This paper is a critical discussion of Harry Frankfurt’s 1986 essay ‘On Bullshit’. I will first examine the core components of bullshit, I will then look at how Frankfurt’s interpretation of bullshit differs from others, I will then critically discuss why Frankfurt thinks bullshit is harmful.

To begin with, Bullshit, or at least the idea Frankfurt is trying to convey, is manipulation (whether through word or deed) with complete indifference to the truth. The two core aspects of this idea are Indifference to truth and Manipulation of the listener. Indifference to the truth means no regard for if the statement is true or is false. The manipulation of the listener is to impress upon or convince the listener of a certain impression of themselves or a situation.

The disregard for the truth or “phoniness” means that the bullshiter does not consider the truth value of the statement, the statement can be false or can, sometimes accidentally, be true.

Manipulation of the target, through “misrepresentation and deception” means the bullshiter has an intent to impress upon the target a certain emotion or opinion.

Generally, this means that the bullshitter employs any means necessary to convey their desired outcome to the target. These ends encompass, but are not limited to, persuasion—where the bullshitter aims to sell an idea to the target by whatever means necessary—impression management, whereby the bullshitter deceives the target into perceiving them in a certain light or attributing certain qualities to the bullshitter, and deflection, which involves using bullshit to avoid an awkward situation, among others.

Commonly people misconstrue Bullshit with other forms of communication namely lying, Bull Session and Bluffing, while they have their similarities Bullshit is an independent phenomenon.

Firstly, lying and bullshit both share the trait of deception. The liar intends to manipulate the listener by misrepresenting reality. However, in misrepresenting reality the liar has to make a conscious effort to conceal the truth, thus needing to know the truth to execute their lie. This form of manipulation differs from bullshit as the bullshit has no regard for the truth, the statement can be true or false, the goal only is the manipulation. That is not to say that the bullshiter can’t lie, but that he doesn’t have to.

Secondly, a “bull session” or “hen session” differs from the bullshit, as there is no intention to deceive. In a bull/hen session, a group of people gather around to make outlandish and often vulgar statements for the sake of experimentation or recreation. At the end of the conversation, the participants walk away knowing that their fellow participants did not intend to manipulate or misrepresent their emotion. In a sense, it is like making hot air, the common methods in which a bullshiter conveys their bullshit is present with not manipulation.

Lastly, bluffing and bullshit are similar in their disregard for the truth and intention to manipulate, however the listeners are all aware of the intention to deceive. Bluffing occurs within a framework where it is expected, thus while it shares the same features as bullshit, the bluff is artificial bullshit while regular bullshit is naturally occurring.

To further elucidate this idea of Bullshit, Frankfurt provides us with an example from an anecdote of a conversation with Wittgenstein and Fanian Pascal. Pascal details the exchange like so:

“I had my tonsils out and was in the Evelyn Nursing Home feeling sorry for myself. Wittgenstein called. I croaked: “I feel just like a dog that has been run over.” He was disgusted: “You don’t know what a dog that has been run over feels like.?”

The bullshit here is the statement, “I feel just like a dog that has been run over”. Firstly, the statement, as Wittgenstein points out, is blatantly false. As Pascal is not a dog, it is impossible for her to truly understand the feeling a dog has when it has just been run over.”. As we can see, Pascal’s intent in communication was not to accurately reflect her current physical state but to invoke sympathy from Wittgenstein, leading her to exaggerate the situation. This exaggeration had no regard for the truth, if she actually felt like a dog that had been run over, only for its intended effect (to evoke sympathy/pity on Wittgenstein).

While some interpret his reaction as an attempt at humour, taking it seriously we can reveal the harm bullshit has on interpersonal relationships. If Pascal had conveyed her situation with the more boring but accurate statement “my throat feels sore, and it is uncomfortable to swallow because I just got my tonsils removed”, Wittgenstein could use his reason to formulate a response (most likely of sympathy) in order to comfort his friend. However, as Pascal decided to lie or hyperbolize her statement it created a fake reality in which Wittgenstein had no real knowledge of her physical wellbeing, only with allusion that it is bad and that she merits sympathy. In this scenario Wittgenstein’s ability to employ reason and make judgement was stripped away from him, with the end of Pascal being implanted into him. Fortunately, Wittgenstein himself recognised the falsity of the statement, which Pascal possibly did not, leading him to react brashly. This brash response is warranted as in a sense in injuries Wittgenstein, as his friend attempted to misconstrue the natural reality for her own benefit, instead of trusting him to make the appropriate response..

While some may see the bullshit of Pascal demonstrated in her anecdote as not particularly insidious. In this she is employing hyperbole to invoke sympathy, however the methodology of the manipulation and the feeling one is trying to impress can be more harmful. The manipulation can take many forms, spanning across strata of society. Some examples include:

• Psychological manipulation such as Gaslighting or guilt-tripping, Behavioral manipulation, such as conditioning (where the bullshiter either punishes or rewards some behavior to read their own end, regardless of whether the behavior is good or bad)
• Informational manipulation, such as selective disclosure or propaganda, Economic Manipulation, such as market manipulation or exploitative manipulation, Technological Manipulation, such as social media algorithms.

In the real world, we can see this reflected in all walks of life. Examples can political such as Regan’s tax bill graph, or clickbait content where the bullshiters have no regard for whether their statements actually reflects the truth (in the Regan example the difference between democrats and republicans planned tax bill, and the clickbait the nature of the content) but only care for the end (voters to support the republican tax bill, reader/viewers to consume the content).

As detailed in the first page of the essay, “one of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, or attracted much sustained inquiry” Everyone sees themselves as having a solid ground on the truth, and feels as if they can detect when they are manipulated. However, this ability is overestimated, especially due to the salience of bullshot. Bullshit is everywhere and as the internet explodes communication, it is becoming more difficult to pinpoint exactly what is the truth and what is manipulation.

The consequences of bullshit are a society without trust, when no one knows - or cares - our trust that people, initiations or governments are doing being honest. This creates a society of skeptics and cynics who don’t know what is true. In this context how are we supposed to make decisions, how are we supposed to know what to wear if the weather broadcaster insists on using esoteric language (whether it is used correctly or not) to impress upon us his intelligence, how are we supposed to make political decisions if we can’t trust what the politician is saying or whether our attitudes towards them are based on reason of imprinted upon us, how are we supposed to support a friend if you don’t know how they feel. On top of this, those incapable of evaluating the falsity of a statement or action will further promote this misinformation, creating a society of lies that can have dire consequences, as seen with anti-vaxers in the Covid-19 pandemic.

Some skeptics could posit that Frankfurt’s bullshit is not universally harmful, but could in fact be useful. For example, to avoid awkward social interaction through obfuscating uncomfortable truths. Or in politics where the truth could inhibit the greater good or cause unneeded discord.

In response, Frankfurt would probably agree that in some cases we should be thankful for a lie, however he would emphasize the notion that a society based on shit is nothing but shit. Soggy excrement with no structure or direction. Frankfurt would take the Kantian (or social contact theory) approach, stating that we have a duty to respect an individual right to reason. Without the raw truth we can not reason the right decision, if everyone is navigating in a false reality we will end up creating more harm than good.

Citations:

On Truth, Harry G. Frankfurt 2006

On Bullshit, Harry G. Frankfurt 1986