MCP 14 (3) pp.

301–315 Intellect Limited 2018

International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics

Volume 14 Number 3
© 2018 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/macp.14.3.301_1

Anastasia Deligiaouri
Dublin City University

Discursive construction
of truth, ideology and the
emergence of post-truth
narratives in contemporary
political communication

Abstract Keywords
This article provides a theoretical and philosophical investigation for the discursive post-truth
construction of truth based predominantly upon the discourse theory of Laclau and truth
Mouffe but also on insights drawn from other scholars. As a theoretical article the ideology
aim is to contribute to the understanding of post-truth as a recent phenomenon and political discourse
elaborate on several dimensions and aspects of it by employing a conceptual analysis fake news
enriched with several references from recent literature and published articles. Social political communication
truth as a social construction is a discourse with a privileged signification power over populism
masses. Therefore the conditions for the construction of the discourse of truth are a Laclau and Mouffe
focal topic for analysis. On the other hand, the ‘post-truth’ concept, which invaded in discourse theory
political life during 2016, puts into contestation several constitutive and structural
elements of truth and consequently democracy as it currently functions in modern
liberal states. The article is divided into three sections: (1) The first section provides
a theoretical analysis on what is truth and how it is constructed as a discourse in
a society; (2) the second section discusses the concept of post-truth and the possible

301
Anastasia Deligiaouri

reasons for the emergence of post-truth narratives in contemporary political commu-

nication and (3) the last section delineates the impact that post-truth narratives
have on the political level, the institutional level and the social level.

Introduction
This article provides a theoretical enquiry on the concept and conceptual-
izations of truth and post-truth in modern politics. It approaches truth as a
discourse that is constructed as a result of the social antagonism between
discourses. The basic theoretical standpoint of the approach employed in
this article is the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe, which provides
an adequate theoretical framework for the discursive construction of social
objects within the larger paradigm of social constructionism. The theoretical
elaboration of the article makes references to the work of other scholars as
well to provide a well-versed argument for the discursivity inherent in the
discourse of truth.
Some basic clarifications are essential for the reader of this article: (1)
The discursive nature of truth (and any other discourse) that is supported
in this article does not put into contestation real facts and empirical reality.
Discourses are readings of facts. However, as the dominant reading may be
the only knowledge that we have about facts, discourses are very important
for the social perception of facts and truth. (2) The article also distinguishes
between scientific truth supported from scientific evidence and social truth.
Herewith this article deals only with social truth.
The first section of the article consists of the conceptual elaboration and
theoretical underpinnings of the general argument employed in this article.
The second section provides a threefold analysis for the emergence and conse-
quences of the phenomenon of post-truth at a political social and commu-
nication level. In this part post-truth politics are associated with the context
and are interpreted within the context in which they emerge such as the rise
of populism and current challenges that modern western democracies face.
Issues relevant to electoral psychology and possible reasons that have allowed
post-truth narratives to intrude on political life are also discussed in an effort
to explain more adequately how truth as a concept and social value has domi-
nated the recent political agenda. Finally, the article attempts to present the
direct or indirect consequences of post-truth politics on society and democ-
racy (third section).

Theoretical underpinnings
According to social constructionist approaches social reality is discursively
constructed and our perception and understanding of social reality are depend-
ent on discourses. In the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe, discourse
is the outcome of an articulatory practice ‘a partial limitation of a surplus
of meaning’ (1985: 111). This partial fixation of the meaning of discourse is
temporary as there is always an adversarial discourse that threatens its domi-
nant position. The struggle between discourses in the effort to construct and
signify reality is evident in the construction of ‘truth’. Therefore the discourse
of ‘truth’ in a society is a powerful discourse that imposes a hegemonic signi-
fication and interpretation of reality. ‘Regimes of truth’ are context depend-
ent and they constitute dominant discourses that manage to produce ‘claims
of truth’ and consequently affect the function of societies. To this extent it is

