When Truth Is at Stake: The Case of Contemporary Legends

Carlos Renato Lopes

Federal University of So Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil
Introduction
Unsuspicious movieoers and pay p!one users are "ein stun "y #I$%tainted needles
strateically planted as a means of revene or out of s!eer cruelty& 'lu" scene !a"itu(s
are ettin doped at parties and )a*in up t!e ne+t mornin immersed in a "at!tu"
surrounded "y ice ,ust to find t!at t!eir *idneys !ave "een snatc!ed "y t!e international
traffic of "ody parts& Innocent fast food diners are "ein e+posed to t!e ris* of
contamination from all sorts of unt!in*a"le inredients deli"erately added to t!eir
!appy meals& Sc!ool *ids are terrified of oin to t!e sc!ool "at!room alone in case
t!ey "ump into t!e !ost of t!e "loody "at!room "londe (in Brazil, t!e loira do
banheiro): an e+%student )!ose unre-uited love for a teac!er led !er to suicide on t!e
sc!ool premises& .ll%too%fre-uent cell p!one users are suddenly fearin for t!eir "rains,
)!ic! mi!t "e e+posed to t!e ris* of lon%term damae, or even cancer& .re any of
t!ese stories commonly passed on mout!%mout! or via t!e internet true/ .re )e
,ustified in dreadin t!em/
. "unc! of myt!s, some mi!t say& .not!er series of contemporary leends, or more
popularly named, 0ur"an leends1
2
: t!ese unverified reports of un*no)n oriin, told in
multiple versions as !avin actually occurred in a social conte+t )!ose fears and
aspirations t!ey e+press sym"olically (3enard 4556)& . not so modern form of
myt!oloy )!ic! does little "ut recycle, in t!e form of narrative, t!e same old fears and
2 7!e terms 8ur"an9 and 8contemporary9 are "ot! commonly used in fol*lore "i"liorap!y& But t!ey "ot!
present pro"lems& 7!e former !as "ecome popular partly due to t!e .merican sc!olar :an #arold
Brunvand1s collections and encyclopedias pu"lis!ed since t!e early 2;<5s& Some aut!ors, !o)ever, re,ect
t!e term claimin t!at t!e stories are not restricted to an ur"an conte+t& In turn, 8contemporary9, t!e term
preferred "y aut!ors suc! as Bill Ellis and =illian Bennett and ratified "y t!e International Society for
Contemporary Legend Research > )!ic! )as created in t!e early 2;;5s (Fine 2;;4: 2) >, could lead to
t!e false impression t!at t!e stories are al)ays recent, )!en actually many of t!em are rooted in lon%
lastin traditions& Still, in favor of t!is latter term t!ere is t!e idea t!at any narrative is perceived as
contemporary in t!e time it circulates (Ellis 4552? +iii)& I use "ot! alternatives alon t!is article "ut I
privilee t!e latter, despite its limitations&
appre!ensions involvin contamination, violence, deat!@ But is t!at all t!ere is to it/
.re contemporary leends simply a matter of 8"elieve it if you )ill9/
In t!is article I )is! to arue t!at suc! accounts are te+ts ,ust as )ort! "rinin into t!e
lanuae class as t!e 8semi%fictional9, 8semi%factual9 narratives t!at !ave "ecome staple
didactic enres& Ay e+perience as a Brazilian teac!er of Enlis! as a forein lanuae
to Brazilian students > particularly t!ose )it! a reater familiarity )it! Internet pop
culture > s!o)s t!at t!ese narratives elicit a reat deal of controversy and de"ate&
#o)ever, t!ese tend to ta*e place in a rat!er uncritical manner, since t!e discussion
often ets polarized into a dispute of )!et!er t!e 8facts9 do or do not 8actually occur9&
Not "ein a"le to move "eyond t!is polarization, "ot! students and teac!ers )ould end
up dis-ualifyin t!e accounts, disreardin t!em as manipulative lies )it! not!in
a"out t!em 8)ort! learnin9, at "est somet!in to "e entertained "y&
It is my "elief t!at a 'ritical Biteracy perspective !as a lot to contri"ute to t!ese
discussions in t!e sense t!at it provides teac!ers and students )it! a practice t!rou!
