{"id":77178,"date":"2017-04-03T10:48:43","date_gmt":"2017-04-03T10:48:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2017\/04\/03\/post-verite-a-lorigine\/"},"modified":"2017-04-03T10:48:43","modified_gmt":"2017-04-03T10:48:43","slug":"post-verite-a-lorigine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2017\/04\/03\/post-verite-a-lorigine\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cPost<\/em>-V\u00e9rit\u00e9\u201d, \u00e0 l’origine"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00ab\u00a0Post<\/em>-V\u00e9rit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb, \u00e0 l’origine<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Le concept de \u00ab\u00a0post<\/em>-V\u00e9rit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb est devenu d’une utilisation universelle dans les milieux-Syst\u00e8me de la communication, gagnant ainsi une extr\u00eame notori\u00e9t\u00e9. (Nous mettons, nous et intentionnellement, un \u00ab\u00a0V\u00a0\u00bb majuscule<\/strong>. Nous nous expliquerons \u00e0 une autre occasion qui ne saurait tarder, au cours de laquelle nous nous attarderons plus en d\u00e9tails sur cette affaire, tant du point de vue psychologique, que du point de vue intellectuel, que du point de vue m\u00e9tahistorique\/m\u00e9taphysique.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Utilis\u00e9 pour attaquer aujourd’hui frontalement et d\u00e9cisivement tout ce qui est antiSyst\u00e8me, et donc ces choses monstrueuses accus\u00e9es d’\u00eatre au-del\u00e0 de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9, sinon contre la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 du fait de leurs extraordinaires mensonges antiSyst\u00e8me, le concept de \u00ab\u00a0post<\/em>-V\u00e9rit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 par cons\u00e9quent comme une arme absolu contre l’antiSyst\u00e8me<\/strong>, ce vice terrifiant, cette perversion sans retour ; ce concept est quelque chose qui doit pulv\u00e9riser \u00e0 la fois sous la honte du menteur pris la main dans le sac et sous le ridicule le bateleur de grossi\u00e8res narrative<\/em> des personnages m\u00e9prisables tels que Trump et Poutine, et des mouvements populaires aussi scandaleusement r\u00e9trogrades et r\u00e9tro-fascistes que les divers populismes qui font flor\u00e8s. Le paradoxe particuli\u00e8rement r\u00e9jouissant est que ce concept a \u00e9t\u00e9 invent\u00e9 par l’\u00e9cole philosophique fran\u00e7aise des \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9constructeurs\u00a0\u00bb, que nous nommerions \u00e9galement \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9constructurateurs\u00a0\u00bb ou bien encore \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9constructurationnistes\u00a0\u00bb si l’on veut leur donner une allure sympathique de complotistes, – qu’ils se nomment Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, etc. C’est-\u00e0-dire qu’il est tout \u00e0 fait vertueux-Syst\u00e8me \u00e0 l’origine, ce concept, et qu’il caract\u00e9rise ceux-l\u00e0 m\u00eame, les zombies-Syst\u00e8me, qui sont la descendance directe de l’\u00e9cole de philosophie qui a invent\u00e9 le concept pour caract\u00e9riser la postmodernit\u00e9 qui justifie aujourd’hui la gloire officielle de toutes les directions-Syst\u00e8me<\/strong>. Bref mais lourd, une belle op\u00e9ration d’inversion tout \u00e0 fait dans l’air du temps ; ce dont se fiche royalement, ou plut\u00f4t d\u00e9mocratiquement, toute la cohorte-Syst\u00e8me bloqu\u00e9e dans le Big Now, <\/em>qui se passe de toute r\u00e9f\u00e9rence culturelle d\u00e9passant le d\u00e9lai d’avant-hier<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

La chose \u00e9tait signal\u00e9e dans notre texte du 31 mars<\/a>. Voici l’extrait en question :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

