“Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman: Summary and Critique

💥 Bullshit as a Modern Pollutant

• Gunderman argues that bullshit is a more dangerous contaminant than physical pollutants like chemicals or emissions.
• It corrupts the social and psychological environment, eroding trust and belief.
• “This pollutant is known colloquially as bullshit… it takes an immense toll on our capacity to trust, to believe what we hear and say.”

---

📚 Philosophical Foundations: Frankfurt’s Theory

• Builds on Harry Frankfurt’s definition from On Bullshit (2005).
• Bullshit ≠ Lie: Liars acknowledge the truth to conceal it; bullshitters are indifferent to truth.
• “To tell a lie, it is necessary to know the truth, but to bullshit it is only necessary not to care about it.”
• “Bullshitters merely do not want to be revealed as unknowing… They care most about appearances.”

---

📖 Literary Illustration: Tolstoy’s War and Peace

• Uses a character from Tolstoy to show unintentional bullshit through embellished storytelling.
• Rostov’s narrative shifts from factual to what sounds good, reflecting how easily truth is displaced by expectation.
• “He began his story meaning to tell everything just as it happened, but imperceptibly… he lapsed into falsehood.”

---

🧪 Bullshit in Professional Fields

• Even medicine and academia are not immune; professionals feel pressure to appear all-knowing.
• The fear of admitting ignorance leads to more bullshit, particularly among those in authority.
• “When we begin to feel that we cannot admit ‘I don’t know’… we have joined the ranks of the bullshitters.”

---

🧠 Silence vs. Speech

• Sometimes, silence or admitting ignorance is the more truthful act.
• Speaking just to fill silence or distract can promote false impressions and suppress truth.
• “Rather than allow a lull in the conversation… someone chimes in with an inapposite point that merely distracts.”

---

📺 The Rise of Antirealism and Postmodern Influence

• Frankfurt (and Gunderman) critique the postmodern rejection of objective truth, which fosters bullshit.
• This leads to a focus on sincerity over accuracy, undermining meaning.
• “In forsaking truth and falsehood and being merely sincere, we are admitting that we no longer care what is true or false.”

---

🔍 The Cost of Bullshit: Erosion of Trust

• Once trust is lost due to bullshit, it’s difficult to regain, especially in education and professions.
• Communication depends on shared respect for meaning and truth.
• “Trust is perhaps the most fundamental of all virtues in the professions.”

---

🧭 Ethical Call: Embrace Ignorance and Seek Truth

• Gunderman calls for intellectual humility: acknowledging ignorance as the start of learning.
• He invokes Socrates, who was wise for recognizing what he did not know.
• “The quest for knowledge begins in the recognition of ignorance.”
• “Instead of helping clarify matters, we render ourselves major polluters who merely cloud the understandings of others.”

---

🔄 Consequences for Individuals and Organizations

• Bullshit creates a false self-image and encourages a culture of pretense and obscurity.
• It hampers critical thought, alienates people from their own ignorance, and undermines discovery.
• “We nod when we should question… It also promotes a culture of obscurity.”

---

🧪 Scientific and Educational Implications

• Real learning in science comes from questioning and recognizing what we do not know.
• Bullshit undermines the progress of knowledge and clouds the distinction between truth and falsehood.
• “Biomedical science marches forward… by identifying what the textbooks got wrong.”

📚 1. Postmodernism

• Contribution: Gunderman critiques postmodernism’s rejection of objective truth, which aligns with Harry Frankfurt’s concern about a culture where sincerity replaces accuracy.
• He exposes the danger of antirealism, where statements are judged not by truth value but by emotional or performative sincerity.
• “This is the view that there is no objective reality… Instead the only determination we can make is whether the statement is sincere or not.” (Gunderman, 2010, p. 14)
• Gunderman warns that this leads to a condition where even sincerity becomes bullshit—a central postmodern tension.

---

🧠 2. Epistemological Criticism / Philosophy of Knowledge

• Contribution: The essay reinforces the Socratic model of epistemic humility, aligning with literary theory that values the interrogation of knowledge systems and the limits of knowing.
• It champions intellectual honesty and the idea that recognizing one’s ignorance is the beginning of authentic discourse.
• “The quest for knowledge begins in the recognition of ignorance.” (p. 14)
• Challenges the trend in theory and discourse that equates opinion with truth, a common critique in epistemological debates.