)!ic! t!ey are a"le to -uestion t!eir o)n naturalized conceptions of culture and trut!& It
can !elp readers to t!in* t!rou! t!e po)er relations, discourses, and identities "ein
constructed and reinforced t!rou! t!ese te+ts (S!or 2;;;)& .nd it may eventually lead
to readin t!ose te+ts as em"edded in "roader meanin%ma*in practices in )!ic! t!e
fear of Ct!ers in our social relations can ta*e on many forms > of )!ic! contemporary
leends could "e one > )!ere"y received interpretations and stereotypes of alterity are
enacted& De mi!t t!en "e a"le to reconize t!at since te+ts are constructed
representations of reality and of identities, )e as critical readers 8!ave a reater
opportunity to ta*e a more po)erful position )it! respect to t!ese te+ts > to re,ect t!em
or construct t!em in )ays t!at are more consistent )it! EourF o)n e+periences in t!e
)orld9 ('ervetti et al& 4552? <)&
In order to s!ed a li!t on > and "ein to -uestion > t!e assumptions t!at underlie t!e
commonplace discussions on contemporary leends suc! as I !ave "een a"le to o"serve
in my o)n teac!in practice in Brazil, I dra) !ere upon some p!ilosop!ical and critical
t!eory enain t!e pro"lem of trut! t!at s!ould allo) us to understand )!y suc! a
de"ate is so pervasive& It is my !ypot!esis t!at "y critically loo*in into t!is 8movin
force9 of t!e de"ate )e may "e a"le to "etter understand !o) and )!y suc! stories in
contemporary culture *eep "ein reinvented, t!en spread and re%transmitted, over and
over, )!et!er or not t!ey are perceived as !avin actually ta*en place some)!ere
specific, at some point in time& Ay focus )ill "e, t!en, on t!is po)erful > if elusive >
t!in called trut!&
D!en one loo*s at contemporary leends, one cannot actually avoid t!e issue of trut!
t!at !overs over t!em& It may appear e+plicitly in t!e very proposition of t!e narrative,
in )!ic! t!e narrator claims s!e )ill tell somet!in t!at 8really !appened9 > not to
!erself, "ut typically, to someone *no)n to someone else s!e *no)s& It may also "e read
into t!e reactions of listeners or readers of suc! narratives in t!e form of incredulity,
dou"t or per!aps ,ust strai!tfor)ard "elief& .nd, to "e sure, it may "e detected in t!e
strule of commentators )!o aim at esta"lis!in t!e scientifically, tec!nically attested
falsity > or at least, implausi"ility > of suc! reports, no matter !o) plausi"le t!ese mi!t
seem&
I )ould ,oin Foucault (2;G2H2;;6; 2;G6H2;;;) in t!e claim t!at every discursive
practice !as t!e capacity to enerate effects of trut! )!ic! are more or less potent and
endurin& Suc! a possi"ility of t!e creation of trut! effects in and t!rou! discourse
occurs due to an inescapa"le element t!at affects t!e su",ects of discourse? t!e )ill to
trut!& It )ould seem t!at t!e -uestion of )!et!er contemporary leends are true or false
cannot "e ans)ered ade-uately > or at least not "eyond a mere factual investiation in
terms of 8t!is one actually too* place9 versus 8t!is one actually did not9 > unless )e
consider t!e fact t!at leends are transmitted )it!in socially and !istorically situated
discourse practices in )!ic! certain programs of truth are at sta*e&
Spea*in of prorams of trut! implies lettin o of a traditional conception of trut!
accordin to )!ic! a conscious, *no)in su",ect, free from po)er relations, can accede
to a trut! t!at is rational and universally validated& In t!e !istory of p!ilosop!y, one can
trace t!at "elief in its most rationalized form "ac* to Enli!tenment > )it! Iescartes at
t!e forefront& It is only in t!e late 2< century t!at t!is vie) "ean to "e seriously
-uestioned; and later )it! Nietzsc!e, and t!rou!out t!e 45
t!t!
century, it )as
systematically c!allened& . s!ort enealoy of t!is reviewed approach to trut! in
p!ilosop!y is )!at I set out to do in t!e follo)in sections& For t!at purpose, and to
"ac* my claim on t!e relevance of readin contemporary leends, I turn to t)o ma,or
currents of critical t!in*in > t!emselves discontinuous reimes of (p!ilosop!ical) trut!
> )!ic! s!are t!e aim of deconstructin t!e "elief t!at trut! is one, uni-ue and
transparent& Firstly, I e+amine Nietzsc!e1s and Foucault1s vie)s of trut! as 0)ill to
po)er1 (and !ence 0)ill to trut!1), and t!e pramatist conception of trut! as a lanuae
tool, proposed more recently "y 3orty& Secondly, I relate t!ese t)o currents to t!e
concept of programs of truth employed "y $eyne in connection to !is analysis of t!e
different approac!es to)ards myt!&
Nietzsche and Foucault: Truth as Will
Cne of t!e !allmar*s of Nietzsc!e1s p!ilosop!y is t!e idea t!at t!ere is no trut! as
transparent *no)lede of t!e )orld 8as it is9& #e )as opposed to t!e idea of a possi"le
appre!ension of reality "y means of lanuae, since t!ere is no sinle pre%e+istin (i&e
prior to lanuae) universe of 8t!ins to *no)9& In fact, t!e =erman p!ilosop!er
proposed t!at )e a"andon once and for all any attempt of 8*no)in t!e trut!9& For !im,
)e s!ould ive up on t!e idea t!at lanuae is capa"le of coverin and 8representin t!e
)!ole of reality9 > a reality t!at is supposedly determina"le and determinate and
)!ose trut! )e could 8unveil9 or 8reveal9&
#o) does *no)lede )or*, t!en/ Nietzsc!e says *no)lede is man1s invention, t!at is,
it is not somet!in )!ic! is a"solutely inscri"ed and in!erent in !uman nature ,ust
)aitin to "e revealed& .t its root, *no)lede is t!e fruit of a will to power )!ic!