« Pour le reste et si l’on veut r\u00e9ellement donner au concept ses ‘lettres de noblesse’, si l’on veut aller \u00e0 l’origine, l’on s’y retrouve ais\u00e9ment avec les ‘d\u00e9constructeurs’ fran\u00e7ais des ann\u00e9es 1970, les accoucheurs et accouch\u00e9s de la French Theory aux USA<\/strong> :\u00a0\u00bbC’est ici, au cœur de la \u00ab\u00a0French Theory\u00a0\u00bb <\/em>[dans les campus de sciences humaines des universit\u00e9s californiennes des ann\u00e9es 1970] que se niche la ‘post-v\u00e9rit\u00e9’ \u00e0 l’\u00e9tat philosophiquement pur. L’universitaire britannique Andrew Calcutt, dans un excellent article publi\u00e9 par Newsweek, a remis un peu d’ordre dans la g\u00e9n\u00e9alogie quelque peu malmen\u00e9e de la ‘post-v\u00e9rit\u00e9’ et, surtout, ramen\u00e9 \u00e0 ses l\u00e9gitimes parents, – la gauche lib\u00e9rale, – le monstre qu’ils avaient enfant\u00e9 et \u00e9gar\u00e9. Calcutt rappelle en effet que ce sont les intellectuels de gauche qui ont discr\u00e9dit\u00e9 la v\u00e9rit\u00e9. ‘En lieu et place de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9, qu’il fallait donc consid\u00e9rer comme na\u00efve et\/ou r\u00e9pressive, \u00e9crit-il, la nouvelle orthodoxie intellectuelle autorisait seulement l’usage des ‘v\u00e9rit\u00e9s’, – toujours plurielles, souvent personnalis\u00e9es, in\u00e9vitablement relatives’. Figurant en bonne place parmi les liquidateurs, la triade<\/em> [des philosophes d\u00e9constructeurs fran\u00e7ais] Foucault, Lyotard et Derrida<\/em>…\u00ab\u00a0<\/em> (Pascal Eysseric, dans Él\u00e9ments, avril-mai 2017.)<\/em> »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Il semblait donc int\u00e9ressant de jeter un coup d’œil \u00e0 l’article d’Andrew Calcutt signal\u00e9 dans ce texte. Enseignant \u00e0 l’universit\u00e9 de East London, Calcutt n’est pas entach\u00e9 de l’adoration aveugle de l’intelligence imp\u00e9riale des salons parisiens pour l’\u00e9cole philosophique les plus \u00ab\u00a0\u00e0 la mode\u00a0\u00bb, chronologiquement apr\u00e8s la bande sartrienne des ann\u00e9es 1950. Nous l’avons retrouv\u00e9, dans Newsweek<\/em>, du 21 novembre 2016<\/a>, article lui-m\u00eame venu du site Conversation.com<\/em>, du 18 novembre 2016<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

dedefensa.org <\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

________________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The truth about post-truth politics<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Post-truth\u00a0\u00bb has been announced as the Oxford Dictionaries’ international word of the year<\/a>. It is widely associated with US president-elect Donald Trump’s extravagantly untruthful assertions<\/a>and the working-class people who voted for him nonetheless. But responsibility for the \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb era lies with the middle-class professionals who prepared the runway for its recent take-off. Those responsible include academics, journalists, \u00ab\u00a0creatives\u00a0\u00bb and financial traders; even the center-left politicians who have now been hit hard by the rise of the anti-factual.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

On November 16, 2016 Oxford Dictionaries announced that \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb had been selected as the word which, more than any other, reflects \u00ab\u00a0the passing year in language.\u00a0\u00bb It defines \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb<\/a> as \u00ab\u00a0relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The word itself can be traced back as far as 1992, but documented usage increased by 2,000% in 2016 compared to 2015<\/a>. As Oxford Dictionaries’ Casper Grathwohl explained:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

We first saw the frequency really spike this year in June with buzz over the Brexit vote and again in July when Donald Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Given that usage of the term hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down, I wouldn’t be surprised if post-truth becomes one of the defining words of our time.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Punditry on the \u00ab\u00a0post-truth era\u00a0\u00bb is often accompanied by a picture either of Donald Trump (for example, BBC News Online<\/a> or The Guardian<\/a><\/em>) or of his supporters (The Spectator<\/a><\/em>). Although The Spectator<\/em> article was a rare exception, the connotations embedded in \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb commentary are normally as follows: \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb is the product of populism; it is the bastard child of common-touch charlatans and a rabble ripe for arousal; it is often in blatant disregard of the actualit\u00e9<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The truth about post-truth<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

But this interpretation blatantly disregards the actual origins of \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb. These lie neither with those deemed under-educated nor with their new-found champions. Instead, the groundbreaking work on \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb was performed by academics, with further contributions from an extensive roster of middle-class professionals. Left-leaning, self-confessed liberals, they sought freedom from state-sponsored truth; instead they built a new form of cognitive confinement—\u00a0\u00bbpost-truth\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

More than 30 years ago, academics started to discredit \u00ab\u00a0truth\u00a0\u00bb as one of the \u00ab\u00a0grand narratives\u00a0\u00bb which clever people could no longer bring themselves to believe in. Instead of \u00ab\u00a0the truth,\u00a0\u00bb which was to be rejected as na\u00efve and\/or repressive, a new intellectual orthodoxy permitted only \u00ab\u00a0truths\u00a0\u00bb—always plural, frequently personalized, inevitably relativized.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Under the terms of this outlook, all claims on truth are relative to the particular person making them; there is no position outside our own particulars from which to establish universal truth. This was one of the key tenets of postmodernism<\/a>, a concept which first caught on in the 1980s after publication of Jean-Francois Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge<\/em> in 1979. In this respect, for as long as we have been postmodern, we have been setting the scene for a \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb era.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

And these attitudes soon spread across wider society. By the mid-1990s, journalists were following academics in rejecting \u00ab\u00a0objectivity\u00a0\u00bb<\/a> as nothing more than a professional ritual. Old-school hacks who continued to adhere to objectivity as their organizing principle were scolded for cheating the public and deceiving themselves in equal measure.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Nor was this shift confined to the minority who embraced war reporter Martin Bell’s infamous \u00ab\u00a0journalism of attachment<\/a>,\u00a0\u00bb which supported the idea that journalists should respond personally to events. Under the flag of pragmatism, the professional consensus allowed for a lower-case version of truth, broadly equivalent to academic relativism – which nonetheless dissociated professional journalism from the allegedly anachronistic quest for the one true truth, as in Ivor Gaber<\/a>‘s Three Cheers For Subjectivity: Or The Crumbling Of The Seven Pillars Of Journalistic Wisdom.<\/em> But this shift meant that journalists were already moving towards a \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb age.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, in the ‘creative’ economy…<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

