Author: Naoya Yamaguchi

“…Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that.”

This iconic quote was said by Kellyanne Conway, adviser to President Trump, when she joined “Meet the Press” on January 22, 2017. Conway used the term “alternative facts” to defend then-White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s false claims about the crowd size at Donald Trump’s inauguration. The term “alternative fact” aptly symbolises contemporary trends concerning information and truth in society: Post-truth.

In 2016, Oxford Dictionaries chose “Post-truth” as the word of the year, defining it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Various approaches have been introduced to understand the current post-truth situation and the elements that constitute it. One of those approaches points to changes in the media-economy-politics complex as the main reason behind this phenomenon. According to this perspective, while politics and media used to be distinct, now politics has increasingly taken on an entertainment aspect with the help of media. Television and social media have turned politics into a “show” consumed by the public. Such media change led to belittling subjective facts, resulting in the cultivation of cynicism over facts and the declining trust in mass media.

Additionally, social media intensifies this trend of belittling facts with algorithms that select which content to show an individual, emphasising the audience’s previous viewing habits. This function is called “echo chambers” and “filter bubbles”, and they reinforce the user’s existing views and values. Especially in today’s society, where we are constantly stimulated with an overwhelming amount of information, it could be difficult for us to have some room to construct thoughtful opinions and act upon them. These effects accelerate information bias, further undermining trust in traditional media and cultivating the attitude to prioritise one’s own interpretation of reality over subjective facts. In relation to politics, this situation makes it possible for emotionally driven claims to take precedence over facts, often disregarding fact-checking. Moreover, the connection between emotion and reasoning also accelerates the echo chamber and, eventually, the post-truth trend. It is shown that when we experience some emotion that conforms to our political views, such as anxiety toward the other party’s candidate, we do not go through deliberating reasonings. However, on the other hand, it is also shown that feelings that contradict our political opinion, such as enthusiasm toward the other party’s candidate, heighten our deliberating reasoning. This suggests the importance of actively being exposed to opinions and values that differ from your own.

So, what problems arise from this post-truth trend in today’s information society? Firstly, it undermines the value of objective facts. Under this trend, one’s emotions and sensations will be prioritised over objective facts. In the long run, disregarding facts could lead to the spread of fake news and the erosion of ethical standards. Secondly, in the post-truth society, more decisions, both at individual and collective levels, will be based on emotional reasons and biased information. The decision-making process driven by emotional appeals may easily gain public support in the short term. However, they do not necessarily benefit us in the long term. For example, in policy-making, where decisions impact society as a whole, rational and objective analysis is crucial rather than emotional reasoning.

These are some fundamental problems stemming from the post-truth situation. However, if objective and rational discussions and decision-making fail to take place in social spheres, the tendencies created by post-truth can intertwine in complex ways, leading to even more intricate problems. For example, it is argued that online abuse can work in post-truth communication as a tool to exclude “particular gendered, racialised and sexualised bodies from the status of the ‘expert’.” It is both a form of violence that keeps socially disadvantaged and subordinate groups in their place and a force that undermines the value of objective facts.

Then, what can we do to resist this trend? How can we put importance on objective facts again? As the fundamental way of resistance, we need to cultivate an attitude that acknowledges and embraces diversity in values, ideology and worldview while not treating everything as equivalent. This may seem contradictory and is certainly not something we can achieve easily. Nevertheless, it is essential to remember that any attempt to emphasise objective facts always carries the risk of the violence of imposing one’s own interpretation on others. Conversely, uncritically avoiding conflict with others would create more “alternative facts” in this society. Therefore, we need to strike a balance between embracing diversity and pursuing subjective facts. However, achieving this balance is challenging because people often believe they are in a neutral position beyond ideological or factual conflicts. This illusion pushes individuals toward one of two extremes—either enforcing their own version of truth or avoiding all conflict by accepting every perspective as equally valid. To address this, we need to relinquish this unconscious illusion and recognise that we are always situated within these conflicts ourselves.

Another key to resisting post-truth is discerning differences—understanding not only the existence of diverse perspectives but also recognising where meaningful distinctions lie. The intractable difference means “a difference that will not be resolved by the attaining of more (realistically attainable) evidence”. This idea reminds us that not all differences can be resolved with facts, and we should accept that when they cannot be. For example, in the debate over the death penalty, facts do not matter as much as emotions, beliefs, and personal values. We need to recognise the existence of such differences and learn how to live with them. And on top of that, when faced with differences, it is necessary to discern whether they are intractable or not. This perspective would help us to practice balancing embracing diversity and pursuing subjective facts.

As we navigate a world defined by post-truth, it is crucial to balance diversity with objective facts, recognise intractable differences, and challenge the illusion of neutrality. Ultimately, how we balance facts and emotions today will shape the future of our society.