Politics

Blossier: of Manufacturing
The Achilles’ Heel of the BrazilianConsent
Economy 7
in a Post-Truth Society
Biswajit Ghosh*
University of Burdwan
* We are very pleased to announce that Professor Ghosh has recently
joined the JDS editorial board

Abstract

This article critically examines how human life today is faced with issues of dishon-
esty and deception. Using the concept of post-truth in analyzing and understanding
the context of change in a global society under neo-liberalism, it focuses on the way
powerful people, groups, political parties, and media now take recourse to strategies
such as falsification, manipulation, or deception to influence and control the human
mind. Those involved in doing this use nostalgic narratives, idealize a fictional
past and generate conspiracy theories to create false consciousness and thereby
colonize the life world. Such colonization not only promotes social pathologies
but also limits the democratic, secular, and plural spirits of multicultural nations
like India. The article ends by arguing that there are limits to such politics and
the best alternative to the conundrum is the assertion of human subjectivity and
agency, and alternative media can play a major role in this endeavor.

Keywords: Post-truth, media, digitalization, consumerism, manipulation,

democracy

Introduction

Human society today is faced with the grim challenge of coping with large-
scale manipulation and deception of reality. The way “disinformation”
is created or used to falsify data, simulate images, and thereby produce
metaphors of objects, persons, and events today was unthinkable even
a few decades earlier. This is not to argue that post-truth strategies of
manipulation, deception, or falsehood were not used earlier to exert domi-
nation. But, since the second half of the twentieth century, globalization of
technological progress, market liberalization, and enhancement of media

Copyright © 2022 SAGE Publications www.sagepublications.com

(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC and Melbourne)
Vol 38(1): 7–26. DOI: 10.1177/0169796X211068451
8 Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

circulation have made it possible to construct knowledge to augment the

expression of power and usher in a new era of misuse of human emotion
and belief. In the first two decades of the twenty-first century, the influ-
ence of forces linked to post-truth has accelerated across nations and
regions. The socio-economic context of such a post-modern phase is also
linked to the popularity of illusory and deceptive post-truth strategies and
ideologies to obfuscate the negative impacts of neo-liberalism, market
recession and COVID-19 pandemic. It is not a matter of coincidence that
the rise of authoritarian, intolerant and populist regimes across the globe
today have manifested certain challenges of defending the democratic,
secular and plural spirits of countries like India. At a time when there is
sweeping patronage for scientific temper, literacy, equity, development
and rationality, the post-truth regime has led to irrationality, religiosity,
falsification of images, “colonization” of the life world and escalation of
social pathologies. It has equally accentuated mistrust and incredulity in
our social, cultural and political life. It is, therefore, interesting to use the
idea of “post-truth” to understand and interpret these changes in our life
world, ethics, and value patterns and understand how people respond to
such politics. Locating the idea of post-truth in the writings of celebrated
social scientists since the sixteenth century, this article contextualizes the
popularity of the concept in the twenty-first century. It ends by arguing
that there are limits to such politics and the best alternative is the asser-
tion of human subjectivity and agency and alternative media can play a
major role in this endeavor. Let me begin by elaborating on the concept
of post-truth.

Concept of Post-Truth

Though the use of the term of “post-truth” is new and there is controversy
about the inventor of the term, social philosophers since time immemo-
rial did refer to such possibility in some way or other. Thus, writing in
the fourth century, Plato distinguished between pistis (mere belief) and
episteme (true knowledge), railing against the rhetoric of the Sophists
who offered relative truths as opposed to absolute truths (Lilleker, 2018).
Plato, who believed in the existence of absolute truth, did not believe
that knowledge and truth exist in relation to culture, society, or historical
context. But gradually, the possibility of relative truth was given credence
by social scientists creating the foundation for the philosophy of post-
truth. Aristotle also believed that strategies like “ethos” (establishment
 Ghosh: Politics of Manufacturing Consent in a Post-Truth Society 9

of authority to put across a point), “pathos” (use of emotions to persuade

one), and “logos” (use of logic) are used to influence public opinion.
Incidentally, dictators such as Hitler or Mussolini have always relied
on “pathos” to divert people’s attention rather than “logos” or “ethos”.
They also tried to destroy all logical explanations or reasons as danger-
ous and targeted those scientists and intellectuals who stood for logic
and rationality. Hitler also took control of media circulation, promoted
pseudo research, created fake internal enemies, put false blame on the
Jews, and also saw to it that Nazi ideology was taught at the universities.1
All these strategies helped Hitler to project himself as a “messiah” who
would protect the Germans from all impending dangers.
Modern history is full of instances of the use of lies and deceit for cer-
tain benefits. Notwithstanding a gradually escalating trend of dishonesty
in politics or state affairs, the term “post-truth” is probably not used to
refer to a profound “culture of lying” till 1992. In other words, a combi-
nation of different factors has made “post-truth” a compelling strategy
in contemporary times. The Oxford Dictionary, therefore, gives credit to
a Serbian–American playwriter Steve Tesich for using the term in 1992.
The Dictionary defines the term as referring to “circumstances in which
objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals
to emotion and personal belief.” Tesich (1992) draws our attention to
certain significant yet objectionable events which exemplify how political
leaders manipulate information and events to influence public opinion.
He particularly refers to three such events2: (a) Watergate syndrome
(1972–1974), (b) Iran/Contra scandal (1985–1987), and (c) the First Gulf
War (1990–1991). He shows how the American administration tried to
spread false information to save the self-esteem of American citizens.
The idea that emerges from such readings is that the post-truth regime
is anti-democratic and obstructs the free flow of accurate information
necessary for any modern society.
Later, some other scholars have added new dimensions to the concept
of post-truth. Thus, Jayson Harsin (2015) has used the word “post-truth
regime” to argue that powerful people, groups, and political parties take
recourse to false news and manipulated information to influence public
opinion in their favor. He shows how power is used to circumvent truth,
and the electronic medium contributes deeply to such falsification. In this
sense, post-truth refers to our failure to distinguish between the boundary
of truth and lies, honesty and dishonesty, and fiction and nonfiction (Ball,
2017; D’Ancona, 2017; Davis, 2017; Foroughi et al., 2019; Keyes, 2004).

Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

10 Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

Today, in a network society (Castells, 2000), print, electronic, and social

media can quickly spread manipulated, concocted, or false information
with the help of the internet. Compared to the standard ethical practice of
collecting and showing exact news to people by the media houses, many
of them today construct the news first and then display it. In doing so,
they exhibit visuals of objects/events which do not resemble the truth. It
is important to note here that these media platforms employ vociferous
and enticing anchors called “spin doctors” who try to control human
emotions and thinking by their body language, powerful dialogue, and
cringe headlines. Looking into their prominence in a democratic country
like India, Indian journalist Ravish Kumar has named them Godi Media,3
meaning media that sits on the lap of ruling elites.
It may, therefore, appear that these anchors do not “read” news, they
instead “spread” news. These “new media avatars” want us to believe in
what they say. This results in loss of subjectivity and true consciousness.
Godi media does not expect us to think on an issue; it instead provides a
kaleidoscope within which we should restrict our thinking. The way Godi
media has established its control over news construction and circulation in
recent times and a good number of television channels are engaged in this
job, one might argue that media is no more the fourth pillar of democracy
in India. Obviously, such a situation destroys the very foundation of a
democratic society and contributes to sustaining an authoritarian regime.
Incidentally, in the Freedom in the Word Report (2021), India is placed
in the second group of “partly free” countries with a Global Freedom
Score of 67. In the Economic Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index
report published in 2020 India’s rank slipped to 53rd. This report also
reveals that there has been a worldwide decline in the democracy index
since 2005.
There is, therefore, enough evidence to argue about the arrival of
a post-truth regime at a global scale, confining the logical and rational
aspects of human thinking and thereby restricting the circulation of true
knowledge. Hence, it is important to discuss the theoretical trajectory
of the concept of post-truth before explaining the social context of its
popularity.

Theoretical Trajectory of the Concept of Post-Truth

Though Greek philosophers were aware of the strategy of lying, the

issue became a matter of concern for social philosophers of sixteenth and
 Ghosh: Politics of Manufacturing Consent in a Post-Truth Society 11

seventeenth centuries. The author who first wrote on the “trade of lying”
in the year 1580 was Michel de Montaigne, one of the significant philoso-
phers of the French renaissance. By distinguishing between untruth and
lie, he defined lying as “a hateful and accused vice” (De Montaigne, 1993).
Untruth is to tell a thing that is false though the person saying it believes
that it is true. But, to Montaigne, lying is to tell a thing which we know in
our conscience to be untrue. Montaigne insisted on taking the opposite of
what a liar said to be the truth though he cautioned that the opposite of a
truth has a hundred thousand shapes and a limitless field.
Later, in the eighteenth century, the manipulative politics of elites
became an interesting agenda for social philosophers. Thus, Italian
scholar Machiavelli revealed how the activities of “lion” and “fox” types
of elites are kept secret to maintain social stability. Pareto also showed
how these two types of elite groups blame each other for deception and
falsification. Friedrich Nietzsche (1896) has argued that people create a
value-based notion of an object when they try to define its true character.
In this process, they replace the concept of truth with a value linked to
human will and will to power.
Irving Goffman (1959) also distinguished between real and unreal in
presenting his dramaturgical model. This model argues that human beings
behave differently in different circumstances. What a person does and
says in the “front stage” is often not followed by their actions in the “back
stage”. The kind of mentality or immorality that is hidden in the post-truth
era is linked to such behavioral duplicity. It should be noted here that
during Goffman’s time, many European scholars were critical about the
role of science, technology, enlightenment, development, state power,
and so on, particularly in the context of women and green movements.
It was then argued that science, technology or the process of develop-
ment act differently with people belonging to different classes, groups
or sex.
Herein, Hannah Arendt’s (1972) term “de-factualization” informs us
about the inability to discern fact from fiction. She shows how American
politicians and bureaucrats deliberately recourse to falsehood and deal
with contingent facts to deceive their citizens. And, in a de-factualized
environment, the individual loses all contact with not only his audience
but also the real world, which will still catch up with him because he can
remove his mind from it but not his body (Arendt, 1972).
The arguments of some post-modern scholars such as Michel Foucault,
Jean Baudrillard, Bruno Latour, and Jack Derrida reveal how it is difficult

Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

12 Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

to distinguish between facts and values. This is because the production

of scientific information or knowledge is linked to the use of power.
Exercise of power contributes to the production of knowledge, and on
the other hand, knowledge incessantly augments the expression of power.
Latour (cited in Kofman, 2018) argues that scientific discoveries stand
not on the strength of their inherent veracity but on the strength of the
institutions and practices that produce them and make them intelligible.
Latour complains about the lack of trust in scientific institutions resulting
in irrationalism. In explaining the current crisis of truth, Michel Foucault
reasons that knowledge and power are implicitly linked to each other,
hence their relation eventually regulates the production of truth. There
is, therefore, nothing called “objective truth” and both truth and power
sustain and produce each other. Though Foucault is silent on the possibil-
ity of untruth or post-truth controlling human knowledge, passion, and
sentiment, he believes that the relation between power and knowledge
controls human subjectivity, and the process of socialization makes this
process normal.
It is important to argue here that post-truth politics is closely linked
to the changes happening in our social life under late capitalism. This is
because large-scale falsification was not possible under organized capi-
talism, state-controlled media, and snail-mail. Baudrillard (1988) shows
how capitalism itself has changed its character in a post-modern society
and started selling ideas instead of products. He shows how the old capi-
talist–productivist society has changed into a neo-capitalist cybernetic
order that aims at total control through simulations and consumerism.
Economics, politics, social life, and culture are all governed by the mode
of simulation, whereby codes and models determine how goods are con-
sumed and used, politics unfold, culture is produced and consumed, and
everyday life is lived.
It is worth noting here that the theorists of Frankfurt School and
critical theory have argued how the “culture industry” intentionally inte-
grates its consumers from above. It tailors and determines the nature of
consumption by the masses—manufacturing them according to a prede-
termined plan. Even though the culture industry itself could scarcely exist
without adapting to the masses, consumption has become an ideology
of the culture industry. The culture industry gives the illusion of being
informed and involved, while in reality, the consumer is being reduced
to minding himself with his own petty matters. Today we may argue with
Adorno and Horkheimer (1944) that the culture industry represents a
new form of ideological domination through “mass deception”.
 Ghosh: Politics of Manufacturing Consent in a Post-Truth Society 13

Zygmunt Bauman’s (2000) notion of “individuation” can be used here.

Individuation helps to perpetuate a culture of falsehood. Herein we can
bring in the arguments of Ralph Keyes (2004), who shows how falsehood,
deception, and manipulation have destroyed social relations today. Our
reliance on electronic media contributes to loosening social relations and
when the difference between truth and false becomes blurred, we do not
even dare to recognize a false as “false”.
Some of the post-truth strategies used to control human emotion and
intellect are (a) repetitive and vigorous assertions of false arguments4 cre-
ating an illusion of truth, (b) fabrication of facts, (c) spurious/unscientific
reasoning,5 (d) eccentric histories, (e) obscurantism, and (f) hyperbole
to justify a fact because such falsification serves the purpose/interest
of stakeholders. Keyes particularly notes this trend in the activities of
political elites for whom falsification is nothing but a game. He also
blames print and electronic media for relying on such circulation for
profit. P. Sainath (2012) goes a step further to argue that corporate
media houses have a vested interest to support the ruling party or domi-
nant groups. Media houses are now profitable enterprises that tie up
with business houses to invest their income. Therefore, they project a
“sunny side” (shining India campaign) of public reality in the name of
entertainment. They also try to evade serious issues and divert people’s
attention by focusing on news related to say sex scandals or the death
of models.
Here it is interesting to introduce the “propaganda model of com-
munication” put forward by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman
(1988). They have identified five types of media propaganda: (a) cam-
paign for corporations, (b) campaign for advertisers, (c) campaign for
government and corporate policies, (d) surveillance of anti-media letters
sent by people, and (e) campaign against communism. All such propa-
ganda attempts to “manufacture consent” in favor of the ruling classes
and dominant groups in a society. Interestingly, Michael A. Peters et al.
(2018) have revealed that the presentation of false data by the media
rests on a contrary “logic of honesty” and “verifiable authenticity”.
Citizens are being called to believe what they are told is plausible by well-
entrenched interested parties and by “those having—or claiming to have—
authority” in politics.
Jürgen Habermas (1986–1988), who initially disagreed with Horkheimer
and Adorno that mass media only manipulates society and strengthens
social control, later argues that instrumental rationality poses a major
challenge to communicative action. A balance between “system” and “life
Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26
14 Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

world”—between individual and social interests—is a prerequisite for

social order. But the system often “colonizes the lifeworld”. The economy
and the state have a tendency to encroach upon the lifeworld. Money
and power then displace communicative forms of solidarity. This leads to
the shrinking of the lifeworld, which results in negative outcomes in the
long run. Habermas calls these negative outcomes “social pathologies”
which arise from, the impact of market activities on nonmarket domains
of the family, culture, voluntary organizations, and so on. The social
pathologies include anomie, disintegration, alienation, demoralization,
and social instability. The market-driven, capitalistic society also limits
the scope of the bourgeois public sphere.

