Truth and Politics- The Loss of Authoritativeness in Contemporary

8172019 Truth and Politics- The Loss of Authoritativeness in Contemporary

httpslidepdfcomreaderfulltruth-and-politics-the-loss-of-authoritativeness-in-contemporary 115

983092983094CLARITAS | Journal of Dialogue amp Culture | Vol 1 No1 (March 2012)

Truth and PoliticsThe Loss of Authoritativeness in

Contemporary Politics

Antonio Maria BaggioSophia University Institute

Tis article deals with an aspect of the contemporary political crisis

in Western countries namely the sharpening conflict between poli-tics and truth a problem interwoven with the progressive loss of au-thoritativeness in contemporary politics Te risk of reducing truth toopinion is to be expected in a merely procedural interpretation of de-mocracy obscuring the element of shared truth that lies at the origin ofevery political community Te expansion of power to the detriment ofauthority contributes ultimately to forgetting the original truth thatshould instead be refocused and brought up-to-date in order to give asense of direction once again to communal life A notable aid for pro-

ceeding in that direction is the dialectic method with which the search for truth in Western civilization began on the basis of which the truthis always a communitarian quest Such a communitarian vision as-sumes particular importance in light of the renewed insights brought

by Christian revelation to the categories used for analyzing humanand political relationships

Y

ou have touched a tender nerve in many people punctur-ing their existential lie and they hate you for it ruthgets beaten to death as Kierkegaard said of Socrates and

of Jesusrdquo983089 Tis passage from a famous letter of Karl Jaspers writ-ten to Hannah Arendt in the middle of the twentieth century ad-dresses the difficult relationship between truth and politics onceagain in connection with the Holocaust It is always a tormentedrelationship Te issue of truth indeed is not restricted to the in-dividual conscience but by its very nature tends to become a mat-ter of public relevance posing the question not only of what in adetermined situation or historical period is the truth for an indi-

vidual but also what truth is for the community raditionally truth was always the professional object of phi-losophers in the profound sense of a profession of faith or a lifechoice Indeed Socrates lived out the conflict between truth andpolitics to its ultimate outcome He was condemned by the state

which did offer him the possibility of avoiding death by accept-ing exile Tat was an exquisitely political solution a compromiseby the majority who affirmed his guilt that provided a way out toavoid the accusation of cruelty Either way they would be free of

Socrates But this was a solution Socrates could not accept since where the choice is between truth and falsehood compromise isnot possible because the truth does not allow for bargaining 983090 Byaccepting death Socrates exposed the false judgment entailed in

983089 Karl Jaspers ldquoLetter of July 983090983093 983089983097983094983091rdquo in E Young-Bruehl Hanna Arendt For Loveof the World (New Haven Yale University Press 983089983097983096983090) p 983092983088983090

983090 Tis is a principal message in Te Apology of Socrates

Claritas Journal of Dialogue and Culture Vol 983089 No 983089 (March 983090983088983089983090)

983092983094ndash983094983088 copy 983090983088983089983090

ldquo



983092983095 CLARITAS | Journal of Dialogue amp Culture | Vol 1 No1 (March 2012)

the offer for what it was and let everyone see how real the lie wasthat condemned him

Socrates represents the conflict between truth and politics in which opinion plays the lead role Whether opinion is true or falseit belongs to a different order from truth because it is not a certainknowledge Many people professed opinions over Socratesrsquo trial

which was effectively conducted by the civil authority in order tochannel the proceedings in the desired direction and to determinethe sentence From a philosophical standpoint sycophants andsophists brought into the trial elements foreign to the truth butuseful as instruments of the political power Teir artistry whilesimilar to the dialectic used by philosophers following Socrates inseeking the truth is distinguished from the latter precisely becauseit does not have the truth as its goal and orientation Te sophists

Plato observed do not use dialectic but eristike 983091

a form of strugglein which adversaries brandish opinions that are often only a cam-ouflage for their real interests Dialectic as the art of searching fortruth is replaced by rhetoric the art of persuasion983092 Te critique ofideology as we see here originated well before Karl Marx

Socratesrsquo case is not an isolated one His successor Plato alreadyrecognized the danger of espousing the truth before those who areaccustomed to opinion Now that he had freed himself from im-prisonment at the back of the cave would he dare explain to the

other prisoners that there was another world a real one of whichmost people were unaware 983093 Yet Plato accepted the risk and cre-ated the most famous school of all time the Academy a true andopen forum within and often contrary to the city administration

983091 Plato Sophist 983090983090983094a983092 Plato Gorgias VII 983092983093983089dndash983092983093983090e

983093 Plato Te Republic VII 983093983089983092andash983093983089983095a

Te conflict between truth and politics has remained alivethroughout history Even when the philosopher sided with the stateand against the truth he or she remained aware of how distinct thetwo were ldquoDisobediencerdquo writes Tomas Hobbes in Leviathanldquocan legitimately be punished in those who teach a philosophycontrary to the law even if it is truerdquo983094 Te state would be able thento embrace a lie officially if it is useful for achieving its ends EvenPlato agreed that officials could lie for the good of their subjectsemphasizing that what is inadmissable in philosophy can be ef-fective in politics Hobbesrsquos point is that the state is the one thingtruly necessary for maintaining order and guaranteeing securityin the life of its citizens For Hobbes politics is a function of liferegardless of how it may be conducted whereas for Socrates a lifedeprived of truth is not worth living From Hobbesrsquos point of view

truth and politics are clearly separate and politics is interested intruth only when it becomes a problem of public order Tereforethe lie in politics is often justified as the lesser evil People arelied to ldquofor their own goodrdquo and to avoid recourse to more violentmeans of persuasion On that basis truth and politics belong totwo different orders that never communicate Tis raises the ques-tion Is there any point where truth and politics can meet If so

what might it be

Authority and the Separation of Truth from Politics Te separation of truth from politics is common currency todayIt has become a key issue in a skewed vision of democracy thatknowingly renounces the truth in favor of opinion Procedur-ally the exercise of polical power is not based on truth but on