---

🎭 3. Reader-Response Theory

• Contribution: Gunderman’s use of Tolstoy’s War and Peace shows how readers and speakers reshape narratives based on expectations and audience response, not fidelity to events.
• Rostov alters his story to fit the “script” of heroism listeners desire—mirroring how readers construct meaning from textual performance.
• “They would either not have believed him or… thought that Rostov was himself to blame… And so he told them all that.” (p. 13)

---

🗨️ 4. Rhetorical and Discourse Theory

• Contribution: The essay provides a critique of discursive authority and performativity—particularly how language is used to project authority without substance.
• It identifies bullshit as a communicative strategy that mimics authority, echoing concerns in rhetorical theory about the manipulation of discourse.
• “They care most about appearances, and they will say what they need to say to maintain the impression of authority.” (p. 13)

---

🧩 5. Deconstruction

• Contribution: While Gunderman critiques postmodern relativism, he simultaneously highlights inherent contradictions in communication, reminiscent of deconstruction.
• The article touches on paradoxes like the Epimenides paradox (“Everything I say is a lie”) and the instability of meaning when truth is abandoned.
• “If we habitually mislead… even when we seek earnestly to tell the truth, we will not be believed.” (p. 13)
• This reflects deconstructive ideas about the unreliability of signifiers and the breakdown of trust in language.

---

🧪 6. Ethical Criticism

• Contribution: Gunderman advocates for truthfulness as a moral imperative in both speech and writing, echoing ethical literary theories that link form and meaning to ethical responsibility.
• He stresses the duty of professionals and communicators to preserve clarity and honesty in language.
• “It is vital that we commit to veracity. From a professional point of view, it is more important to rescue the understanding than to save face.” (p. 15)

---

🌫️ 7. Structuralism

• Contribution: The essay indirectly affirms the importance of shared meaning systems (a central structuralist idea) in maintaining communication.
• When bullshit proliferates, the semiotic structure breaks down, and communication becomes unmoored from any stable signified.
• “Communication is only possible when we can assume a shared system of meaning respected by both parties.” (p. 13)

---

🏛️ 8. Cultural Criticism / Ideological Critique

• Contribution: Gunderman critiques cultural norms that reward omniscience and authority, often at the expense of truth.
• He links the prevalence of bullshit to institutional pressures and professional roles that discourage honest ignorance.
• “Taking on formal authority can augment this impulse… promoting any preexisting inclinations in this direction.” (p. 14)

---

📺 9. Media and Popular Culture Studies

• Contribution: The essay connects the spread of bullshit to media-driven discourse, where sincerity and image outweigh truth.
• This aligns with theories about the spectacle of knowledge in talk shows, branding, and performative identity.
• “A view that seems to permeate many television talk shows… we can be true to ourselves.” (p. 14)

---

These contributions demonstrate that Gunderman’s “Bullshit” is more than a commentary on speech ethics—it is a theoretically rich critique of post-truth discourse, resonant across epistemology, rhetoric, literary ethics, and cultural theory.

🧩 Overreliance on Frankfurt’s Framework

• Gunderman heavily depends on Harry Frankfurt’s binary of lying vs. bullshit, without sufficiently challenging or extending it.
• Critics may argue that this makes the essay derivative, offering limited philosophical innovation.

---

🧠 Dismissal of Postmodernism as Oversimplified

• The essay critiques postmodernism as a cause of truth erosion but overgeneralizes it, reducing complex theories to cultural nihilism.
• It treats postmodern thought as a singular force promoting insincerity, overlooking internal diversity and self-critical elements in thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, or Lyotard.

---

🛑 Lack of Nuance in Professional Contexts

• The claim that professionals (like doctors) often engage in bullshit to maintain authority may underestimate the ethical deliberation many undertake.
• This could be seen as unfairly cynical toward institutions or individuals navigating complex communication demands.

---

🕳️ Absence of Empirical Support

• The article is rich in anecdotal and philosophical insights but lacks empirical data or case studies to support its claims about the prevalence or effects of bullshit in medicine, academia, or public discourse.

---

📚 Limited Literary Engagement

• Though it references War and Peace, the article doesn’t deeply analyze literature beyond surface examples.
• Literary theorists may see this as a missed opportunity to more rigorously integrate narrative theory or stylistics.

---

🔄 Binary Framing: Truth vs. Bullshit

• Gunderman implies that one is either truth-telling or bullshitting, which ignores the complexities of ambiguity, uncertainty, or poetic discourse.
• Not all language that lacks full truth-value is deceptive or meaningless.

---

📣 Moralizing Tone

• The tone, particularly in the concluding sections, leans toward didactic moralism.
• Critics might argue this reduces philosophical depth in favor of professional lecturing, weakening its resonance with broader literary or cultural theory.