Social Context of Post-Truth

The culture of falsification has become rampant because of certain objec-

tive changes in our social life during the last few decades. Most important
among these are (a) rising exclusion and inequality under a neo-liberal
economy, (b) digitalization and expansion of electronic media, (c) populist
politics of an imagined community, and (d) rise of individualism. Scholars
such as D’Ancona (2017) and Gardner (2011) feel that such populism
is also linked to the rise of relativism and postmodernism in the late
twentieth century. It is true that doubt in absolute truth and objective
facts got strengthened with the spread of postmodernist thought. Foroughi
et al. (2019) argue that the purpose of such critique of science and
objectivity was to defend the rights of marginalized and powerless
groups in society. But, these ideas were hijacked by the political elites
to create a new level of dishonesty and deceit. The success of post-truth
politics can be attributed to the rise of a “bullshit culture” (Ball, 2017;
Davis, 2017).

Social scientists have noted a rise of new forms of social exclusion and
inequality since economic liberalization. Contemporary discourse on
development is marked by the use of concepts such as income inequa-
lity, asset disparity, consumption inequality, financial inequality, digital
divide, and the like (Ghosh, 2020). The growing divide between the rich
and the poor not only undermines democracy but also promotes crime,
corruption, nepotism, communal, and ethnic hatred as well as violence.
Labor’s predicament is an outcome of pro-market reforms pursued
globally by means of liberalization and privatization. The growth of
 Ghosh: Politics of Manufacturing Consent in a Post-Truth Society 15

the informal/unorganized sector in liberalized India that shelters labor

intensive processes, low wages, job insecurity, and sweatshop working
conditions is also a sign of exclusionary process at work (Ghosh, 2012).
Informalization and/or casualization of the economy have serious social
and psychological implications for quality of life. In many countries
around the world, jobless growth during the post-reform period, and
job-loss during the current period of market recession and pandemic
have enhanced the problems of unemployment, poverty, and marginal-
ization (Ghosh, 2010, 2011). Nathan and Xaxa (2012) have noted a new
process of “development of underdevelopment” in the tribal regions.
In agriculture, too, exclusion occurs in the form of the peasantry with
barely enough land and resources to make farming profitable. Increasing
instances of farmer’s suicide from different parts of the country highlight
such exclusion.
Jobs in the private sector, Information Technology (IT) sector, or
Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry also create a new work
culture. They attach importance to success and targets being achieved
within a stipulated period. Sheer restlessness and the pressure to suc-
ceed or achieve in a competitive world broadly represent the psyche
of the present generation of youth today, and this is a definite fall out
of globalization. Increasing distress and insecurities have led to huge
increase in the incidences of suicide also among youth in the last 18 years
(Ghosh, 2020). This is linked to increased distress and insecurities. An
increase in the consumption of drugs and alcohol is an outcome of such
insecurities.
Rampant exclusion and inequality sharply reduce people’s trust
on public institutions, experts, and media. Contrarily, the idea that
gets circulated is that corruption and money power has spoiled the
quality of politics and its leadership (Ball, 2017; D’Ancona, 2017;
Davis, 2017). In such a context, the new leaders become popular by circu-
lating narratives of a conspiracy theory. In doing so, they use stratagems
such as hate speech, instigating ethnic, racial and communal violence
and a sharp polarization between “we” and “they”. Quick and easy iden-
tification of the enemy (they) also produces a counter-narrative about
friends (us). To Foroughi et al. (2019), along with conspiracy theory, the
new leaders also use nostalgic narratives to exploit the situation. They
focus on discontent and insecurities by highlighting the nostalgic past, a
product of fantasy and myth. They, therefore, try to malign the present
by idealizing the past.

Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

16 Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

When the global economy is under recession, the electronic media has
allowed ruling political elites and their spokespersons a golden opportu-
nity to spread illusory and deceptive ideologies to counter the negative
impact. Lilleker (2018, p. 280) argues that “technologies provide environ-
ments within which the distinction between facts and fiction can become
increasingly blurred due to hybrid platform genres.” Not only that, but
the expansion of digital communication tools has also led to what Knight
and Tsoukas (2018) call “information overload” for the people. Short
life span of a vast volume of circulated news constrains people’s memory
and allows easy circulation of “bullshit” (Ball, 2017; Davis, 2017). If
people’s memory is short, one can easily exploit it by talking nonsense,
half-truth or damn lies. Mass and rapid circulation of “news” in social
media make it difficult for an average person to cross-check the validity
and authenticity of the news. Unfortunately, the widely shared status of
the news makes it “true”.
It is, therefore, easy for us to understand why India’s current rulers
favor digitalization. Starting with demonetization in November 2016, the
Indian state has strongly argued for a cashless economy and e-commerce.
The use or misuse of electronic voting machines (EVMs) in recent elec-
tions has also become a bone of contention. The process of digitalization
got strengthened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, in India, a
large volume of resources is spent to launch an uncountable number of
television channels and fake websites for political abuse. Digitalization
is needed for two specific reasons: (a) allowing global market forces and
big business to expand their reach and (b) making it possible for the rul-
ers to reach out to the maximum number of people and spread spurious
emotional appeals quickly.
There are reasons to believe that the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party
(BJP) has gained politically from digitalization and consequent “political
spin” (Lilleker, 2018, p. 280). It relies on the services of its newly formed
IT experts and specialists and other types of digital media to control the
circulation of news in electronic and social media. These platforms used
very cleverly before the 2019 parliamentary election to digitally display
news regarding Pulwama attack, surgical strike, or killing of Pakistani
terrorists. Now all Indian political parties attach importance to spread
the news to voters using smartphones.
The story of digitalization has another aspect. As our identity is moni-
tored through numbers (mobile), IDs (email, social media, etc.), and pass-
words, the dangers of surveillance by the state or market over our choices,
desires, and opinions looms large today. WhatsApp chats or Facebook
 Ghosh: Politics of Manufacturing Consent in a Post-Truth Society 17

