Relativism and Post-Truth in Contemporary Society: Possibilities and Challenges
Edited by Mikael Stenmark, Steve Fuller, and Ulf Zackariasson
Palgrave Macmillian, 2018
199 pp.
As I commit my thoughts to ink on paper, I hear a fly buzzing around my ear. The fly happened to fly from a workshop about relativism, and its varieties, as
it occurs in today’s society. Needless to say, I attempted to chase the fly out the window of my attic, where I sit perspiring in hot summer days and freezing
on cold winter days, penning my philosophical investigations. However, the fly was persistent and had a philosophical air about it: it advised me that the
essays in this book that I am attempting to review objectively and fairly were essays developed from the heated and penetrating discussions among the
leading edge thinkers in attendance at an invited only workshop. No one had a hammer or paintbrush, the fly advised me. It was a workshop where one
hammers out thoughts, and paints intellectual scenarios, but only with words.
Soon it dawned on me that I was inventing a philosophical fiction: the fly does not speak, and if it did I would not understand it; because fly-language has its
own form of life, and all meaning and understanding is relative to forms of life, frameworks, conceptual systems, cultures, linguistic systems. Moreover, I
am using a computer where everything on the screen is ephemeral, and even when saved to a local or cloud drive, the bits and bytes are subject to the
delete button. Further, as reality punctures the balloon of my philosophical fantasy, I realize I am in a strange paradoxical situation: On one side, my
thoughts about the essays in this book are relative to my education, physical and social conditions, and especially to my philosophical biases. On the other
side, there is a reality, a situation that is objective and that is presumed even by this book about relativism: the objective social and technological reality,
even if it is “socially constructed”. It is a situation that is universally socially constructed for everyone alive on earth at this moment in history; not just
today, but at least since the end of the Cold War until this moment when almost everyone is tied to the world through the intermediary of smart devices.
Where even leading edge thinkers about relativism in workshops have tablets on their desk, smart devices in hand, or poking out of pockets, and are
checking their tweets and email. I wasn’t there, but the fly told me that.
My point is that relativism (of perspective) is ironically an absolute, a universal condition of our global electronic village where everyone can blog, tweet,
email their relative perspective to everyone else; but have no acknowledgment of their relative perspective for longer than ten minutes, relatively speaking.
(Apologies to McLuhan and Warhol.)
Relativism and Current Reality
Now someone might wonder, while reading my words so far, have I left my philosophical fantasy behind me, and have I now become real. I owe this patient
reader who has so far borne with me in my philosophical musings, not only my gratitude, but honesty, as far as one can be honest given that we all work
from specific perspectives and are caught, as Ulf Zacariasson states, in his introductory essay, in the “dynamic of relativization” (2, italics in original). That is
to say, I now out myself as an anti-relativist and anti-post-truthist, as theories or ideologies or philosophies: the material conditions of our global sociotechnical world are real, and if they are ignored, as they have already been mostly ignored, the real world will continue to hit all of us on earth. As we have
begun to lose, we will continue to completely lose our identity as humans, whether we are post-human, transhuman, or just human. We are on the verge of
becoming peripheral devices. (Embedded advertisement for my forthcoming book.) In other words, philosophical relativism, in all its philosophical
variations, misses the target of how to work with our current reality of the socio-technical condition of our world today. That is my bias, and I find it hard to
take seriously the philosophical discussions and philosophical understandings of relativism, not for philosophical reasons, but for real world reasons. I feel
obligated to admit that I may be wrong, because I am a skeptic and a fallibilist, according to the definitions kindly provided in the essay, by Mikael
Stenmark:
a skeptic would say: “Truth is not to be had by us”…
a fallibilist would say: “One cannot be certain that what one believes to be (obviously) true is true”… (188)
One can treat skepticism and fallibilism, not as epistemological or philosophical theories, but as analytic or methodolgical concepts, to borrow the
terminology used by Mattias Gardell, in his essay (161 ff.) when he discusses how relativism is used by anthropologists: “Cultural relativism…was not a
theory, nor an ideology, but an analytical perspective, a method, and quite simply, an empirical observation of cultural diversity.” (163-164, italics in
original). So, when relativism is used as a philosophical theory as opposed to either an observational approach for describing cultures, or a methodology for
interpreting cultures, relativism becomes cognitively empty and merely emotionally resonant both for the proponents and antagonists of the theory and
ideology of relativism. Does that critique of relativism as a theory, including those who recognize the relativity of alternative theories of relativism, cut
across virtually every essay in this book other than Gardell’s essay?