983094 Tomas Hobbes Leviathan XLVI




the opinion of the citizens In reaching decisions at the nationalregional and local levels the question is not whether the opinionsof the citizens are true just tally them From this perspective thelogic of political decision making excludes concern for the truth sothat conflicts can be resolved in a nonviolent fashion If the variousparties came to blows each in the name of the truth that allowsno compromise there would be total deadlock and no possibilityof resolution Tis is the justification for making decisions on thebasis of majority rule Tat being the case there is no guaranteethat the resulting decisions will be true only that they were made

without recourse to violence or war Tere is some element of wisdom in this position it does not

wish to claim as true that which was decided by a short-term majority Tis avoids admitting the existence of a unique truth that

tends to impose itself and that would rule out the freedom of eachindividual to adhere personally to a freely sought and chosen truth Tese are issues of prudence that contemporary democracies have verified in the struggle against totalitarianism that did not takeaccount of those principles in the twentieth century But there isa weakness to this approach accepting such limitations to humanreason leads to a distrust of its ability to reach certainty Tis dis-trust of reason proclaims a distrust of human nature a distrust ofits relational dimension because it makes truth a matter of only

personal choice thus limiting it to that which is true for the individual in a private domain where truth is ldquorelativerdquo and has no valueon a universal level In this way it induces a subtle mystificationthis weakness of reason is presented as something positive becauseit would allow free debate for individuals to determine communalcertainties that would not have to be acknowledged as objective

truths ruth is now the fruit of agreement it is a conjectural truthestablished by convention

Tis is very different from the truth Plato is speaking aboutnamely a dialectic search that philosophers carried out togetherleading to a recognition of the truth that was not considered ashypothetical Searching together did not express the need for thepotential antagonists to agree but was seen simply as the only wayto find the truth Tey could point out one anotherrsquos errors and somake progress because the very nature of truth is manifested in acommunity and only then to the individual after the communityhas made her or him capable of receiving it983095 Perhaps we can learntoday from this philosophical attitude of Plato which holds bothto the existence of objective truth and to the free personal andcommunal search for it oday these two things are considered

contradictory with the result that various political theories opt forone or the other But it is only by holding on to both of them to-gether that an adequate foundation for the democratic ideal can beestablished Tis is the core of the problem

A correct understanding of democracy recognizes not only the power of the majority of the moment but also an authority that we could call ldquofoundational authorityrdquo Tis is the totality of theuniversally accepted principles on which the political society isbased and which are generally expressed in the state Constitution

or other documents of similar importance A state takes shape inextraordinary moments through very real historical trials for thatpopulation an ethnic migration a war of liberation or a civil warcitizens seeking refuge from oppressive regimes the conquest of

983095 Plato Seventh Letter 983091983092983089cndashd




new territories the breakup of an empire or the establishment ofa federation etc Tese are opportunities when the people forgedby some historic testing draw out of culture religion traditionand life experiences the guidelines for the establishment of a newstate Tese opportunities provide illumination and intuition in

which events debates and ideas erect the supporting pillars for theconstitution that will continue for years to come Its principles arekept alive by the many cultural traditions that contribute to thefoundation of the political society In this process all the subse-quent laws voted on by a particular majority should be confronted

with the founding values and if there is conflict they should bemodified Te values of the foundational authority were in fact ac-knowledged as true Tey can be reread reinterpreted and broughtup-to-date but not suppressed unless there is a conscious desire to

change the nature of that society itself Tis foundational authority distinct from the power of themajoritymdashor the monarch or governmentmdashwas often recognizedand accepted for millennia In the distant past it was said to bethe ldquowill of the godsrdquo to which the ruler himself had to submitMore recently in the West through the influence of Christianitythere was recognition of an antecedent ldquonatural lawrdquo that couldnot be contravened by the laws of the state983096 With the arrival ofdemocratic states constitutions often blended together religious

inspiration recognition of natural law and the principles and ex-periences that led to the foundation of the state In these casespolitics is not contrasted to the truth Rather in the course of his-tory especially during the decisive moments when a new politicalbody is born politics recognizes its own need for the truth as well

983096 Tomas Aquinas Summa Teologica Ia IIae q983097983089 a983091

as the fact that it cannot decide the truth itself It can only adapt toit because truth belongs to an authority prior to and greater thanpolitics itself

Te concern today is the increasing tendencymdashboth in theoryand in daily political practicemdashto deny this type of authority andleave everything up to the will of the majority even if it meansbypassing or impudently modifying the constitutional principlesIn that way it seems that politics leaves it to individual citizens todecide for themselves their ldquoownrdquo truth In many democratic coun-tries laws are made that leavemdashapparentlymdashthe important deci-sions to the individual (for instance abortion euthanasia wagesinsufficent to secure the minimum to live) forgetting that in manycases an indispensable value is at stake In doing this the politi-cal power takes a step ahead toward privatizing and relativizing

the truth ruth is no longer seen as a common patrimony butit is equated with private opinion and then established by majority rule We are no longer at the mere procedural exclusion ofthe truth in favor of opinion an exclusion that as we have seencontains some elements of wisdom We are now actually givingopinions the value of truth Tis is how political power cancels alllimitations to its own exercise and ldquotakes possessionrdquo of the truthBut a truth that is owned by someone is meaningless and can bebrandished about like a club modified adapted and twisted at

pleasure Tis explains much of the so-called normal behavior ofthe political class today With the swirl of declarations denialschange of positions and the forming and then the dissolving ofalliances and given the indifference of too many citizens manypoliticians seem to have lost all sense of their calling Tey arecontinually changing their ldquoplan of actionrdquo giving the impressionthat they have lost their way When parties have lost their way the




community at large loses its way With the abandonment of truthin politics goes also the loss of real authoritativeness