302   International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics

 Discursive construction of truth, ideology and the emergence …

important to examine the discursive construction of truth and the ‘rules’ and
procedures that this construction follows.
The imperfection that characterizes the ‘social’ in terms of its ability to
be fully constituted is a basic principle in the theory of discourse of Laclau
and Mouffe. The very essence and, consequently, the understanding of social
subjects and events, according to the theory, is the result of a discursive articu-
lation, a dominant discourse that accrues from social antagonisms. In discourse
theory, the truth as ‘a discourse’ is the outcome of an articulation. The articu-
lation of the discourse of truth is the result of a careful selection of elements,
a selection that reveals power connotations as some elements are selected
from the field of discursivity instead of some others that are not selected.
Articulation produces meaning by ‘positioning elements always in particu-
lar relationship with one other’ (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002: 29) construct-
ing in this way semantic chains (Jørgensen and Phillips 2002: 25, call these
chains a ‘fishing-net’). The decisive factor for this procedure is a nodal point
that creates a new signifying centre. Around the nodal point elements turn
into internal ‘moments’ of a discourse and create a strong semantic nexus. This
nexus is always contingent and temporary as it constitutes a partial fixation
of meaning. The question then is how does a nodal point acquire its strong
signifying role and construct a discourse? How are these semantic chains
being constructed? Laclau and Mouffe argue that there is social antagonism
between discourses and to this extent the answer is that the most ‘power-
ful’ discourse manages to hegemonize ‘truth’. The term ‘powerful’, however,
should not be perceived always as equivalent to ‘legitimate’ nor does it entail
a discourse that is at all times socially acceptable. The ‘power’ in this case is
associated with politics as a power struggle. The ‘face’ of this power and its
democratic (or non-) connotations are inevitably associated with the politi-
cal structure and regime of a specific country. Non-democratic, authorita-
tive regimes articulate and impose a monolithic ‘truth’ that does not accept
competing truths or perspectives; on the contrary they try to ‘punish’ anyone
who tries to utter a different truth.
At this point we have to distinguish ‘truth’ in two levels: ‘scientific’ truth
and socially constructed truth. ‘Scientific’ truth is bound and relies on scien-
tific evidence. This does not mean that it cannot be challenged if new diverse
evidence appears. New scientific discoveries may overcome or challenge exist-
ing ones. The critical point for a scientific discourse to be accepted as true is
the moment when a statement is accepted as true to be supported from the
relevant evidence, from scientific propositions that can underpin its truth.
This article addresses socially constructed truth or what we will define
later in this article as ‘readings of truth’. We certainly include in this term
ideological claims closely associated with political truth that are highly biased
from ideological elements and impose specific understanding and interpreta-
tion of events/subjects. Social construction of truth provides different readings
and understandings of truth. At this level of truth we do not have scientific
evidence but certainly there are facts. Facts are events of the empirical world
whose presence cannot be disputed. Reality and empirical facts are seldom
under negotiation; it is only the interpretation that is negotiable.
Theories of social construction inevitably delve into a relational and nego-
tiated universe. But does that mean that everything is relational and the only
decisive factor in signifying social reality are power relations? In the case
of established social values, such as truth, if we accept this statement, then
we endorse an uncontrolled relativity in which any attempt to define truth

www.intellectbooks.com   303
Anastasia Deligiaouri

‘objectively’ is destined to fail. If we step into this relational ‘chaos’ then truth
loses its social value, it becomes just another hegemonic discourse in a society
and thus it is simply an ideological proposition. But in my opinion, we cannot
leave the discourse of truth to slide into such an uncertainly. Even when we are
talking about non-scientific discourse of truth, which means that we are not
that much bound on evidence, experiments, algorithms and other methods
of verification, a certain level of evidence is definitely on demand. This level
is called ‘correspondence with reality/facts’. We cannot accept a discourse as
‘true’ if it does not comply with real facts as this would mean a ‘slippery’ social
ground in which nothing is stable and reality – not only truth – is vulner-
able to (re)construction on the grounds of dubious and perhaps dangerous
criteria. This would cause tremendous social instability and could potentially
enable non democratic political actors to manipulate public opinion towards
the direction they want. Even ideological discourse that is highly biased with
ideological elements cannot ignore or fabricate real facts. As Laclau and
Mouffe note ‘The fact that every object is constituted as an object of discourse
has nothing to do with whether there is a world external to thought or with
the realism/idealism opposition’ (1985: 108).
I argue here that facts are always facts, e.g. an invasion is always a military
act. According to its political reading, it may, however, be named or justified
as an invasion, or as an act for the purpose of ‘liberation’, ‘defense in the name
of democracy’ and several other accepted or non-accepted interpretations that
we have already heard on media in relevant situations. The fact remains a
fact and how we name it depends on what we have called ‘readings of truth’
that are inextricably associated with ideological discourse. The discourse that
will prevail in the end is – according to Laclau and Mouffe – the result of a
hegemonic intervention.
In particular, the elements/concepts that construct the chain of significa-
tion in the discourse of truth usually acquire their meaning by being compared
to something external. They are hetero-determined as something is true always
in relation and in contrast to something that is not true. Henry speaks for an ‘onto-
logical duality between truth of some-thing and anything else which is not
that some-thing’ (2016: 10).
We may also argue that the discourse of truth is characterized by a self-
referential character, inherent in it, an element that underpins its strong legiti-
macy as a discourse. Whatever is presumed to be true automatically dominates
thought and averts the mind from looking for evidence. Accordingly, once
a discourse succeeds in being identified as true, it reaches the highest level
of signification and has the power to signify in a privileged way events and
objects. Part of the ‘success’ of a discourse to be considered ‘true’ lies in the
way in which specific concepts, meanings and how chains of signification are
connected to each other, creating a strong semantic nexus. In this nexus of
concepts each concept verifies and justifies the presence of the other.
I believe that politics cannot escape from ideological discourse even when
there is a strong effort from a political actor for objectivity in terms of the
representation of facts. More specifically in politics, truth as a discourse owes
its strong legitimizing factor primarily to three factors:

1. the subject that expresses it: The greater the ‘symbolic power’ of the subject
of discourse (Bourdieu 1991) the greater the possibility of this discourse
to be perceived as ‘truth’ and diminish any effort to critically question its
truthfulness.

304   International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics

 Discursive construction of truth, ideology and the emergence …

2. the ‘rhetoric’ and discursive elements of a discourse. Rhetorical forms

and methods of effective persuasion that make the truth ‘self-evident’
(Deligiaouri 2012) are well known in rhetoric and can be traced back to
philosophers of ancient Greece.
3. the correspondence of truth with reality/real facts as a guarantee of truth.
It remains important for a discourse -despite the presence of any ideologi-
cal biases in it- to represent real facts. Correspondence of arguments with
facts is a strong legitimizing factor for a discourse.

