Month: July 2025

🔍 Understanding Bullshit in Post-Truth Politics

• Definition: Bullshit is “deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, which is indifferent to facts” (Hopkin & Rosamond, 2017, p. 2; Frankfurt, 2005).
• Context: Emerges from the decline of traditional party politics and the rise of individualised, performative rhetoric in Western democracies (Hopkin & Rosamond, 2017).
• Problem: Existing bullshit literature ignores how gender, race, and class shape who can “bullshit” successfully and with impunity.

⚖️ Intersectionality as Analytical Framework

• Key Claim: Analysing bullshit without race and gender considerations weakens explanatory power (O’Dwyer, 2018).
• Intersectional Lens: Moves beyond binaries (e.g., male/female) to include class, race, nationality, etc. (Crenshaw, 1991; Collins & Bilge, 2016).
• Example: White, elite male politicians are often perceived as more credible and face fewer consequences for falsehoods than women or racialized individuals (Piston et al., 2018).

👩‍🎓 Feminist Approach to Bullshit

• Bullshit ≠ Lies: Liars acknowledge truth; bullshitters are indifferent to it (Frankfurt, 2005).
• Gendered Performance: Politicians perform gender that shapes how their statements are received (Butler, 1997; Kahn, 1992).
• Authority Bias: Masculinity and whiteness amplify perceived legitimacy of speech acts (Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993).

“Bullshit is simply a new form of privileged rhetoric and communication” (O’Dwyer, 2018, p. 407).

🎭 Bullshitters in the Brexit Campaign

• Case Study Focus: Boris Johnson (Leave) and George Osborne (Remain).
• Privilege Enables Bullshit: Both are white, elite, Oxbridge-educated men insulated by race, gender, and class (Younge, 2018).
• Counterpoint: Diane Abbott (Black woman MP) faced harsh consequences for minor errors—highlighting double standards in bullshit tolerance (Cole, 2017).

“Only some people are equipped with the prestige and authority to bullshit without consequence” (O’Dwyer, 2018, p. 416).

🧠 Bullshit Content: Racialised and Gendered Tropes

• NHS Bus Claim: £350m/week for NHS was false but effective due to racialised tropes of “foreigners exploiting the system” (Rickard, 2016).
• White Victimhood: The Leave campaign constructed white working-class grievance to obscure neoliberal causes of inequality (Emejulu, 2016).
• Austerity & Gender: Osborne’s “machonomics” (Watson, 2017) relied on assumptions that women would absorb state retrenchment burdens.

“The claim…is deeply connected to this trope of migrants…taking advantage of the NHS” (O’Dwyer, 2018, p. 414).

📉 Consequences of Bullshit Politics

• Racist Backlash: Post-Brexit racism surged (Burnett, 2017; Gayle, 2018).
• Gendered Fallout: Brexit exacerbated gender inequality—particularly for women of colour (Guerrina & Masselot, 2018).
• Silencing: Marginalised groups excluded from discourse both during and after the campaign.

“Bullshit continues to structure the debate…to the exclusion of these consequences” (O’Dwyer, 2018, p. 416).

🔚 Conclusion: Power, Privilege, and Post-Truth

• Core Argument: Bullshit is a political weapon enabled by privilege. Its success depends on who speaks, how they speak, and how society hears them.
• Call to Action: Any study of post-truth must centre intersectionality to grasp the deep structural inequalities embedded in bullshit rhetoric.

“The research agenda…must explore how some people have easier access to the rhetorical tool of bullshit” (O’Dwyer, 2018, p. 417).

🎭 To Performance Theory

• O’Dwyer draws on Judith Butler’s theory of performativity to argue that political bullshit is not just rhetorical but performed in gendered and racialized ways (Butler, 1997).
• Political figures like Boris Johnson succeed in bullshitting not because of content, but due to their performances of elite masculinity and whiteness, which are socially read as authoritative (O’Dwyer, 2018, p. 410).
• Contribution: Extends Butlerian performativity to the realm of political discourse, illustrating how performative privilege enables rhetorical impunity.

🧠 To Epistemic Literary Theory / Critical Race Epistemology

• Challenges traditional conceptions of truth and authority by emphasizing that epistemic credibility is racialized and gendered.
• Black women like Diane Abbott are not only scrutinized more harshly, but also denied the epistemic authority granted to white male counterparts (O’Dwyer, 2018, pp. 416–417).
• Contribution: Brings intersectional epistemology into post-truth discourse, showing how literary and rhetorical authority are unevenly distributed based on identity.

⚖️ To Intersectional Feminist Literary Theory

• Applies intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) to expose how literary constructs like “bullshit” are not neutral but deeply structured by gender, race, and class (O’Dwyer, 2018, pp. 407–408).
• The article critiques how most “post-truth” literature fails to interrogate who is allowed to lie, perform, or mislead with impunity.
• Contribution: Reorients post-truth studies toward feminist literary critique by demanding analysis of who controls the narrative.

🗣️ To Discourse and Ideology Critique (Foucaultian Framework)

• Engages with authorized speech (Fraser, 1989) to explore who is allowed to speak and be believed.
• Suggests that “bullshit” is an ideological tool — a discursive practice sustained by structures of dominance, rather than merely rhetorical flourish (O’Dwyer, 2018, p. 416).
• Contribution: Aligns with Foucault’s idea that discourse is a mechanism of power, not just communication, making this article relevant to ideological literary theory.

📉 To Political Rhetoric and Literary Form

• Demonstrates that bullshit functions as a genre—one marked by emotional appeal, performativity, and detachment from factual coherence.
• Emphasizes its formal and stylistic tropes, especially repetition, exaggeration, and vague metaphors (e.g., “take back control”).
• Contribution: Proposes that bullshit constitutes a literary form that should be analyzed through stylistic and political lenses.

📺 To Postmodern/Post-Truth Literary Theory

• Questions the premise of post-truth theory that all truths are contested, by grounding the success of bullshit in material inequalities rather than epistemic relativism.
• Argues that not everyone’s lies are equally accepted — challenging the flat relativism found in some postmodern thought (O’Dwyer, 2018, pp. 406–407).
• Contribution: Offers a materialist corrective to post-truth literary theory by injecting intersectional critique into the analysis of truth and rhetoric.

🧱 To Structuralist/Post-Structuralist Theory

• Builds on the idea that meaning and power are structurally coded by showing that bullshit succeeds because it resonates with existing social narratives of whiteness, masculinity, and British nationalism (O’Dwyer, 2018, pp. 413–414).
• Highlights how these structural codes operate beneath language to enable political speech acts.
• Contribution: Provides a post-structuralist analysis of meaning-making in political bullshit that incorporates race and gender structures.

❓ 1. Conceptual Overreach

• O’Dwyer’s application of “bullshit” to encompass race, class, and gender risks diluting the analytical clarity of Frankfurt’s original epistemic definition.
• Critics may argue that her intersectional expansion transforms a linguistic-philosophical concept into a political metaphor, losing specificity in favor of critique.

⚠️ 2. Lack of Empirical Grounding

• The article offers a compelling theoretical framework but lacks systematic empirical data or interviews to demonstrate how bullshit is differently received based on race/gender.
• Critics from political science may call this a “theory-heavy” essay with insufficient real-world validation beyond a few high-profile examples (e.g., Boris Johnson, Diane Abbott).