The answer to my own question is, No. The essay by Morteza Hashemi and Amir R. Bagherpour discusses the critical-religious philosophy of Abdolkarim
Soroush, “a prominent figure in religious intellectualism, which is an important intellectual movement in post-revolutionary Iran” (71). I haven’t read
Soroush or even heard of Soroush prior to reading this essay. I will just quote the sentences that relativize relativism to an absolute that according to
Hashemi and Bagherpour is how Soroush contrasts “religious knowledge” with “sacred law”:
… religion per se is created by God but religious knowledge is human made. The sacred law is divinely created but its understanding is a human enterprise.
His [Soroush’s] proposed analogy is to the natural sciences: nature is God-created but its knowledge is ultimately an evolving product of the human mind.
Sciences such as physics and mathematics are not divine, and hence are inherently incomplete (77).
Interestingly, the position of Soroush (as I understand what Hashemi and Bagherpour are saying about Soroush), echoes what Mikael Stenmark, in his essay,
is saying about Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI): the core of Catholicism as Ratzinger sees it is true and absolute: “His [Ratzinger’s] basic stance is that
there is a truth, valid and binding within history itself, in the figure of Jesus Christ and in the faith of the Church” (190). Though, Stenmark sees Ratzinger’s
absolutism as problematic: “the real challenge for the Catholic Church might be whether it can offer a valid criticism of relativism without, at the same time,
falling prey to the forms of unquestionable religious absolutism which seem to have haunted the Catholic Church for too long” (195).
The point of the contrast I am making between Hashemi and Bagherpour on Soroush, and Stenmark on Ratzinger, is that Ratzinger, according to Stenmark
fails to relativize relativism, but outright rejects relativism in toto; whereas, Soroush, according to Hashemi and Bagherpour, relativizes relativism of the
human sciences to the absolute laws of Islamic religion. As far as I can tell, the two authors of the essay discussing Soroush do not disagree with Soroush’s
relativization of relativism to an absolute truth; whereas, the author of the essay discussing Ratzinger disagrees with Ratzinger’s stance that Catholicism is
founded on an absolute truth.
Relativizing Relativism
Another essay that relativizes relativism with respect to an absolute, is Elena Namli’s essay on rights. I am compelled to give only a brief and simplified
summary of her complex, layered, and multifaceted argument about moral standards, cultural tolerance, and multiculturalism. Namli is saying that we need
to use the concept of universal rights to avoid entrenching inequalities, to avoid minority exclusionism, and to avoid perpetuating injustices against the less
powerful in society. We avoid such injustices not by treating rights as obviously universal, but rather treating our theories of universal rights as fallible and
correctable, and as a necessary means to getting closer to the ideal of absolute universal rights. Indeed, Namli is an absolutist towards the goal of working
to achieve universal human rights, while keeping our fallibility and actual failures in mind.
Namli wants us to relativize what we think is our universal right to the ideal world of universal human rights: “What, then, can be described as the universal
substance of human rights? In my [Namli’s] view, it is the radical and practical recognition of the humanity inherent in every individual. This principle of
equal respect for human dignity is a pure ethical principle that cannot be fully realized by any particular set of institutions. Neither law, nor politics, nor
conventional morality can ever live up to this radical norm. Yet, the principle of equal respect for human dignity remains crucial in order to create, sustain,
and improve institutions for the protection of human beings” (137).
The situation so far in this review is: following Gardell, we can regard relativity, not as a theory nor as an ideology, but as a method, an “analytical process”;
and, following Namli, we can relativize relativity towards, not a known absolute, but an unknown absolute. The relativization of relativity is realized in the
process of the critical discussion of attempts to achieve universal moral standards and universal truths as unknown absolutes. The relativization of relativity
with respect to an unknowable reality of absolutes, is a heuristic principle: a guideline, or a system of guidelines and rules of thumb used for systematic
search and research. Let me now do a relativized relativist (relativity as a heuristic principle for critical but non-judgmental discussion, where criticism
involves, error-detection but not appraisal or judgment) review of the rest of the essays. My purpose in discussing those essays that advocate relativism and
its varieties as a theory, is to give the reader glimpses into how the entire book as a workshop compendium looks from a bird’s eye view (or philosophical
fly’s multifaceted eyes).
Steve Fuller’s historical essay aims to show how the relativism of today differs from the relativism of the past. All varieties of relativism vary in meanings
along with the meanings of absolutism and universalism to which the varieties of relativism are variously contrasted.
