POST-TRUTH AND NEOLIBERALISM AS FACTORS OF THE CRISIS OF THE HUMANISTIC TRADITION AND EDUCATION: SOME DISCURSIVE ASPECTS OF MODERN THEORETICAL DISCUSSIONS

The article analyzes the results of the latest theoretical discussions in Western political theory, whose participants explore the specific features of the formation of the neoliberal discourse of “post-truth” that destroys the traditions of rational politics and the foundations of the humanistic paradigm of education that emerged during the European Renaissance and Enlightenment. In the modern world, classical humanism contrasts sharply with political realities and ideas prevailing in social discourses, including in the field of social sciences. Nowadays, many intellectuals, politicians and scientists consider it an almost immutable fact that we have all finally transitioned to the world of “post-truth” and “post-humanism”. Therefore, we must come to terms with endless streams of lies, manipulations, meaningless propaganda that significantly primitivize the prevailing ideas about democratic norms and institutions and try to develop a conceptual apparatus that reflects the new reality. At the same time, modern concepts of post-truth in many of their aspects develop ideas that arose at the turn of the 1960s-1970s, when the contours of the “postmodern turn” were only outlined in Western political discourse. Moreover, the historical origins of the modern phenomenon of post-humanism go back to counter-revolutionary ideology and philosophical controversy with the legacy of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, which was initiated at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries in the works of the “founding fathers” of modern conservatism - Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald. After World War II, an intellectual assault on humanism became one of the hallmarks of French structuralism and subsequent more radical post-structuralist doctrines. The article substantiates in detail the thesis that today the topic of discourse claims to be a kind of “hegemon”, often dictating to the participants in discussions the nature and direction of the argumentation. Scientists’ disputes on various aspects of political dominance, political communication and education are no exception in this regard. In the process of dispersing this trend, it became obvious that a necessary prerequisite for analyzing the language of politics is an understanding of the specifics of its various levels - from “high” political theory to personal, subjective characteristics.