8mines9 its o",ect and see*s to anni!ilate it in all its menacin potential& It is as if one
needed first to re,ect t!e o",ect only t!en to "rin it "ac* to one1s domain, already
tamed, already molded& 7!is implies t!at eac! and every form of *no)lede, includin
science and tec!noloy, "ecomes necessarily perspective, partial and o"li-ue&
7!us, if *no)lede, )!ic! is t!e outcome of a !istorical )ill, leads to )!at )e call
trut!, trut! is, accordin to t!is reasonin, not!in more t!an t!e result of continent
!uman relations to )!ic! )e see* to ascri"e universal status "y means of a will to trut!&
Nietzsc!e1s classical definition, proposed in t!e essay 8Cn 7rut! and Bie in an E+tra%
Aoral Sense9, perfectly synt!esizes t!is t!ou!t?
What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and
anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have
been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically,
and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a
people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what
they are metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power
coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no
longer as coins! (Nietzsc!e 2<GJH2;GG: K6%G)
For Nietzsc!e, t!en, trut! is interested *no)lede, t!e "rainc!ild of a )ill )!ic! creates
its o)n opposition "et)een true and false: its o)n effect of trut!& It appears in t!e
fas!ion of ar"itrary metap!ors, )!ic! are nonet!eless made to "ecome literal, ta*in on a
conventional and naturalized form t!rou!out !istory& 7!e oriinal intuitive metap!ors
are t!erefore ta*en for t!e t!ins t!emselves&
But man 8forets9 it& #e forets t!at !e !as created !is o)n trut!s, since !e !as "uilt
!imself and t!ins )it!in a paradim of rationality& #e "elieves t!at !e "uilds up from an
essence and t!at lanuae serves merely as a transparent conduit for t!at essence& #e
"elieves t!at !e can loo* into t!e real from t!e outside& .nd t!at is )!at allo)s !im to
t!in* of science and p!ilosop!y in terms of discovery of trut!s& .s .rro,o o"serves, t!e
perspective proposed "y Nietzsc!e points to t!e conclusion t!at 8man does not discover
0trut!s1 independently from !is )ill to po)er or !is survival instinctL !e rat!er produces
meanins and !ence *no)lede )!ic! is esta"lis!ed t!rou! t!e conventions t!at
discipline man in social roups9 (.rro,o 2;;4? MK, my translation)&
7!e production of solid and naturalized meanins, !o)ever, does not ta*e place on a
rational dimension onlyL it also occurs in man1s relation )it! myth and art& Aan allo)s
!imself to "e tric*ed "y t!e illusion of findin an ever%reinvented, particular form of
relatin to t!e )orld of dreams& .s lon as it does not cause !im any visi"le !arm, !e
)ill "e 8c!armed9 )!en !e listens to epic tales "ein told as true, )!en !e sees an actor
play a *in more really t!an t!e *in !imself and, )!y not say it > addin an e+ample
to t!e ones Nietzsc!e proposes >, )!en receivin and transmittin ur"an leends over
t!e Internet&
7!e Nietzsc!ean notion t!at trut! does not e+ist as a pre%e+istin a"solute fact of reality,
"ut t!at it may e+ist as an effect > even if necessarily illusory > points to t!e utilitarian
nature of trut!& Nietzsc!e claims t!at *no)lede, inasmuc! as it presents itself as a set of
trut!ful and relia"le "eliefs, may serve certain purposes, "ut not ot!ers, and t!at certain
t!ins can "e descri"ed as useful to certain *inds of people "ut not to ot!ers& 7!is only
reinforces t!e aut!or1s refusal of t!e idea of trut! as correspondence& 3at!er t!an
correspondin to a factual reality e+istin outside lanuae and independent of !uman
"eins, trut! as conceived "y Nietzsc!e is a cultural construction, a )ay of meetin
!uman desires, needs and uncertainties& .s suc!, it is a value&
If for Nietzsc!e every form of *no)lede > and, conse-uently, every form of trut! > is
necessarily a perspective, it "ecomes impossi"le to aspire to an a"solute and final
appre!ension of reality& .s Aos( summarizes? 8"y affirmin t!at trut! is a value,
Nietzsc!e )is!es to desacralize t!is evaluative principle, revealin its condition as a
!uman invention? trut! is an idea, a construct of t!ou!t, it !as a !istory9 (Aos( 455M?