Real authority is in fact quite different It means preserving aplan conserving the principles and values that established the lifeof the community or group and hence maintaining a clear aimand direction Authority calls forth the original basis and sourceof community life As a parent retains authority even when he orshe no longer has power over the children the founders of a stateretain authority even when they no longer govern Parents are notsimply loved but are honored and rendering honor is expressedthrough fidelity which is a steadfast attitude that does not expireand require renewal Tis is also the case with the real authorityof the state Te statersquos power is only an instrument for bringingabout and making explicit in the daily life of the citizens those

principles that the authority is charged always to preserve Powermust be ldquoauthoritativerdquo that is it must always act in accord withthe overall design that the authority preserves If this should bedisregarded then power is left with mere empty procedures andbecomes irrelevant or introducesmdashout of either triviality or thetriumph of one particular ideology or the pressure of private inter-estsmdashmeasures that contradict its foundational values Ten forexample in a political community that was instituted to affirmequality and freedom and to defend life daily decisions can be

made that are actually inimical to equality freedom and life In the worst case scenario power without boundaries and without thedirection established by foundational authority becomes an op-pressive power a real terror In any case what characterizes powerdetached from authority is infidelity Tis explains one aspect oftodayrsquos crisis of political authority the difficulty of believing insomeone who is not faithful

Authority and the Limitations of PowerFrom the Tree to the Cross

Te distinction between authority and power is not just an issuefor us today On the contrary it has been a starting point for civili-zation right from the beginning of history Te book of Genesis isnot just a holy text but also a document bearing on of the begin-nings of civilization Indeed it gives us early categories for inter-preting communal life It is an original reflection on the humancondition whichmdashalong with other converging currentsmdashinflu-enced the development of Western history and remains operativeeven today

Te distinction between authority and power is a central issuefrom the very outset of Genesis especially as regards the divineorigin of authority and the limits of human power Te human

person is created by God and receives from God a ldquomandate ofdominionrdquo that qualifies human nature983097 Romano Guardini writesldquoTe human beingrsquos natural likeness to God consists in this gift ofpower in the capacity to make use of it and in the governance thatflows from itrdquo983089983088 Guardini is speaking of the ldquoontologicalrdquo char-acter of power ldquoOne cannot be human and then over and abovethat exercise some power rather exercising that power is part of

what one isrdquo983089983089 In symbolic language the first chapters of Genesis present a picture containing at least in germinal form a number

of important elements from which a doctrine of the limitation ofpower can be developed

983097 Genesis 983089983090983096983089983088 Romano Guardini Die Macht Versuch einer wegweisung (Wuumlrzburg Werkbund-Verlag 983089983097983093983095) p 983091983089983089983089 Ibid




Power is limited first of all because of its origin Te mandateto dominion is in fact received from God therefore it is a powerthat must conform to the authority of the Creator and always beanswerable to the Creator Tis is the essence of the limitation ofpower It lies in the fact that it is not self-creating but receives itsbeing given its origin outside those who exercise it Tis limita-tion is represented by the prohibition against eating the fruit ofthe tree in the middle of the garden Te tree marks a boundarybut also constitutes the axis of the human world in establishing acenter around which human power is exercised and given direc-tion Terefore in this sense the limitation is not seen as a denigra-tion of those people on whom it is imposed but like a definitionit confers an identity it brings a fulfillment Te error of Adamand Eve consists precisely according to the ancient story in violat-

ing the prohibition Tat is they denied any boundary that mightmark a distinction between divine authority which has a creativeand absolute power and human power which cannot create butonly can bring creation to further perfection Adam and Eve wantto be gods who are self-sufficient and can shape the plan of God totheir own ends But this would obscure its very design and weakentheir ability to fulfill the mandate of dominion

Second besides being limited by the existence of the authoritythat establishes it human power is limited because it presupposes

the object on which it is exercised that is on humankind and creationPower is limited because humankind is not the creator personscan only co-create carry to fulfillment and make perfect but theycannot remake Te highly symbolic episode in which Adam con-fers a name on the animals explains the nature of human powerthe human being only acknowledges the animalsrsquo nature 983089983090 Teir

983089983090 Genesis 983090983089983097ndash983090983088

nature is revealed by Adam he does not invent it On the contraryin eating the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve want to be their ownmasters as absolute masters of everything Teir action will pro-

voke nature to rebellion and it will refuse complete submission Te earth will not be totally humanized rather human beings willdie and become earth983089983091 Positively speaking this awareness thatpower is exercised on an already given is present also in some ofthe most significant modern concepts of the origin of the stateBoth John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau with their differentperspectives presuppose the existence of a natural law antecedentto the contract that generates the political society which has thetask of safeguarding and expressing that law

Tird power is limited in its mode of exercise Indeed our beingin the ldquoimage and likenessrdquo of Godmdashwhich is manifested first of

all as Guardini emphasized in the bestowal of the mandatemdashfinds its full expression as the creation story of the priestly tra-dition emphasizes in the unity and distinction that constitutehuman beings ldquoGod created man in his image in the divineimage he created him male and female he created themrdquo983089983092 Terelationship between male and female as Genesis describes it reflectshuman reality as ldquoimagerdquo of God Tis says something to us aboutGod because God is not described directly but through the re-lationship between male and female Tis relationship expresses

the logic of the relationships in the Garden of Eden and explainsalso the way in which the two enter into relationship with cre-ation Tat is it defines how their dominion will be exercised Tisrelationship received from God is a harmonious relationship offull transparency and mutual giving Te ordering that will come