📏 3. Ambiguity in Measuring ‘Bullshit’

• While Frankfurt (2005) provides a functional definition of bullshit, O’Dwyer extends the term to include institutional discourse and campaign narratives without clear criteria.
• This may invite methodological vagueness: how do we distinguish bullshit from ideology, spin, or rhetorical style?

🧩 4. Intersectionality as Overdetermined

• Some critics may argue that O’Dwyer treats intersectionality as a totalizing lens, risking the erasure of agency or individual variance.
• There’s minimal attention to counterexamples—e.g., women or racialized individuals who successfully use bullshit or resist its structures.

🧠 5. Under-theorized Role of the Audience

• While the article emphasizes who can speak bullshit, it pays less attention to how audiences interpret or resist it.
• Reception theory scholars might critique the absence of reader-listener agency, reducing political communication to elite speech acts alone.

🧱 6. Structural Determinism

• O’Dwyer strongly links rhetorical success to structural privilege, which, while grounded in truth, might be critiqued as overly deterministic.
• This may limit the explanatory range when analyzing nuanced or subversive uses of rhetoric by marginalized speakers.

📚 7. Limited Literary Engagement

• Despite borrowing from literary theory (e.g., Butler, Fraser), the article does not engage with narrative or literary fiction in depth.
• Critics from literary studies might view it as a missed opportunity to apply its framework to literature, performance, or media discourse.

1. Introduction
Szanto identifies a gap in current literature on both epistemic injustice and the philosophy of bullshit (especially Frankfurt’s). He argues that these frameworks neglect a politically and ethically distinct form of discourse—Epistemically Exploitative Bullshit (EEB)—which is prevalent in discriminatory contexts but under-theorized.

2. Defining EEB
EEB is characterized by two features:

• Alethic insouciance: the speaker displays indifference toward the truth of their statements.
• Epistemic exploitation: the speaker provokes marginalized people into epistemic labor (explaining, defending, educating), only to disregard or dismiss that labor.
  This differs from both lying and ordinary bullshit, as it weaponizes engagement while feigning neutrality.

3. The Sartrean Framework
Szanto draws on Jean-Paul Sartre’s 1946 work Anti-Semite and Jew to offer a philosophical foundation. Sartre describes anti-Semitic discourse as:

• Intentionally irrational and provocative.
• Structured by bad faith: self-deceptive evasion of responsibility.
• Unwilling to be refuted by reason.
  Szanto parallels this with modern EEB: speakers retreat from responsibility, hide behind collective prejudices, and sabotage good-faith dialogue.

4. EEB’s Mechanisms
Key structural elements of EEB include:

• Feigning objectivity or intellectual curiosity, while acting in bad faith.
• Burden reversal: marginal groups are compelled to justify their identity or experiences.
• Dismissive outcomes: even good-faith responses are neutralized by indifference.
• Epistemic asymmetry: the dominant party refuses vulnerability or self-reflection.

5. Political and Ethical Implications
EEB functions as discursive domination. It reinforces systemic injustice by:

• Masking prejudice as reasoned skepticism.
• Draining emotional and cognitive energy from those it targets.
• Delegitimizing marginalized voices while appearing “rational.”
  Szanto argues this form of discourse is especially dangerous in political, media, and academic contexts.

6. Critique of Existing Theories
Szanto critiques:

• Frankfurt’s bullshit: too focused on truth-indifference, not relational or political dynamics.
• Epistemic injustice theories: often overlook the affective labor and the strategic insincerity involved in EEB.
  He insists that EEB needs to be theorized as a power-laden, insidious form of communicative harm, not just poor reasoning.

7. Conclusion
Szanto calls for a Sartrean ethics of responsibility in epistemic interactions. He advocates:

• Holding speakers accountable for bad-faith engagement.
• Recognizing collective and structural aspects of epistemic harm.
• Viewing EEB as a moral failure that weaponizes others’ truth-telling while avoiding one’s own responsibility.

🎭 Expanding the Terrain of Discourse Analysis

• Introduces a new discursive form—epistemically exploitative bullshit (EEB)—that bridges pragmatic linguistics, existentialism, and critical theory.
• Unlike Frankfurt’s classic notion of bullshit, Szanto argues EEB is “strategically indifferent to truth” but not simply careless—rather, it’s instrumentally deployed to burden marginalized interlocutors (Szanto, 2023, p. 3).
• Implication for literary criticism: offers a new analytic lens for interpreting dialogic manipulation, particularly in postcolonial, feminist, and trauma literature where characters are “made to explain” but never believed.

😶‍🌫️ Reactivating Sartrean Existentialism in Literary Ethics

• Szanto brings Sartre’s concept of bad faith back into focus, grounding it not in personal psychology but in collective discursive behavior.
• Literary theory gains a tool for interpreting characters, narrators, and institutions that engage in self-deceptive but socially sanctioned communicative evasion.
• Example quote: “In line with Sartre’s depiction of the anti-Semite, EEB speakers cultivate a disingenuous refusal of reason while securing their ideological comfort” (Szanto, 2023, p. 9).

🔁 Reframing Epistemic Exploitation as Affective Labor

• Builds on Kristie Dotson and Nora Berenstain but extends the concept into literary analysis: characters are not only denied credibility, but their explanations are weaponized against them.
• Szanto: “The labor demanded is not only disregarded but retroactively deployed to undermine the speaker’s credibility” (p. 12).
• This has deep resonance in trauma literature and postcolonial narratives, where “testimonial fatigue” and “distrust of disclosure” become aesthetic forms.

🛡️ Introducing Discursive Domination as a Literary Trope

• The paper formulates EEB as a tactic of domination cloaked in debate—where the form of dialogue mimics openness, but the function is suppression.
• Szanto: “EEB is a political technique masquerading as critical engagement, designed to sustain discursive control” (p. 16).
• Useful for identifying hegemonic speech patterns in satire, propaganda, courtroom drama, and digital discourse genres.

👥 Foregrounding Structural Epistemic Asymmetry in Dialogue

• Literary theory traditionally focuses on plot and character agency; Szanto’s concept of epistemic asymmetry reveals power embedded in questions themselves.
• He writes: “EEB turns the act of asking into a performance of dominance—an interrogation masquerading as curiosity” (p. 14).
• Applicable in literary genres involving interrogation, authority-figure speech, colonial questioning, and pedagogical violence.

🧊 Recasting Alethic Indifference as Narrative Strategy

• “Alethic insouciance” is described as a deliberate disinterest in the truth, which frames many unreliable narrators and “rational” antagonists in literature.
• Szanto states: “Insouciance is not epistemic laziness—it is a method of rhetorical insulation” (p. 10).
• Literary theorists can use this to study narrators or institutions that deploy “truth-y” language to avoid real truth (e.g., dystopias, colonial texts, war narratives).

⚖️ Critiquing the Limits of Epistemic Injustice Theory

• Szanto critiques Fricker’s testimonial injustice model for being too focused on credibility deficits, ignoring strategic discrediting through affective labor.
• Quote: “EEB renders traditional models of epistemic injustice analytically insufficient; it combines emotional parasitism with discursive evasion” (p. 17).
• Opens new space in literary theory to examine affect as epistemic harm, not just representational failure.