Raphael Sassower’s comparison of various forms and philosophies of relativism among feminists, postmodernists, and Sir Karl Popper, hinge on their
relation to pluralism, democratic discussion, democratic institutions, and democratic political systems. According to Sassower, the more pluralism, the more
relativism, the more democracy.
Michael Sawyer’s discussion of social media and Trump discusses the question how did Trump who is master of the media become the master of the posttruth condition? For Trump and his squad, reality-checks have been overridden by the power principle, even more so than by the pleasure principle.
(Apologies to Freud.)
Benat Gustafsson asks how Einstein could suffer so much at the hands of relativity-theory deniers? By the way, Gustafsson thinks Derrida understood
Einstein’s space-time theory correctly. This tacitly calls for a discussion of the question, why was it so hard for scientists to understand Derrida’s comments
on Einstein correctly?
Valerie DeMarinis asks a very important question right in the title of her essay: “Mental Health Diagnosis: Is it Relative or Universal in Relation to Culture”?
This hints for a discussion that DeMarinis does not address of two questions asked by various critics of the medical model: is mental health/disease based
on the medical model, a social construction relative to the culture of psychiatry? (Thomas Szasz) Is the medical model of the lack of health (non-optimal
functioning) as illness/disease, in general, a social construction relative to the culture of medicine? (Susan Sontag) I would be remiss not to mention that
DeMarinis’s discussion of the role of the increasingly improved understanding of the role of culture in psychiatric conditions, is replete with nuance. But
bluntly and simplistically put, DeMarinis’s thesis is that culture can make one psychotic, or at least contribute to psychosis.
Stephen LeDrew makes the point that the scientism of the New Atheists (no mention that F.A. Hayek reinvented the term scientism, and thoroughly hung
scientism out to dry) has become the new fundamentalism. Is relativism needed to combat scientism? LeDrew says, Yes. (My guess is, No: just need to
reread Hayek, but I didn’t say that. I overheard the philosophical fly still buzzing my ear, say that.)
The Burning Castle
The philosophical fly returned, and begs me to rest my pen, and let him/her/it out. I’ll do my best, but the bottle of relativism is hard to escape and
intellectual workshops are closed and isolated from the burning house across the street from Academia U.
There is a Midrash, a classical Rabbinical gloss on the Bible passage where Avram is told to leave his natal home and land, and travel forth: Avram runs
across a castle on fire. He asks, who owns this castle on fire, and the Lord of the castle pops his head out the window, and tells him that he, the Lord of the
castle, does. I don’t know whether Avram wondered why the Lord of the castle did not attempt to put out the flames: was the Lord of the castle a fire
denier? Did the Lord of the castle think that the observation of the fire and whether or not it should be put out is relative to one’s position with respect to
the castle? Or did the Lord of the castle and the philosophical members of his court, also known as court jesters, deem Avram to be too anxious? Did they
also deem Avram to have suffered the illusion of seeing a fire where everything is an illusion, a social construction? Did they also deem Avram to have failed
in understanding that when everything is relative, it is no more real than everything else, unless the Lord of the burning castle and his court jesters will it to
become part of post-truth reality?
Contact details: Sheldon Richmond, Independent Scholar, Thornhill, Canada
https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/15619
The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life
At one time we had truth and lies. Now we have truth, lies, and statements that may not be true but we consider too benign to call false. Euphemisms
abound. We’re “economical with the truth,” we “sweeten it,” or tell “the truth improved.” The term deceive gives way to spin. At worst we admit to
“misspeaking,” or “exercising poor judgment.” Nor do we want to accuse others of lying. We say they’re in denial. A liar is “ethically challenged,” someone
for whom “the truth is temporarily unavailable.”
This is post-truth. In the post-truth era, borders blur between truth and lies, honesty and dishonesty, fiction and nonfiction. Deceiving others becomes a
challenge, a game, and ultimately a habit. Research suggests that the average American tells lies on a daily basis. These fibs run the gamut from “I like
sushi,” to “I love you.”
As the volume of strangers and acquaintances in our lives rises, so do opportunities to improve on the truth. The result is a widespread sense that much of
what we’re told can’t be trusted. From potential mates to prospective employees, we’re no longer sure whom exactly we’re dealing with. Deception has
become a routine part of the mating dance. Personnel officers take for granted that the resumes they read are padded. No wonder private investigation is a
growth sector of the economy.