983089983091 Genesis 983091983089983097983089983092 Genesis 983089983090983095




about through dominion will have to reflect the existing order be-tween male and female and between them and God It is an ethicof love that applies to dominion in general to every exercise ofpower and therefore also to political power Such an ethicmdashin thebiblical perspectivemdashis the essential norm for exercising powerfrom which all other norms rise Also power is not absolute inthat it is regulated Te fundamental rule the rule of rules is loveDisobedience of the divine authority entails the loss of loving re-lationships Man and woman from a condition of harmony andequality fall into one of conflict and subordination represented bythe submission of the woman to the man Tis explains symboli-cally and at the same time ontologically the perennial possibilitythat the use of power will become domination of persons overpersons

In short according to this interpretation of Genesis power mustshow a threefold fidelity to the authority that grants it to the na-ture of the object on which it is exercised and to the love ethic thatregulates relationships between creatures And right at this keypoint we come upon the other great foundational event of West-ern civilization the opening up to Christianity From a Christianpoint of view the forbidden tree extends down through the cen-turies right up to the gibbet of the Cross from which Jesus criesldquoMy God my God why have you forsaken merdquo Tis cry expresses

the ultimate powerlessness of Jesus and the failure of every humanproject that arose around him Nevertheless the crymdashas ChiaraLubich emphasizesmdashis an action of ultimate fidelity because Jesusprecisely in asking God the reason for his abandonment encour-ages us to continue believing that Godrsquos power is not an emptyone leading to aimless annihilation but is an Authority that holds

in itself a design in which even the abandonment finds mean-ing983089983093 Jesusrsquo cry asks for the purpose which he does not see but

whose existence safeguarded by the Other Jesus does not doubt Jesusrsquo question is an expression of complete fidelity of a purer faith which leads him beyond his own capacities to accept fully in him-self the judgment on human power absolutized by Adam which isthen restored by Jesusrsquo cry to the divine Authority

In fact the cry of abandonment shows that Jesusrsquo self-emptyinggoes so far as to endure the complete power of evil unleashed andexhausted on him His cry restores to divine Omnipotence all theforces of creation that evil had taken over for itself With evil con-tained in Jesus forsaken God expresses all his Sovereign Power interms of Love giving himself back to Jesus in the resurrection 983089983094

According to Guardini ldquoJesus treats human power as it is as a

realityrdquo983089983095

I would say more Jesus renders it real by enduring it sincethe entire human order becomes a new reality in the Incarnationthe final act of whichmdashbefore the Resurrectionmdashis the cry Jesusconfers final reality on evil and delivers it over to God Human be-ings now face a choice espouse the power that has crucified Jesusand remain in an order that rejects the original authority or acceptthe annihilation of that power by being crucified with Jesus andreceive in the Risen Lord the universal sovereignty over creationthat Adam had lost

983089983093 Chiara Lubich Te Cry of Jesus Crucified and Forsaken (New York New City Press 983090983088983088983089) pp 983090983092ndash983091983092983089983094 Concerning this notion of Sovereignty see Antonio Maria Baggio ldquorinitagrave e po-litica Riflessione su alcune categorie politiche alla luce della rivelazione trinitariardquo Nuova Umanitagrave 983089983097 (983089983097983097983095) 983095983090983095ndash983097983095983089983095 Guardini Die Macht p 983092983094




Tis second choice leads to a full restoration of the ldquomandate ofdominionrdquo which is expressed in the recovery of the original lov-ing relationship among people energized by the fullness of mean-ing received from Christ Jesus himself still reveals the new orderto us through his cry His kenosis in fact is total abasement he ismingled with the earth Te Hebrew Scripture already called himthe ldquoworm of the earthrdquo the completely humble one By uniting

with humanity and with the earth he submits to worldly power which permits him to become ldquoearthrdquomdashhumus nourishmentmdashin which the Other plants its roots Crying the Other from the bow-els of the earth Jesus expresses the soul of creation Encompassedin him creation cries out to its own origin God Te annihila-tion of Jesus defeats human power as absolute power because inthe moment in which he submits to it by crying the Other he

expresses his obedience With this he reveals his being as Personhe reveals the essential relationship of the person that says God thenothing that says Everything

Personal and Impersonal PowerThe Question of Responsibility

Te tree and the Cross introduce a ldquopersonalisticrdquo conception ofpower In exploring this aspect we can begin with Romano Guar-dinirsquos definition of power as the ability to put reality into motion983089983096

It consists of two elements force which is pure capability withoutdirection and conscious awareness which gives meaning to force

Awareness connects power to the aim for which it is exercisedsince power itself is simply a means and does not in itself haveany definite objective Awareness which transforms mere force

983089983096 Ibid p 983089983094

into power presupposes some person who exercises it So I wouldsay that there is no such thing as power correctly understood thatdoes not have a personal subject who exercises it and is responsiblefor it

However it is possible for power to be depersonalized when theprocess of applying it is seen as ldquonecessaryrdquo independent of any

will Tis depersonalization process can be put into effect first byattributing to power a character of natural objectivity In this casethe role of conscience is eliminated and power becomes a simplematter of force not subject to judgment any more than a thun-derstorm or a change in the seasons A second way consists of at-tributing to power a character of scientific objectivity In this casescientific knowledge is seen as the perfect expression of humanintelligence to which individual intelligence and the communityrsquos

politics must be adapted thus eliminating any thought of evaluat-ingmdashethically and politicallymdashthe consequences and the applica-tions of that knowledge Tis elimination of conscience conferstechnological omnipotence it is good to do all that is in my powerto do In both cases eliminating the role of conscience rules outall responsibility Power is rendered impersonal hence not respon-sible By identifying power with nature or with knowledge it is notaccountable for its own action

Tere is a third way of depersonalizing power by presuppos-

ingmdashwithout resorting to the appropriate instruments of verifica-tionmdashthat the decision of power coincides with the general will ofthose who constitute that power Tis is what happens in a dicta-torship Te dictatorial decision is the expression of an unlimitedpower precisely because it presupposes agreement with the willof those who ought to be evaluating that power Te dictator de-cides arbitrarily with no basis in authority He or she is not held




responsible because the subject to whom he or she would have torender account is eliminated