J2)& It is, t!erefore, inescapa"ly partial&
Iirectly influenced "y Nietzsc!e, Foucault finds !ere t!e inspiration for one of !is most
fundamental t!emes: t!e relation of interdependence "et)een po)er and *no)lede&
.ccordin to Foucault (2;G2H2;;6? 2J%42), trut! is an important e+ternal e+clusionary
procedure in t!e order of discourse )!ic! operates "y means of t!e trueHfalse opposition&
D!en one loo*s into a discourse, at t!e level of t!e sentence or proposition, suc! an
opposition is neit!er ar"itrary nor violent& It does not vary, eit!er? t!e proposition is
al)ays true or al)ays false& But )!en it comes to identifyin )!at !as "een, !istorically,
t!e will to truth t!at pervades our discourses and )!at sort of separation rules t!em, t!en
trut! presents itself as a !istorical and institutionally sustained system of e+clusion&
Aa,or transformations )!ic! our societies !ave underone over t!e centuries, includin
scientific discoveries, can, to a certain e+tent, "e interpreted as "ein t!e result of al)ays
ne) )ills to trut! )!ic! )ere radually imposed on a num"er of institutional practices,
suc! as pedaoy, empirical researc!, or t!e e+ploitation of tec!noloical resources&
But somet!in peculiar occurs )it! discourses of trut!? "y presentin t!emselves as
freed from desire and po)er, t!ey simply cannot reconize t!e )ill to trut! t!at pervades
t!emL t!at is, in order to esta"lis! t!emselves as true, t!ese discourses cannot !elp "ut
!ide t!e fact t!at t!ey are products of t!e )ill to trut!& 7!us, )!at )e are allo)ed to see
is 8a trut! t!at is ric! and fertile, a s)eet and insidiously universal force9, and not t!e
8prodiious mac!inery desined to e+clude all t!ose )!o, time after time in our !istory,
!ave tried to evade t!at )ill to trut! and to -uestion it aainst trut!9 (Foucault
2;G2H2;;6? 45, my translation)&
7rut! is not produced as an autonomous error%free entity, !overin a"ove !uman errancy,
independent from t!e institutional mec!anisms of social action and control, or from
!uman desire& 7rut! is ine+trica"ly attac!ed to t!ose mec!anisms and, t!erefore, to
po)er& Foucault reminds us t!at in any society t!e multiple po)er relations )!ic!
c!aracterize t!e social "ody cannot "e esta"lis!ed or function outside a reime of trut!,
t!at is, )it!out "ein sustained "y discourses of trut!& In t!e aut!or1s )ords?
"here is no e#erting of power without a certain economy of discourses of
truth which function in, from, and through that power! We are sub$ected by
power to the production of truth, and we can only e#ert power by
producing truth! %!!!& After all, we are $udged, condemned, classified,
obliged to duties, destined to a certain way of living or to a certain way of
dying as a result of discourses of truth that carry with them specific power
effects, truth effects! (Foucault 2;G6H2;;;? 4<%;, my translation)
Foucault concludes t!at t!e )ill to trut!, oriinated from t!e !istorically constructed
division "et)een ri!t and )ron, or true and false, is not!in more t!an t!e
e+clusionary )ill to po)er& 87rue9 discourse is no more t!an a necessary illusion on t!e
"asis of )!ic! social su",ects strule for po)er& .nd it is important to understand t!at
t!is strule ta*es place from inside t!e very discursive practice? )e cannot reac! 8t!e9
trut!, for )e are al)ays%already assined a circumscri"ed su",ect position t!e moment
)e enter discourse, t!e moment )e are assined a social position in our communities&
7!e aut!or proposes t!at in order to analyze t!e )ill to po)er (and *no)lede) in
discourse )e must radually "uild and define our analytical tools > in a practice !e calls
8enealoical9& 7!is is done in *eepin )it! demands and possi"ilities desined "y
concrete, conte+tualized studies (Foucault 2;;G)& Brinin our o",ect of study into t!is
perspective, I "elieve )e ou!t to "etter investiate and understand !o) t!e discursive
practices around contemporary leends point to t!e issue of t!e trut!fulness versus
false!ood of t!e stories as "ein t!e *ey to t!ose leends > as if t!e narratives depended
e+clusively on scientific%o",ective verdicts in order for 8validation9& Suc! an
investiation )ould imply t!e analysis of t!e discursive practices )!ic! produce t!ese
narratives in t!eir local 'nowledge dimension&
Cn Internet discussion lists dedicated to t!e transmission and discussion of
contemporary leends
4
, a reat num"er of posts refer specifically to t!e issue of trut!
inHofHaround t!e leends& Iifferent interlocutors often strule, "y means of
arumentation and supposedly leitimate scientific references, to de"un* t!e rumors or
8proto%leends9 and re%esta"lis! t!e factual order as soon as t!ese narratives !it t!eir e%
mail "o+es& It is as if to prove t!e stories false )ere t!e very raison d()tre of suc!
narrative practices? t!e 8movin force of t!e de"ate9& Indeed, one must carefully
e+amine !o) t!ose narratives "uild on t!e tension "et)een t!e local, discontinuous (in
Foucault1s terms) and unverified *no)lede, on t!e one !and, and t!e !ierarc!ical force
of true 'nowledge on t!e ot!er > true *no)lede )!ic!, once availa"le to all "y means
of t!e rational%loical apparatus of science, is ta*en as somet!in 8revealed9 or
8e+plained9 "y t!e discourse of t!ose 8select fe)9 )!o possess it&
Cne must not lose trac*, !o)ever, of Foucault1s reminder t!at t!ere does not e+ist a
simple division "et)een accepted and e+cluded discourses, or "et)een dominant and
dominated discourses& 7!ere is no discourse of po)er on t!e one !and, and discourse
aainst po)er on t!e ot!er& 3at!er, in a iven discursive practice, )e often o"serve a co%
relation of forces, a multiplicity of different po)erH*no)lede strateies t!at co%e+ist&
.nd it is t!is distri"ution of forces )!ic! is to "e detected in t!e analysis? t!e play
"et)een t!e t!ins t!at are said and t!ose t!at are unsaid or "anned from discourse; t!e
varia"les and distinct effects depend on )!o spea*s, )!en, from )!ic!
