The Future of Truth (2024)
Werner Herzog (1942)
115 pages
I don’t think truth is some kind of polestar in the sky that we will one day get to. It’s more like an incessant striving. A movement, an uncertain journey, a seeking full of futile endeavor. But it is this journey into the unknown, into a vast twilit forest, that gives our lives meaning and purpose; it is what distinguishes us from the beasts in the fields. (3)
With these comments, director and writer Werner Herzog sets the stage in his essay The Future of Truth for an examination of what it means to seek truth, particularly in a world filled with ever more sophisticated forms of misinformation, misrepresentations and deep fakes.
He opens by distinguishing between truth and facts, dismissing the idea that “what characterized truth was its way of sticking to fact, to reality.” (20) Rather, he argues, “facts, of themselves, have no power, they are inert, they shed no light, they give us no deeper understanding.” (20)
Precisely that distinction lay at the heart of an article I read recently dealing with climate change: the author noted that then-President Obama had presented facts about climate change that supported his call for acting more aggressively to address it, while Republican politicians presented other, equally true facts about the potential economic difficulties of doing so. The author pointed out that both sides were “correct” with respect to their facts, leaving the discussion at a stalemate; the real challenge was, how to get to the deeper truth of the situation, through a broad discussion about what should be done and what the consequences might be? (Unfortunately, I can’t find the link to that article at the moment; if you recognize it, please leave the link to it in the comments below.)
Herzog promotes such a seeking of truth in his essay, characterizing it as the pursuit of a deeper understanding of a situation, of humankind, of our world. By exploring this “journey into the unknown” in the presence of a variety of examples of deceptions – both intentional and unintentional, and including some he himself has participated in – he raises thought-provoking questions about what lies in the gray area between such artifice leading us to fundamental truths versus being destructively deceptive.
Over several chapters, he considers: the often exaggerated plots presented in movies and other arts performances to communicate emotional truths; the misrepresentations and lies of political leaders from ancient times to the present day; the seductive nature of conspiracy theories and sects; and the ever improving ability of AI to create deep fakes in terms of videos, recordings and pictures. While some of his examples of misinformation will be familiar to readers, the wide range of deceptions he describes is truly impressive – if also dismaying.
Hertzog’s view of truth as being distinct from a simple collection of facts makes eminent sense to me, as does his conception of the pursuit of truth as a never-ending journey to ever deeper understanding. I wonder, however, whether his ready acceptance of certain kinds of deception for the purpose of better getting to truth in particular situations leaves open a dangerous lacuna through which other, less honorable actors could also pass, claiming the same right to pursue and propagate their destructive truths.
By way of example: he mentions a Japanese business called Family Romance, an agency that will “supply actors who on a temporary basis stand in for missing friends or family members.” (37) He describes using actors from that agency to make a film “that a few reviewers took … for a documentary;” in fact, it wasn’t, and yet he argues that “in spite of [that] there is an underlying truth: in the feelings” (40) communicated by the actors.
Then the rub, however: he relates that "a few years later ... the Japanese state broadcaster, filmed a documentary about” the agency's owner, asking him “to nominate a client who would be prepared to stand in front of the camera and talk about his experience with Family Romance.” To the subsequent embarrassment of the broadcaster the owner chose one of his own actors to pretend to be a client, later defending his choice by saying that
a genuine customer would have played down his loneliness to keep face, he would have told lies, and at best maybe said half the truth. Only one of his actors, who had done the job of cheering up a lonely person hundreds of times, would permit deep insights.... Would speak the truth. (41)
Essentially, the owner argued, the genuine person might lie, while the liar would tell the truth – get to the true feelings.
But this seems a slippery slope, for two reasons. For one: yes, the genuine person might play down their loneliness, but more generally their situation might simply be complicated, their loneliness may only represent a part of what they are feeling; an actor portraying such loneliness could simply end up as a caricature of some idealized lonely person – is that really getting at a truth? More critically, by making this switch, creating this illusion, are we not granting permission for the autocrat or dictator to do the same, to create the lie that, from their point of view, gets to the “truth” as they see it, or at least as they want others to see it? If one argues that a deception can be useful for getting at the truth, how does one distinguish between creating acceptable and unacceptable deceptions – pursuing edifying versus damaging “truths”?
I suppose Hertzog might argue that establishing that distinction – between acceptable and unacceptable, good and bad truths – is part of the overall work for all of us, the “incessant striving” required. But it feels a dangerous game to play.
Hertzog even uses himself as an example of such ambiguity. Describing it broadly so as not to spoil it for readers, early in the book he quotes another author; being a bit curious, I googled the quote and found that it was known to be something Hertzog himself had made-up. Towards the end of the book, he reveals this – citing it as an example of how he distilled the writings of this particular author into a quote that expresses the broader truth he had found in them, even if the author never explicitly wrote the words Herzog “quoted.”
Again, however, a demagogue or simply someone bent on deception could propagate a “quote” of some work of another that perverts the message in a way that corrupts public discussion and eventually policy – rationalizing that it gets at what they consider an important truth. And, as has been reported, even if the deception is eventually discovered, it can be difficult to disabuse people of a lie they have heard, especially if it aligns with what they want to believe. In the current social and political environment – ever more polarized and full of opposing, hardened ‘truths’ – it can be hard not to be concerned about where such deceptions could lead us.
I have long admired Hertzog as a director, enjoying his films; evident in them is, as he writes, that
all my life, my work has been involved with the central issue of truth. I have always rigorously opposed the foolish belief that equates truth with facts. (79)
In The Future of Truth, he argues that we all should engage in the hard work of looking beyond facts to discover truth. And, ultimately, it’s perhaps better to follow his lead in that sense, to actively pursue truth rather than live in fear of those who would abuse our search.
Other notes and information:
A recent article in the New York Times discusses this same topic of truth: Music, At Least, Doesn't Lie.
Have you read this book, others by this author, or even similar ones by other authors? I’d enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Other of my book reviews: FICTION Bookshelf and NON-FICTION Bookshelf
No comments:
Post a Comment