What motivates the casual dishonesty that’s become pandemic? Why do so many, even those with no apparent need to do so, feel a need to embellish
their personal history? This question arises every time prominent figures are unmasked as fabulists: businesspeople, politicians, journalists, judges, military
officers, police chiefs, beauty queens, newspaper reporters, South Carolina’s governor, the head of the United States Olympic Committee, and the manager
of the Toronto Blue Jays. Branches are grafted onto their family trees. Unearned degrees show up on their resumes. Purchased medals appear in their
display cases. Thousands of non-veterans say they fought in Vietnam. Scores more passed themselves off as Ground Zero rescue workers.
We can only understand the motives of such dissemblers by examining the sea in which they swim. Trends ranging from the postmodern disdain for “truth”
to therapeutic non-judgment encourage deception. There is much incentive and little penalty for improving the “narrative” of one’s life. The increasing
influence of therapists, entertainers, politicians, academics, and lawyers, with their flexible code of ethics, contribute to the post-truth era. So do ethical
relativism, Boomer narcissism, the decline of community, and rise of the Internet.
Post-truthfulness builds a fragile social edifice based on wariness. It erodes the foundation of trust that underlies any healthy civilization. When enough of
us peddle fantasy as fact, society loses its grounding in reality. Society would crumble altogether if we assumed others were as likely to dissemble as tell
the truth. We are perilously close to that point.
There’s a problem which affects us all. We’re living in a media landscape where the truth is deliberately manipulated, trust has been catastrophically
devalued and organised disinformation is a growth business, says Sean Pillot de Chenecey
The effects of a post-truth world are being felt everywhere, from the electioneering around the 2020 US Presidential Elections, to angry rows over Brexit, to
debates about climate change, to the ‘reputation capital’ of brands.
This is crucial because all businesses want to have strong and long-lasting relationships with their consumers, and that brand-consumer relationship is built
on trust.
But in a post-truth world brands are faced with a serious challenge: so much of modern life is defined by mistrust. Because, if a brand isn’t seen as credible
and trustworthy, then when choice is available it’ll be rejected in favour of one that is, by people who are increasingly viewing themselves as being
‘informed’ as opposed to ‘passive’ consumers.
Fake news and digitisation
On a truly macro level, the issues pose fundamental problems for democracy. Indeed, the World Economic Forum noted that due to ‘hacking, leaking and
disputing the facts, it’s never been easier to distort the truth. Fake news and digitisation present a major threat to global democracy. Social media in
particular has changed the way we consume and share news and information and accelerated the spread of inaccurate and misleading content’.
This issue has been illustrated by the raging controversy swirling around the giants of Silicon Valley. A disastrous fault-line in their seemingly unstoppable
rise as the most powerful corporations in history is that their technology tools, which initially seemed to offer nothing but positivity, have morphed into
machines that are destroying truth and trust.
That point is further complicated by a lack of trust in mainstream media organisations. A poll from Gallup noted that Americans trust in mass media peaked
in 1976. America is hardly unique in having a population that mistrusts the media, but according to the Financial Times: ‘In few countries are views of
journalists more defined by party allegiance and in no other has a president so weaponised that mistrust.’
Why is this important, in a business context, for readers of this magazine? It’s because, as the political sphere plays such a major part in shaping people’s
trust in the world around them; it’s vital to understand the impact of that lack of trust on the brand-consumer relationship, for the simple reasons that
‘truth and trust’ impact brands of every type.
And while the managers of any successful brand also understand how important the ‘emotional relationship’ is that consumers have with it, the same goes
for politicians of every variety, for whom an emotional connection is an absolutely intrinsic element of their voter-appeal.
Meanwhile a common tool used by populist politicians is to leverage the lack of a ‘trust connection’ in the coverage of politics by the mainstream media.
While Donald Trump didn’t invent the idea of mainstream reporters being left-wing, elite bogeymen who hate America, he’s rebranded it masterfully for
the #FakeNews age, according to author David Neiwert. Regarding people with this attitude, in his book Alt-America he states that they cannot believe any
kind of official explanation for events, actions, or policies, but instead seek an alternative one. This alters – or rather distorts – their relationship to
authority.
And in terms of ‘genuine changes in public discourse’ what we’ve seen from President Trump has been his ongoing attacks on one of the key foundations of
democracy, a free and independent press. Those actions have become a hallmark of his behaviour from the time he began campaigning.