su",ectiveHpo)er position, and )it!in )!ic! institutional conte+t&
orty and the !ragmatist "pproach to Truth
For pramatists *no)lede is a tool, an instrument t!at must "e put to t!e service of t!e
conditions of e+perience& Cne of t!e "asic principles of pramatism > s!ared "y its
ma,or representatives, from Dilliam :ames to 3ic!ard 3orty, )it! :o!n Ie)ey and
4 I am considerin !ere, in particular, t!e discussion forum !osted "y t!e site )))&snopes&com, )!ic!
provided most of t!e corpus of my doctoral t!esis on contemporary leends (unpu"lis!ed)&
Ionald Iavidson in "et)een > is anti-representationalism? t!e idea t!at t!ere is not a
)orld 8out t!ere9, a reality independent from t!ou!t )!ic! mi!t "e represented "y
lanuae in a relation of correspondence or correctness& .n idea )!ic! )as already
present in Nietzsc!e&
7!e same !olds for t!e notion of trut!, )!ic!, already )it! t!e first pramatists, appears
as dissociated from t!e idea of t!e representation of 0t!ins in reality1& 7!e focus !ere is
on e#perience, t!e )ay people relate to reality& .ccordin to t!is line of t!ou!t, trut!
cannot "e mere correspondence to reality, "ut rat!er t!e continent product of relations
t!at !umans esta"lis! )it! eac! ot!er t!rou! usae or, in Dittensteinian terms,
8lanuae ames9& In ot!er )ords, 8"ein true9 is not a property )!ic! is e+ternal to
lanuae, a predicate of t!ins in t!e )orld 8out t!ere9, "ut rat!er a fundamentally
linuistic device, a predicate of p!rases, sentences or propositions, produced "y
mem"ers of social communities t!rou! t!eir interactions and inter%relations&
3ic!ard 3orty, arua"ly t!e most outstandin name in current pramatist p!ilosop!y,
formulates t!e -uestions in t!e follo)in terms?
To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where
there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are
elements of human languages, and that human languages are
human creations. Truth cannot be out there cannot exist
independently of the human mind because sentences cannot
so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but
descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the
world can be true or false. The world on its own unaided by
the describing activities of human beings cannot. (Rorty 1989:
5)
7!is reflection leads 3orty to )onder )!et!er trut! even deserves p!ilosop!ical in-uiry
as a relevant and un-uestiona"le concept in itself& #e -uestions t!e utility for !uman
society of insistin on formulatin a t!eory of trut!, a consistent "ody of t!ou!t t!at
mi!t account for a concept )!ic!, after all, pervades all t!e transcendental%
metap!ysical%epistemoloical pro"lematic, from Plato to #eideer, and )!ic!
continues to confound and o"scure p!ilosop!ers& Instead, 3orty claims, p!ilosop!ical
t!ou!t s!ould set out to describe t!e conditions in )!ic! 8t!e true9 presents itself in
linuistic "e!aviors, t!at is, in continent practices )!ere people do things with
language&
D!at 3orty values t!e most in t!e pramatist tradition is !is precursors1 vocation >
not)it!standin t!eir differences and diverences > to s!ift t!e focus a)ay from
-uestions li*e 8D!at in t!e )orld is true9 to -uestions li*e 8#o) is t!e )ord 0true1
used/9 (3orty 2;;2? 2J4) or, simply, to consider t!e issue of trut! in lanuae in
performative terms, !i!li!tin t!e necessarily pu"lic and !ence social nature of lanuae&
In a sort of radical minimalism, )!at 3orty claims t!at 8everyt!in t!at can "e said
a"out N is )!at N is9, t!ere not "ein to N an occult or 8intrinsic9 side )!ic! eludes
t!e relational appre!ension of N t!rou! lanuae& For 3orty, trut! cannot "e
discovered, for t!at )ould "e admittin t!at trut! depends on 8)!at t!e )orld is li*e9
in t!e sense of causal relations rat!er t!an descriptive acts&

Broadenin t!is vie) to)ards a more specifically political formulation, 3orty arues
t!at, in an ideally li"eral and democratic society, t!e notion of trut! as correspondence
to reality s!ould "e replaced "y an idea of trut! as )!at one comes to "elieve over free
and open encounters& For t!e .merican p!ilosop!er, trut! appears as a !istorical
continency, and not as a converence or a rational and universally valid (even if
uncoerced) communicative consensus, suc! as defended "y t!e li*es of #a"ermas (#oy
2;;K)& But does t!at mean one s!ould ta*e 3orty1s vie) as reducin trut! to a mere
pact, a fraile and capricious areement "et)een 8lanuae players9/
