Truth & Politics: Like Oil & Water

Richard Rorty’s main point in his essay “The Contingency of Language” is that truth does not exist outside of context. Each rhetorical situation has some sort of contrived notion of truth attached to it, and that notion is created due to the ambiguous nature of language. He argues that language creates perspective and can persuade in and of itself, without a necessary barometer of truth.

This harkens back to some of the things we talked about a few weeks ago in our visual communication class concerning relativism and truth as defined primarily by the perspective of the respective objects taking the picture and being pictured. It also makes me think about politics and the way that language manipulates meaning and can persuade in a way that can serve to hijack the American legislative process.

The PATRIOT Act is a perfect example of this phenomenon. In 2001, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Requird to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act was voted into law by Congress. There were a lot of flaws in the document, as is outlined here. Within the bill were many different aspects of new legislation that were troubling to civil rights groups and other advocates for liberty. Normally such a bill that many thought would threaten basic individual rights of Americans would face some pushback from special interest groups and different realms within the political spectrum.

But after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the nation was obsessed with being patriotic. As the article says, “Media organizations all over were scrambling not to appear un-American or not supportive of the troops.” Therefore, the writers of the bill made sure that support for the bill was linked with patriotism, even if its contents were somewhat questionable.

As it turns out, ten years later, many political commentators believe fears about the innate losses of rights due to the far reaches of the PATRIOT Act were valid. There is ongoing criticism of some of its facets because there has been time for analysts and voters to become detached from the original situation. Whereas context had previously made it seem un-American to vote against or criticize the bill, now—as the context has changed drastically over a decade—it is perfectly acceptable. The contents of the bill never changed, but the way in which it was framed and the context within which it was presented have.

In essence, the bill itself didn’t matter. Only the title did. This practice is common and is often used to mislead in a myriad of ways. The irrelevance of actual truth is a perfect illustration of what Rorty says is true (or not true) about the nature of truth.