Changes in public disclosure
This is a key point to consider, because to quote the journalist Evan Davis: ‘In 2016, the great political schism to divide Western societies switched from
being a left-right one to being about liberalism and populism; each with different priorities, values and tribal allegiances. It’s not hard to see why the term
post-truth emerged; there were genuine changes in the way public discourse was conducted’. This polarisation can also be seen as dividing between
polarised stances such as ‘openness and change’ vs ‘authority & order’.
Taking this to a level of partisanship unseen in the mainstream media in recent elections has been radically biased, hyper-partisan news that tells niche
audiences gathered in so-called ‘filter bubbles’ or ‘echo chambers’ what they want to hear. This classic case of confirmation bias is bought to them c/o
media falling either side of the political spectrum; which includes right-wing ones like Breitbart, Infowars, and the Drudge Report; while on the left these
include Slate, NPR and Mother Jones.
This was noted by Yale historian David W Blight, who points out that millions of Americans on the right get their information from selective websites, radio
shows and news networks, possessing all sorts of conspiratorial conceptions about liberals. Many on the left also know precious little about the people who
voted for Trump; coastal elites sometimes hold contemptuous views about people they ‘fly-over’.
And just because these audiences are niche doesn’t mean they are small; in fact, quite the opposite. These are the days of ‘massive niche’ groupings, so
beloved of marketers who find them ideal targets for branded messaging, and from organisations like Cambridge Analytica, who famously targeted voters
on a mass-individual level via psychographic profiling. Political parties love preaching to the converted, when it’s often niche voter-groups that win elections
due to generally falling mainstream voter turnouts in elections.
This is a serious problem if you consider for instance that, according to a Pew Research Survey 67% of American adults rely on social media platforms such
as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat for news. Many of these people are accessing information via specific-interest groups that have wildly skewed
worldviews, views which are duly spread around on a viral basis.
That approach is the opposite of the one taken by, for instance, the renowned weekly ‘curated list of political podcasts’ supplied by The Venn or the
website AllSides.Org which ‘provides balanced news, perspectives and issues across the political spectrum. There is no such thing as unbiased news or truly
non-partisan coverage – AllSides use technology and the crowd to provide balance.’
This isn’t to deny everyday reality in some sort of utopian fantasy. Politics will always be a tough, and less than entirely clean environment. Lies, half-truths,
wild exaggerations and total hypocrisy have always been part of public life; alternative facts and fake news have been part of the everyday world of
journalism and politics for aeons.
Deepfakes
However, what is causing ever-greater concern, regarding elections around the world, is ‘more real than real’ deepfake technology. This development,
which made the headlines only recently in a case involving Nancy Pelosi (a ‘fake news’ event that was remarkably effective, despite only the crudest type of
manipulation being used) can mean that the differences between what is real and what is not are virtually impossible to detect.
As the saying goes, voters will be confronted with videos of politicians giving speeches they never made, in places they’ve been, saying things they’d never
say. The end result is that recognising fake news is only going to get much harder; meaning that we now need to question not just what we read in the
papers, but things that we see and hear in the online and broadcast media.
The impact of all this societal-level mistrust is being felt round the world, and brand foundations are being shaken in an era of ongoing corporate
malpractice, advertising lies and management misdemeanours. A result is that many brand-consumer relationships are on rocky ground, and something
fundamental needs to change.
According to The Economist: ‘Consumer trust is the basis of all brand values, and therefore brands have an immense incentive to retain it.’
And as that immensely powerful business-figurehead Jack Ma, CEO of Alibaba, stated so succinctly: ‘Once you have trust, the rest is easy. When you don’t
have trust, that when things get difficult.’
Those inspiring statements are set against a harsh reality illuminated by a much-cited industry report from the Havas agency, which noted that ‘much of the
trust, respect and loyalty people had for many brands has disintegrated. You see it in the level of cynicism, scepticism and indifference that people have
towards them.’
Company strategists are finally realising that consumers are increasingly judging brands by how they actually behave, as opposed to simply believing the
stories they tell. Thus their brand credibility needs to be based on fact, not fiction.
Brands therefore have to raise their game, particularly when it comes to brand behaviour. This is because behaviour is a vital element of a brands’
reputation capital; which is itself made up of the ‘honest, competent and reliable’ values that play such a vital role in the foundation of attractive,
successful, enduring brands. And a straightforward reason why successful brands have longevity is simply because they’ve built up their credibility by being
trustworthy.