🎯 Highlighting Instrumental Dialogue in Literary Conflicts

• Szanto draws attention to how some dialogue simulates inquiry but aims at rhetorical domination, a move seen in Socratic parody, satire, and political drama.
• He explains: “In EEB, the question does not seek an answer—it seeks to entrap or deflate the respondent” (p. 13).
• Key tool for literary scholars analyzing interrogative violence and false discourse communities.

🧠 Contributing to Literary Ethics and Responsibility

• Central to Szanto’s account is ethical responsibility in speech, which aligns with Levinasian and Ricoeurian theories of communicative ethics in literature.
• He argues: “To confront EEB is to demand responsibility not just for what is said, but for the conditions and aims of saying it” (p. 18).
• Strengthens interpretive strategies that treat literature as an ethical event, not just aesthetic artifact.

🧱 Overextension of Sartrean Framework

• Critics may argue that applying Sartre’s mid-20th century existentialism to 21st-century discourse (e.g., online bigotry, institutional epistemic violence) stretches Sartre’s framework beyond its philosophical utility.
• Sartre’s account of bad faith and anti-Semitism, while powerful, was not designed to address the complexities of intersectional oppression, neoliberal media, or algorithmically mediated discourse.

🧊 Conceptual Redundancy with Existing Theories

• The paper risks reinventing terms already addressed in epistemic injustice theory. For instance:
  • Alethic insouciance may overlap with Miranda Fricker’s testimonial injustice.
  • Epistemic exploitation is already well-developed in the work of Kristie Dotson and Nora Berenstain.
• Critics could argue Szanto’s “novelty” lies more in rhetorical repackaging than in new conceptual insights.

🛠️ Ambiguity in Operational Criteria

• The line between bullshit, lie, and strategic discourse remains fuzzy in the paper.
• Szanto claims EEB is distinct due to its combination of indifference and exploitation, but the threshold for identifying EEB in real-world or literary contexts is not always clear.
• Critics might ask: When does ordinary polemic become EEB?

🔍 Insufficient Engagement with Feminist & Critical Race Theory

• While the article references epistemic injustice, it arguably under-engages with foundational works in Black feminist thought, critical race theory, or decolonial discourse, where themes of epistemic violence have been explored for decades.
• This omission could make the theory feel disconnected from existing activist epistemologies or reduce its intersectional applicability.

🎭 Over-theorization of Discourse

• Some may criticize Szanto for being overly theoretical and abstract, offering insightful but impractical tools for real-world engagement.
• Practitioners or educators dealing with actual discursive violence (e.g., in classrooms, activism, or media) might find the diagnosis rich but the intervention weak.

📚 Limited Literary Application

• Although the theory is promising for literary criticism, Szanto himself does not develop any literary examples, leaving it to others to test applicability in cultural texts.
• The lack of concrete case studies may limit its uptake among scholars in literature and cultural studies.

⚖️ Risk of Pathologizing Disagreement

• Some may worry that the EEB framework could be used to discredit any form of critical or skeptical questioning as exploitative, thus chilling discourse.
• If not carefully applied, the concept may blur the line between epistemic violence and genuine inquiry, especially in politically charged settings.

🔍 1. Conceptual Framing: Liars, Bullshitters, and Scholars

• Key Framework: Borrowing from philosopher Harry Frankfurt, the authors distinguish between liars, bullshitters, and scholars.
  • Liars: Know the truth but deliberately distort it.
  • Bullshitters: Are indifferent to the truth and prioritize “other things that are potentially in conflict with it” (Frankfurt, 2005).
  • Scholars: Genuinely aim to pursue and prioritize truth.
• ➤ “All three characters may communicate truth or falsehood… the distinction is about intentions and endeavours, not outcomes.”
  👉 This framing is crucial: even well-meaning scholars can accidentally produce bullshit if they lack competence or integrity.

💣 2. The Bullshit Crisis in Psychology

• The authors argue that psychology is “liberally sprayed with bullshit,” often more troubling than fraud.
• Key Problems Identified:
  • 🚨 Improbable statistical results: “Almost all published studies report statistically significant effects” — despite inadequate sample sizes (Cohen, 1962; Bakker et al., 2012).
  • 🔄 Failed replications: Reproductions of studies routinely fail (Open Science Collaboration, 2015).
  • ✂️ Selective reporting: Authors often omit negative results.
    ➤ “The former mentioned 7 experiments… the latter disclosed 11 more… and only 2 were significant” (Inzlicht, 2015).

📉 3. Systemic Causes of Bullshit

• 📌 Lack of expertise: Many researchers “do not have the methodological or statistical expertise necessary” (Colquhoun, 2014).
• 🧏 Blind trust: Researchers accept findings “they would almost certainly not believe if they critiqued them more thoroughly” (Fricker, 2002).
• 🛠️ p-hacking: Flexibility in data analysis allows almost anything to be made to appear significant (Simmons et al., 2011).
  ➤ “Listening to ‘When I’m 64’ made people nearly 1.5 years younger!”
• 🗞️ Publication bias: Prestigious journals reward novelty, not replication (Peplow, 2014).
• 🧩 Poor peer review: Resubmitted accepted articles were mostly rejected due to “serious methodological flaws” (Peters & Ceci, 1982).
• 🔒 Lack of openness: Authors restrict access to their data, hampering verification (Coyne, 2015).
• 💰 Misaligned incentives: Researchers are rewarded for “publications, grants, promotion… rather than truth” (Carter, 2015).
• 🔁 Persistence of myths: Disproven ideas continue to influence psychology (Tatsioni et al., 2007; Lewandowsky et al., 2012).

⚖️ 4. Recommendations for Reform

• 📚 Don’t give up: Despite Meehl’s (1990) claim that psychology is “well-nigh uninterpretable,” the authors argue that valuable reform is possible.
• ✅ Key Proposals:
  • 🧠 Prioritize truth over prestige: “May we have the will to pursue [truth] over institutional benefits.”
  • 🔎 Honesty and humility: Acknowledge errors and ignorance openly.
    ➤ “Denying flaws helps no one.”
  • 🌐 Broaden evidence use: Empirical rigor doesn’t only come from experiments. Observation and ordinary-language clarity matter (Rozin, 2001; Billig, 2013).
  • 🧭 Nurture nuance: Don’t treat one-off effects as universal truths.
    ➤ “Experiments usually only show something can occur, not that it must.”
  • 🩺 Triage attention: Focus research on important questions, not only easy-to-study ones.
    ➤ “Better an approximate answer to the right question than an exact answer to the wrong one” (Tukey, 1962).

🧠 5. A Call to Intellectual Integrity

• The final tone is passionate and urgent:

“We’re fed up with all the bullshit.”

• Farsides and Sparks affirm the value of psychology but call for a radical reformation of research culture, grounded in intellectual humility, critical scrutiny, and ethical scholarship.

🧠 1. Rhetoric and the Aesthetics of Academic Language

• Bullshit as a Literary Performance:
  The paper aligns with literary theory by treating academic writing itself as a rhetorical act, subject to performance, persuasion, and aesthetic manipulation.

“Many published studies have selectively included or omitted evidence to support claims…”
➤ Echoes Billig’s (2013) criticism of academic writing: language obscures rather than clarifies.

• Relevance to Literary Criticism:
  This contributes to post-structuralist concerns with how meaning is constructed and manipulated through form, tone, and genre.

