IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v13y2025a9735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

After Post‐Truth: Revisiting the Lippmann–Dewey Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Aagaard Nøhr

    (Department of International Relations and International Organization, University of Groningen, The Netherlands)

  • Filipe dos Reis

    (Department of International Relations and International Organization, University of Groningen, The Netherlands)

  • Benjamin Herborth

    (Department of International Relations and International Organization, University of Groningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The debate on post‐truth has sought to restore what it held to be the proper relationship between knowledge, truth, and political judgment. This made for an intuitively plausible response to the experience of democracy itself being increasingly contested. However, with the re‐election of Donald Trump as US president and a broad array of instances of democratic backsliding in Europe and beyond, such a restorative framing may have exhausted itself. Therefore, we suggest revisiting the Lippmann–Dewey debate as a starting point for an alternative way of theorizing the contemporary crisis of democracy and knowledge production. The article outlines the potential of revisiting the Lippmann–Dewey debate to this end in three steps. First, we read the Lippmann–Dewey debate as a classical instance of the contestation of the concept of (liberal) democracy. Second, we discuss the relevance of two fundamentally different perspectives on the politics of knowledge: expertise and education. Third, we introduce two empirical sites to further illustrate such reflexive contestedness: the contestation of economic knowledge during European austerity politics and the role of Scientists for Future in environmental protests. A brief conclusion reflects on how one could think of the paradigmatic positions of Dewey and Lippmann not as mutually exclusive but complementary ways to problematize democracy in crisis.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Aagaard Nøhr & Filipe dos Reis & Benjamin Herborth, 2025. "After Post‐Truth: Revisiting the Lippmann–Dewey Debate," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9735
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.9735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/9735
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.9735?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Herborth, 2023. "Subaltern Counterpublics in Global Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(3), pages 98-108.
    2. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    3. Hans-Werner Sinn, 2014. "Austerity, Growth and Inflation: Remarks on the Eurozone's Unresolved Competitiveness Problem," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Christopher J. Bickerton & Dermot Hodson & Uwe Puetter, 2015. "The New Intergovernmentalism: European Integration in the Post-Maastricht Era," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 703-722, July.
    5. Samuel Knafo & Sahil Jai Dutta & Richard Lane & Steffan Wyn-Jones, 2019. "The Managerial Lineages of Neoliberalism," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 235-251, March.
    6. Benjamin Herborth, 2023. "Subaltern Counterpublics in Global Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(3), pages 98-108.
    7. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    2. Janne Mende & Thomas Müller, 2023. "Publics in Global Politics: A Framing Paper," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(3), pages 91-97.
    3. Johan Christensen, 2018. "Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 291-311, September.
    4. Jarle Trondal & Zuzana Murdoch & Benny Geys, 2015. "Representative Bureaucracy and the Role of Expertise in Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 26-36.
    5. Jarle Trondal & Zuzana Murdoch & Benny Geys, 2015. "Representative Bureaucracy and the Role of Expertise in Politics," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 26-36.
    6. repec:osf:socarx:dxvfp_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Claude Paraponaris, 2017. "Plateformes numériques, conception ouverte et emploi," Post-Print halshs-01614430, HAL.
    8. Eichengreen, Barry & Ghironi, Fabio, 1997. "European Monetary Unification and International Monetary Cooperation," Center for International and Development Economics Research, Working Paper Series qt10d518tg, Center for International and Development Economics Research, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    9. Jeanie Bukowski, 2017. "A “new water culture†on the Iberian Peninsula? Evaluating epistemic community impact on water resources management policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 239-264, March.
    10. Mateos-Garcia, Juan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2008. "The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 333-344, December.
    11. Catherine Long, 2017. "Delegated Service Authority: Institutional Evolution of PEPFAR Health-Based Program Implementing Units in Tanzania," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(3), pages 303-312, September.
    12. Sandberg, Kristin Ingstad & Andresen, Steinar & Bjune, Gunnar, 2010. "A new approach to global health institutions? A case study of new vaccine introduction and the formation of the GAVI Alliance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1349-1356, October.
    13. Sosay, Gül & Zenginobuz, Unal, 2005. "Independent regulatory agencies in emerging economies," MPRA Paper 380, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Muriel Figuié & Tristan Fournier, 2010. "Risques sanitaires globaux et politiques nationales : la gestion de la grippe aviaire au Vietnam," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 91(3), pages 327-343.
    15. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    16. Cynthia Couette, 2024. "Epistemic competition in global governance: The case of pharmaceutical patents," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(3), pages 516-527, June.
    17. Lütz, Susanne, 1998. "Wenn Banken sich vergessen ...: Risikoregulierung im internationalen Mehr-Ebenen-System," MPIfG Discussion Paper 98/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    18. Acosta, Matias & Szlamka, Zsofia & Mostajo-Radji, Mohammed A., 2020. "Transnational youth networks: an evolving form of public diplomacy to accelerate the Sustainable Development Goals," SocArXiv 8247s, Center for Open Science.
    19. Yannis Papadopoulos, 2018. "How does knowledge circulate in a regulatory network? Observing a European Platform of Regulatory Authorities meeting," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 431-450, December.
    20. Thor Olav Iversen, 2023. "Boundary experts: Science and politics in measuring the Sustainable Development Goals," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(4), pages 600-610, September.
    21. Samuel Brazys & Aidan Regan, 2016. "These Little PIIGS Went to Market: Enterprise Policy and Divergent Recovery in European Periphery," Working Papers 201517, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9735. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.