The results will help reconnect brands and consumers, something they increasingly need in our distrusting era. Welcome to the Post-Truth Business…
Sean Pillot de Chenecey is an insight/innovation/strategy consultant, who’s worked for some of the world’s biggest brands. His book The Post-Truth
Business, published by Kogan Page, was the first business title to connect the vital issues of trust / transparency / privacy / fake news / empathy /
ethics. www.brandpositive.org
https://www.associationofmbas.com/business-in-a-post-truth-world/
The author attacks his topic on page 1: “A weakening of the vital trust connection between brands and consumers is causing enormous problems for businesses around the world. Linked to this
something has gone very wrong with a vital element of consumer engagement: authenticity seems to be evaporating as a core brand pillar”
Phew! I am not sure what that last bit means but it is obviously very important.
This is a book where the volume is turned up to 11- things are “deeply serious”, trust has been “catastrophically devalued”, emotion is “incredibly
powerful”.
There is much eye-watering hyperbole, as well as sentences that wander on for several lines in search of syntax. I blame the publishers- Kogan Page- who
should have afforded the author an editor. I have written some flabby prose in my time and always benefited from the gimlet eye of Judie Lannon and Elen
Lewis at Market Leader. My first drafts were not worth publishing, my third drafts sometimes got into print. I reckon a good editor would have helped the
author cut this book from 263 pages to under 200.
Now I have got that bit of pedantry out of the way – what about the substance of the book?
Having stated his topic, I expected the next section to substantiate it with credible quantitative research. Instead what we get is a very well-informed
discussion of issues arising from the digital revolution. The first chapter is an excellent precis of how fake news and disinformation warfare have degraded
politics. Sure, this is important context but there are other books on it by the likes of Evan Davis and Robert Peston.
So, should you buy this book? You might be surprised to hear my answer is yes. And the way to read it is to turn to the contents pages, which are detailed
and clear, and use them to dip into topics
Take the section: “Blockchain- the benefits are hard to exaggerate”
We know about blockchain from the fame of cryptocurrencies like Block Chain. But there are bigger implications for rebuilding brand trust because it offers
unimpeachable proof provenance in the supply chain. As the author explains well- “You can see exactly what happened when and who handed over to
whom via a series of interlinking digital handshakes.” Brands are using block chain to embrace transparency – like “Wholefoods who have 100% traceability
for every single albacore tuna”. Expect this to be a rising trend in branding.
The author tackles important topics, covers a lot of ground and much of it addresses his central idea about rebuilding brand trust. The final pages offer a
checklist of his key themes:
1. Be Authentic
2. Be transparent
3. Respect privacy
4. Demonstrate empathy
5. Be Trustworthy
Which is not a bad checklist. But I don’t think it fully explains the evident trust in the first two trillion $ valued brands – Apple and Amazon- whose success
is built on those old fashion virtues – brilliant products, value and service.
The Post Truth Business – how to rebuild brand authenticity in a distrusting world. Written by Sean Pillot de Chenecey - Reviewed by Julian Saunders,
CEO at Port.
Authenticity versus post-truth: what business leaders need to know
In the post-truth world, where society and social media in particular are awash with fake news, false rumours and out-of-context conversations, public
opinion is increasingly shaped more by emotion and personal belief than objective fact. So how worried should brands and businesses be about the
influence of this trend on their industries and operations? And what role does authenticity play in mitigating and managing both the threat and the
fallout?
With our lives subject to a heady mix of opportunities, agendas and always-on technology, authenticity is increasingly vital to brands who rely upon the
trust it can engender to forge connections, and foster productive and profitable relationships with consumers, customers and clients. But, of course, the
fact is that anyone, anywhere, can say whatever they want to about who you are and what you do – regardless if it’s 100 per cent fact-less or fabricated –
directly to a mass global audience online.
Social media is growing as a primary news source and Australians are reportedly amongst the world's most likely to share questionable articles online,
suggesting our organisations need to be proactive in the face of post-truth challenges. We spoke to Chief Sustainability Officer, Jaana Quaintance-James, for
the Global Fashion Group, parent company of leading ANZ fashion and sports e-tailer THE ICONIC, to gain some insight into how they’re working to harness
authenticity and hamper those who might see it compromised.
Understand your truth as a business and act accordingly
For business leaders, the ability to align with and articulate the truth of their organisation amongst all levels of personnel is essential to curating an
authentic company culture. It prevents knowledge gaps forming, which can otherwise provide an environment where internal miscommunication can
quickly become external misinformation.
Quaintance-James asserts that efforts to integrate corporate identity with culture and communications can’t be passive if they are to promote positive
realities.
“It’s crucial that a business conducts itself in close alignment with the values of its customers, employees and partners, to actively demonstrate its
commitment and responsibility to those who play a part in its success.