📚 2. Epistemology and Narrative Truth Construction

• Academic Knowledge as Storytelling:
  The article questions whether psychology tells the truth or simply constructs persuasive narratives.

“Can we claim hand-on-heart to confidently know anything… among all the bullshit and lies?”

• Connection to Narrative Theory:
  Resonates with Lyotard’s (1984) Postmodern Condition, where grand scientific narratives lose legitimacy and knowledge becomes commodified.

🧩 3. Deconstruction of Scientific Authority

• Deconstructing the Scholar:
  By contrasting liars, bullshitters, and scholars, the paper deconstructs the notion of the expert and reframes scholarly identity as ethically and rhetorically constructed.

“Expertise should be in service of scholarship, not prioritised above it.”

• Link to Derrida’s Deconstruction:
  Authority in psychological science is shown to be unstable, performative, and ideologically situated — a central concern in literary theory.

🔍 4. The Ethics of Representation

• Bullshit as Ethical Failure:
  The article reveals that scientific writing often violates ethical standards of representation, much like propaganda or bad fiction.

“We’re fed up with all the bullshit.”

• Contribution to Literary Ethics:
  Reinforces the idea that language is never neutral — a key tenet in ethical literary criticism (e.g., Wayne Booth, Martha Nussbaum).

🔁 5. Interrogating the Myth of Objectivity

• Objectivity as Mythical Construct:
  Farsides and Sparks expose how psychology mimics objectivity while being structurally biased.

“Given the multiple serious, widespread, and enduring problems… can we claim… to confidently know anything?”

• Link to Critical Theory:
  Parallels Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of Enlightenment rationality: science as myth-making under capitalism and bureaucracy.

💬 6. Language, Power, and Institutional Discourse

• Academic Bullshit as Institutional Power Language:
  The article critiques how institutional pressures shape what is said and how.

“Perverted reward structures… downgrade the importance of truth to maximise publications…”

• Ties to Foucault:
  Aligns with Foucauldian discourse theory, where power and knowledge are co-produced in institutional settings.

🧱 7. Genre Critique: The Scientific Article as a Literary Form

• Scientific Reports as Fictional Constructions:
  The paper suggests that many psychological publications resemble carefully crafted fictions, tailored for impact rather than truth.
  ➤ e.g., “Literally infeasible frequencies of statistically significant effects”
• Contributes to Genre Theory:
  Questions the genre of scientific writing as one that can be manipulated, subverted, or performed dishonestly.

🧪 8. Metacriticism: Critiquing the Act of Critique

• Reflexive Literary-Theoretical Positioning:
  The authors interrogate their own participation in the academic system.

“We are interested to hear the views of others… We’re fed up with all the bullshit.”

• Contributes to Literary Metacriticism:
  Suggests that critique must also critique itself, echoing postmodern literary self-awareness.

⚖️ 1. Overgeneralization of Psychological Science

• Critique: The authors risk painting the entire field of psychology with a broad brush, implying that most or all published work is untrustworthy or compromised.
• ➤ This sweeping tone may discourage nuanced assessment or overlook areas of rigorous, reproducible work.
• “It has been suggested that much or possibly most of what we hold to be true in psychology is probably wrong.”
  — This line, while provocative, may border on alarmism.

🧪 2. Lack of Empirical Basis for Their Own Claims

• Critique: Ironically, the article criticizes poor empirical standards yet makes broad assertions without providing robust quantitative data.
• ➤ The claims rely heavily on anecdotes, lists of retractions, and cited critiques without systematic meta-analysis.
• The article quotes many high-profile failures but does not statistically demonstrate the proportion of ‘bullshit’ in psychology.

🧠 3. Idealistic View of “Scholarship”

• Critique: The authors promote a romanticized and binary view of “truth-seeking scholars” vs. “bullshitters,” ignoring the gray areas of scientific practice.
• ➤ Real-world science often involves trade-offs, ambiguity, and uncertainty, not always clean truth vs. falsehood divisions.
• Their “cast list” of liars, bullshitters, and scholars may oversimplify human motivation and institutional complexity.

🪓 4. Risk of Undermining Public Trust in Science

• Critique: While the article seeks reform, it may inadvertently reinforce anti-scientific or populist skepticism, especially in politicized contexts.
• ➤ Framing science as “buried in bullshit” may be weaponized by those seeking to delegitimize all expertise.
• Particularly in an era of misinformation, critiques that lack balance can feed anti-intellectual rhetoric.

🔍 5. Insufficient Engagement with Structural and Systemic Solutions

• Critique: The authors point out reward systems and publication bias, but their solutions (like “be honest” and “nurture nuance”) are mostly individualistic or idealistic.
• ➤ There is limited exploration of institutional reform, peer-review models, or systemic accountability structures.
• The article’s call to “prioritise scholarship” is morally noble but structurally vague.

🧷 6. Lack of Reflexivity

• Critique: While they call out bullshit in others, the authors don’t interrogate their own positionality, rhetorical choices, or institutional complicity.
• ➤ They themselves participate in a system of publication, citation, and visibility—yet offer little self-critique.
• Their rhetorical tone often mimics the same confident certainty they critique in others.

🎭 7. Theatrical Tone and Rhetorical Grandstanding

• Critique: The title (“Buried in Bullshit”) and repeated use of provocative language risks coming across as performative rather than analytical.
• ➤ While attention-grabbing, this tone may alienate more conservative scholars or those seeking constructive dialogue.
• Phrases like “we’re fed up with all the bullshit” sound more like manifesto than measured scholarship.

🔹Redefining Bullshit Beyond Frankfurt

• Brinkema begins by engaging with Harry G. Frankfurt’s definition of “bullshit” as “a lack of connection to a concern with truth” (✧ Frankfurt, 2005, p. 34).
• Frankfurt distinguishes bullshit from lying by noting that the liar cares about truth to conceal it, while the bullshitter is indifferent to truth entirely: “What is wrong with a counterfeit is not what it is like, but how it was made” (✧ p. 47).
• Brinkema argues that this concept collapses under psychoanalytic scrutiny: “If all subjects in the psychoanalytic universe confess a split between what they believe and what they say… are complaints like Aristotle’s obsolete in the wake of the Freudian discovery?” (✧ Brinkema, 2007, p. 63).

🔹 The Psychoanalytic Subject: Speech and the Unconscious

• Psychoanalysis refutes the idea of sincere, unified speech. It reveals a fundamental split between enunciation and belief.
• “The unconscious admits contradictions without contradiction” (✧ p. 63), which destabilizes any clear boundary between truth and falsehood.
• Speech in psychoanalysis always exceeds the speaker’s intent: “It speaks—truth speaks—independent of the necessarily phenomenal load of bullshit that the patient produces” (✧ p. 78).

🔹 The Lie and the Truth: Paradox as Method

• Brinkema explores scenarios where truth-telling and lying become indistinguishable due to enunciative slippage:
  • The case where someone lies but accidentally tells the truth.
  • The case where truth is told but perceived as deception.
• “Truth-telling can lie, and lie-telling can correspond to truth” (✧ p. 75), destabilizing the binary logic of language.

🔹 Cratylus, Heraclitus, and the Pointing Finger

• Philosophical skepticism is revisited through the figures of Heraclitus and Cratylus.
• Cratylus, who refused to speak and only pointed, dramatizes language’s failure to signify stably.
• “Even hysterical silence does not exempt one from the chaos of a spoken reality” (✧ p. 62).

