An approach to Foucault, truth, power and the digital age.

photo: Mario Borguetthi

Introduction:

This essay seeks to define concepts in light of the digital age, post-truth, and the relationships between power and truth from Foucault's perspective, as his theories were developed before the digital era but remain relevant for analyzing processes and relationships between power and truth in the current age.

The text to be analyzed is a fragment from Foucault’s book *A Dialogue on Power*.

Foucault was a French structuralist philosopher who lived in the 20th century (1926-1984).

This fragment addresses the relationship between power and truth, which Foucault analyzes from a political-economic and socio-historical perspective.

Structuralism:

Structuralism is an approach in the human sciences that grew to become one of the most widely used methods for analyzing language, culture, and society in the second half of the 20th century.

In broad and basic terms, Structuralism seeks the interrelationships (the structures) through which meaning is produced within a culture. According to this theory, within a culture, meaning is produced and reproduced through various practices, phenomena, and activities that serve as systems of signification.

In Foucauldian theory, the "system of signification" refers to the set of rules, practices, and discourses through which a society constructs, organizes, and communicates meanings. These systems are neither neutral nor universal but are closely linked to power relations and the control of knowledge. According to Foucault, the way a society defines what meanings are valid or true depends on the power structures that determine which discourses are legitimate and which are marginalized or repressed.

Within this framework, language, institutions, norms, and social categories act as elements that organize the field of what can be thought and said, that is, they determine what can be said and understood at a given historical moment. These systems of signification operate through discourses that articulate knowledge, practices, and forms of subjectivity. Thus, words, symbols, and practices are not mere reflections of reality but constitute reality itself within a framework of power.

For example, in the case of disciplines such as psychiatry, medicine, or criminology, systems of signification define who is "normal" or "abnormal," "healthy" or "sick," "innocent" or "guilty." These systems allow societies not only to classify individuals but also to regulate their behaviors, control their bodies, and exercise power over them.

Foucault argues that these systems of signification are not eternal but are subject to historical changes, as they depend on transformations in power relations. A clear example of this is his analysis of medical or legal discourse throughout history, where categories and forms of knowledge change according to new configurations of power.

In Foucault’s theory, systems of signification are the mechanisms through which meaning is constructed and communicated within a society, and they are deeply intertwined with the dynamics of power that determine what meanings are considered true, valid, or legitimate in a given historical context.

What Structuralism Introduces:

What Structuralism introduces is not the idea of structure itself, which has been continuously present throughout Western thought, but the elimination within it of a central concept that orders all reality, such as Platonic ideas or the Christian God.

Fragment:

"The important thing, I believe, is that truth is not outside of power or without power (It is not despite a myth that one would have to choose history and functions, the reward of free spirits, the child of long societies, the privilege of those who have known how to free themselves). Truth is of this world; it is produced in it thanks to multiple coercions. And it holds within it regulated effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its 'General Politics' of truth; that is, the types of discourse it welcomes and makes function as true or false, the way it sanctions one or the other; the techniques and procedures that are valued for obtaining the truth; the status of those who are in charge of saying what functions as true..."

Analysis:

Truth is directly linked to power, as demonstrated throughout history (since experience shows us that those who hold power are the ones who control the truth...). And that is why we always associate truth with power, as we see power as a repressive element in our lives.

Each society has its "truth," and they modify it according to convenience or necessity.

Example: Homicide in Uruguay is punished with 35 years in prison, while in some states of the USA it is punished with the death penalty, and in others with life imprisonment.

"...In societies like ours, the 'Political Economy' of truth is characterized by five historically important traits: 'Truth' is centered on the form of scientific discourse and on economic and political institutions (Need for truth both for economic production and for political power); it is an object, in various forms, of immense diffusion and consumption (It circulates in educational or information apparatuses whose extension is relatively broad in the social body, despite some strict limitations); it is produced and transmitted under the non-exclusive but dominant control of some large political or economic apparatuses (University, Army, Writing, Media); finally, it is the stake of all political debate and all social confrontation (Ideological struggles)..."

From a political point of view, truth is based on five fundamental traits:

- Truth emerges from certain educational and experimental centers that are under political control, and that control conditions it.

- Truth incentivizes the economy and politics.

- Truth is disseminated through common means, reaching the majority of individuals in society (revolving around politics).

