Post-politics in the Nets of Post-truth

Kostyrev A.G.,

T.G. Shevchenko ‘Chernihiv Collegium’ National University, Chernihiv, Ukraine, akostyrev@ukr.net

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.02.05

Rubric: Theme of the Issue: New Times – New Challenges

For citation:

Kostyrev A.G. Post-politics in the Nets of Post-truth. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No. 2. P. 64-75. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.02.05

Abstract

In the context of a new communication reality, the features that distinguish political processes can be called ‘post-truth’. The author considers post-truth as an environment of multiple information influences, which is a product of the Internet and, especially, social networking. Post-political communication differs from propaganda in such properties as demassification and individualization, differentiation, and the variability of information flows; it cannot be guided by mainstream mass media arguments that are manipulated by governments and corporations. An analysis of empirical research data suggests that posttruth perception is a natural process of post-rationalism, due to the fact that in the era of the Internet, the volume of information and its speed exceeds the capabilities of the human brain. In a situation of stress caused by information overabundance, people rely on their emotions related to their core beliefs. Under these conditions, personal moral values have become an influential force in the selection of sources, as well as in the interactive processes of reacting to and producing information. Having gained a greater degree of freedom in the information space and becoming the subject of the communication process, an individual assumes the greater degree of responsibility for political decision making. Moral values, which are interpreted and experienced by subjects in different ways, become the basis of communication and subsequent social structuring in a network society. The author concludes that the modality of post-truth reflects multiple deep individual value attitudes. Post-politics is distinguished by its anthropocentricity and orientation toward a personal axiological code. In a multimodal communication space, it is implemented as a network game. In a network society, post-truth policy is based on the patterns of online networks’ functioning and development. In the multimodal communication field, post-politics is carried out as a network game. Through this game, the social actors with the most attractiveness and the highest level of co-participation get the opportunity to convert their communication influence into political power.

Keywords

Internet, communication, moral values, political beliefs, fake news, social structuring, network game.

Full Text

References

Allcott H., Gentzkow M. 2017. Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. – Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 211-236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211

Bartlett J. 2018. The People Vs Tech: How the Internet Is Killing Democracy (and How We Save It). London: Ebury Publ.

Bennett W.L. 2012. The Personalization of Politics Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation. – The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 644. No. 1. P. 20-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428

Bennett W.L., Livingston S. 2018. The Disinformation Order: Disruptive Communication and the Decline of Democratic Institutions. – European Journal of Communication. Vol. 33. No. 2. P. 122-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317

Berger J., Milkman K.L. 2012. What Makes Online Content Viral? – Journal of Marketing Research. Vol. 49. No. 2. P. 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353

Blumler J.G. 2015. Core Theories of Political Communication: Foundational and Freshly Minted. – Communication Theory. Vol. 25. No. 4. P. 426-438. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12077

Burt R.S. 2017. Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital. – Social Capital Theory and Reserch. Ed. by R. Dubos. New York: Routledge. P. 30-56. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315129457

Cooper T., Thomas J. 2019. Nature or Nurture: A Crisis of Trust and Reason in the Digital Age. London: Albany Associates.

Crouch C. 2004. Post-Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Feinberg M., Wehling E. 2018. A Moral House Divided: How Idealized Family Models Impact Political Cognition. – PLOS ONE. Vol. 13. No. 4. e0193347. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193347

Freelon D., Wells Ch. 2020. Disinformation as Political Communication. – Political Communication. Vol. 37. No. 2: Beyond Fake News: The Politics of Disinformation. P. 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1723755

Golman R., Loewenstein G., Moene K.O., Zarri L. 2016.The Preference for Belief Consonance. – Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 30. No. 3. P. 165-188. https://www.doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.3.165

Guadagno E.R., Guttieri K. 2019. Fake News and Information Warfare: An Examination of the Political and Psychological Processes From the Digital Sphere to the Real World. – Handbook of Research on Deception, Fake News, and Misinformation. Online IGI Global, P. 167-191.

Guadagno E.R., Muscanell L.N., Rice M.L., Roberts N. 2013. Social Influence Online: The Impact of Social Validation and Likability on Compliance. – Psychology of Popular Media Culture. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030592

Haidt J. 2013. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. London: Vintage.

Jackson M. 2010. Social and Economic Networks. Princeton University Press. 520 р.

Jutel O. 2019. Post-Politics. – Routledge Handbook of Psychoanalytic Political Theory. Ed. by Y. Stavrakakis. New York: Routledge. P. 430-444. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315524771

Kaun A., Kyriakidou M., Uldam J. 2016. Political Agency at the Digital Crossroads? – Media and Communication. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i4.690

Lakoff G., Wehling E. 2016.Your Brain’s Politics: How the Science of Mind Explains the Political Divide. London: Societas Publ.

Lodge M., Taber C.S. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge University Press.

Mounk Y. 2018. The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nyhan B., Reifler J. 2010. When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. – Political Behavour. No. 32. P. 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

Sawaoka T., Monin B. 2018. The Paradox of Viral Outrage. – Psychological Science. Vol. 29, No. 10. P. 1665-1678. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618780658

Sharp G. 2012. From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. Melbourne: Custom Book Centre.

Suler J. 2004. The Online Disinhibition Effect. – Cyberpsychology & Behavior. Vol. 7. No. 3. P. 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295

Sunstein C.R. 2009. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Vosoughi S., Roy D., Aral S. 2018. The Spread of True and False News Online. – Science. Vol. 359. No. 6380. P. 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559

Wood T., Porter E. 2019. The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence. – Political Behavour. Vol. 41. P. 135-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y

Arendt H. 2014. Between Past and Future. The Eight Exercises in Political Thought. (Russ. ed.: Arendt H. Mezhdu proshlyim i buduschim. Vosem uprazhneniy v politicheskoy myisli. Moscow: Institut Gaydara).

Chugrov S.V. 2017. Post-truth: Transformation of Political Reality or Self-Destruction of Liberal Democracy? – Polis. Political Studies. No. 2. P. 42-59. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.02.04

Harari Y.N. 2019. Homo Deus. A Brief History of Tomorrow. (Russ. ed.: Harari Y. N. Homo Deus. Kratkaya istoriya buduschego. Moscow: Sindbad Publishers).

Politika postpravdy v sovremennom mire [Post-Truth Politics in the Modern World]. 2017. Ed. by O.V. Popova. St. Petersburg: Skifiya-print.

Tikhonova S.V. 2016. Social Networks: Problems of Internet Socialization. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 3. P. 138-152. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.03.11

Content No. 2, 2021