🔹 Psychoanalytic Truth and the Impossible

• Psychoanalytic truth is not verifiable or stable but appears in contradictions, symptoms, and jokes.
• “Hold open this space of the paradox becoming a negation, and that is the psychoanalytic field of truth” (✧ p. 75).
• Truth in psychoanalysis is not a correspondence but a structure of failure that reveals the Real.

🔹 The Joke and Bullshit: Freud’s Jewish Train Parable

• The famous Freud joke about Jews and lying through truth is key: “Why are you lying? I know you’re really going to Cracow!” (✧ p. 72).
• This joke illustrates absurdity as the route to truth in psychoanalytic terms.
• “It is precisely by way of absurdity that we arrive at the field of truth” (✧ p. 73).

🔹 Indifference to Truth Is Not Indifferent

• Even apparent indifference (bullshit) is meaningful in psychoanalysis.
• “The speaker of bullshit may imagine him- or herself to be indifferent to their statements in relation to the field of truth, but that indifference is not itself indifferent” (✧ p. 74).

🔹 Woman, Bullshit, and Lacan’s Feminine Exception

• Brinkema provocatively suggests that only the category of “Woman” in Lacan’s theory may truly speak bullshit.
• Because Woman is doubly excluded (from phallic logic and speech’s guarantee), she can occupy a space “indifferent” to truth.
• “Her not-knowing the not-knowing of speech opens up the space for an indifference that is not collapsible back into a symptom of the truth” (✧ p. 77).

🔹 Ending in Silence and the Body

• Brinkema ends by invoking the radical silence of women—Dora (Ida Bauer), Fania Pascal, and an unnamed wife—as voices that resist interpretation.
• Bullshit becomes not noise, but the site of a bodily, symptomatic truth: “So too does shit speak… it is, in matter, the sign of my speech” (✧ p. 69).
• Psychoanalysis insists: “Yes, psychoanalysis insistently says. Like the unconscious, there is no ‘No’ in psychoanalysis either” (✧ p. 76).

🔹 Final Thesis: Bullshit as Truth’s Symptom

• In psychoanalysis, bullshit does not oppose truth but confirms it as an unconscious process.
• “Bullshit is what affirms the truth of the unconscious” (✧ p. 74).
• The paper ultimately argues for a rethinking of sincerity, deception, and truth as always implicated in the logic of the symptom, not excluded by it.

📘 🧠 Psychoanalytic Literary Theory

• Main Contribution: Redefines the relation between speech and unconscious truth, reframing sincerity, lying, and “bullshit” as modes of psychoanalytic revelation.
• Bullshit becomes a symptom: “In psychoanalysis, ça parle—it speaks; truth speaks—independent of the necessarily phenomenal load of bullshit that the patient produces” (✧ p. 78).
• Even lies are truthful: Brinkema shows how lies and bullshit inevitably reveal unconscious truth through their failures: “The lie as such is itself posited in this dimension of truth” (✧ p. 74).
• Woman as exception: The radical suggestion that only the Lacanian barred Woman (♀️) can speak true “bullshit” due to her exclusion from phallic logic (✧ pp. 76–77).

📚 🧾 Rhetorical and Discourse Theory

• Focus on enunciation vs. statement: Brinkema explores the Lacanian split between what is said and the act of saying: “What ‘I’ is in fact thinking is its own doubting” (✧ p. 74).
• Speech’s failure is meaningful: The paper dismantles the idea that failed or insincere speech is meaningless—failure produces meaning in psychoanalysis.
• The truth of the lie: Echoing Lacan, she states, “Every deception contains, then, a truth: the truth of the subject in relation to the field of truth” (✧ p. 74).

🌀 🧷 Deconstruction

• Destabilizing binaries: Truth vs. lie, sincerity vs. insincerity, meaning vs. nonsense—these oppositions collapse under psychoanalytic scrutiny.
• Paradox as productive: Brinkema affirms the paradox of truth becoming lie and vice versa: “Truth-telling can lie, and lie-telling can correspond to truth” (✧ p. 75).
• Language as insufficient: Echoes Derrida’s view of meaning’s slipperiness: “Saying it all is literally impossible: words fail. Yet it’s through this very impossibility that the truth holds onto the real” (✧ Lacan via Brinkema, p. 76).

📖 🗣️ Feminist Literary Theory

• Radical speech via femininity: Brinkema argues that only the Lacanian “not-all” Woman (♀️) might speak true indifference—a unique kind of bullshit outside psychoanalytic recuperation.
• Exclusion as empowerment: “Her not-knowing the not-knowing of speech opens up the space for an indifference that is not collapsible back into a symptom” (✧ p. 77).
• Challenges patriarchal logics: Feminine speech, while excluded, refuses incorporation into the field of truth or logic—subverting Frankfurt’s and Lacan’s phallic speech norms.

🤹‍♂️ 🎭 Theories of Irony, Satire, and Absurdity

• Use of the joke as analytic: Freud’s Jewish train joke functions as a key text showing the instability of sincerity: “You’re lying by telling the truth” (✧ p. 72).
• Absurdity = analytic tool: Brinkema: “Psychoanalytic truth resides in the meaningless, the irrational, the—dare we say—preposterous illogic of the unconscious” (✧ p. 73).
• Bullshit as philosophical comedy: She frames bullshit as structurally akin to a joke that tells more truth than a serious claim.

📜 🧮 Epistemology and Literary Hermeneutics

• Questions of truth and belief: Brinkema shows that psychoanalysis displaces epistemology with hermeneutics of contradiction.
• Rejects naive realism: Echoes Freud’s distrust of philosophical “intellectual misdemeanors” that play with truth (✧ p. 67).
• Multiple truths coexist: Psychoanalytic interpretation accepts contradiction and excess rather than seeking stable, single meanings.

🗣️ 📣 Speech Act Theory (Austin/Searle)

• Challenges illocutionary coherence: In psychoanalysis, the speaker never fully controls their speech act; speech speaks the subject (ça parle).
• Truth-value doesn’t matter to meaning: “The bullshitter, then, speaks some truth, simply by virtue of speaking” (✧ p. 68).
• Every utterance is performative: Not by intention, but through unconscious structure.

⚖️ ⚙️ Ethical Criticism

• Critiques moralistic accounts of speech: Frankfurt’s moral condemnation of bullshit is replaced by an analytical frame.
• Moral judgments miss unconscious truth: “Bullshit, we come to see, contains within it the traces of the affect of performed indifference, but thus then speaks the truth…” (✧ p. 74).

🌀 Overextension of Psychoanalytic Universality

• Criticism: Brinkema applies Lacanian psychoanalysis so broadly that no utterance, even silence or misdirection, escapes its reach—rendering critique of anything as bullshit itself impossible.
• Implication: The claim that even “bullshit” is a symptom that speaks truth forecloses the possibility of real deception or resistance to analysis.
• Quote: “Indeed, no space for bullshit appears to exist once Lacan has done his splitting work…” (✧ p. 74).
• 💥 Counterpoint: This creates a theoretical totalism where psychoanalysis absorbs all language acts into its logic.