Naturalistic and scientific ideology can also lead to dictator-ships For example a dictatorship can be based on the naturalisticidea of the ldquosupermanrdquo Here the claim is that nature has producedmore advanced individuals authentic interpreters of the naturaluniverse who are beyond the judgment of conscience understood

with Friedrich Nietzsche as the weaponry of the weak In realitytrue weakness lies with the presumed superman who wishes toavoid the onus of responsibility But responsibility is inescapableit is not something added on to human action if one wants it orthinks it is particularly good It comes along with the move intoaction Responsibility comes as a response to a demand whetherfrom ldquoa weakrdquo being as Paul Ricoeur would say who needs help

with a newborn child another person or the state or from aninner demand which if acted on would respond to anotherrsquos needanyway Assuming responsibility involves not only answering theoriginal demand that generated the responsibility itself but alsoanswering the question from the one who asks an accounting for

what is done such as the ldquoweak onerdquo who asked for aid In other words it is not sufficient for someone to assume personal respon-sibility for oneself By its very nature responsibility always involvesa relationship in which there is a request for help and then for

an evaluation of what was done Responsibility fully understoodbrings together both the element of personal conviction that led oneto dedicate himself or herself to someone or something in the firstplace and the evaluation of the consequences of onersquos decision An-swering a request for help flows indeed from our own interiorityBut since it involves a social relationship it has an interpersonal orpublic dimension as well

Te issue of responsibility is fundamental in order to avoiderrors in understanding the instrumental nature of power ruepower acquires meaning from the aim that conscience assigns to itBut such meaning (and morality) does not involve only the aim itmust be expressed in the very exercise of power Te form assumedby the means is not in fact indifferent to the aim Tere are struc-tures of power that are ethically unacceptable independently of theaim that they claim to have even when it is a good aim Unaccept-able in themselves are the exercising of power that do not acceptrules limits and controls insofar as they exclude the element ofany responsibility or accountability to others

Te impersonalization of power is expressed in the eliminationof any accountability or any sense of responsibility or personalrelationship Such impersonalization is a mystification Power is

seen as an end in itself without responsibility without aim or di-rection It is a void that becomes substance Here is where thedemoniac is revealed not as an abstraction but as the presence of aldquoperson-nonpersonrdquo who is manipulating the power the demoniacis impersonal anonymous Te absence of nomos law constitutesarbitrariness In fact the law is the order established by a will ofthe one responsible whether an individual or a collective On thecontrary arbitrariness is a constraint imposed anonymously likeimpersonal necessity A community governed in this way appears

deprived of direction or aim even if the appearances of infinitefreedom remain But it is the infinity of the maze where one turnsthis way and that but never escapes an imitation of real infinitymuch as the devil imitates God

Te postmodern shape of dictatorship resembles such a maze Te dictatorships of the twentieth century are now modern withan industrial fingerprint Tey have developed a strong and visible




power machine and are not above using violence in imposing ter-ror Teir functionaries are anonymous gears grinding humanity bysimply giving orders Te greatest atrocity is perpetrated ldquobanallyrdquo

Arendt would say through the churning of the gears On the otherhand postmodern dictatorship is able to impose itself with no ap-parent show of violence often with the enthusiastic support of thecrowds in which every individual thinks he or she is a champion ofinfinite freedom In the postmodern dictatorship subjects are notforced but as Plato would say persuaded

In this regard it is interesting to observe how the demon re-mains typically impersonal in many facets of the idea of powerthat begins to go along with modernity Guardini comments

Champions of modern progress and the bourgeois be-

tray a fatal inclination to exercise power in a more and morefundamental scientifically and technically perfect way andat the same time not to go on the defense openly tryinginstead to cloak power behind pretexts of usefulness well-being progress and so on And so man has exercised power

without developing a corresponding ethic Tis gives rise to ause of force which is not essentially governed by ethics and ismore genuinely modeled in the anonymous society983089983097

It is characteristic of our modern age that the tendency to abso-lutize power goes hand in hand with the inability to think about it

Tis may be caused by the fact that like the ontological characterof man power cannot be understood separately from its origin

which is in God and in the ldquoimage and likenessrdquo that God has

983089983097 Ibid pp 983091983089ndash983091983090

impressed in the human person Recognizing the origin would de-mand an honest look at the powerrsquos tendency to keep increasingand at the same time at its natural limitation that disallows om-nipotence When the origin of power is rejected there is a dangerthat this absolutistic tendency will be acceptedmdashwhich then be-comes uncontrollablemdashand this fact will be concealed with inad-equate and erroneous explanations But dictatorships have taken itupon themselves to point out the fact of the unrestrainable aspectof power

Acknowledging a connatural limit to power does not neces-sarily require faith in the Creator It can also be based on rightreason in the knowledge that every form of power is exercised onsome prior reality that deserves respect or on some present real-ity that does not allow free rein to my will A good definition of

ldquorealityrdquo in a personalist sense of the reality of the other could beldquothat which is not obtainable by forcerdquo where the other could bedefined as ldquoone who can say no to merdquo Te perennial tempta-tion in our modern world has been to make power autonomouseliminating its relationship to the other so that it is purely imper-sonal Tis would eliminate therefore politics based on the Ar-istotelian model where the other is an ldquoother merdquo Without suchmutual recognition there is no real citizenship and there is no realpolitics