- Military, educational, or communication institutions are not the creators of truth, but they manage, control, and administer it.

- The assimilation of truth is left to chance.

"...There is a 'battle for truth,' or at least 'around truth,' making it clear once again that by truth I do not mean 'the set of things that are true and need to be discovered or done,' but rather 'the set of rules according to which one distinguishes true from false and applies specific effects of power to what is true'; and making it clear also that it is not a battle 'for' truth, but about the status of truth and the economic-political role it plays. Political problems of intellectuals must be thought of not in terms of 'science-ideology,' but in terms of 'truth-power.' And it is here that the question of the professionalization of the intellectual, the division of manual-intellectual labor, can be raised anew..."

Truth is not everything we take as true, but the ability of the individual to distinguish true from false and attribute a degree of truth to what is true. This assertion Foucault wants to associate with the economic and political.

Conflicts do not occur directly between ideologies, but between the truths that each ideology believes it possesses.

"...All this must seem quite confusing and uncertain. Uncertain, yes, and everything I say is above all as a hypothesis. To make it a little less confusing, however, I would like to advance some 'proportions' in the sense not of accepted things, but only offered for future trials and tests.

By 'truth' understand a set of regulated procedures for the production, law, distribution, circulation, and functioning of statements. It is not about freeing truth from every system of power –that would be a chimera since truth is itself power– but rather detaching the power of truth from the forms of hegemony (Social, Economic, Cultural) within which it currently operates.

The political question, in short, is truth itself."

Michel Foucault is one of the contemporary philosophers who has most analyzed the relationship between power and truth, emphasizing how power is not only exercised through physical force or visible domination but also through discursive structures, knowledge, and control mechanisms that often do not appear evident. For Foucault, truth is not a neutral concept but is intimately linked to power relations; whoever controls the discourse controls what is perceived as true.

As the flow of information in the contemporary world is affected by the proliferation of news on digital platforms, the dynamics between power and truth transform, manifesting in new and complex ways. To understand this interaction, we will explore the following points:

Power and Truth in Foucault’s Theory

For Foucault, power is not simply a coercive structure exercised from above but a network of relationships that permeates the entire social body. In his works, such as *Discipline and Punish* and "The Microphysics of Power", Foucault dismantles the idea that power resides solely in institutions or specific individuals. Rather, power is omnipresent and is exercised at all levels of society, from the family to the state, passing through institutions such as schools, prisons, and hospitals.

This power is linked to knowledge and, ultimately, to truth. Foucault argues that power produces truths; that is, regimes of power determine what is accepted as true in a society. In this sense, there is no universal and objective truth, but "regimes of truth" that are constructed and maintained by systems of power.

The notion of "truth" in Foucault’s work cannot be separated from the context in which it is produced. What is considered true at a given time and place depends on the power dynamics that sustain it. For example, scientific or medical truth changes over time, not only due to advances in knowledge but also because of the political and economic structures that promote certain knowledges over others. Here arises the notion that truth is a sociopolitical construct.

The Production of Truth in the Digital Age

With the expansion of the internet and social media, the production and distribution of truth have been democratized in appearance, although this does not necessarily mean greater plurality of voices or greater objectivity in information. In the digital world, anyone can create and share content, which has multiplied sources of information and changed traditional power dynamics in the production of truth. However, it has also generated informational saturation, making it difficult to distinguish between true and false.

"Truth" in the digital age is shaped by algorithms and large technology corporations that control the platforms through which information circulates. These companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) act as intermediaries between content and users, deciding what is shown and what is not, based on commercial or ideological interests. Thus, although social media might seem to decentralize power, in reality, a new form of control shapes the perception of truth.

Additionally, platform design is aimed at maximizing attention and interaction, not necessarily ensuring the veracity of information. This creates an environment in which "truth" is subordinated to market logic, and the most sensationalist, polarizing, or emotionally provocative news achieves greater visibility.

The Influence of Social Media on the Construction of Truths

On social media, the discourse of truth is mediated by virality. What is considered "true" or "false" is no longer something that depends on an informed consensus among experts or rigorous investigation but is largely determined by how widely information is disseminated. The dynamics of social media encourage the creation of information bubbles, in which users tend to consume content that reinforces their preexisting beliefs, closing off the possibility of dialogue with different perspectives.