In today’s era the media have become a basic source of information and social
representations and thus they gained a privileged position in the signification
of what is ‘true’, using mainly the power of the image. Image as the dominant
semiotic system today is characterized but also perceived as ‘an irrevocable
witness of the truth’. As it is known, ‘the image equals a thousand words’.
What is perhaps not always understood is that there may be another 1000
words that are omitted from a picture. This may also depend on the degree of
construction of a communication message (Demertzis 2002). We should under-
line that the concealment of elements or events may as well be identified as a
method for the social construction of truth.
From the above observations, it becomes evident that truth is a social
construction and it is always context dependent. Moreover, according to
Foucault (1987), discourses are embedded in the power structure of societies
and nevertheless reflect power relations. The discourse of truth is determined
by the historical context in which it is also interpreted. This context seems
to play a major role in what can be named as the verification of truth. This is
evident, e.g. in the discourse of science in which one fact may be valid/true for
one era and potentially false for the next one.
In politics in particular, the concept of truth is invested with ethical and
moral connotations and any claim of truth is supposedly free from subjec-
tive judgements and emotional burdens. Truth works in the political discourse
both as an element for the legitimacy of discourse while at the same time is
precisely the critical judging factor for its validity because in the end, every-
thing will be judged by the truth. In this sense any attempt on behalf of a poli-
tician to distort the truth or elements of truth violates what we could call ‘the
morality’ of the truth.
As I have already argued, the truth in politics cannot escape the intense
ideological character of the political discourse or the universe of discourse that
this ideology has created. Political discourse can also be understood in this
sense as an appropriation of social facts to a particular ideological system with
specific beliefs underlying in it. This is why political truth is primarily an ‘ideo-
logical truth’ and when it is presented as a ‘dogmatic truth’ it poses great risks
to democracy. The truth in political speech is searched and registered always in
an ideological terrain. This is a really discontinuous scheme where the ques-
tion and the answer appear to be identical. Again this does not mean that
politicians are relieved from the responsibility of presenting real facts and that
their discourse may fall into a full subjectivity. Real facts should be present in
political discourse as well while ‘readings of truth’ are obviously affected by
subjectivity and ideological beliefs. The important point here is that according
to the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe these readings constitute the
meaning of social events and our understanding of events. Our understanding
of facts is not external to their discursive representation and social objects are
constructed as such by discourse.

www.intellectbooks.com   305
Anastasia Deligiaouri

1. See: https://en.oxford Let us take a look at one example. It is not unusual to see politicians
dictionaries.com/
definition/post-truth.
having a different reading of the truth even when it comes to statistics. For
example, a 0.5 per cent increase in the national growth index for one politician
may be interpreted in one case as: ‘it is true that we have managed to improve
our growth indicators’. On the other hand, a political opponent interpreting
the same 0.5 per cent increase may claim that ‘we have little growth and we
have not succeeded satisfactorily in improving our growth indicators’.
At the aforementioned example, there is a real fact but there is a clear
contestation between the interpretations of the truth. The actual truth is
divided into so many ‘truths’ as those ideological discourses that try to signify
it and produce political meaning from it. In the example referenced, based on
a statistical analysis report, which is a text that conforms to epistemological
preconditions, the truth is divided, differentiated or better registered in differ-
ent ideological loci. Different ‘appropriations of truth’, however, may produce
different social impact.
By concluding our theoretical elaboration on the concept of social truth,
we can argue that truth accrues from social antagonisms and, as such, truth
tends to be a contentious debate inextricably associated with power relations.

The emergence of post-truth

The political landscape
During 2016 we have witnessed a growing social debate about the conditions
of truth in politics and a growing concern for the preservation of ‘truth’ as a
social value. Post-truth was named as the word of the year in 2016 by the
Oxford Dictionary precisely because of its frequency of use during the specific
year. Post-truth is defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which
objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to
emotion and personal belief’.1 Post-truth is defined as the political rhetoric,
a practice or a social attitude that deliberately ignores the truth and it relies
on a subjective, sometimes totally false, version of reality. This false version
of reality may be imposed to the subject by a dominant discourse as we have
already analysed or it may as well be his or her own interpretation of facts.
According to the aforementioned definition of Oxford Dictionary we detect a
logic of comparison. The definition refers to ‘objective facts less influential’ in
relation to emotion and personal belief. Hence the definition itself implies that
it may also be the case that the subject actually knows the truth (defined as
facts); however, this truth is (comparatively) less ‘appealing’ to him or her than
emotions and beliefs.
If the truth as a concept as previously analysed has a strong self-refer-
ential character, ‘post-truth’ seems to have a self-contradicting character. The
discourse of factual truth especially when it claims fidelity to the representa-
tion of a fact in the empirical world is not compatible with multiplicity (as the
event per se is one) and it does not tolerate multiplicity. This singularity is the
necessary condition for its validity. However, different interpretations even of
factual truth are bearable and are very much expected in a democratic society
where different views apply in the interpretation of a fact/event.
So what does the prefix ‘post’ mean when it accompanies truth? Is it an
effort to redefine truth or to create a new perception of truth? Can it equally
mean that we are no longer that much interested in seeking the truth as such?
During 2016 a major social debate was the emergence of ‘post-truth’ as
a recent phenomenon, which apparently had serious effects on important

