Search

Sincerità e intransigenza vincono su tutto, anche sulla buona relazione con gli altri? Dire quel che si pensa, sempre. È questa regola di autenticità che l'ipocrisia mette in discussione. Ed è anche la ragione per la quale è giudicata in modo negativo, come un fatto di incoerenza intenzionale tra pensieri, parole e comportamenti. Questo fa dell'ipocrita un sabotatore silenzioso dell'ordine morale? Una persona che erode nell'ombra le fondamenta della fiducia? Senza fiducia non c'è società né amicizia né amore. Ma società, amicizia e amore non sono possibili senza una qualche dose di ipocrisia. Nel difficile equilibrismo tra il non fare male agli altri e il non fare male a se stessi, l'ipocrisia allena a pensare in maniera complessa e a stare in relazione con gli altri sul palcoscenico pubblico. A patto che non diventi sistemica e che non tracimi in menzogna e manipolazione.

Unconfessed by definition, hypocrisy is one of the most used and abused polemical categories, even today, to denounce the'masked cynicism'of certain social actors, especially when they hold public office. But has hypocrisy always been just that? Should we really always be wary of it and challenge its every manifestation? What forms of hypocrisy can we distinguish? What kind of relationship exists between hypocrisy and the lack of self-critical attitude of those who are used to challenge the conduct of others? And above all: what relationship exists between this common vice, democratic politics and the institutional reproduction of different forms of oppression and domination? These are just some of the questions that inspire this philosophical journey back into the history of one of the most chameleonic concepts of Western culture. In Mazzone's conception, democratic hypocrisy includes argumentative strategies used by institutional actors to refuse any kind of responsibility whentheir decisions, actions or roles are called into question by the protests of citizens in a democratic context. He reveals the relationship that exists between such “apologetic narratives” and the institutional reproduction of different forms of oppression and domination. Ultimately, the book urges civic vigilance against underhand wannabe authoritarians, who – as a group – are evolving to find new ways to trick people into opposing democracy.

What kind of hypocrite should voters choose as their next leader? The question seems utterly cynical. But, as David Runciman suggests, it is actually much more cynical to pretend that politics can ever be completely sincere. Political Hypocrisy is a timely, and timeless, book on the problems of sincerity and truth in politics, and how we can deal with them without slipping into hypocrisy ourselves. Runciman draws on the work of some of the great truth-tellers in modern political thought--Hobbes, Mandeville, Jefferson, Bentham, Sidgwick, and Orwell--and applies his ideas to different kinds of hypocritical politicians from Oliver Cromwell to Hillary Clinton. He argues that we should accept hypocrisy as a fact of politics--the most dangerous form of political hypocrisy is to claim to have a politics without hypocrisy. Featuring a new foreword that takes the story up to Donald Trump, this book examines why, instead of vainly searching for authentic politicians, we should try to distinguish between harmless and harmful hypocrisies and worry only about the most damaging varieties.

What kind of hypocrite should voters choose as their next leader? The question seems utterly cynical. But, as David Runciman suggests, it is actually much more cynical to pretend that politics can ever be completely sincere. The most dangerous form of political hypocrisy is to claim to have a politics without hypocrisy. Political Hypocrisy is a timely, and timeless, book on the problems of sincerity and truth in politics, and how we can deal with them without slipping into hypocrisy ourselves. Runciman tackles the problems through lessons drawn from some of the great truth-tellers in modern political thought--Hobbes, Mandeville, Jefferson, Bentham, Sidgwick, and Orwell--and applies his ideas to different kinds of hypocritical politicians from Oliver Cromwell to Hillary Clinton. Runciman argues that we should accept hypocrisy as a fact of politics, but without resigning ourselves to it, let alone cynically embracing it. We should stop trying to eliminate every form of hypocrisy, and we should stop vainly searching for ideally authentic politicians. Instead, we should try to distinguish between harmless and harmful hypocrisies and should worry only about its most damaging varieties. Written in a lively style, this book will change how we look at political hypocrisy and how we answer some basic questions about politics: What are the limits of truthfulness in politics? And when, where, and how should we expect our politicians to be honest with us, and about what?