(now Meta) posts are matters of public scrutiny. This allows greater freedom
to those who want to reach us quickly (for votes or selling a product) and
control our emotions. Foucault’s concept of “panopticon” can be applied
here to analyze the quality of our personal lives. On the other hand, the kind
of friend that we develop through Meta, by limiting our social interactions
within family or neighborhood, does not allow us to express all kinds of
feelings or emotions like we used to do within a family or with close friends
earlier. This means today we are learning to suppress our pain or agony
as our virtual “friends” are competitors, and we only reciprocate selfishly
with them to protect our interests. The “social world” today is, therefore,
less social and more fragmented and competitive.

The fact that post-truth politics is popular today is exemplified by the elec-
toral performance of many global “populist” and “demagogical” types of
leaders (Foroughi et al., 2019) such as Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Jair
Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi. These
leaders have cleverly mixed emotions and spurious reasoning with the
contextual issues faced by the people of their country to draw sympathy.
The electoral strategy of populism works better when, due to large-scale
social exclusion or inequality, a colossal majority of marginalized people
start identifying as “victims”. Identity politics of contemporary times find
roots in such a context. Herein, the use of nostalgic narratives, idealizing
a fictional past, and conspiracy theories aiming at arousing fears about a
dangerous future has proved very useful (Foroughi et al., 2019). They have
particularly made use of deep-seated public resentment against job loss,
status quo and recession in their favor. Such charismatic leaders make
sure that their voices get echoed to spread a culture of narcissism.
In several parts of the world, efforts are also being made to bind citi-
zens of a country into a specific identity and project an enemy who might
destroy it. And this is happening in Europe and America. Donald Trump
and Boris Johnson have successfully utilized such divisions to win elec-
tions. They targeted migrants for the issues that non-migrants6 are facing.
The Brexit Referendum in the United Kingdom, for instance, may be
seen not as a terrain for competition among alternative untruths, but as
a vehicle for misplacing legitimate anxieties about rising inequalities and
reduced opportunities into a meaningless slogan of taking “back control”
(Foroughi et al., 2019, p. 136). Along with racial differentiations, Trump
also targeted China as the enemy of the USA, like Johnson targeting
European Union for the United Kingdom’s failures. These discourses,
popularized by the state-sponsored media, have created sharp divisions
Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26
18 Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

among US and UK citizens. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro too has

posted images on his Instagram account to show him (a) as a mirror of
the people, (b) someone extraordinary, and (c) quick to appropriate
symbols of power (Mendonça & Caetano, 2021). The Russian President
Vladimir Putin also tries to portray the picture of a well-built, resilient,
and confident man who is very strong to face adversity and hardship like
acute economic depression and poverty (Pattanayak, 2019). Following
Foroughi et al. (2019, p. 136), one can classify these leaders as populist,
irrational, inflammatory, confrontational, and scapegoating types.
So far as the Indian experience is concerned, electoral populism is not
a new strategy in the country. There is, however, a qualitative difference
with the way popular politics is carried out today. Indian political lead-
ers earlier did not use the colonial policy of “divide and rule” to attract
the majority Hindu. But this is being done openly in India. Enlisting
the “illegal” migrants (Muslims, in particular) through the Citizenship
Amendment Act is a strategy to create such divisions. On the contrary,
the bogey of a “strong/united India”7 is raised to threaten all those who
challenge or question the decisions/actions of the Indian state.
In 2014, when the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was facing
the ruling UPA front, the agenda of growth or vikas was stressed to coun-
ter the ill effects of economic liberalization and the failure of the UPA
government. NDA then projected Narendra Modi as the only capable
Indian leader of resolving the crisis the country was facing. Apart from
stressing the Gujarat model of development under Modi, his image as a
hero with 56-inch chest, a sanyasi (saint) with no family and obligation, a
committed person who works for 24 hours a day and does not take leave
was projected to rebuild India despite the opposition charging him for
the Gujarat pogrom in 2002.
But, after the completion of the first term, the NDA leadership had
to openly switch over to post-truth strategies to prepare the ground for
re-election in 2019. Both conspiracy theory and nostalgic narratives are
used to hide the failures of the first NDA government. Thus, on the one
hand, the conspiracy of “anti-nationals” and the threat of an impending
war with Pakistan is used to launch “successful” surgical strikes8 (Vincent,
2019). On the other hand, the alternative narrative of “Hindus are under
threat” is posed to unify the majority Hindus and create a communal
divide. In reality, however, slogans like “strong India” or “self-reliant
India” (Atmanirbhar Bharat) remain on paper as the government does
not bother to sell profit-making and strategic PSUs.
 Ghosh: Politics of Manufacturing Consent in a Post-Truth Society 19