7!e Polis! socioloist Oymunt Bauman could "e called on into t!is de"ate& #e alins
!imself )it! t!e pramatist vie) )!ere"y trut!, rat!er t!an sym"olizin t!e relation
"et)een )!at is said and a determined non%ver"al reality, 8stands in our usae for a
certain attitude )e ta*e, "ut a"ove all )is! or e+pect ot!ers to ta*e, to )!at is said or
"elieved9 (Bauman 2;;G? 224)& Still, accordin to Bauman, t!ere is no sense in
spea*in of trut! if not in a situation of dissent& 7rut! only comes up as an issue )!en
different people !old on to different "eliefs, ma*in it t!e o",ect of dispute on 8)!o is
ri!t and )!o is )ron9& 7rut! comes up )!en one claims t!e ri!t to spea' with
authority, or )!en it "ecomes particularly important for an adversary to prove t!at the
other side of t!e dispute is )ron& 7!e strule for trut! represents, t!en, t!e strule
for esta"lis!in certain "eliefs as systematically superior, under t!e e+cuse t!at t!ey
!ave "een reac!ed at t!rou! a relia"le procedure, or one t!at is 8vouc!ed for "y t!e
*ind of people )!o may "e trusted to follo) it9 (Bauman op& cit&? 22J)&
7!e )ay I read !im, 3orty )ould put t!is issue in ot!er, may"e less 8ideoloical9,
terms& By e+plainin t!e relation "et)een trut! and ,ustification > related to t!e
cautionary use of trut! discussed a"ove > t!e p!ilosop!er claims t!at t!e need to ,ustify
our "eliefs and desires to ot!ers and to ourselves su",ects us to certain norms, t!e
o"edience to )!ic! 8produces a "e!avioral pattern )!ic! )e must detect in ot!ers
"efore )e can confidently attri"ute "eliefs to t!em9 (3orty 2;;<? 46)&
In ot!er )ords, )e enter t!e lanuae ame of t!e communities to )!ic! )e "elon
)it! certain "eliefs, and )e *no) t!at t!ose )e play )it! possess, on t!eir side, t!eir
o)n "eliefs& But )e must attest to t!e e+istence of t!ose "eliefs performatively, from
)it!in t!e linuistic e+c!anes, and not ta*e t!em as ivens& D!at 3orty does not
"elieve, per!aps unli*e Bauman, is t!at t!e rules of t!e linuistic ame necessarily
imply o"eyin 8an additional norm > t!e commandment to see* a EfinalF trut!9 (3orty
op& cit&? op& cit&)&
eading Legends# eading $yths: The Lessons Theory Teaches %s
Brinin our contemporary leends "ac* into focus, )e could "ut only "ein, in a
tentative e+ercise of critical readin, to reassess t!e issue of trut! as it manifests itself
in t!e practice of transmittin and commentin on t!ese narratives& 3at!er t!an ta*in
to t!e facile opposition "et)een trut!fulness versus false!ood, )!ic! )ould imply a
vie) of trut! as correspondence to a self%sustainin order of reality (i&e& t!e 8facts9, t!e
trut! 8out t!ere9), )e )ould do "etter "y usin t!e lessons our p!ilosop!ers !ave
offered > and applyin t!em in our lanuae classes > in an attempt to reassess our
common sense interpretations and vie) t!e discursive practice )it! different, critical,
eyes&
De could certainly retain Foucault1s criti-ue of trut!, particularly as it is formulated in
t!e follo)in passae "y Barry .llen, one of !is commentators? 8EfFor trut!%value (and
associated values li*e reference, translation, relevance, implication, identity, and
o",ectivity) to 0"e determinate1 in any case depends on t!e effectiveness of !istorically
continent practices of evaluation, and on not!in else9 (.llen 2;;M? 225%2)& 7!is
amounts to claimin t!at t!e difference "et)een true and false cannot "e esta"lis!ed "y
e+ternal, conte+t%free parameters& It does not e+ist apart from a (continent) local
practice, in )!ic! t!ese values are produced and evaluated, and statements circulate as
true, presentin t!emselves in t!e form of facts, ne)s, 8leends9 (legenda, i&e& 8)!at is
to "e read9)& .llen continues? 8Cnly !ere !ave statements currency, t!e capacity to
circulate, to penetrate practical reasonin, to "e ta*en seriously, to pass for t!e trut!&
7!ese practical conditions situate trut! amid all t!e ma,or asymmetries of social po)er,
underminin its status as a common ood9 (.llen op& cit&? K)& 7rut! t!en is not common
ood& 3at!er, it is a space for potential dissent, in )!ic! po)er relations )ill "attle t!eir
)ay to)ards eit!er de"un*in or reaffirmin t!e different sta*es in t!e ame&
'ontemporary leends, more particularly t!e 8practical conditions9 in )!ic! t!ey are
produced and perpetuated, function as t!e stae )!ere a num"er of partial 8trut!s9 ain
t!eir currency& In ot!er )ords, t!ey are t!e space )!ere different reimes, or programs
