By Joseph Lane
Last month, the Oxford Dictionary selected its “word of the year.” For those unfamiliar, Oxford’s word of the year is a tradition that dates back several decades. Essentially, the dictionary selects one word that has entered the public lexicon — or been cemented in it — and officially adds it to the Oxford English Dictionary.
This year’s choice was “post-truth.”
“Post-truth” is defined by Oxford as “an adjective 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.’ ”
For many years, Oxford released a “UK” word of the year in addition to a “U.S.” word of the year. But following Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, it seems fitting that “post-truth” apply to both countries.
But as NPR has reasoned, the concept of post-truth (whether in name or in practice) is nothing new. The argument could be made, in fact, that post-truth has been around throughout recorded history. What cannot be denied, however, is that the idea dates back to at least World War II, even if it wasn’t being called “post-truth.”
Nazi propaganda, and frankly even Allied propaganda, used emotional appeals to control how people viewed the world and, in particular, the opposing side. Hitler’s propaganda wing is famously manipulative. The “facts” proposed about a variety of minority groups in Germany were not facts at all but opinions held by a select few that were pushed to the point of seeming like facts.
The idea of emotional appeals having immense power is so important to human history that it has been codified into rhetoric since Aristotle. The Greek appeals of Ethos, Logos, and Pathos are taught around the country at nearly every level. The fundamental idea of a post-truth society (a society in which we are currently living — perhaps in which we have always been living) is that pathos (emotional appeals) are more important and powerful than logos (logical appeals) and ethos (ethical appeals).
Though many will argue that Trump and the leaders of Brexit are ignorant to the ways of global diplomacy because of their fear-mongering, the truth is that the success of both Brexit and the Trump campaign lies in sensationalism: a basic understanding that emotional appeals sell.
Post-truth is not a new concept. Since long before the 2016 presidential election, leaders have manipulated public opinion using fear and emotions. What changed this year that led to the creation of post-truth is an increase in public consciousness.
Both people who supported and opposed Trump are aware of the fact that his campaign was designed to attack American insecurities and convert them into strengths of his platform. This public awareness of what was happening, whether or not they resisted it, is something more unique to the current situation.
Perhaps that is the unfortunate reality of this year’s word selection: We did not stop its proliferation when we had the chance.
Until this column, I have never used the word post-truth. Some of the runners-up, however, have become more colloquial. They include, but are not limited to: “alt-right,” chatbot, adulting, Brexiteer, and Latinx.
I certainly wish one of these words would have become the newest dictionary addition, because it would be a less concerning commentary on society. But post-truth does something that these other words really don’t do as much. Post-truth, even if ironically, starts an important conversation that needs to happen.