Foucault spoke of "pastoral power," a form of control exercised through the individualization and guidance of subjects, something we can see reflected in modern social media. Digital platforms not only control what we see but also collect vast amounts of data on users, allowing them to influence preferences and behaviors in a highly personalized manner. Power over truth, then, intertwines with power over subjectivity.

This personalization of content has created a phenomenon in which objective facts can be interpreted in radically different ways depending on the community to which one belongs, weakening the notion of a shared truth. Thus, social media, rather than generating a space for democratic deliberation, tends to reinforce divisions and consolidate fragmented regimes of truth.

Fake News and Discursive Manipulation

One of the most visible phenomena of the digital age is the proliferation of fake news. Fake news is a clear example of how truth can be manipulated to serve specific interests within the context of contemporary power relations. Often, fake news is not simply fabricated but appeals to emotions, prejudices, and preexisting fears, making it particularly effective.

Foucault reminds us that power and knowledge are intrinsically related; fake news is a tool of power insofar as it shapes perceptions of reality and, therefore, influences political, economic, and social decisions. In a digital context, fake news not only seeks to misinform but also generates an atmosphere of generalized distrust toward traditional institutions of knowledge, such as the media and universities.

This phenomenon also highlights what Foucault would call a "war for truth," in which different actors (governments, corporations, ideological groups) fight to impose their own narratives. In the digital age, these wars are fought through networks of bots, trolls, and disinformation campaigns, which are modern mechanisms of discursive control.

Digital Biopower and Surveillance

The concept of biopower, developed by Foucault, refers to power exercised over life, that is, the control of bodies and populations through regulations, norms, and practices. In the digital age, biopower takes on a new form: mass surveillance. Digital platforms, through data collection, exert unprecedented power over people’s lives, monitoring their activities, preferences, movements, and relationships.

This power is often justified in the name of security, personalization, or efficiency, but in reality, it creates a system in which the truth about each individual is collected, analyzed, and exploited by actors with power (governments, tech companies). This type of digital biopower is invisible but omnipresent, redefining the boundaries of privacy and autonomy.

Truth, in this case, becomes a resource that can be exploited. The data we generate daily by interacting with devices and platforms are not neutral; they are used to create behavioral profiles that are then monetized or used to influence individual and collective decisions. Thus, the truth about who we are and what we want becomes a battleground in which contemporary power struggles are resolved.

Michel Foucault provides us with a useful lens to analyze the complex interactions between power and truth in the digital age. Through his concepts of power, knowledge, and biopower, we can see how social media and the digital environment have transformed the production of truth, generating new forms of control and discursive manipulation. In a world where information circulates rapidly and fragmentedly, the struggles for truth have intensified, along with the power dynamics that sustain them.

The challenge we face today, as Foucault suggests, is not simply to unravel what is true or false but to understand how truths are constructed and who benefits from them. Only then can we glimpse the necessary forms of resistance to challenge these regimes of truth and power in the digital age.

The Concept of Post-Truth in the Current Era:

Post-truth is a concept that describes a situation in which objective facts have less influence on public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. In a post-truth world, narratives that appeal to emotions, fears, or desires prevail over veracity or factual accuracy. This means that, instead of decisions or beliefs being based on verifiable facts, subjective feelings and perceptions are prioritized.

The term "post-truth" gained prominence in the contemporary political context, especially following events such as the Brexit referendum in the UK, the election of Donald Trump in the US in 2016, and everything related to the three years of the coronavirus pandemic starting in 2020, and more recently, the narratives emanating from the Venezuelan government trying to conceal the theft of the July 2024 elections by Nicolás Maduro. The word suggests that we have entered an era in which truth is no longer a central value in political and social discourse, and where "alternative truths" or strategic lies can be used to influence public opinion.

Post-truth is characterized by:

- Disinformation and manipulation: The deliberate dissemination of false or distorted news that seeks to manipulate the emotions of the public.

- Fragmentation of knowledge: The existence of information bubbles, where people consume content that reinforces their beliefs and are not exposed to differing viewpoints.

- Extreme relativism: The idea that all opinions are equally valid, making it difficult to reach consensus on objective facts.

- Priority of emotion over reason: Appeals to emotions, fears, and desires rather than rational evidence to influence public opinion.