306   International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics

 Discursive construction of truth, ideology and the emergence …

political events such as ‘Brexit’ and US Presidential Elections in which Donald 2. From the vast amount
of article and books
Trump was elected. Post-truth is related to a rhetoric that appeals to emotions on populism this
and it is ignoring even the core values of news stories that demand the cross- article refers only
checking of the validity of an event/fact before it is communicated to the eclectically to the work
of some scholars. The
public. On the other hand, the preference of the public for an ‘emotionally works referred here
resonant truth’ should be understood as a complex sociopolitical phenomenon are certainly neither
that points to a shift in citizens’ behaviour towards politics and may also signal representative nor
exhaustive of the
a broader malfunction of current political communication process. At this literature published for
point we should clarify that emotion in politics does not necessarily constitute populism.
a negative element. It can be a bad option, however, as in the case of post-
truth, when an emotion-loaded act is based on false information consumption
or when the subject deliberately prefers to ignore real facts in favour of his or
her own emotionally driven preferences. The first case falls in the realm of the
quality and validity of the political information that someone receives while
the second can be a conscious or even an unconscious choice of the subject.
Post-truth narratives were connected with populist discourse bringing forth
concerns about the course of democratic politics. During the last few years
populist discourses gained momentum both in Europe and in the United
States. The importance of this political phenomenon has been acknowl-
edged by scholars and has been the topic of extended analysis (e.g. Gidron
and Bonikofski 2013; Greven 2016; Stavrakakis and Katsambekis 2014; Giusto
et al. 2013). It is important to pay attention to the reasons or circumstances
that enabled or helped the emergence of populism. At this point we should
underline that the definition provided by the Oxford Dictionaries for post-truth
refers to ‘denoting circumstances’ that make post-truth narratives appealing to
masses. It seems that these circumstances are closely associated with the rise of
populist discourse.
‘Populism’2 is a term with great ambiguity as it is used both to describe
left wing and right wing discourses. It ‘comprises a vast variety of ideological
elements – often contradictory – and organizational features’ and can either
be a ‘corrective’ or a ‘threat’ to democracy (Katsambekis and Stavrakakis 2013).
The interpellation of ‘people’ as a principal signifier in both right wing and left
wing discourse invites for several contradicting interpretations. The nodal point
of ‘people’ may be assigned with different meanings depending on the ideo-
logical context in which the specific term (‘people’) is submitted. As a ‘thin-
centered ideology’ (Mudde 2004 as cited in Gidron and Bonikofski 2013: 6)
populism can be situated in different ideological loci. In either case the
common denominator in populist discourse is that it usually produces a cleav-
age in society between ‘us’ and ‘them’, a dichotomy that is invested with differ-
ent meanings in the left and right discourse, respectively.
Mobilization in populist discourse uses the sentiment and psychological
influential catchwords that can make its rhetoric appealing, especially to frus-
trated people. Polarization, exaggeration, slogan based and highly emotional
language (Bos and Brands 2014: 706) are characteristics of populist discourse.
The overemphasis placed on the social and national identity of people has
proved to be a convenient way of attraction to populist discourse. As Suiter
says, we have entered the era of ‘expressive voters’ (2016: 15). In other words,
part of the electorate is susceptible to mobilization by populist and national-
ist rhetoric that echoes emotions. This is due, at least to some extent, to the
constant changes that take place in societies, the disappointment of voters
in existing policies, the range and sense of marginalization experienced
by sections of the electorate and ultimately to a logic of voting that aims to

www.intellectbooks.com   307
Anastasia Deligiaouri

3. Mayer et al. define support and fulfil the internal identity of a voter, an identity that the voter
‘issue vote’ as the
vote that is relevant
wishes to strengthen. The rhetoric of populism can easily impinge upon such
to the responses that a voter who is mostly interested in the support of an expectation, of an idea
each political party and perhaps a hope. What Inglehart and Norris (2016) have named as the
provides on specific
issues that arise in a ‘cultural backlash’ thesis is of particular importance here as it seems to be the
society (2005: 69). The case that progressive cultural changes in societies have had chain implications
term ‘deviant elections’ and resulted in resistance attitudes from a number of people. This approach
defines elections that
are characterized speaks for the reaction of sections of the electorate against the value change
from continuous procedure that took place steadily in Western democracies. These changes
shifts in voters in
relation to their party
have ‘triggered a counter revolutionary retro backlash reaction’ (Inglehart and
identification (2005: 65). Norris 2016: 2) to some people who resent the displacement of traditional
4. See: https://en.oxford
norms and maintain a negative approach to these changes.
dictionaries.com/word- If we take into consideration this element it becomes evident that the
of-the-year/word-of- circumstances that provided fertile ground for the emergence of both populism
the-year-2016 (accessed
8 January 2018). and post-truth narratives converge in two basic factors: (1) disappointment of
the electorate for several reasons and (2) mobilization of a bare sentimental
approach to facts that does not privilege any critical elaboration of a topic. This
is not to oversimplify our understanding of both phenomena or to draw a line
of equation between them. This conclusion stands as an early argument for
the reasons of the co-emergence of these two phenomena or political condi-
tions. Just like populism challenges the existing establishment of the political
in a society and the allocation of power, post-truth challenges truth as a social
value and as a component of cohesion in a society.
The question that may appear here is how populism has managed to gain
the support of such a large part of the electorate. Electoral psychology has iden-
tified long time ago religion and social class/social status as ‘heavy variables’ and
determinants of the behaviour of the electorate although the personal choice of
voters has gradually gained more importance in later studies when analysing
party preferences of the voters (Mayer et al. 2005: 66–100). In terms of electoral
politics the concepts of ‘issue vote’ and the case of ‘deviation elections’3 may be
helpful instruments in our understanding of the rise of populism. Sometimes it
might be the case that heavy variables abate when important social issues arise.
In ‘deviation elections’ the critical topics of a specific period, how each party
respond to them and which argument is employed can have a stronger impact
on the decision of voters in comparison to their (initial) party identification. If
we consider that in the presidential elections in the United States in 2016 and
at several national elections in Europe (e.g. France, Germany, Austria) in which
a significant rise of populist parties was observed, the main topics of the elec-
tion agenda were migration and economic crisis then it comes as no surprise
how the agenda of elections in question has apparently overwhelmed any clas-
sic electoral variables. We may argue with a certain level of sureness that 2016
was such a year in which ‘deviation elections’ have beleaguered political strug-
gles and had a considerable impact on election results.
We should also mention that on the short list of Oxford Dictionaries another
word has managed to qualify: this word is ‘alternative right’, where alterna-
tive means a different approach to status quo politics, a dissent to the current
political system,4 issues closely related to the rise of populism. Of particular
importance here is the semantic amendment of the word ‘alternative’. The
way the word alternative is signified in ‘alternative right’ points out an extreme
counter-institutional discourse. In proportion, ‘alternative facts’, as a phrase, is
affected from this new meaning of the word ‘alternative’, which literally means
‘opposite’ rather than ‘alternative’ (choice between two different options).