Gradually, the Indian state under the NDA rule has started oppos-
ing the very notion of secularism enshrined in the Constitution and has
become intolerant to the pluralistic foundation of Indian society. A new
definition of “Indian secularism”, “Indian unity”, and pluralism to coun-
ter the critique of intolerance is offered by the ruling combination and a
rigorous campaign in several fronts is carried out to re-socialize Indians in
a “forgotten” culture. Repeated use of slogans like “Jai Sri Ram” is part
of such a strategy to rebuild the lost “Hindu tradition”. These efforts, on
the whole, try to build an “imagined community” that is religious (Hindu),
linguistic (Hindi), and pan Indian9 (India as a single nation representing
Hindu nationality). Herein, Indian nationalism is equated with religious
nationalism to make its nature homogeneous.10 And anyone opposed to
such a value frame is branded as anti-national, terrorist, fragmented gangs
(Tukde Tukde Gangs), Gaddar or Deshdrohi [traitor], or “Pakistani”.
Along with rigorous and sustained campaigns by Godi Media, many
Hindi films and songs have been made to spread false awareness and
half-truth during the last few decades. The ruling elites also make sure
that any opposition to its rule is crushed at its root. There are plenty of
examples of such authoritarian exercise of power using the services of
official agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
National Investigative Agency (NIA). The growth of encrypted visions and
partisan thinking contributes to the weakening of democracy.

Individuation in contemporary social life is closely linked to digitalization,

domination of consumer culture and the culture of narcissism. Bauman
(2000) argues that the process of individuation leads to the loosening
of social bonds. He gives an interesting illustration to explain this: We
buy commodities from the shopping mall, and when they depreciate,
we tend to replace rather than repair them. We apply the same logic in
our everyday social relationships, and this highlights the fluidity of love
itself. When a person gets relatively detached from his group life (family,
neighbors, or friendship circles11) because of changes in social structure,
lifestyle, or choices and relies more on personal preferences, it becomes
very easy for external agencies, including the market, to control their
opinions and thinking. On the other hand, expressions of individualistic
and narrow viewpoint in social media encourage hyper-reality and narcis-
sistic individualism. For instance, uploading a doctored image of a person
on social media is usual practice today. When a self-empowered but
atomized individual does it, s/he becomes selfish in defending the action.

Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

20 Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

Reciprocal action in social media (if you like my post, I will reciprocate)
arouses selfishness and destroys originality and truth. The logic of post-
truth gets strengthened by such a cultural turn. Intellectually, therefore,
the rise of individualism in a post-modern society has created a space for
post-truth phenomena.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the media and markets today sup-
port the process of empowerment and allow us to assert self-identity so
that we convert ourselves into a perfect consumer. Shopping malls and
big bazars not only provide a free space for consumers to experience
new lifestyles, but they also attempt to empower buyers to exercise their
personal choices by pick and choose policy. Online platforms are added
to make such buying global. Such individuation allows post-truth politics
to gain viability.
Relying on social media to exert personal opinion has some other costs.
Thus, one has to change the mindset, buy and maintain a costly smart-
phone, and subscribe to internet services to exert choices. The moment
one does so, s/he comes under the panopticon of the market. Not only
does a consumer become greedy in the process but their expectations
and desires also become unpredictable as there is no end to personal
choices. This highly unpredictable characteristic of “liquid modernity”
leads to insecurity, that is, insecurity of choices, individual social bonds,
and relations. Hence, liquid modernity provides us with illusory freedom.
It legalizes ethical uncertainty and destroys social certainty.
In the era of liquid modernity, therefore, public spaces are preoccupied
with private realms of life. Individuation is taking place due to which indi-
vidual way of thinking is solely discussed without taking social problems
into consideration, and in turn, this bleak individuation is hampering the
empowerment of an individual. Baudrillard (1988), therefore, argues that
there is “no easy exit from the quandary”. Post-modernity has not relieved
the fears which modernity injected into humanity; it only privatized those
fears. With fears privatized, the temptation to run for cover remains as
potent as ever. This means such privatization makes our minds tense.
Herein, both the conspiracy theory and the nostalgic narratives of the
political elites become tempting. One then falls to the prey of a kind of
identity politics that categorizes the neighbors as enemies because they
are bracketed as “other”. In this age of uncertainty, an individual, there-
fore, grapples with contested and fragmented identities. Identity based
on gender, ethnicity, region or caste is, therefore, on the rise.
Taking the example of public spaces like shopping malls, Bauman
(2000) suggests that these public spaces are no more spaces for
 Ghosh: Politics of Manufacturing Consent in a Post-Truth Society 21

interaction. Here people do not interact with each other. Bauman argues
that consumer society has created a stratification whereby mobility has
become difficult for the poor.