Post-truth is a phenomenon in which truth loses primacy to emotional manipulation, undermining trust in facts and eroding rational dialogue in the public sphere.

The Concept of Truth in Modernity: The Foucauldian Perspective

Throughout his work, Michel Foucault challenges the traditional notion of truth as a universal, objective, and immutable principle. Instead of seeing truth as something independent of power structures, Foucault argues that knowledge and truth are intrinsically linked to power. According to him, what we consider "truth" in a society is the result of a historical construction, where institutions, practices, and discourses legitimize certain knowledges over others. This "production of truth" is always mediated by power relations.

Foucault introduces the concept of "regime of truth" to describe how each society defines and organizes what counts as truth. This regime is not static but evolves with social, political, and economic transformations. Scientific, religious, or philosophical discourses are not neutral but are influenced by the forces of power operating in a given context. In modernity, truth was especially linked to the progress of science and reason, with the rise of modern institutions (schools, hospitals, prisons) that Foucault analyzes in "Discipline and Punish" and "The Archaeology of Knowledge". These regimes of knowledge not only produced "truths" about the world but also about subjects (for example, the "madman," the "criminal," or the "mentally ill").

The relationship between power and truth in Foucault implies that those who control the discourses of knowledge control what is accepted as true. This also means that truth is not an absolute end but is used as a means for governance and social control. In other words, what is defined as truth depends on the interests and objectives of the dominant powers.

The Emergence of Post-Truth: A Mutation of Modern Truth

In a "post-truth" world, objective facts seem to have less influence on public opinion than emotions or personal beliefs. Post-truth implies a condition in which factual truths lose weight against emotionally convincing or ideologically convenient narratives.

This phenomenon does not arise in a vacuum but can be understood as a mutation of the dynamics of truth that Foucault had already identified in modernity. Rather than being a radical break from the past, post-truth intensifies the logic of power over truth that Foucault described. If in modernity truth was linked to progress and science, in the post-truth era, this confidence in reason and objective fact fragments. The multiplicity of information sources and the ability of any individual or group to create "their truth" through social media and digital platforms challenges the hegemony of old truth regimes.

Post-truth, then, is a phenomenon in which factual truths are subordinated to ideological constructions. It is not that facts disappear, but that they transform into just another tool in the discursive battle. This recalls Foucault’s notion that truth has always been a construct in function of power. In post-truth, what intensifies is the ability of each political, social, or economic actor to construct their own version of the facts, sheltered by virality and the fragmentation of knowledge.

Truth and Post-Truth in the Digital Age

The digital age has revolutionized the ways in which truth is produced, distributed, and consumed. On social media, information circulates quickly and often without filters. This speed and accessibility have democratized access to information but have also made it easier to spread lies, rumors, or unfounded data. Digital platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have become stages where truth and post-truth coexist and often get confused.

In the digital ecosystem, algorithms play a crucial role in constructing truth. Algorithms prioritize content that generates the most interaction, which often means that sensationalist news or news that appeals to emotions gains more visibility than verified facts. "Truth," in this context, becomes something measured in terms of "likes," "shares," and "comments," rather than rigor or validity.

Foucault emphasized that power is not exercised solely through formal institutions but also through micro-practices that regulate daily life. In this sense, digital platforms are new forms of exercising power over truth. Users are exposed to information bubbles, in which the opinions and beliefs they already hold are reinforced, limiting exposure to divergent perspectives. This feeds polarization and the fragmentation of knowledge, contributing to a post-truth environment where "truth" depends on the digital community to which one belongs.

Additionally, "fake news" or false news is a clear symptom of the post-truth era. Through the deliberate dissemination of misinformation, certain actors can manipulate public perception, just as truth regimes in the past structured knowledge to control populations. Fake news not only deceives but also generates an atmosphere of generalized distrust toward traditional media and institutions, further eroding the boundaries between true and false.

The Politics of Truth: Power in Times of Post-Truth

Post-truth poses serious challenges for contemporary democracies. While Foucault taught us that truth has always been subject to power dynamics, the rise of post-truth suggests an acceleration and transformation of those dynamics. In the past, power regimes were sustained by the ability to control narratives and the production of truth through specific institutions (media, academia, etc.). However, in the context of post-truth, this control has blurred and appears democratized, which does not necessarily mean greater freedom or plurality but rather a greater capacity for power to operate in subtle and fragmented ways.

