I've been grappling with an apparent paradox:

According to postmodernists, there is no such thing as truth. I disagree. But as many institutions come to adopt postmodernist premises, the idea that "truth" depends on who has power seemingly gets hard to deny.

[Thread.]

A core claim of postmodernism is that humans will never be able to describe a real truth that is out there; all we can do is to study how different discourses lead us to classify some things as true and others as false.

Once this idea is so widely accepted that it influences how key institutions describe the world, it seemingly becomes self-validating.

Ironically, skeptics of postmodernism are often the first to notice that the social representation of truth deeply depends on who's in power.

But I think there is a way to avoid this troubling conclusion by making a key distinction between a sociological and an epistemological variant of the postmodern thesis.

The sociological thesis holds that most people's beliefs are deeply influenced by who enjoys cultural hegemony. This now strikes me as very plausible.

The epistemological thesis holds that different "discourses" are equally "true" representations of reality. This remains wrong.

There are at least two upshots for those who reject epistemological postmodernism while recognizing the power of its sociological variant:

1) We should interrogate ourselves carefully. After all, it really is plausible that our own beliefs may be inflected with prejudice, etc.

2) Precisely because those who are in power can have an enormous influence on the views people hold, it is all the more important to insist on the existence of truth and falsehood, and to defend institutions that allow for science and genuinely free inquiry.

[End.]