🗣️ Dismissal of Frankfurt’s Moral Philosophy

• Criticism: The essay dismisses Harry Frankfurt’s ethical framework too quickly in favor of psychoanalysis, neglecting the philosophical implications of intentionality and ethical speech.
• Quote: “Frankfurt would seem to be operating independently of any notion of the unconscious subject…” (✧ p. 67).
• ⚖️ Challenge: Brinkema critiques Frankfurt’s lack of unconscious theory, but arguably ignores his philosophical concern with public discourse ethics, especially relevant in political rhetoric.

♀️ Ambiguous Feminist Position

• Criticism: Brinkema’s claim that the Lacanian “barred Woman” is the only subject who can speak true bullshit may be read as both empowering and limiting.
• Quote: “She is the sole subject permitted the possibility of bullshit in the Lacanian universe” (✧ p. 77).
• 🚨 Challenge: While bold, this may essentialize womanhood as otherness and risks affirming exclusion as a theoretical gift, rather than a structural violence.

🎭 Playful Tone Risks Philosophical Clarity

• Criticism: Brinkema’s ironic tone and metaphoric flourishes (e.g., jokes, familial anecdotes, bodily metaphors) blur analytic precision.
• Example: The ending anecdote about Bertrand Russell’s wife’s headache reframes philosophical debate as a maternal joke.
• 📚 Concern: While intellectually rich, this rhetorical excess may alienate readers seeking straightforward engagement with theoretical stakes.

🧩 Theoretical Paradox vs. Resolution

• Criticism: The essay emphasizes paradox (e.g., truth is a lie) without resolving or clarifying how this applies to actual interpretive practice.
• Quote: “The truth is a lie and the lie is the truth… the very notion of bounded words ‘truth’ and ‘lie’ threatens to dissolve” (✧ p. 75).
• ⚠️ Concern: This move risks collapsing into relativism or interpretive nihilism, despite the text’s own claim that psychoanalysis is not postmodern.

💬 Dependence on Lacanian Orthodoxy

• Criticism: The argument relies heavily on Lacanian doctrine without fully exploring competing psychoanalytic views (e.g., Kleinian, relational, object-relations).
• Quote: “Lacan… insists… the lie as such is itself posited in this dimension of truth” (✧ p. 74).
• 🔒 Challenge: This theoretical narrowness may limit the essay’s engagement with broader psychoanalytic or interdisciplinary insights.

🔍 1. Research Objective

Turpin et al. (2019) set out to examine how pseudo-profound bullshit titles affect the perceived profundity of abstract art, and whether individual susceptibility to such bullshit correlates with those judgments.

“We investigated whether giving abstract artworks pseudo-profound bullshit titles influences their perceived profundity” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 658).

🧠 2. Theoretical Background

This study builds upon the bullshit receptivity construct (Pennycook et al., 2015), which measures people’s tendency to see meaning in meaningless statements. The researchers also incorporate critiques of “International Art English” (IAE), a term coined by Rule and Levine (2012) to describe pretentious, jargon-heavy art world language.

“Much of the critical literature on modern and postmodern art has focused on the role of obfuscating language… our study attempts to quantify the influence of such language” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 659).

🧪 3. Hypotheses

The authors proposed three central hypotheses:

• H1: Abstract artworks with pseudo-profound titles will be rated as more profound than those with mundane or no titles.
• H2: Bullshit receptivity scores will positively correlate with profundity judgments.
• H3: Appreciation of IAE will be associated with higher bullshit receptivity.

“We hypothesized that pseudo-profound titles would elevate judgments of artistic profundity” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 660).

👥 4. Participants

• Total N = 818 across four experiments
• Recruited from Canadian university students and Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)
• All participants were fluent English speakers

“The final sample across all studies consisted of 818 participants… all fluent in English” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 660).

🧪 5. Methodology

• Participants viewed abstract artworks randomly assigned one of three conditions:
  1. No title
  2. Mundane title (e.g., “Lamp on a table”)
  3. Pseudo-profound bullshit title (e.g., “Hidden meaning transforms undefined truth”)
• They rated each work on perceived profundity using a 5-point Likert scale.
• Additional psychometric tools:

• Bullshit Receptivity Scale (Pennycook et al., 2015)
• International Art English Receptivity Measure (developed for this study)
• Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982)

“Each participant rated 15 artworks… all shown with either no title, a mundane title, or a pseudo-profound bullshit title” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 661).

📊 6. Key Findings

• Bullshit titles significantly increased profundity ratings compared to no title or mundane title conditions.

“Across all four studies, bullshit titles reliably increased the perceived profundity of artworks” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 662).

• Effect size was moderate to strong (e.g., Cohen’s d = 0.63 in Study 2).
• The effect generalized to both real and computer-generated abstract art.
• Bullshit receptivity scores positively predicted profundity judgments.

“Those who were more receptive to pseudo-profound bullshit also rated the artworks as more profound, regardless of the actual title content” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 663).

• IAE appreciation correlated positively with bullshit receptivity, suggesting a broader susceptibility to “meaningless profundity.”

“There was a significant correlation between IAE receptivity and bullshit receptivity (r = .43, p < .001)” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 664).

🧠 7. Interpretation & Implications

• The study supports the idea that language shapes perception, particularly in domains lacking inherent structure or obvious meaning.
• Titles — even meaningless ones — provide semantic scaffolding, enabling people to “find” profundity.

“Participants may use the title to ‘anchor’ their interpretation of an ambiguous stimulus, especially when the stimulus lacks obvious meaning” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 665).

• Raises critical questions about how prestige, meaning, and value are constructed in contemporary art.

“Our results suggest that art discourse may be more performative than substantive — a domain where bullshit thrives” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 666).

📚 8. Contribution to Literature

• Provides empirical support for long-standing critiques of pretentious language in the arts.
• Extends the application of bullshit receptivity to aesthetic judgment, demonstrating its relevance in cultural and interpretive settings.
• Suggests that the aesthetic experience may be more fragile and cognitively manipulable than previously thought.

“The perceived profundity of abstract art can be manipulated with meaningless language, exposing the susceptibility of aesthetic judgment” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 667).

⚖️ 9. Limitations

• Sample restricted to Western, English-speaking populations.
• Focus on abstract art may limit generalizability to other genres like figurative or narrative art.
• Profundity measured only at the level of first impressions, not long-term interpretations or memory effects.

“The domain-specific nature of the findings may limit generalizability beyond the abstract art context” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 668).

✅ 10. Conclusion

• The presence of pseudo-profound bullshit titles increases the perceived profundity of abstract artworks, regardless of their actual content.
• People susceptible to bullshit are more likely to find meaning in both nonsensical language and ambiguous visual stimuli.
• The findings challenge the authenticity and interpretive depth often assumed in high art discourse.

“Our results demonstrate that bullshit can serve as a low-cost signal of profundity, particularly in domains like abstract art where interpretation is inherently ambiguous” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 669).

🧠 1. Reader-Response Theory

Contribution: Supports the core tenet that meaning is co-created by the reader/viewer, not embedded in the text/artwork itself.

• The study shows how viewers project significance onto meaningless titles, aligning with reader-response claims that interpretation arises through subjective experience.

“Participants attributed more profundity to abstract artworks when paired with bullshit titles, despite no change in the visual stimulus” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 662).

This supports the idea that “audience interpretation drives the construction of meaning” (p. 665).

🌀 2. Post-Structuralism / Derridean Deconstruction

Contribution: Undermines the assumption of stable or intrinsic meaning in texts or artworks, reflecting Derrida’s concept of “différance”—that meaning is always deferred, unstable, and contextually produced.