Tis modern drift is fulfilled in the totalitarian phenomena ofthe 983089983097983088983088s characterized by a power that does not accept limita-tions to its own conduct What is most worrying is that with thecollapse of visible totalitarianism some of their fundamental el-ements are being regenerated in a new postmodern form Let usrecall with the help of Hannah Arendt the specific elements oftraditional totalitarianism then in the final section of this article




we will try to understand the forms in which it is being regener-ated in postmodern society and what can be done about it

otalitarianism is characterized first of all by a will for infinitemanipulation Tis dynamic has to do with the refusal to recognizereality the denial of the facts related to the ldquoexisting situationrdquo

which also includes the will of those opposing the totalitarianplans the refusal to recognize the nature of the things and theidea of being able to modify or remake anything In this pres-ent postmodern age the creative omnipotence of totalitarianismis no longer seen as a centralized and irresistible power But it cantake other forms as when individuals are also allowed to exercisea certain power in some limited areas where there is no dangerto political power as a form of participation in power and as a re-

ward for going along with it Examples would be genetic manipu-

lation abortion and euthanasia that offer apparent ldquofreedomrdquo topeople and let the individual share the technological potential ofsociety but make it unlikely that ethical questions will enter intodiscussion

Tis determination to avoid acknowledging reality also neces-sarily involves the inability to accept the limitations of onersquos owncondition Tis is a mistake not from a desire to halt progress inimproving peoplersquos lives but because real progress must take thelimitations into consideration when it is ethically necessary to do

so Denying that reality is a ldquogivenrdquo that is not ldquoproducedrdquo leads alsoto rejecting the original ldquogiftrdquo when awareness of it would insteadpromote a sense of gratitude A grateful person is disposed in turnto give and to recognize that we have a common patrimony Oneassumes that the gift will be accepted because all progress is con-ducted with the hope that it may bring some benefit for all andtherefore will take account of the interests of all those involved

Te only action that is fully human is that which begins by beingaware of and acknowledging the facts knowing the boundaries isthe basis for success and for maintaining a tie to reality

Even totalitarianism needs cultic forms to guarantee that thereis no acknowledgment of a God as an authority distinct from itspower that could limit its manipulation of reality It prefers idola-try in the form of uncritical adherence to the platitudes nurturedby art by the ldquoforefathersrdquo by the approved teachers At the sametime absolute enemies must be created and so any contrary ideasmust be judged deplorable and the traditional religions must bediscredited while official ideas are credited as consistent with na-ture or science Finally totalitarianism uses the lie systematically notonly to discredit adversariesmdashif there are any leftmdashbut also to re-

write history denying factual reality At this point when limitless

power is put to the test we again face the issue of truth and itsrelationship to politics

Postmodern Society and the ldquoReconstructionrdquo of TruthOur current problem in the daily political debates in the demo-cratic countries is that we are no longer able to determine whois right and who is wrong Tis leads certain politicians to takeopposite sides on the basis of the same principles it allows someto appeal to ldquosurerdquo facts that others deny Tis last pointmdashthe de-

nial of factual truth and the impossibility for citizens to ascertainitmdashsounds the political alarm Denial of the facts has always beentypical of totalitarian regimes that eliminate factual truth by sup-pressing witnesses burning the books that deal with it writingnew versions full of falsehoods and subjecting teachers to strictcontrol In the end the lie prevails by direct and brutal eliminationof the truth




In our democratic systems the process is different but the re-sult is the same Tanks to Hannah Arendt and her analysis ofldquofactual truthsrdquo the issue of truth has been reintroduced into thepolitical debate According to Arendt the denial of factual truth isaccomplished by the traditional system of rewriting history ldquounderthe eyes of those who witnessed it But it is equally true in lsquoimage-makingrsquo of all sorts that every known and established fact can bedenied or neglected if it is likely to hurt the image For an imageunlike an old-fashioned portrait is supposed not to flatter realitybut to offer a full-fledged substitute for itrdquo 983090983088 Te lie as Arendtexplains is a form of action in which the liar says ldquowhat is notrdquo inorder to change ldquothat which isrdquo to his or her own advantage Teliar is even more credible when he or she succeeds in first convinc-ing himself or herself of his or her own lie

Self-deception thus becomes one of the fundamental mecha-nisms of denying factual truth the liar adjusts to his or her ownpublic image and ends up depending on it It must be continuouslyrefurbished through the mass media that enormously enhancesthe role and the power of those images Te politician who istaken up in this game conditions the public on the one hand andon the other must also interpret its wishes in continuous interac-tion with the images produced by the others At a certain pointas we often see in televised debates it is no longer the players who

govern the game Te game of images into which the spectatorsthemselves enter by manifesting their approval through opinionsurveys now commands the players Someone will say that publicopinion should determine the positions of the politicians But that

983090983088 Hanna Arendt Between Past and Future Eight Exercises in Political Tought (New York Penguin Books 983089983097983095983095) pp 983090983092983095ndash983092983096

is already a serious matter because an authentic politician shouldhave a plan to execute independently of the changing opinions ofthe moment

It is even a more serious problem when people no longer seeany difference between fact and opinion now that factual truths aretransformed into opinions through the continuous manipulationof images In this way the mass media becomes the instrument ofpower leading to a purely procedural conception of democracy

Te political winner is the one who succeeds in influencing thegreater number of opinions whatever the facts may be Te finalresult when totalitarianism eliminates factual truth is telecracy

Tis is the end of politics because as Arendt explains factual truthldquois always related to other people it concerns events and circum-stances in which many are involved it is established by witnesses

and depends upon testimony it exists only to the extent that it isspoken about even if it occurs in the domain of privacy It is po-litical by naturerdquo 983090983089 Eliminating it means eliminating politics Andthis means that politics in order to survive cannot avoid confront-ing itself with truth that is facing the reality of other persons

Reality is such precisely because it is ldquootherrdquo in respect to theone considering it At the root of the denial of the truth by the

various political subjects singly and collectively is the denial ofthe other the determination to distinguish and distance oneself

from the other going well beyond any real differences and addingto the conflict Tis is a formidable error because it was exactly theopposite when the state began with sharing onersquos own sad expe-rience with someone else appreciating the otherrsquos suffering andoffering mutual help in a common difficulty Tink of the Italian