In the second half of the 1990s, branding comprised the core business of the newly categorised \u00ab\u00a0creative industries<\/a>.\u00a0\u00bb Bright young things generated fast-growing revenues by creating a magical system of mythical thinking known in shorthand as \u00ab\u00a0the brand.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Branding came to be seen as far more important than the mundane activity of product design, development and manufacture. In Britain, as the latter went into decline<\/a>, the simultaneous expansion of City-type activities meant that the national economy was reconfigured around whatever the next person was prepared to believe in, which is as close as financial markets ever get to the truth. In Western economies, this system of managed perceptions and permanent PR—promotional culture as a whole way of life—has now largely replaced the incontrovertible facts of large-scale manufacturing.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Throughout the second half of the 1990s and into the new century, there was optimistic talk of a \u00ab\u00a0new economy<\/a>,\u00a0\u00bb driven by the expansion of technology and the internet. It was seemingly based on a whole generation of \u00ab\u00a0symbolic analysts\u00a0\u00bb—Robert Reich’s term<\/a> for the workers who make up the creative and knowledge economies —happily living on thin air<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Even then, there were concerns that the associated media sector was a living example of the Emperor’s New Clothes, as illustrated by television’s \u00ab\u00a0self-facilitating media node,\u00a0\u00bb Nathan Barley<\/a>. But it is now clear that in moving inexorably towards free-floating, barely verifiable \u00ab\u00a0intangibles\u00a0\u00bb (a buzzword of the time), the millennial hybrid of creative and financial services was also a stepping stone to \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Political post-truth<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

But the political realm experienced parallel developments, too, and they were similarly aligned to the trend towards \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb. In the US, Bill Clinton initiated the transformation of politics into \u00ab\u00a0showbiz for uglies\u00a0\u00bb—a show of inclusivity performed in a series of shared national experiences. In the U.K. this was exemplified in Tony Blair’s role at the forefront of public reaction to the death of Princess Diana. The extent to which such phenomena are best understood as myth rather than reality, has been well illustrated in the recent film HyperNormalisation<\/a><\/em> by Adam Curtis.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

By the turn of the century, government was already less about the \u00ab\u00a0truth\u00a0\u00bb than about how \u00ab\u00a0truths\u00a0\u00bb could be spun. So-called \u00ab\u00a0spin doctors\u00a0\u00bb<\/a> took centre stage; it was government by PR—and the Iraq War was a prime example<\/a>. Facts, apparently, took a back seat.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the art of government was also being dumbed down into \u00ab\u00a0evidence-based\u00a0\u00bb managerialism—the largely exclusive process with which \u00ab\u00a0Washington insider\u00a0\u00bb Hillary Clinton has been unfavourably associated.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

As further practiced by Tony Blair, during his stint as UK prime minister, outgoing US president, Barack Obama, and their respective administrations, the subdivision of politics into (a) cultural experience and (b) management, has made a dual contribution to the social construction of \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

As the protagonists neared the role of a priest or pop star in their near-mythical performances, so the Clinton-Blair-Obama triad has moved politics further away from truth and closer to the realm of the imagination. Meanwhile, in the hands of managerialists what was left of the truth—\u00a0\u00bbthe evidence base\u00a0\u00bb—was soon recognised by the wider population as a tool for use in social engineering, and largely discredited as a result—hence the mounting hostility towards experts, on which Brexiteer Michael Gove<\/a> sought to capitalise in the run-up to the EU referendum.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

On both counts, prominent representatives of the center-left prepared the ground for the post-politics of \u00ab\u00a0post-truth\u00a0\u00bb. The irony is that some of their closest relatives have been the first casualties of its further realization.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Post-truth\u00a0\u00bb is the latest step in a logic long established in the history of ideas, and previously expressed in the cultural turn led by middle-class professionals. Instead of blaming populism for enacting what we set in motion, it would be better to acknowledge our own shameful part in it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Andrew Calcutt<\/h4><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00ab\u00a0Post-V\u00e9rit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb, \u00e0 l’origine Le concept de \u00ab\u00a0post-V\u00e9rit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb est devenu d’une utilisation universelle dans les milieux-Syst\u00e8me de la communication, gagnant ainsi une extr\u00eame notori\u00e9t\u00e9. (Nous mettons, nous et intentionnellement, un \u00ab\u00a0V\u00a0\u00bb majuscule. Nous nous expliquerons \u00e0 une autre occasion qui ne saurait tarder, au cours de laquelle nous nous attarderons plus en d\u00e9tails sur cette affaire,… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[12911,11488,9054,5303,12912,12913,12914,11489],"class_list":["post-77178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-foucault","tag-french","tag-inversion","tag-populisme","tag-post-truth","tag-post-verite","tag-poutinetrump","tag-theory"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}