Embedding these priority values into everything an organisation does, from internal team processes to external marketing pushes, helps ensure it not only
‘talks the talk’, but more importantly ‘walks the talk’. Inconsistency between what you ‘say’ you stand for, and what you ‘do’, can cause an obvious
disconnect where customers and followers are likely to disengage, or worse, feel inclined to share negative sentiment.
For example, we’re working to support and promote inclusion, diversity and body-positivity in Australian and New Zealand fashion, and have found that
integrating it into as many facets of our business as possible has helped make it pervasive across our company culture. This includes the models we feature
physically and digitally, and the internal team we continue to build, which now features over 40 nationalities (and perspectives).”
Champion transparency and progress, not perfection
With more access to information, connection and choice than ever before, the rise of conscious consumerism has grown exponentially over the past
decade. Accordingly, transparency has become a potent weapon against mistruth in today’s markets. It helps reduce discrepancies between what a
business claims to value and their day-to-day actions, stifling opportunities for trolls, profiteers or even just misguided members of the general public to
prey upon them.
As Quaintance-James sees it, openness in dealings and decisions best serves the goal of authenticity when it is widely adopted within a business.
“There will always be more that can be done to meet or exceed targets, so rather than over-promising on what can be achieved, consistently driving and
promoting quantifiable positive outcomes should be the focus. By providing timely and honest updates on how a company is doing, those who trust it can be
offered clarity around the commitments made in a manner which holds business leaders accountable for their decisions. One of our mantras is ‘progress,
over perfection’, which we’ve found can validate many of our initiatives both external and internal.
With an area such as sustainability, which is increasingly influential on consumer behaviour and with that the actions of those vying for their patronage,
we’ve managed to achieve customer-facing outcomes such as introducing an onsite filter that encourages conscious shopping by enabling users to select
items based on their personal sustainability values. But, like more and more organisations, we’re also acutely aware of the need to keep the impact of the
various (and less PR’able) ‘back-end’ elements of our operations top of mind, in order to reduce our carbon footprint ongoing.”
Define, measure and reinforce standards for truth
Businesses need to not only find their own voice and learn to express it with integrity, but also to take the time to formally define, measure and reinforce
standards for truth, both internally and in their interactions with consumers and third parties. Assessment protocols, best practice benchmarking, and
appointment of appropriate personnel to act as guardians of company truth are all useful, especially when grey areas emerge around poor quality
information.
Organisations should shape the development of their standards around social media engagement, and the management and mitigation of false stories
online, in support of their overarching business vision, says Quaintance-James.
“Although it’s important to encourage followers to be part of brand conversations, it’s also of the utmost importance to ensure brand-affiliated digital
platforms for this dialogue and exchange are safe, inclusive, up-to-date and accurate when it comes to information. Yes, businesses and their workforces
should be instigating thoughtful discussion and reinforcing their commitment to the issues they value, but this demands a merger of human insights and
technical understanding in the form of community standards, participant guidelines and proactive monitoring, which must all be maintained to foster
fairness and respect.
In terms of challenging customer questions and potential misinformation, we employ a four-step approach which involves media monitoring of brand
mentions, context and impact assessment of negative comments or false stories, stakeholder engagement, and implementation of a response which will aim
to protect brand perception whilst better informing consumers in the process.”
In practice, acting authentically and sharing honestly is one thing, ensuring it delivers on driving post-truth trust is another. This is where integration of the
skills to explain ‘why’ a company does what it does with the tactics and techniques to protect the integrity of those messages become a key concern for
managers and their teams.
Knowing how to lead effective communication within and on behalf of an organisation is central to more and more modern careers, which is why the
University of Melbourne have created a Microcredential designed to facilitate exactly that. Part of the Managing Teams suite of credentials, the course
offers quality insight and expert instruction in a bite-sized format perfect for upskilling professionals – learn more here.
With special thanks to:

Chief Sustainability Officer, Jaana Quaintance-James, Global Fashion Group (parent company of THE ICONIC)
References

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1470785320934719

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/11/home-affairs-flags-steps-to-help-australians-identify-fake-news-by-foreign-powers

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook46p/FakeNews
09 Oct 2020
ABSTRACT
In August 2019, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, was surrounded by controversy. The first major storm of protest followed the surprise
election of Donald Trump as President of the United States on November 8, 2016; many put the blame at the door of fake news stories served up on
Facebook’s Trending News Feed. Zuckerberg dismissed these claims as “crazy,” asserting that Facebook was a technology company, not a media company.