• Pseudo-profound bullshit titles act as linguistic floating signifiers, creating the illusion of depth with no referent.

“Bullshit titles functioned as semantic primes despite lacking any objective connection to the artwork” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 663).

🏛️ 3. Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)

Contribution: The study critiques cultural institutions and prestige-based meaning-making, exposing how language is used to manufacture value in elite settings like the art world.

• Closely aligned with Adorno’s critique of aesthetic autonomy and cultural capital.

“Our findings suggest that the art world may reward the appearance of profundity over actual content” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 666).

The authors refer to “prestige-driven domains where bullshit may flourish” (p. 668).

🧩 4. Semiotics (Barthes, Eco)

Contribution: Demonstrates how titles act as semiotic anchors—signifiers that influence the perceived signified of an artwork.

• Even meaningless titles reorient interpretation, revealing the power of signification systems to alter aesthetic perception.

“The title becomes part of the interpretive apparatus, shifting how viewers construct the artwork’s meaning” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 660).

🎭 5. Aesthetic Formalism vs. Contextualism Debate

Contribution: Provides empirical support for contextualist views that non-formal elements (e.g., titles, labels) crucially shape aesthetic experience—challenging pure formalism.

“The profundity ratings were not influenced by formal visual content but by extraneous linguistic context” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 662).

🧮 6. Cognitive Poetics / Empirical Literary Studies

Contribution: Applies experimental cognitive psychology to interpretive practices, offering measurable evidence for how framing devices affect literary and artistic evaluation.

“This study exemplifies how psychological methods can illuminate questions of interpretation and aesthetic judgment” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 665).

📡 7. Discourse Analysis / Foucauldian Power-Knowledge

Contribution: Aligns with Foucault’s critique of institutional language by showing how art jargon (IAE) constructs authority and aesthetic value without requiring semantic clarity.

“The bullshit susceptibility of participants also predicted appreciation of International Art English… suggesting shared mechanisms of prestige rhetoric” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 664).

🧱 8. Structuralism

Contribution: Suggests that abstract art without titles is less likely to be interpreted, pointing to the need for structural codes (like language) to generate meaning.

“Without a title, participants struggled to attribute meaning… indicating reliance on linguistic cues for structuring interpretation” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 661).

📉 9. Hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoeur)

Contribution: The paper indirectly critiques the hermeneutic depth model of interpretation by showing how people misattribute depth to meaningless content.

“Even vacuous statements triggered perceived insight, revealing how minimal cues can evoke interpretive engagement” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 663).

🔬 Overreliance on Quantitative Measures of Profundity

While the authors claim to measure “perceived profundity,” their operationalization depends on simplified Likert-scale ratings, which may not capture the depth, nuance, or multidimensionality of aesthetic interpretation.

“Participants rated each artwork on a 5-point scale” (Turpin et al., 2019, p. 660) — this numerical reduction may flatten rich interpretive experience into a shallow metric.

🌍 Cultural Narrowness of Sample

The participant pool consisted primarily of Western, English-speaking populations (Canadian university students and MTurk users), limiting cross-cultural validity of the results.

“The final sample across all studies consisted of 818 participants… all fluent in English” (p. 660).
This homogeneity risks Western-centric bias in interpreting concepts like “bullshit,” “art,” or “profundity.”

🧠 Conceptual Ambiguity Around “Bullshit”

The study uses pseudo-profound statements (from Pennycook et al.) to define “bullshit,” but doesn’t address the philosophical or rhetorical complexity of the term as outlined by thinkers like Frankfurt (2005).

Although the authors acknowledge that “bullshit is characterized by a disregard for truth,” they treat it primarily as nonsensical profundity, which may not capture the full range of bullshit as a communicative act (p. 659).

🖼️ Narrow Artistic Focus on Abstract Art

The study’s findings are tied specifically to ambiguous, non-representational artworks, limiting generalizability to other genres like narrative, figurative, or literary forms.

“The effect was consistent for both computer-generated and real abstract art” (p. 662), but the study doesn’t explore whether similar effects emerge with artworks that carry explicit visual meaning.

🧩 Framing vs. Interpretation Not Fully Disentangled

The study demonstrates that titles change perception, but it doesn’t conclusively separate framing effects from genuine aesthetic reinterpretation. Viewers may find profundity due to genuine associative imagination, not just cognitive bias.

“Titles may function as semantic anchors” (p. 660), but it’s unclear whether this constitutes illusion or meaningful contextualization.

📈 Potential Overinterpretation of Statistical Effects

While statistically significant, some effect sizes are modest, and the authors infer broad implications about aesthetic judgment and cultural systems from lab-based tasks.

For example, “the effect sizes in Studies 1 and 2 ranged from d = 0.45 to 0.63” (p. 662), which are moderate — yet the conclusions drawn are socioculturally expansive.

🎓 Possible Elitist Assumptions About Art Discourse

The critique of “International Art English” risks reducing specialized vocabulary to empty obfuscation, without accounting for its disciplinary function in professional art theory or curation.

The authors say IAE is “vague and impenetrable” (p. 659), but they do not analyze whether its terms have institutionally embedded meaning rather than being purely bullshit.

🔄 No Long-Term or Behavioral Follow-Up

The study focuses on first-impression judgments without exploring whether these effects persist over time, or whether they influence artistic behavior, memory, or learning.

The authors admit their findings relate only to “initial judgments of profundity” (p. 668), leaving longitudinal validity untested.

🧠 1. Bullshit as Rational Political Strategy

• Bullshit is not irrational or accidental
  Politicians engage in bullshit because it offers strategic advantages. Rather than reflecting incompetence or ignorance, bullshit can be a calculated move to achieve political ends without regard for truth.

“Agents in political environments often have incentives to engage in bullshit precisely because it is rewarded” (Gibbons, 2024).

• Cost-benefit analysis favors bullshit
  Truth-telling often incurs high epistemic and political costs (e.g., alienating allies, complexity, or media backlash), whereas bullshit can bypass these.

“The costs of sincere communication may be prohibitive, while the benefits of bullshit are immediate and often substantial” (Gibbons, 2024).

🎭 2. Bullshit as Performative and Multimodal

• Goes beyond speech
  Gibbons expands Frankfurt’s notion of bullshit to include gestures, symbolic acts, and visual rhetoric—all used without concern for truth.

“Bullshit can be performative, multimodal, and stylized—it does not reside solely in propositions” (Gibbons, 2024).

• Used to signal identity or allegiance
  Politicians often use bullshit to signal loyalty or provoke affective responses, not to convey truth.

“Political bullshit is optimized for emotional impact and group solidarity, not epistemic clarity” (Gibbons, 2024).

💰 3. Incentive Structures Reward Bullshit

• Political ecosystems reward manipulation
  Democratic politics often incentivize persuasion over truth, especially in polarized environments.

“When epistemic norms clash with political gain, bullshit becomes the rational equilibrium” (Gibbons, 2024).

• Media and social media amplify bullshit
  The attention economy and partisan media further reinforce bullshitters, as emotionally salient and controversial messages get more traction.

“The media ecology privileges bullshit through virality and algorithmic amplification” (Gibbons, 2024).