Conclusion

We argue, following Walter Benjamin (1968), that an “aura” of

spectacularity in the age of neo-liberal globalization often blocks the
consciousness of many of us and does not allow us to think in a two-
dimensional critical manner; it rather reinforces what Marcuse termed
as one dimensionality; liberation then becomes a tool for domina-
tion. Lack of stability in our life has contributed to unbridled social
pathologies. This is more so in the post-truth era, borders between
truth and lies, honesty and dishonesty, and fiction and nonfiction get
blurred. Deceiving others becomes a challenge, a game, and ultimately
a habit. Rising exclusion and inequality under a neo-liberal economy,
digitalization and expansion of electronic media, populist politics of
an imagined community, the collapse of public trust, and the rise of
individualism—all contribute to the popularity of dishonest and narcis-
sistic leadership. In this era, therefore, debates are framed largely by
appeals to emotion disconnected from reality.
It is, therefore, possible to argue with Habermas (1986–1988) that there
is “colonization of the life world” today. Similarly, we may argue with
Foucault (1975) that our social and cultural life today is largely modified,
disciplined and ordered like inmates of a panopticon. Even certain sec-
tions of the middle class, who actively participate in civil society activism
and anti-globalization movements, openly support Hindutva politics
(Corbridge & Harriss, 2000).
Notwithstanding the popularity of post-truth politics, there is a limit to
its success. Dishonesty and deception cannot always succeed in manipu-
lating human emotions. Electoral loss of Trump in the USA or BJP in
the West Bengal state assembly election in India proves this. The recent
decision of the Indian government to withdraw the three farm laws under
pressure of the peasant movement as well as compulsion of election in
some major North Indian states prove that “authoritarism”12 has some
limits. Interestingly, the Indian peasants have successfully defended their
arguments notwithstanding major media maligning them as “terrorists”
(Sainath, 2021). The possibility of alternative reasoning on the part of
enlightened netizens across space creates hopes for the future. Prithis
Nandi’s (2020) argument for the development of “strong citizenry”
Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26
22 Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

appears contextual to counter post-truth politics. It is also possible to

develop a counter-campaign with the help of electronic technology. The
current peasant movement in India is a reminder of the historical fact
that notwithstanding post-truth narratives, no one can stop marginalized
people to perceive and resist oppression. The more the state or its agencies
crack down13 on dissenting arguments or anti-establishment views, the
more dissenting voices try to generate alternatives. The best alternative
is the assertion of human subjectivity and agency, and alternative media
can play a major role in this endeavor.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Notes

1. Albert Einstein, who opposed the Nazi ideology, was publicized as the
number one public enemy of the German society in the official media. The
Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels threatened Einstein of his life, forcing
the latter to leave the country. On 30 August 1933, Einstein’s philosopher
friend Theodor Lessing was murdered by the Nazi.
2. In the Watergate scandal, President Nixon was involved in surveilling his
Democratic opposition. Yet, the next President, Gerald Ford pardoned him.
Similarly, President Regan, implicated in the Iran/Contra scandal, lied. The
tradition of lying continued during the Gulf War when the Americans started
believing that media censorship was necessary for the “national interest”.
3. NDTV journalist Ravish Kumar coined this term. According to Kumar, it
refers to sensationalist Indian print and TV news media that support the
Narendra Modi-led NDA.
4. The Nazi Joseph Goebbels proposed a law of propaganda that if a lie is
repeated often enough, it becomes the truth.
5. Narendra Modi’s formula to fight coronavirus like clapping and clanking
utensils at homes during “Janta curfew” on Sunday, March 22, from 7:00 am
 Ghosh: Politics of Manufacturing Consent in a Post-Truth Society 23

to 9:00 pm, or switching off lights at homes and light candles or the mobile
flashlight for nine minutes at 9:00 pm on April 5, 2020, appear to be spurious
and magical.
6. Donald Trump popularized slogans like “America for Americans only”.
7. Slogans such as “One Nation, One Election”, “One Nation, One Card”, or
“One Nation, One Market” are examples of such a policy.
8. In the context of the airstrike on Pakistan to avenge Pulwama attack, Prime
Minister Modi said that his government would kill “terrorists” by entering
into their homes (Ghar me ghus ke maarenge, in Hindi) (The Times of India,
2019).
9. In response to internationally reputed pop singer Rihanna’s tweet on
February 2, 2021, supporting the Indian farmer’s movement, the bogey of
“united India” is again employed by the Indian state with the spurious logic
that such intervention destroys Indian unity. Ironically, internet services were
shut down 400 times in India during the last 4 years (Anandabazar Patrika,
2021).
10. The argument for homogeneity is mainly pitted against religious minorities
and particularly Indian Muslims.
11. It is true that platforms like Meta (previously Facebook) have allowed us
to expand our friendship circles. But, in reality, online friends are neither
relied upon nor do such friends share their personal agonies. I do agree with
Nobel winner Maria Ressa that Facebook is biased against facts.
12. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
(International-IDEA) in its Global State of Democracy Report 2021 has
argued that 20 countries, including India, moved in the direction of authori-
tarianism in 2020 (The Hindu, 2021).
13. The Government of India has very recently passed the Information
Technology Rules, 2021 to regulate digital news and media platforms. It
particularly says that any news/media content that goes against the “public
order” may be blocked or withdrawn by the Indian state.

References

Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1944). Dialectics of enlightenment (Edmund

Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford.
Anandabazar Patrika. (2021, February 5). Internet service shut down 400 times
in 4 years in India, a loss of 2 crore per hour. Kolkata.
Arendt, H. (1972). Crises of the republic: lying in politics; civil disobedience; on
violence; thoughts on politics and revolution. Harcourt.

Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

24 Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

Ball, J. (2017). Post-truth: How bullshit conquered the world. Biteback Publishing.
Baudrillard, J. (1988). Selected writings. Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Individualized society. Polity Press.
Benjamin, W. (1968). Illuminations: Essays and reflections (Hannah Arendt, Ed.,
& Harry Zohn, Trans.). Schocken Books.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society, Vol. 1. The information age:
Economy, society and culture. Blackwell Publishers.
Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political
economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.
Corbridge, S., & Harriss, J. (2000). Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu
nationalism and popular democracy. Polity Press.
D’Ancona, M. (2017). Post-truth: The new war on truth and how to fight back.
Random House.
Davis, E. (2017). Post-truth: Why we have reached peak bullshit and what we can
do about it. Little Brown.
De Montaigne, Michel. (1993). The Complete Essays. New York Penguin.
Foroughi, H., Gabriel, Y., & Fotaki, M. (2019). Leadership in a post-truth era:
A new narrative disorder? Leadership, 14(2), 135–151.
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
Gardner, H. E. (2011). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. Hachette.
Ghosh, B. (2010). Cultural globalisation in contemporary India: From
homogeneity to plurality. Socialist Perspective, 38(1), 1–20.
Ghosh, B. (2011). Cultural changes in the era of globalisation. Journal of
Developing Societies, 27(2), 153–175.
Ghosh, B. (2012). Understanding development: Theory and practice. In B. Ghosh
(Ed.), Discourses on development (pp. 27–48). Rawat Publication.
Ghosh, B. (2020). Social exclusion, globalization and Indian society: Some
introspections. In B. N. Borthakur & H. R. Kalita (Eds), Social exclusion and
challenges of inclusion in India (pp. 27–46). DVS Publisher.
Goffman, I. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
Habermas, J. (1986–1988). The theory of communicative action (2 Vols). Polity
Press.
Harsin, J. (2015). Regimes of posttruth, postpolitics, and attention economies.
Communication, Culture and Critique, 8(2), 327–333.
Keyes, R. (2004). The post-truth era: Dishonesty and deception in contemporary
life. St. Martin’s Press.
Knight, E., & Tsoukas, H. (2018). When fiction trumps truth: What “post-truth”
and “alternative facts” mean for management studies. Organization Studies,
40(2), 183–197.
 Ghosh: Politics of Manufacturing Consent in a Post-Truth Society 25

Kofman, A. (2018, October 25). Bruno Latour, the post-truth philosopher, mounts
a defense of science. The New York Times.
Lilleker, D. G. (2018). Introduction: Politics in a post-truth era. International
Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 14(3), 277–282.
Mendonça, R. F., & Caetano, R. D. (2021). Populism as parody: The visual self-
presentation of Jair Bolsonaro on Instagram. The International Journal of
Press/Politics, 26(1), 210–235.
Nathan, D., & Xaxa, V. (2012). Social exclusion and adverse inclusion. Oxford
University Press.
Nietzsche, F. (1896). Truth and lies in an extra-moral sense.
Pattanayak, A. (2019). Vladimir Putin: The art of creating a public image.
International Policy Digest. https://intpolicydigest.org/vladimir-putin-the-art-
of-creating-a-public-image/
Peters, M. A., Rider, S., Hyvönen, M., & Besley, T. (Eds). (2018). Post-truth,
fake news: Viral modernity & higher education. Springer.
Nandi, P. (2020, February 10). Politics of religion is more dangerous than casteism
(in Bengali). Anandabazar Patrika, Kolkata.
Sainath, P. (2012). Mass media – But where are the masses. In L. Pillai & B.
P. Remesh (Eds), Bridging the gap: Essays on inclusive development and
education (pp. 57–73). SAGE Publishing.
Sainath, P. (2021, November 24). When peasants won, media lost (in Bengali).
Ganasakti.
Tesich, S. (1992). A government of lies. The Nation, 6–13.
The Hindu. (2021, November 22). Number of countries veering towards
authoritarianism on rise: Report.
The Times of India. (2019, March 5). Ghar me ghus ke maarenge, PM Modi
warns terrorist outfits.
Vincent, V. (2019, January 18). Mechanism for Political Manipulation. Frontline.

Biswajit Ghosh is a Professor of Sociology at The University of Burdwan.

He is an alumnus of prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University. His areas
of research include Sociology of Industry and Organization, Sociology
of Development and Environment, Society, Culture and Social Issues
in India, Gender and Politics, and Sociology in India. He has also acted
as a Visiting Fellow at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Shivaji University,
Tripura University, and Vidyasagar University. Professor Ghosh has
published five books, 95 research articles, nine e-Modules and three
policymaking documents. He was the subject coordinator of UGC’s
e-PG-Pathshala project on Research methodology and Social Movement

Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

26 Journal of Developing Societies 38, 1 (2022): 7–26

papers in Sociology. Till now, he has completed five major research proj-
ects and delivered more than 180 lectures/keynote addresses in different
seminars and workshops. As of now, 10 scholars have got PhD under his
supervision. He is serving as an editor, board member, and reviewers
of several reputed national and international journal such as Burdwan
Journal of Sociology, Sociological Bulletin (SAGE), World Journal of
Social Science Research, Social Change (SAGE), Gender and Society
(SAGE), Current Sociology (SAGE), Democratization (Routledge),
Journal of Family Violence (Springer), Contemporary South Asia (Taylor
and Francis), Culture, Health and Sexuality (Taylor and Francis), Journal
of Human Trafficking (Taylor and Francis), Asian Journal of Psychiatry
(Elsevier), Evaluation and Program Planning Journal (Elsevier). [E-mail:
bghoshbu@gmail.com]