983090983089 Ibid pp 983090983091983091ndash983091983092




Constituent Assembly that was able to overcome ideological dif-ferences and synthesize relevant aspects of their own diverse po-litical cultures on the basis of the unity reached in opposition toNazi fascism At the origin of the state is the recognition by all ofa common experience a factual truth along with the principles ofreason It is no surprise that the same search for truth in the West

through the dialectic experience of the first philosophers began with accepting the other as a valid conversation partner

At this point however the thought of Hannah Arendt no lon-ger seems to face up to the whole problem we face today namelythe need to address not only diverse opinions unconnected to fac-tual truths but also diverse and conflicting philosophical truthsin the political arena In fact she ends up by returning to the oldphilosophical vision of a clear separation between truth and poli-

tics She argues for it by distinguishing philosophical truth fromfactual truth ldquoPhilosophical truth when it enters the public arenachanges its nature and becomes opinion because a true and propermetaacutebasis eis aacutello geacutenos takes place a shift not just from one typeof reasoning to another but from one mode of human existenceto anotherrdquo 983090983090 Whereas factual truths as I have cited from Arendtare ldquoconnected to other peoplerdquo and are ldquopolitical by naturerdquo Butone could object to Arendt Does not the common recognitionof factual truth lead to the same problems that arise in the con-

frontation among the various truths of reason Are not facts liketruths of reason subject to various interpretations bearing differ-ent meanings depending on who observes and draws lessons fromthem that differ from those drawn by others

983090983090 Ibid p 983090983091983092

Te difficulty in the relationship between truth and politicsthen is not only that we move from truth to opinion but from thepolitical thought of one to that of many Te problem of the pas-sage from philosophical truth to opinion before being presentedin the form so amply and precisely treated by Arendt would prob-ably have to be dealt with at its root It could be expressed in this

way Is philosophical truth which Arendt considers the patrimonyof individuals communicable to others Te philosophical truth ofthe individual according to Arendt ceases being truth as soon asit descends to the public arena that is as soon as it is seen as ldquoonerdquoof many truths and becomes therefore opinion Here I wouldrespond by contesting Arendtrsquos major premise that philosophi-cal truth regards a person only in his or her singularity On thecontrary philosophical truth is by nature communitarian Tere is

no opposition between the truth of the individual and that of theothers rather it comes about precisely as a unity of the many When Western civilization began and the problem of philo-

sophical truth was raised in a conscious and explicit way so thatthe search for it could begin it was not understood as only an indi-

vidual effort On the contrary one became a philosopher throughparticipation in the community Plato explains that philosophy islike a flame that is ignited in the soul of the individual only after along period of life in common and much discussion Te flame is

lit only after philosophers have lived together in a true and properschool of life and thought Te very idea of truth arose as a com-mon patrimony and became incomprehensible the moment it wasconsidered merely a heritage of an individual Te first philosophi-cal community in fact is a prototype of human community Tetrend is toward the universal




Arendt speaks about metaacutebasis as passage from the solitary phi-losopher to the public arena But the first radical metaacutebasis is thatof each philosopher when he or she leaves his or her own con-

victions behind in favor of the truth that is only reached collec-tively It was Socrates who taught the method it meant forgetting

yourself putting yourself inside the other taking the otherrsquos point

of view and then carrying on in the search for truth in total co-operation with the other Tis is metaacutebasis precisely in the sense ofacquiring a new location a change of form Te philosopher leavesthe territory of his or her own soulmdashwhich is illuminated secureand quite familiarmdashin order to venture into the space of anotherIt is not by chance that Homer uses the word metaacuteballo to indicateUlyssesrsquo and his companionsrsquo concealment in the belly of the horsethe ldquootherrdquo place of darkness and testing that is nevertheless a nec-

essary step for achieving victoryIf we in the West want to be coherent with the core of ourbeing and the civilization that has formed it we would always haveto start with this presupposition that the truth I bring must en-counter the truth brought by the other even when that other isa political adversary ldquoMyrdquo truth and ldquohis or her truthrdquo have needof one another Either one without the other loses meaning So Imust have at heart not only the success of my party aware of the

values that inspired it but also the success of the other party with-

out confusing their different identities but aware that they bothcontribute to a ldquounity in the truthrdquo that is deeper and stronger thanany division

A political movement that seems necessary in Western demo-cratic countries is a movement of politicians and citizens that re-establishes the conditions for unity in politics and sheds new lighton common foundations and a common goal Only if the reality

that unites the political society is clearly a truth common to allcan the various positions take on meaning Ten it is possible tosee the original contribution of each one If that unity should de-crease then the identity of each political group becomes indistinctthe debate becomes a sectarian scuffle and politicians can well bedescribed by the words that the goddess directed to Parmenides

some 983090983093983088983088 years ago at the beginning of the search for truth

Mortals knowing nothing double-headed go astray Forhelplessness in their breasts guides their errant minds Butthey are carried off equally deaf and blind hordes without

judgment for whom both to be and not to be are judgedthe same and not the same and the path of everything isbackward-turning 983090983091

How can such a reality be reestablished today First of all wecould ask ourselves what has brought us together as a politicalcommunity and then decide to be first of all citizens who focuson the principles and common values on which our political cama-raderie is based Our first allegiance and the determining one thatconfers unity on the political body is the fact that there is a unitythat comes before all our differences Differences are importanttoo if straightforwardly understood o do that we must return to

the original ideals that formed us as a political group to the rootsof our political culture assessing the deep human need that led tothe birth of our party We need to rediscover the authentic valuesthat it wanted to incarnate in history We must preserve them asa gift for the entire community not for one party in conflict with

983090983091 Poem of Parmenides Fragment 983094983093ndash983094983097




others Distinctiveness we could say is our second allegiance It doesnot give lie to the first but achieves it because through it each ofus distinguishes our own task within the collectivity It is by livingout our distinctiveness as a gift for the other that we build unity

