No funeral bells: Public reason in a ‘post-truth’ age
No funeral bells: Public reason in a ‘post-truth’ age
复制标题
没有葬礼的钟声：“后真相”时代的公共理性
DOI：
10.1177/0306312717731936
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Hilton R. Simmet
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Jasanoff;Hilton R. Simmet
对许多人来说，“后真相”的标签标志着一种令人不安的背离开明政府原则的转变。“后”这个词，此外，意味着一个过去，当事情完全不同，其损失应该普遍哀悼。在本文中，我们认为，这种“后真理”的框架是有缺陷的，因为它是非历史的，忽视了在政治背景下的知识和规范的共同生产。关于公共事实的辩论必然是关于社会意义的辩论，它植根于主观上被体验为包罗万象和完整的现实，即使它们是局部的和偶然的。政策中使用的事实在四个方面具有规范性：它们嵌入在经验现实重要的先前选择中，通过反映制度化的公共价值观的过程产生，问题的仲裁者对民主辩论和审议开放，以及政治想象其集体未来的工具。为了恢复真相在民主中的应有地位，政府应该负责解释是谁创造了公共事实，回应了哪些关注，以及有什么机会进行审议和关闭。
The label ‘post-truth’ signals for many a troubling turn away from principles of enlightened government. The word ‘post’, moreover, implies a past when things were radically different and whose loss should be universally mourned. In this paper, we argue that this framing of ‘post-truth’ is flawed because it is ahistorical and ignores the co-production of knowledge and norms in political contexts. Debates about public facts are necessarily debates about social meanings, rooted in realities that are subjectively experienced as all-encompassing and complete, even when they are partial and contingent. Facts used in policy are normative in four ways: They are embedded in prior choices of which experiential realities matter, produced through processes that reflect institutionalized public values, arbiters of which issues are open to democratic contestation and deliberation, and vehicles through which polities imagine their collective futures. To restore truth to its rightful place in democracy, governments should be held accountable for explaining who generated public facts, in response to which sets of concerns, and with what opportunities for deliberation and closure.