In 2017, it was revealed that a Russian intelligence team had purchased 3,000 political ads on Facebook in an attempt to influence the 2016 U.S.
Presidential Election. Then, in March 2018, the public learned that Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy, had used 87 million Facebook profiles
obtained from scraping the site to affect the election. As a result, Zuckerberg was called to Congress to testify. In early 2019, Facebook announced the
company was to merge its Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp platforms and share data but that this data would be more secure.
The claim was greeted with much skepticism. To explain the move, Zuckerberg published a blog post, changing the company’s mission from making the
world more open to achieving privacy-focused communications on its platform. Meanwhile, Facebook continued to struggle with fake news while
expanding its service offering. In June 2019, it announced it was to launch Libra, a new global cryptocurrency for its 2.5 billion users around the world. In
early September 2019, it launched Facebook Dating, which promised “[to help] you start meaningful relationships through things you have in common, like
interests, events and groups.” That same month, Facebook announced that it bought a New York–based start-up called CTRL-labs, which was working on
developing a wristband that allowed people to control their electronic devices with brain signals. There was little doubt of the scale of Zuckerberg’s
ambitions. But, ongoing investigations into Facebook’s privacy violations and calls to break up the company pointed to more fundamental issues.
KEYWORDS
Facebook; Fake News; Mark Zuckerberg; Donald Trump; Algorithms; Social Networks; Partisanship; Social Media; App
Development; Instagram; WhatsApp; Smartphone; Silicon Valley; Office Space; Digital Strategy; Democracy; Entry Barriers; Online
Platforms; Controversy; Tencent; Agility; Social Networking; Gaming; Gaming Industry; Computer Games; Mobile Gaming; Messaging; Monetization
Strategy; Advertising; Online Advertising; Business Ventures; Acquisition; Mergers and Acquisitions; Business Growth and Maturation; Business
Headquarters; Business Organization; For-Profit Firms; Trends; Communication; Communication Technology; Forms of Communication; Interactive
Communication; Interpersonal Communication; Talent and Talent Management; Crime and Corruption; Voting; Demographics; Entertainment; Games,
Gaming, and Gambling; Moral Sensibility; Values and Beliefs; Initial Public Offering; Profit; Revenue; Geography; Geographic Location; Global Range; Local
Range; Country; Cross-Cultural and Cross-Border Issues; Globalized Firms and Management; Globalized Markets and Industries; Governing Rules,
Regulations, and Reforms; Government and Politics; International Relations; National Security; Political Elections; Business History; Recruitment; Selection
and Staffing; Information Management; Information Publishing; News; Newspapers; Innovation and Management; Innovation Strategy; Technological
Innovation; Knowledge Dissemination; Human Capital; Law; Leadership Development; Leadership Style; Leading Change; Business or Company
Management; Crisis Management; Goals and Objectives; Growth and Development Strategy; Growth Management; Management Practices and
Processes; Management Style; Management Systems; Management Teams; Managerial Roles; Marketing Channels; Social Marketing; Network
Effects; Market Entry and Exit; Market Platforms; Two-Sided Platforms; Marketplace Matching; Industry Growth; Industry
Structures; Monopoly; Media; Product Development; Service Delivery; Corporate Social Responsibility and Impact; Mission and Purpose; Organizational
Change and Adaptation; Organizational Culture; Organizational Structure; Public Ownership; Problems and Challenges; Business and Community
Relations; Business and Government Relations; Groups and Teams; Networks; Rank and Position; Opportunities; Behavior; Emotions; Identity; Power and
Influence; Prejudice and Bias; Reputation; Social and Collaborative Networks; Status and Position; Trust; Society; Civil Society or Community; Culture; Public
Opinion; Social Issues; Societal Protocols; Strategy; Adaptation; Business Strategy; Commercialization; Competition; Competitive Advantage; Competitive
Strategy; Corporate Strategy; Customization and Personalization; Diversification; Expansion; Horizontal Integration; Segmentation; Information
Technology; Internet; Mobile Technology; Online Technology; Software; Technology Networks; Technology Platform; Web; Web Sites; Wireless
Technology; Valuation; Advertising Industry; Communications Industry; Entertainment and Recreation Industry; Information Industry; Information
Technology Industry; Journalism and News Industry; Media and Broadcasting Industry; Service Industry; Technology Industry; Telecommunications
Industry; Video Game Industry; United States; California; Sunnyvale; Russia