It is time we had the courage to undertake this radical revision which involves not only individuals but also political groupings

and the entire community We would do well to start even if we donot know where the process will take us It is not necessary to knoweverything Indeed I would say that it is best not to know it and tobe aware that we do not possess the solution Tis ignorance doesnot limit our action Not even Jesus in his abandonment knew butthat did not prevent him from going ahead to the end It allowedhim to express completely his fidelity to the truth Not having thesolution leads us to search for it with others it helps us avoid fall-

ing into an ideology that thinks we can impose our rationale oneveryone Te last thought of the authentic person will always befor the other his or her last word will be always ldquoWhyrdquo

Antonio Maria Baggio received degrees in philosophy at the Univer-the Univer-sity of Padua the Pontifical Gregorian University and the PontificalUniversity of Saint Tomas (Rome) He was a professor at the PontificalGregorian University from 983089983097983097983090 to 983090983088983088983096 during which time he was

a visiting professor at the Pontifical University of Saint Tomas ldquoLaSapienzardquo University of Rome and the University of Milan (Bicocca)He is presently a professor at the Sophia University Institute and edi-tor of the journal Nuova Umanitagrave Baggio is author of eight books andnumerous articles on political thought the latest book being Meditazioniper la vita pubblica Il carisma dellrsquounitagrave e la politica (983090983088983088983093)




the offer for what it was and let everyone see how real the lie wasthat condemned him

Socrates represents the conflict between truth and politics in which opinion plays the lead role Whether opinion is true or falseit belongs to a different order from truth because it is not a certainknowledge Many people professed opinions over Socratesrsquo trial

which was effectively conducted by the civil authority in order tochannel the proceedings in the desired direction and to determinethe sentence From a philosophical standpoint sycophants andsophists brought into the trial elements foreign to the truth butuseful as instruments of the political power Teir artistry whilesimilar to the dialectic used by philosophers following Socrates inseeking the truth is distinguished from the latter precisely becauseit does not have the truth as its goal and orientation Te sophists

Plato observed do not use dialectic but eristike 983091

a form of strugglein which adversaries brandish opinions that are often only a cam-ouflage for their real interests Dialectic as the art of searching fortruth is replaced by rhetoric the art of persuasion983092 Te critique ofideology as we see here originated well before Karl Marx

Socratesrsquo case is not an isolated one His successor Plato alreadyrecognized the danger of espousing the truth before those who areaccustomed to opinion Now that he had freed himself from im-prisonment at the back of the cave would he dare explain to the

other prisoners that there was another world a real one of whichmost people were unaware 983093 Yet Plato accepted the risk and cre-ated the most famous school of all time the Academy a true andopen forum within and often contrary to the city administration

983091 Plato Sophist 983090983090983094a983092 Plato Gorgias VII 983092983093983089dndash983092983093983090e

983093 Plato Te Republic VII 983093983089983092andash983093983089983095a

Te conflict between truth and politics has remained alivethroughout history Even when the philosopher sided with the stateand against the truth he or she remained aware of how distinct thetwo were ldquoDisobediencerdquo writes Tomas Hobbes in Leviathanldquocan legitimately be punished in those who teach a philosophycontrary to the law even if it is truerdquo983094 Te state would be able thento embrace a lie officially if it is useful for achieving its ends EvenPlato agreed that officials could lie for the good of their subjectsemphasizing that what is inadmissable in philosophy can be ef-fective in politics Hobbesrsquos point is that the state is the one thingtruly necessary for maintaining order and guaranteeing securityin the life of its citizens For Hobbes politics is a function of liferegardless of how it may be conducted whereas for Socrates a lifedeprived of truth is not worth living From Hobbesrsquos point of view

truth and politics are clearly separate and politics is interested intruth only when it becomes a problem of public order Tereforethe lie in politics is often justified as the lesser evil People arelied to ldquofor their own goodrdquo and to avoid recourse to more violentmeans of persuasion On that basis truth and politics belong totwo different orders that never communicate Tis raises the ques-tion Is there any point where truth and politics can meet If so

what might it be

Authority and the Separation of Truth from Politics Te separation of truth from politics is common currency todayIt has become a key issue in a skewed vision of democracy thatknowingly renounces the truth in favor of opinion Procedur-ally the exercise of polical power is not based on truth but on

983094 Tomas Hobbes Leviathan XLVI

















































983089983090 Genesis 983090983089983097ndash983090983088






983089983091 Genesis 983091983089983097983089983092 Genesis 983089983090983095
























983089983096 Ibid p 983089983094

































983089983097 Ibid pp 983091983089ndash983091983090




































983090983089 Ibid pp 983090983091983091ndash983091983092









983090983090 Ibid p 983090983091983092


















































































983089983090 Genesis 983090983089983097ndash983090983088






983089983091 Genesis 983091983089983097983089983092 Genesis 983089983090983095
























983089983096 Ibid p 983089983094

































983089983097 Ibid pp 983091983089ndash983091983090




































983090983089 Ibid pp 983090983091983091ndash983091983092









983090983090 Ibid p 983090983091983092

























































983089983096 Ibid p 983089983094

































983089983097 Ibid pp 983091983089ndash983091983090




































983090983089 Ibid pp 983090983091983091ndash983091983092









983090983090 Ibid p 983090983091983092




























































983089983097 Ibid pp 983091983089ndash983091983090




































983090983089 Ibid pp 983090983091983091ndash983091983092









983090983090 Ibid p 983090983091983092

































































983090983089 Ibid pp 983090983091983091ndash983091983092









983090983090 Ibid p 983090983091983092










































983090983090 Ibid p 983090983091983092


































Truth and Politics- The Loss of Authoritativeness in Contemporary

Documents

Transcript of Truth and Politics- The Loss of Authoritativeness in Contemporary