of trut!, are enacted& Believin or not in certain narratives > in t!is or t!at version of a
specific contemporary leend > implies more t!an a sinle%minded pursuit of factual
trut!& It more li*ely involves a permanent s!ift "et)een modes of "elief > a s!ift t!at is
not unli*e t!e one Paul $eyne (2;<J) identifies in t!e comple+ relation t!e =ree*s !eld
)it! t!eir myt!s&
Belonin to a 8time lon one9, in all its )onders, its narratives of ods and men >
and fantastic creatures t!at one does not come across )al*in on t!e streets, at least not
in t!e 8present9 >, myt! offered itself to t!e =ree*s as an interally trut!ful 8reality9,
one t!at transmitted collective memories )!ic! could not !ave "een simply invented
lies& .s $eyne points out, "elievin in t!at "ody of narrative as a plausi"le one means
8still "ein )it!in t!e true9, "ut in analoical terms& Ayt! is in!erited information& It is
an accepted tradition& .nd it is respected& Cnce t!e story is over, )e can s!ift to anot!er
mode of trut! > t!at of 8real life9 > and t!en "ac* and fort!, in an analoical operation&
Cne may criticize myt! from )it!in a !istorian1s proram of trut! > re,ectin t!e
c!ronoloical inco!erence and t!e impro"a"le cause%and%effect propositions > "ut one
may also "e compelled to read alleorical trut!s into it& 87o t!e rationalist
condemnation of t!e imainary as false, t!e apoloetic of t!e imainary replies t!at it
conforms to a !idden reason& For it is not possi"le to lie9 ($eyne 2;<J? 64)& By
claimin t!at trut! and interest > )!ic! I e-uate )it! (ever%partial) interpretation > are
insepara"le concepts, $eyne ec!oes Foucault& Bot! )ould aree t!at in t!e process of
attemptin to fi+ t!e meanins of a discourse practice in a reimeHproram of trut!,
contingency (as situatedness) "ecomes a necessity t!at *eeps ,ustifyin itself& .nd, as
)e !ave seen )it! 3orty, ,ustifyin is one more lanuae ame one plays )it! trut!&
In t!at sense, could contemporary leends "e some sort of modern%day myt!/ I )ould
arue t!at ,ust as it is impossi"le to lie a"out myt!, it may "e impossi"le to lie a"out
ur"an leends& 7!e force t!at a leend may ac-uire in a certain interpretive community
tends to "e reater t!an t!e evidence t!at contests its veracity& D!et!er or not t!e
narrative is trust)ort!y does not affect t!e impact t!at t!e force of its messae may
cause& .s D!atley and #en*en point out?
*"+he evidence countering the veracity of a legend rarely carries the
weight that the legend does! %!!!& "he impact a legend has on those telling
or hearing it may have little to do with whether the story is believed! %,&
What may be more important is the -truth( that fol'lore conveys about the
attitudes, fears, and beliefs of a group, which in turn shape and maintain
the identity of that group! (D!atley and #en*en 4552? K%M)
7!us, our students may not "elieve, for e+ample, t!at someone could !ave really planted
an #I$%infected needle on t!eir t!eater seats, "ut t!is )ill not necessarily stop t!em
from dou"le%c!ec*in "efore sittin& E-ually, t!ey may not "elieve t!at t!e lon%lastin
use of t!eir cell p!ones may pose any ris* of e+plosion, "ut still t!ey )ill turn off t!eir
devices )!en pullin into a service station& 7!at is, t!e most relevant aspect of t!is *ind
of narrative may not "e its 8o",ectively attested9 implausi"ility, "ut rat!er t!e 8trut!9 it
reveals a"out t!e "eliefs and values of t!e communities in )!ic! it circulates&
Finally, )e could stic* )it! a lesson t!at $eyne indirectly teac!es a"out t!e myt!s of
8our present time9, and t!at some!o) paves t!e )ay to)ard a more critical
understandin of our o",ect in point& D!at !e says a"out myt! serves ,ust as )ell for
contemporary leends? in order to enae )it! t!ose narratives )e )ould do )ell to
sort t!rou! t!e !eteroeneous prorams of trut! t!at constitute our imaination >
prorams t!at 8tell9 us )!at )e, in our communities, are or are not allo)ed to "elieve
at different moments in !istoryL prorams t!at intersect or even contradict eac! ot!er in
our everyday, ever%s!iftin continent practices of "ein 8in t!e true9& .nd so, 8at eac!
moment, not!in e+ists or acts outside t!ese Espace%defininF palaces of t!e
imaination&&& 7!ey are t!e only space availa"le9 ($eyne 2;<J? 242)&
This &lusi'e Thing Called Truth
.ents and advocates of 'ritical Biteracy )ill !ave identified in all t!ese discussions
one of t!e tenets of t!eir o)n "elief system, t!us summarized "y 'ervetti et al& (4552?
