The Problematic Criticism of the Post-Truth Pro-Iraq War Discourse in Gregory Burke’s Black Watch

Abstract

Changing parameters in people’s perception of truth have taken on a different dimension, especially in the last century. The consideration of a person’s emotional connection to an idea, instead of objective truths, in accepting an opinion as true has led to the emergence of the concept of post-truth. Before and during the 2003 Iraq War, politicians, opinion leaders, civilians and state institutions tried to guide people through emotional manipulation through post-truth discourses. In the field of art, this situation is criticized in the plays written about the war. For instance, Gregory Burke exposes the post-truth discourse of the military institution in his play Black Watch. The historical and contemporary figures he creates in the play mislead soldiers by talking about the virtue of fighting. The discourses they use for this purpose are generally shaped around dreams of heroism, fame, wealth and charisma. They persuade people to fight by making ostentatious promises, but the only things war brings are death and psychological destruction. Burke vividly depicts the dangers the soldiers face in Iraq and the disappointments they experience upon returning home. However, he also criticizes the military institution for its pro-war post-truth narratives by utilizing a post-truth discourse himself. Since he takes an anti-war stance, he is not objective in his depictions and narratives. Due to this contradiction, the playwright’s criticism has a self-contradictory structure. Based on this argument, this article first analyses how the post-truth discourse of the military institution is revealed in the play, and then how the counter-arguments are similarly imposed by the playwright, and claims that the writer’s challenge with post-truth is problematic.