In contemporary societies, political campaigns, corporations, and interest groups use post-truth strategies to influence the masses. The manipulation of emotions, appeals to fears and desires, and the fabrication of convincing narratives, even if based on falsehoods, are now common tools in the struggle for power. Foucault reminds us that power is not merely repressive but productive; that is, it produces realities, subjectivities, and truths. Post-truth is, in this sense, an extension of that productive capacity of power, where what is at stake is not only the control of bodies but also the control of perceptions and emotions.

Power in the post-truth era is also exercised through surveillance. Following Foucault’s notion of the "panopticon," digital platforms act as surveillance devices that collect massive amounts of data on users. This information is used to personalize each individual’s experience, further reinforcing the fragmentation of truths. Tech companies and governments have unprecedented access to data about people’s daily lives, allowing them to influence more precisely and subtly how people perceive truth.

Resistances and Possibilities in the Post-Truth Era

Despite the apparent hegemony of post-truth, Foucault’s theory also offers us tools to think about possibilities for resistance. For Foucault, power always generates resistances; where there is power, there is resistance. In the context of post-truth, these resistances can take many forms: from strengthening independent media to creating communities that foster critical thinking and rational dialogue.

Moreover, Foucault did not see truth as something that could be completely captured by power. Although power structures the conditions under which truth is produced, there are always margins of freedom and spaces to contest those truths. In the digital age, the tools that allow the propagation of post-truth can also be used to promote new forms of truth. Open information platforms, shared knowledge networks, and citizen initiatives to combat disinformation are examples of how counter-discourses can be generated that resist the truths imposed by power.

The relationship between truth and post-truth, as we understand it today, is not a radical break with the power dynamics that Foucault identified in modernity but an intensification and transformation of those dynamics. Truth has never been something neutral or purely objective; it has always been shaped by the power structures that organize society. In the post-truth era, what is exacerbated is the ability of multiple actors to construct and disseminate narratives that challenge traditional notions of true and false.

However, Foucault’s theory also reminds us that, although power and truth are intrinsically related, possibilities for resistance always exist. Faced with the dominance of post-truth, the critical task is to understand how new forms of power operate and find ways to contest the truths they impose. Only then can we glimpse new forms of truth that resist contemporary control dynamics.

Gabriel Ganiarov

Bibliography:

FOUCAULT, Michel,  Vigilar y castigar: nacimiento de la prisión, México, Fondo de

Cultura Económica, 1981.

FOUCAULT, Michel, El nacimiento de la clínica, una arqueología de la mirada médica,

México, Fondo de Cultura Económica 1983.

FOUCAULT, Michel, Microfísica del poder, Madrid, España, La Piqueta Editores, 1992.

FOUCAULT, Michel, Un diálogo sobre el poder y otras conversaciones, Madrid España,

Alianza Editores, 1988.

FOUCAULT, Michel, Respuesta al círculo de epistemología, Argentina, Tiempo

Contemporáneo Editores, 1970.

GALBRAITH Kenneth, John, La anatomía del poder, Barcelona, España, Plaza & Janes

Editores 1984.

GIROLA, Lidia, Las instituciones y el problema del poder en las obras de Talcott

Parsons, México, UNAM Editores, 1996.

ARENDT, Hannah, On violence, Londres, Allen Lane, The Penguin Editores, 1974

HOBBES, Thomas, El Leviatán, México, Nuevo Mar Editores, 1987.

HOFFS, Annabelle, El poder del poder, México, Diana Editores, 1986.

KOTTER P., John, El poder gerencial: cómo reconocerlo, obtenerlo y usarlo, México,

Interamericana Editores, 1982.

LOCKE, John, Ensayo sobre el gobierno civil, México, Nuevo Mar Editores, 1984

MAY, Rollo, Power and Innocence, New York, USA, Dell Editores, 1972, 

ROUSSEAU, Juan Jacobo, El contrato social, Bogotá Colombia, Linotipo Editores, 1979,

VILLORO, Luis, El poder y el valor: fundamentos de una ética política, México, Fondo

de Cultura Económica Editores, 1997.

WEBER, Max, Economía y Sociedad, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1998, 

BOULDING, Kenneth E., Las tres caras del poder, Barcelona, España, Paidós Editores,

1993.