308   International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics

 Discursive construction of truth, ideology and the emergence …

From the previous analysis it becomes obvious that in the post-truth era
words and concepts suffer from a signifying polysemy, which turns to be, in
the end, a semantic fallacy as words do not just carry different potential mean-
ings as in the case of polysemy. In the post-truth context these meanings may
as well be misleading. In the post-truth era we can argue that we experience
the de-signification and de-valuation of words in our social dictionary. As
Scullion has very vividly described this situation, politics and democracy are
in a ‘de-civilizing era’ (2017).

The communication/media system landscape

The modern media landscape and Web 2.0 technologies were the basic means
for the wide spread of post-truth narratives. Especially social media enable
easy sharing and dissemination of information and thus they put under
contestation even the well-known ‘gatekeeper’ model of traditional journalism
and news telling.
Today’s social reality is largely mediated by the representations of the
media. In the era of a ‘hybrid media system’ (Chadwick 2013) media discourse
is sometimes tied to an emotion – rather than a reason-oriented strategy.
Recent studies comment on the successful electoral strategy of Trump, who
has managed to utilize both traditional and social media at his electoral
campaign and thus benefit from hybrid media system (Wells et al. 2016) by
combining all the effective (in electoral terms) communicative methods that
the hybrid media system involves. In some instances it was also argued that
the media have slipped into a ‘media populism’) (Bos and Brands 2014: 707),
which means that they have either been receptive to the populist rhetoric or
they have become populist themselves. In some media outlets we may iden-
tify aspects of media populism and in that case the discussion should consider
media and journalistic ethics in the post-truth era. However not much atten-
tion has been paid to studies that analyse media populism and various forms
of it (see the discussion at Suiter et al 2018).
Nowadays, with the interactive nature of modern media where the
communicator and the recipient of information constantly change roles, news
sharing is a very easy process. It is also a process that it is not time consum-
ing either for the person who sends the information or for the person who
receives it. Another feature is that in the modern information avenues too
much information (excess of information) can equally mean sometimes lack
of information.
Psychological aspects should also be taken into account when analysing
the modern quest for information online. Seeking information in the digital
age does not always mean that someone is trying to acquire new knowledge
or understanding of the facts. Occasionally it may indicate a process in which
somebody is looking for information for the satisfaction of his or her psycho-
logical needs or in the attempt to identify himself or herself with what he or
she wishes to have happened or to happen in the future. The communication
theory of selective exposure to messages applies in these cases and underlines
the preference of people to receive (only) information that complies with and
confirms their personal beliefs and ideas. In the digital terrain Cass Sunstein
(2001) has commented extensively on the danger of users to being exposed
only to likeminded communities and messages, something that is not in favour
of pluralism. Goldman et al. insert the term of ‘information avoidance’ while
distinguishing between active and non-active forms of avoidance (2017: 97).

www.intellectbooks.com   309
Anastasia Deligiaouri

5. Another typology for Active forms consist of the deliberate choice of the subject to avoid diverse
mis-information and
disinformation has
information that is within reach and freely available. It is not clear whether the
also been developed by acceptance of post-truth narratives can be named as instances of ‘active infor-
Wardle (2017). mation avoidance’, implying that the individual wishes to avoid information.
Arguably exposure to post-truth narratives more closely aligns with ‘active
ignorance’ (which is not the same with avoidance) in terms that the subject
possibly does not avoid alternative information that may come in contradic-
tion to his beliefs; rather the subject chooses to ignore them because they are not
considered that important. It is evident that this case cannot only be seen as
the intentional underestimation of the different news that are contradicting
with what the subject believes. Here we have the underestimation of the value
of truth searching, which is even more serious as an attitude in comparison to
the avoidance of information, which is inconsistent with personal beliefs.
We may add here that the long-standing culture of ‘infotainment’, which is
associated with traditional media, has functioned as a precursor for the famil-
iarization of the audiences with spectacle and ‘spectacular’ views of reality.
Fake news usually offer a spectacular option of reality as it is usually the case
with news that search for the creation of impressions.