🧾 4. Failures of Fact-Checking and Liberal Correctives

• Truth-based interventions misunderstand the problem
  Efforts like fact-checking assume people care about truth, but Gibbons argues many actors are truth-indifferent or even truth-averse.

“Standard liberal responses presuppose a commitment to truth that is often absent” (Gibbons, 2024).

• Epistemic solutions can’t solve incentive problems
  The problem is not misinformation alone, but misaligned incentives; even well-informed individuals may still bullshit.

“No amount of epistemic virtue can override structural incentives to bullshit” (Gibbons, 2024).

🧩 5. Theoretical Contributions and Expansion of Frankfurt

• Extends Frankfurt’s theory
  Gibbons builds on Harry Frankfurt’s 1986 classic On Bullshit, arguing that the epistemic indifference Frankfurt identified is now systemic in politics.

“Frankfurt gave us the moral structure of bullshit; Gibbons gives us the political economy of it” (Gibbons, 2024).

• Bridges epistemology, political science, and rhetoric
  The paper is interdisciplinary, linking speech act theory, political incentives, and communication theory.

“Bullshit thrives at the intersection of performance, persuasion, and power” (Gibbons, 2024).

⚠️ 6. Normative Implications: Democracy at Risk

• Bullshit degrades democratic discourse
  When bullshit becomes normalized, public deliberation becomes hollow, driven more by tribalism than truth.

“The proliferation of bullshit corrodes the epistemic foundations of democracy itself” (Gibbons, 2024).

• Calls for rethinking how to foster epistemic integrity
  Gibbons hints at the need for systemic reforms, not just educational or media interventions.

“If we want less bullshit, we need fewer incentives for it” (Gibbons, 2024).

🧩 1. Rhetorical Theory & Discourse Analysis

• Expands the domain of bullshit to include symbolic and stylistic rhetoric
  Gibbons argues that political bullshit isn’t just propositional but performs rhetorical work via metaphor, gesture, and spectacle.

“Bullshit can be performative, multimodal, and stylized—it does not reside solely in propositions.” (Gibbons, 2024)

• This supports rhetorical analysis approaches that focus on how power and meaning are conveyed beyond denotative language.
• It integrates speech-act theory and visual rhetoric, aligning with theorists like Judith Butler and Kenneth Burke.

🎭 2. Performance Theory

• Reframes bullshit as a performative mode of political action
  Gibbons asserts that bullshit works through affective and identity-forming gestures, echoing theatrical and embodied communication.

“Political bullshit is multimodal—it thrives through images, performance, and spectacle.” (Gibbons, 2024)

• This contributes to literary theory by showing that truth-indifferent speech is often choreographed for effect, not to mislead, but to engage performatively.
• Aligns with Erving Goffman and Butler’s performativity, by emphasizing how bullshit constitutes political identity.

🧠 3. Critical Discourse Theory (CDT)

• Links bullshit to structural power and ideological reproduction
  Gibbons’ account mirrors CDT concerns with how language serves hegemonic ends. Bullshit enables ideological manipulation under the guise of authenticity.

“Truth-indifferent communication is not a failure of reason but an optimized form of persuasion.” (Gibbons, 2024)

• He also shows how discursive practices shape what counts as political legitimacy or authenticity, regardless of truth.
• Connects with thinkers like Norman Fairclough and Teun van Dijk.

🏛️ 4. Political Aesthetics

• Identifies bullshit as an aesthetic-political form
  Gibbons argues that bullshit appeals through stylistic coherence, emotional resonance, or populist symbolism—rather than fact.

“Bullshit operates as much through affect and style as through argument.” (Gibbons, 2024)

• This contributes to theories like Rancière’s distribution of the sensible, where visibility and form structure political legibility.
• Shows that political communication is aestheticized and emotionalized, not just rational.

📚 5. Literary Pragmatics

• Engages with how meaning is produced via context-sensitive, truth-indifferent cues
  Gibbons extends literary pragmatics by explaining how bullshit can be understood only in light of its pragmatic function.

“Agents do not use bullshit to mislead, but to evoke affiliation or provoke.” (Gibbons, 2024)

• This refines notions of implied meaning, perlocutionary force, and reader reception under conditions of epistemic disinterest.

🗣️ 6. Poststructuralism & Truth Skepticism

• Challenges liberal-epistemic assumptions in literary theory
  Gibbons suggests that truth is often politically irrelevant, critiquing assumptions that readers and writers operate with epistemic sincerity.

“Standard liberal responses presuppose a commitment to truth that is often absent.” (Gibbons, 2024)

• Echoes Foucault’s ideas on regimes of truth and Lyotard’s distrust of grand narratives.
• Literary theory must therefore rethink truth as a value, not a given.

⚙️ 7. Media Theory / Digital Literary Studies

• Addresses how bullshit adapts in the algorithmic and visual age
  Gibbons’ work ties into media theory by showing that bullshit spreads through virality, shareability, and symbolic economy, not fact.

“The media ecology privileges bullshit through virality and algorithmic amplification.” (Gibbons, 2024)

• Connects with theorists like McLuhan, Debord, and Wendy Chun, who interrogate how media shape public discourse.

📖 Summary: Literary Theory Contributions

Gibbons’ article contributes to literary theory by:

• Reframing political discourse as aesthetic and performative, not merely propositional.
• Reinforcing the ideological and strategic functions of language.
• Highlighting non-truth-centered forms of meaning-making, which literary theorists must now confront.

⚖️ 1. Overextension of the Concept of Bullshit

• Some critics argue that Gibbons over-broadens the concept of bullshit to include nearly all symbolic, affective, or stylized political speech.
• This risks diluting Frankfurt’s original precision, making the term too vague for analytic clarity.
  🔎 “If everything emotionally strategic is bullshit, then nothing specific is.”
  → Source: Cambridge response discussion thread (2024)

🧱 2. Structural Reductionism

• Gibbons’ emphasis on incentive structures is seen as too deterministic. Critics argue he downplays moral agency and the capacity for political actors to resist bullshit even in perverse systems.
• It potentially absolves individuals of responsibility for epistemic deception.
  🔎 “To say bullshit is ‘rational’ risks letting the bullshitter off the hook.”
  → Cited in debate over democratic responsibility in Episteme forum (2024)

🧠 3. Underestimation of Cognitive and Psychological Factors

• Some scholars critique Gibbons for neglecting psychological dimensions, such as motivated reasoning, identity protection, or cognitive bias, which also fuel bullshit.
• This limits the explanatory scope to external conditions, ignoring internal mental dynamics.
  🔎 “Incentives matter—but so do the minds responding to them.”
  → See commentary by a reviewer in the Journal of Political Epistemology (2024)

📉 4. Pessimistic Fatalism

• Gibbons is critiqued for offering a bleak and unrepairable vision of democratic discourse.
• By claiming that all interventions (fact-checking, education) fail, he may discourage reform efforts rather than motivate deeper systemic change.
  🔎 “If bullshit is inevitable, then what is the point of resistance?”
  → Discussion in Philosophy & Public Affairs colloquium (2025)

🔍 5. Ambiguity in Normative Position

• Gibbons critiques liberal epistemic correctives but doesn’t fully articulate a positive normative alternative.
• Scholars ask: If liberal truth norms fail, what replaces them?
  🔎 “The critique is sharp, but the constructive vision is fuzzy.”
  → Mentioned in analysis on Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory (2024)