Questions.” AnnualReviewofPsychology 50(1):569–98.
Krasner,Stephen.1999. Sovereignty:OrganizedHypocrisy.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Krüger,Uwe,andJensSeiffert-Brockmann.2018. “‘Lügenpresse’– EineVerschwörungstheorie? Hintergründe,Ursachen,Auswege.” In NachrichtenundAufklärung,editedbyH.Haarkötterand J.-U.Nieland,67–87.Wiesbaden:SpringerFachmedien. Latour,Bruno.2004. “WhyHasCritiqueRunOutofSteam?FromMattersofFacttoMattersofConcern.” CriticalInquiry 30:225–48.
Leman,PatrickJ.,andMarcoCinnirella.2013. “BeliefsinConspiracyTheoriesandtheNeedforCognitive Closure.” FrontiersinPsychology 4:1–10.
Mair,Jonathan.2017. “Post-TruthAnthropology.” AnthropologyToday 33(3):3–4.
Marshall,Hannah,andAlenaDrieschova.2018. “Post-TruthPoliticsintheUK’sBrexitReferendum.” New Perspectives 26(3):89–105.
Mavelli,Luca.2020. “NeoliberalismasReligion:SacralizationoftheMarketandPost-TruthPolitics.” InternationalPoliticalSociology 14(1):57–76.
McIntyre,Lee.2018. Post-Truth.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress. Mearsheimer,JohnJ.2014. TheTragedyofGreatPowerPolitics,updatededition.NewYork:WWNorton& Co.
Meyer,Kim.2018. DaskonspirologischeDenken:ZurgesellschaftlichenDekonstruktionderWissenschaft Weilerswist:Velbrück.
Michelsen,Nicholas,andBenjaminTallis.2018. “Post-Truth-TellinginInternationalRelations.” New Perspectives 26(3):7–16.
Needham,Catherine.2005. “BrandLeaders:Clinton,BlairandtheLimitationsofthePermanent Campaign.” PoliticalStudies 53(2):343–61.
OxfordDictionaries.2016.WordoftheYear2016.Availableat https://languages.oup.com/word-of-theyear/2016/.Accessed28July2022. Pelkmans,Mathijs,andRhyMachold.2011. “ConspiracyTheoriesandTheirTruthTrajectories.” Focaal –JournalofGlobalandHistoricalAnthropology 59:66–80. Pfahl-Traughber,Armin.2002. “‘Bausteine’ zueinerTheorieüber,Verschwörungstheorien’:Definitionen, Erscheinungsformen,FunktionenundUrsachen.” In Verschwörungstheorien.Theorie – Geschichte –Wirkung,editedbyH.Reinalter,30–44.Innsbruck:StudienVerlag. Renner,Judith,andAlexanderSpencer.2018. “Trump,Brexit& ‘Post-Truth’:HowPost-StructuralistIR TheoriesCanHelpUsUnderstandWorldOrderinthe21stCentury.” Zeitschriftfür Politikwissenschaft 28:315–21. Ringmar,Erik.2018. “WhatarePublicMoods?” EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory 21(4):453–69. Rumelili,Bahar.2020. “IntegratingAnxietyintoInternationalRelationsTheory:Hobbes,Existentialism, andOntologicalSecurity.” InternationalTheory 12(2):257–72. Sandel,MichaelJ.2020. TheTyrannyofMerit.NewYork,NY:Farrar,StrausandGiroux. Scheuerman,William.2007. “WasMorgenthauaRealist?RevisitingScientificManvs.PowerPolitics.” Constellations(Oxford,England) 14:506–30. Schimmelfennig,Frank.2001. “TheCommunityTrap:LiberalNorms,RhetoricalAction,andtheEastern EnlargementoftheEuropeanUnion.” InternationalOrganization 55(1):47–80. Schindler,Sebastian.2020. “TheTaskofCritiqueinTimesofPost-TruthPolitics.” ReviewofInternational Studies 46(3):376–94. Schmidt,Fabian.2020. “DidCoronavirusReallyOriginateinaChineseLaboratory?” DW,18April2020. Availableat https://www.dw.com/en/did-coronavirus-really-originate-in-a-chinese-laboratory/a-53171292 Accessed9May2020.
Scruton,Roger.2017. “Post-Truth?It’sPureNonsense.” TheSpectator.Availableat https://www.spectator. co.uk/2017/06/post-truth-its-pure-nonsense/.Accessed29September2017. Sennett,Richard.2007. TheCultureoftheNewCapitalism.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress. Sismondo,Sergio.2017. “Post-Truth?” SocialStudiesofScience 47(1):3–6. Tallis,Benjamin.2016. “LivinginPost-Truth:Power/Knowledge/Responsibility.” NewPerspectives 24(1): 7–18.
Tesich,Steve.1992. “AGovernmentofLies.” TheNation,January6. Tjalve,VibekeSchou,andMichaelC.Williams.2015. “RevivingtheRhetoricofRealism:Politicsand ResponsibilityinGrandStrategy.” SecurityStudies 24(1):37–60. Trachtenberg,Marc.2020. “TheUnitedStatesandtheNATONon-ExtensionAssurancesof1990:New LightonanOldProblem?” InternationalSecurity 45(3):162–203. Unrau,Christine.2018. ErfahrungundEngagement:Motive,FormenundZielederGlobalisierungskritik. Bielefeld:Transcript. Vogelmann,Frieder.2018. “TheProblemofPost-Truth:RethinkingtheRelationshipBetweenTruthand Politics.” Behemoth – AJournalonCivilisation 11(2):18–37. Weaver,Catherine.2008. HypocrisyTrap:TheWorldBankandthePovertyofReform.Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress. Wendt,Alexander.1992. “AnarchyisWhatStatesMakeofIt:TheSocialConstructionofPowerPolitics.” InternationalOrganization 46(2):391–425. Wight,Colin.2018. “Post-Truth,PostmodernismandAlternativeFacts.” NewPerspectives 26(3):17–29.
Citethisarticle:Schindler,S.2024. “Post-truthpoliticsandneoliberalcompetition:thesocialsourcesof dogmaticcynicism.” InternationalTheory 16 (1),102–121,doi:10.1017/S1752971923000040