Identifying post-truth and its proponents

In the ‘post-truth’ era democratic politics are confronted with a strong exis-
tential rupture and an internal conflict. ‘Post-truth’ narratives come into direct
conflict with the truth and reality itself using two main tools: arbitrary content
and the media’s communication power.
It seems that the conditions or rules of social construction of the truth that
we have mentioned (symbolic authority, rhetorical forms and truthfulness of
the event) have taken on another character and another turn in the ‘post-truth’
era. If the fidelity of representations, the possibility of verifiability, what we
called the ‘morality of truth’, were values respected and preserved in the age of
truth, then post-truth comes to question them by proposing its own rules. The
exaggerative emotional investment in messages, coupled with the disinterest
in any verification of events signals a new era in politics where importance is
placed on the statement itself, on its innate – even temporary – believability as
opposed to any correspondence with facts. In this way the power of truth fades
away and is being substituted by the self-reflecting power of the statement.
We may identify four forms of post-truth narratives disseminated through
media and especially through social media:5

1. Statements/information that deliberately and by purpose come into contra-

diction with truth.
2. Statements/information that are not easy to verify in terms of their corre-
spondence with truth.
3. Concealment of several facets of an event, especially of those that are crucial
to its understanding. Hence this concealment prevents knowledge of full
truth and potentially creates misunderstandings.
4. Presentation of events/facts for the purpose of producing political state-
ments that appeal to the public or a segment of the public without being
checked for their validity/applicability.

Certainly propaganda discourse and the failure of several media outlets to

provide news that stand up successfully to cross-checking of facts is not a new
phenomenon. But why have post-truth narratives proliferated especially in the

310   International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics

 Discursive construction of truth, ideology and the emergence …

last year, creating a panic, perhaps a moral panic and a search for news values?
Definitely the easy and fast communicative codes of social media may be
one reason. New forms of journalism such as ‘citizens journalism’ and the fact
that now everybody can report an event and easily publish it might also be
a contributing factor to some extent. From another perspective, though, the
existence of many sources of information may as well be a decisive factor in
the effort to unveil post-truth narratives.
In my opinion the differences between propaganda and post-truth lie in
the fact that post-truth seems to be ‘celebrated’ openly by part of the elector-
ate and politicians as an alternative approach to truth and a counter political
behaviour towards mainstream politics. Sometimes it can be presented as truth
itself without second thought. However, propaganda is always well hidden to a
manipulative discourse that is successful (in terms of persuasion) when it is not
identified as such (as a propaganda discourse). This difference is also outlined
below in the last section of the article (see social effects) as a really worry-
ing fact and as a ‘growing ethos’ that threatens democratic stability. People are
usually opposing any discourse that tries to manipulate them, such as prop-
aganda, and this of course can be identified as a ‘healthy’ democratic reflex.
Post-truth narratives, however, are not hidden anywhere, their advocates do
not always claim that they say the truth and they do not even pretend that this
is the truth. They maintain a position that is just indifferent to truth and people
who follow them seem to share the same attitude most of the time.
Finally, while searching for the reasons why post-truth narratives have
dominated last year’s political scene we may say that in terms of Lacanian
psychoanalysis, post-truth is the symptom – one of the main symptoms of the
modern ‘political’ that suffers heavily; does post-truth come as the ultimate,
the last reaction of the citizens who have not seen any result of their faith so
far in the existing political truth? This is probably indicated by the ‘nervous-
ness’ observed by a large part of the citizens that seem to underrate the truth
of events and address truth as something less important. This ‘nervousness’
can be identified mainly in the non-expected sometimes superficial reactions
of segments of the electorate that seem to surprise politicians, the media and
even citizens themselves. In the last years we have noticed a comparatively
easy adoption of populist discourse in several countries. Several points of the
campaigns for 2016 US elections and Brexit referendum may be evaluated
within this framework not to undervalue results on recent national elections
across Europe in which an unexpected and significant rise of populist parties
was detected. Certainly there were many underlying conditions and factors
that led to this new situation. One of them seems to be this nervousness that
may disorientate many people and drive them to unusual political beliefs and
attitudes. Many people justify their newly adopted populist attitude as their
ultimate response to current social situations and the fact that they do not
really know how to deal with them.
Instead of dealing with the symptoms of post truth it is necessary to seek
within the societies the reasons behind the symptoms. To this extent a critical
analysis of the current social and political situations that allowed for post truth
to emerge could provide useful insights on how to address the ‘symptoms’.

Effects at the political, institutional and social levels

Post-truth narratives, hopefully, do not have the force to change truth or to
contest it effectively. But what post-truth can do is to confuse people about
truth and erode the value of truth in society. This situation obviously does not

www.intellectbooks.com   311
Anastasia Deligiaouri

create a new truth. But post-truth creates a new understanding of the truth
that corrodes the social consciousness; it may create loose political morals and
a malfunction in democratic procedures.

Institutional effects
The effects of post-truth are directed towards the heart of the democratic
regime. In democracy the supreme power is held by the people. People decide
and finally elect the composition of their legitimate government, the poli-
cies to be implemented and their representatives. If the decision of citizens is
based on false events, on post-truth narratives, then it becomes evident that
the formation of their opinion has not followed the democratic ideals and
has many possibilities of being false or for the citizens to have been deceived.
Following this path, institutions of democracy have malfunctioned and their
democratic character is being eroded.

