The Collapse of Standards

I spent the last day scanning the global echoes. What disappoints me is not disagreement. It is the collapse of standards. Too many “expert” interventions, including those branded by leading universities, speak with institutional authority while performing none of the minimal intellectual work that authority is supposed to guarantee. They deliver mood in the costume of method.

The pattern is stable. A moral declaration establishes tone. A simplified cast of characters secures allegiance. Then comes the conclusion in the language of necessity: unavoidable, inevitable, no alternative. This is not analysis. It is screenplay logic: a script that manufactures permission by pretending the ending is already written.

Screenplay as the Cheapest Prosthesis

And here the “screenplay” returns. When a discipline can no longer produce a compass, it produces a script. A script is cheaper than method and delivers an immediate payoff: it reduces anxiety and restores a sense of direction. Except that this is theatrical direction, not epistemic direction. Institutions that should train distinctions end up distributing closure.

In the eighteenth century, disciplines were meant to function as a compass. In the twenty-first, they too often function as a prop: they preserve the appearance of orientation after the map has stopped matching the terrain. When the compass fails, the institution does not repair the instrument. It replaces criteria with narrative, method with tone, and the question of truth with the demand for loyalty.

In such an arrangement, the Politician as a global persona is not the starting point of analysis but its symptom: a figure meant to look like agency after real agency has been displaced into the script.

Visibility as an Apparatus

There is a deeper layer that cannot be skipped, because it breaks not only the style of debate but the classical epistemological reflex itself. The problem is not the competent reporter. The problem is visibility. What matters is not “what is happening,” but what is allowed to appear as happening, under what framing, and with what defaults baked in. Visibility is not a window onto reality; it is an apparatus that manufactures reality-by-appearance.

The battlefield is not only territory. It is the field of admissible visibility.

The Jurisdiction of Voice

Under........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)