Tõejärgsus on on justkui mingi uus ajastu. Kahtlane. Siinviidatu on kasulik lugemine neile, kes huvitet tõejärgsuse loogikate mõistmisest sotsioloogilisest perspektiivist. Miks see on oluline? Kasvõi põhjusel, et võimaldab (1) koherentsemat käsitlust võimalikust tõejärgsusest ja (2) ei käsitle tõejärgsust negatiivses konnotatsioonis. Tekst on vabalevis, st pikki kommentaare ei vaja, kuid lugemiseks võiks aega varuda, sest mõtlemiseks on võimalusi palju.
Euro-American cultures are frequently claimed to have become post-truth societies (Blackburn, 2018; McIntyre, 2018). Post-truth has been said to have had a decisive impact on the biggest political issues of our day – from the election of Donald Trump to Brexit – and the scientific debates over the greatest existential threats – most notably climate change and COVID-19. Indicative of the social significance of post-truth, it was named the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016.
Sotsioloogilise perspektiivi võimalused:
In contrast, a sociological analysis of post-truth which sought to examine the social conditions in which these historically specific forms of knowledge have emerged provides a more nuanced position from which to respond to post-truth developments. It would, moreover, understand post-truth in its own terms, without reducing the debate to the philosophical concepts that, a priori, are being challenged.
Tõejärgsus võib olla mõtestatud siiski avaramalt, kui tehnoloogia arengust ja info üleküllusest tõukuvad kommunikatsiooniküsimused.
Understanding the changes in communication, the process of creating and using technical knowledge, and the relationship between the public and knowledge elites are all important building blocks of an account of post-truth. But as a society-wide phenomenon, post-truth requires a more holistic sociological understanding of knowledge per se. Fuller’s (2018) philosophical-cum-sociological analysis of post-truth comes closest yet to providing an overarching framework.
Norbert Eliase ideede kasutamine:
Elias located his sociology of knowledge in contradistinction to philosophical and historical approaches; the former which he saw as falsely de-contextualising reasoning and consciousness from the structure and development of human societies, and the latter which tends to emphasise individualistic discovery over social structural contingencies (Dunning and Hughes, 2013). Characteristically, Elias reformulated the ‘research question’ guiding these studies, asking not what the nature of ‘truth’ is, or how we can come to ‘know’, but how can we account for changes in the ways that humans have produced and used knowledge over time?
… veidi spetsiifilisemalt:
Elias’s core notion of involvement and detachment was developed through two additional conceptual considerations and two direct applications. First, and of direct relevance to STS, Elias argued that the development of the psychological capacity to produce more adequate knowledge was interdependent with broader social structural factors
He and Scotson specifically drew attention to the respective ability of members of ‘established’ and ‘outsider’ groups to use gossip to police behaviour. The different abilities of these groups to accept or reject the ‘group fantasies’ associated with them via ‘gossip’ shaped what became accepted as ‘truth’. For instance, the outsider group, because it was more internally divided and contained fewer socially influential individuals, were relatively powerless to resist a characterisation of themselves based upon an extrapolation of empirical evidence relating to the group’s ‘minority of the worst’.
Tõejärgsuse kujunemise tehnikad:
The post-truth questioning of the underlying structure of knowledge production and representation (rather than empirical knowledge) demonstrates pronounced forms of thinking about thinking. In particular, post-truth debates exhibit ‘players jockey[ing] for position in the current game, while at the same time they try to change the rules so as to maximise their own overall advantage’ (Fuller, 2018: 182). As post-truth entails both a demonopolisation of knowledge and the social diffusion of knowledge production techniques (Fuller, 2018), we see a societal shift in modes of thought, as new rationalities become more socially widespread.
Vihje lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:
Specifically, we are not simply seeing a relativisation of ‘truth’ but a new blend of truth and emotion characterised by a deeper and more complex consideration of political and scientific claims than has hitherto been evident. The threats to democracy posed by right-wing populists’ dismissal of expertise undoubtedly remain (Collins et al., 2020), but post-truth is perhaps the symptom of these threats rather than the cause.
Malcolm, D. (2021). Post-Truth Society? An Eliasian Sociological Analysis of Knowledge in the 21st Century. Sociology, 55(6), 1063–1079.