Political effects
Post-truth narratives and tolerance for the dissemination of fake news
introduce bad habits in political communication and politics. The easy
adoption of post-truth narratives in politics creates an ‘ill’ political culture
in which some politicians do not feel obliged to present real facts and,
in parallel, some media outlets are not questioned strongly for the rules
that they follow when publicizing an event. This means that people can be
potentially misguided or they may have an inaccurate perception of reality
and in any of these cases their support for a political party or leader is based
on unsound and dubious criteria. This does not mean, however, that there
are no politicians who try to uphold social values and successfully serve
their duty in public life. However, in the post-truth era their stance is not
much appreciated in all instances.
The reversal of truth by post-truth means that democratic politics as a
process of resolving disputes and conflicts or even as a procedure of achieving
social consensus faces an existential contradiction. For democracy to function
properly presupposes well-informed citizens who have formed their opinion
based on facts that, at least, are not questioned for their truth. Therefore, a
policy that is based on misinformation directly affects the core of democracy
and can potentially be manipulative for a number of people or at least eroding
for their critical thinking.

Social effects
I consider the effects on the social level the most important of all and constitu-
tive of the other effects. Post-truth, if it remains uncontested, may create a new
perception of truth that questions the value of truth in a society and especially
in politics. Many citizens, disappointed with politics until now, appear to be
vulnerable due to their aspiration for the articulation of a new discourse that
invokes facts not necessarily as true but as desirable. This intense desire can be
sufficient as a factor in neglecting the absence of an event. Emotion when it is
not moderated or questioned by reason imposes the acceptance of post-truth
as a potentially desirable situation.
The most important effect, however, of post-truth is that it may stead-
ily create a new concept, a new way of understanding and evaluating truth,
especially in relation to political discourse and democracy. This new growing

312   International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics

 Discursive construction of truth, ideology and the emergence …

ethos is not only worrying but extremely dangerous because it even disrupts
the imaginary of a society and deprives it of any hope and effort to preserve
its value.

Epilogue
In the end we may argue that post-truth and the term of ‘post’ is not a time
definition nor does it define an evolution of the state of truth. Thus the prefix
‘post’ cannot be interpreted in the same way as in the neologisms that use the
prefix ‘post’ to imply a change in the identified situation or a turn or a new era.
Post-truth is not a meta-discourse of truth. It is a counter discourse of truth that
does not just create cracks in the concept of truth but threatens its existence.
Post-truth crushes the truth, denies it and de-signifies it.
In the era of post-truth, politics is on a path of deregulation, and so are the
values and principles of the democratic state. Democracy relies on ‘demos’ on
its citizens, on democratic processes of legitimation, but above all on citizens’
knowledge of politics and public affairs, which depends on the well-versed
and objective information that they receive. Reconsidering the concept of
truth, its vital role for democratic politics but above all the conditions through
which it is articulated comes as a duty for modern democracies. Moreover, it
becomes necessary for the proper functioning of democracy in modern socie-
ties in a globalized information environment where the boundaries of reality,
truth, deception and lie seem to have converged dangerously.

Acknowledgements
The first thoughts of this article and earlier versions of it were presented
(a) at the 8th Pan-Hellenic Conference of Philosophy on the topic ‘Truth and
Politics’, which was held at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, in
early March 2017, (b) at the Workshop on ‘Politics in a post-truth era’, which
was held on the 10–11 July 2017, at Bournemouth University, UK, and (c) at
the Conference of the Greek Discourse Analysis Research Network of the Hellenic
Political Science Association, which was held at National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens, 15–16 December 2017. The author would like to thank
the participants of these events for their constructive comments on the article.
The article has also benefited from the comments of the journal reviewers of
this special issue.

References
Bos, L. and Brands, K. (2014), ‘Populist rhetoric in politics and media: A longti-
tudinal study of the Netherlands’, European Journal of Communication, 19:6,
pp. 703–19.
Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge and Oxford:
Polity Press.
Chadwick, A. (2013), The Hybrid Media System. Politics and Power, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Deligiaouri, A. (2012), Πολιτικός Λόγος και Τηλεόραση. Πολιτική, Ιδεολογία και
ΜΜΕ (Political Discourse and the Television. Politics, Ideology and Mass Media),
Thessaloniki: Epikentro Publications (in Greek).
Demertzis, N. (2002), Πολιτική Επικοινωνία, Διακινδύνευση, Δημοσιότητα,
Διαδίκτυο (Political Communication. Risk, Publicity, Internet), Athens:
Papazisis Publications (in Greek).

www.intellectbooks.com   313
Anastasia Deligiaouri

Foucault, M. (1987), Η Αρχαιολογία της γνώσης (The Arcaheology of Knowledge)

(translation in Greek) (trans. K. Papagiorgis), Athens: Exantas.
Gidron, N. and Bonikofski, B. (2013), ‘Varieties of populism: Literature
review and research agenda’, https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gidron_
bonikowski_populismlitreview_2013.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2017.
Giusto, H., Kitching, D. and Rizzo, S. (eds) (2013), The Changing Faces of
Populism. Systemic Challengers in Europe and the US, New York: Lexington
Books.
Goldman, R., Hagmann, D. and Loewenstein, G. (2017), ‘Information avoi-
dance’, Journal of Economic Literature, 55:1, pp. 96–135.
Greven, T. (2016), The Rise of Right-Wing Populism in Europe and the United
States. A Comparative Perspective, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, https://www.
fesdc.org/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/RightwingPopulism.pdf.
Accessed 3 October 2017.
Henry, C. (2016), ‘On truth and instrumentalisation’, London Journal of Critical
Thought, 1:1, pp. 5–15.
Inglehart, R. and Norris, P. (2016, August), ‘Trump, Brexit, and the rise of
populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash’, Faculty Research
Working Paper Series, https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/
workingpapers/Index.aspx. Accessed 3 October 2017.
Jørgensen, M. W. and Phillips, L. J. (2002), Discourse Analysis as Theory and
Method, London: Sage.
Katsambekis, G. and Stavrakakis, Y. (2013), ‘openDemocracy’, 2 October,
https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/giorgos-katsambe-
kis-yannis-stavrakakis/populism-anti-populism-and-european-democr.
Accessed 19 October 2018.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, London:
Verso.
Mayer, N., Perrineau, P., Boy, D. and Cautres, B. (2005), Εκλογική συμπεριφορά.
Ιστορικές διαδρομές και Μοντέλα Ανάλυσης (Electoral Behavior. Historical
Routes and Models of Analysis) (translation in Greek) (ed. C. Vernardakis),
Athens: Savvalas Publications.
Mudde, C. and Kaltwasser, C. R. (eds) (2012), Populism in Europe and the
Americas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scullion, R. (2017), ‘Democracy in a de-civilizing era, workshop “Politics in a
Post Truth Era”’, Centre for Politics and Media Research, Bournemouth,
10–11 July.
Stavrakakis, Y. and Katsambekis, G. (2014), ‘Left Wing populism in the
European periphery. The case of SYRIZA’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 19:2,
pp. 119–42.
Suiter, J., Culloty, E., Greene, D. and Siapera, E. (2018), ‘Hybrid media and
populist currents in Ireland’s 2016 General Election’, European Journal of
Communication, 33:4, pp. 396–412.
Suiter, J. (2016), ‘Post-truth politics’, Political Insights, 7:3, pp. 25–27.
Sunstein, C. (2001), Republic.com, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wardle, C. (2017), ‘Fake news. It’s complicated’, First Draft News, https://
medium.com/1st-draft/fake-news-its-complicated-d0f773766c79.
Accessed 19 October 2018.
Wells, C., Shah, D. V., Pevehouse, J. C., Yang, J., Pelled, A., Bohem, F., Lukito,
J., Ghosh, S. and Schmidt, J. (2016), ‘How Trump drove coverage to the
nomination: Hybrid media campaigning’, Political Communication, 33:4,
pp. 669–76.

314   International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics

 Discursive construction of truth, ideology and the emergence …

Suggested citation
Deligiaouri, A. (2018), ‘Discursive construction of truth, ideology and the
emergence of post-truth narratives in contemporary political communication’,
International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 14:3, pp. 301–15, doi: 10.1386/
macp.14.3.301_1

Contributor details
Anastasia Deligiaouri is Marie Curie post doctoral research fellow at the
School of Communications in the Institute for Future Media and Journalism,
Dublin City University, Ireland. This article, however, is not included in or
related to the research project funded by the European Commission under the
Marie Curie fellowship.
Contact: School of Communications, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9,
Ireland.
E-mail: anastasia.deligkiaouri@dcu.ie, adeligiaouri@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3517-6212

Anastasia Deligiaouri has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that
was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

www.intellectbooks.com   315
ELEMENTS BRISTOL, 06-08 June 2019
2nd Meeting of the European HipHop Studies Network
University of Bristol, UK
Call for
Papers

Network Organizing Committee Emceeing. DJing. Breaking. Graffiti. Hip-hop is commonly understood
Séverin Guillard to consist of these four elements. The idea of four elements is one of
University Paris Est Créteil hip-hop culture’s core narrative and most pervasive founding myth
Sergey Ivanov (aka Grand PaP) since its beginnings in the Bronx in the 1970s. Yet, the idea of four
DA EXIT NGO core elements has been highly contested since the beginning of the
culture as there is no unified definition of how many elements exist,
James McNally
who defined them, and how they came together.
University of Bristol
Sina Nitzsche The second meeting of the European HipHop Studies Network
Ruhr University Bochum/ therefore explores one of hip-hop’s most central ideas, the ideas of
TU Dortmund University elements: Who defines them? What do they tell us about cultural,
J. Griffith Rollefson social, and economic communities and boundaries across Europe?
University College Cork How do these limits vary according to various contexts and practices
Venla Sykäri across Europe? What are their consequences for cultural production
University of Helsinki and consumption? The objective of the meeting is to trace,
Justin Williams
interrogate, and expand the notion of elements as central organizing
University of Bristol
principles in hip-hop culture and their variations across Europe.

Contact We invite papers, panels, performances, and contributions

Justin Williams from a wide variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and angles.
justin.williams@bristol.ac.uk Scholarly disciplines include but are not limited to art history,
Network Website cultural studies, black studies, ethnography, geography, graffiti
https:// studies, literary studies, musicology, pedagogy, performance studies,
europeanhiphopstudiesnetwork. philosophy, political science, sociology, and visual culture studies.
wordpress.com/ Artistic contributions include performances, themed panels of any
format, lecture-recitals, and philosophies which combine research
and praxis (or practice-as-research).

Artistic and scholarly proposals engaging with European hip-

hop’s elements (those based both in Europe and outside of it)
should include a title, 250 word abstract of their contribution
and short biographical sketch. This should be submitted to
hiphopnetworkeurope@gmail.com no later than 31 January 2019.
We especially welcome papers that engage with less-academically-
visible work, and from artists and practitioners from a wider
variety of backgrounds. We hope to see you in Bristol!

Intellect is an independent academic publisher of books and journals. To view our catalogue or order our titles visit
www.intellectbooks.com / @intellectbooks