25)? 83eality cannot "e *no)n definitely, and cannot "e captured "y lanuae;
decisions a"out trut!, t!erefore, cannot "e "ased on a t!eory of correspondence )it!
reality, "ut must instead "e made locally9& Bocally in t!e different interpretive
communities )e claim mem"ers!ip to; locally in our classrooms, as )e and our
students learn to ret!in* t!e often deeply inrained assumptions )e !old on to as trut!,
and on )!at can or cannot "e true a"out t!e stories )e are told&
In vie) of our t!eoretical roundin t!e searc! for t!e trut! ofHin contemporary leends
leads us alon t!e routes of t)o intersectin trac*s& 7!e first one s!o)s t!at )e cannot
possi"ly learn all t!e 8facts9 > and !ence 8all t!e trut!9 > narrated in t!ese stories& 7!at
is, )e cannot *no) )it! a"solute certainty )!at is a tec!nically, scientifically attested
(or even plausi"le) fact and )!at is merely a persistent rumor or piece of
misinformation > and I t!in* !ere particularly of t!e a"undant narratives surroundin
t!e 8mysterious9 po)ers of not so ne) tec!noloies, or t!e ris*s of yet uncontrolla"le
diseases& De simply err; )e clin to our most 8essential9 and 8mundane9 trut!s: t!at )e
are all e+posed to too%close%to%!ome ris*s, and t!at someday )e )ill all die& 7!e second
trac* teac!es us t!at, al"eit incomplete, controversial or merely plausi"le, facts only
ma*e sense insofar as t!ey "elon to an 8itinerary of trut!9& 7!ey are mediated "y a
reime of discursive practices t!at see narrative as a privileed form of manifestation >
narratives of a particular type, dispersed and muta"le, suc! as contemporary leends,
"ut also other narratives of a particular type, t!ose claimed "y t!e leitimized
institutions of po)erH*no)lede t!at o "y t!e name of science, politics, education, t!e
media, etc& Ultimately, narratives of t!is sort are t!e stuff t!at ma*es up t!e fa"ric of our
everyday enaements )it! reality&
So as to ma*e t!e most out of t!ese reflections in a critical stance to)ards contemporary
leends, )e could per!aps dra) t!e map of t!ose t)o trac*s in t!e form of a dialectic
s)ay: one "y )!ic! t!e )ill to trut! in leends simultaneously constitutes on t!e one
!and, a form of social reulation of, and on t!e ot!er !and, a fictional reinvention of, t!e
fears and an+ieties of daily life, t!rou! narrative& Positionin ourselves as teac!ers and
learners )!o can perceive and critically enae )it! t!is dialectic )ill !ave "een t!e
result of a critical practice: a continual, ever%transitory > "ut not a "it elusive > e+ercise
in critical literacy& .n e+ercise )!ic! I "elieve, from my e+perience, could ta*e place
t!e moment t!e aents involved in t!e lanuae classroom practice venture "eyond t!e
predicta"le, consensus%aspirin discussion on t!e false!ood of leends and "ein to
t!in* possi"ly different trut!s&
&F&&NC&S:
.BBEN, Barry (2;;M) "ruth in .hilosophy& 'am"ride and Bondon: #arvard
University Press&
.33C:C, 3osemary (2;;4) 8. desconstruPo do sino e a iluso da trama9, in:
.33C:C, 3osemary (or&) / 0igno 1esconstru2do& 'ampinas: Pontes&
B.UA.N, Oymunt (2;;G) .ostmodernity and 3ts 1iscontents& 'am"ride and
C+ford? Polity Press&
'E3$E77I, =inaL P.3I.BES, Aic!ael :&L I.AI'C, :ames S& (4552) 8. 7ale of
Iifferences: 'omparin t!e 7raditions, Perspectives, and Educational =oals of
'ritical 3eadin and 'ritical Biteracy9, in: Reading /nline, 4(;)&
!ttp?HH)))&readinonline&orHarticlesHartQinde+&asp/#3EFRHarticlesHcervettiH
EBBIS, Bill (4552) Aliens, 5hosts, and Rituals 6 Legends We Live& :ac*son? University
Press of Aississsippi&
FINE, =ary .lan (2;;4) 7anufacturing "ales 6 0e# and 7oney in Contemporary
Legends& Sno+ville: 7!e University of 7ennessee Press&

FCU'.UB7, Aic!el (2;G2H2;;6) A /rdem do 1iscurso& So Paulo: Boyola&
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ (2;G6H2;;;) 8m 1efesa da 0ociedade& So Paulo: Aartins Fontes&
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ (2;;G) Resumo dos Cursos do Coll9ge de :rance %;<=>-;<?@&&
3io de :aneiro: :ore Oa!ar Editor&
#CT, Iavid 'ouzens (2;;K) 87!e 'ontinency of Universality: 'ritical 7!eory as
=enealoical #ermeneutics9, in: #CT, Iavid 'ouzens and Ac'.37#T,
7!omas& Critical "heory& C+ford and 'am"ride: Blac*)ell&
ACSU, $iviane (455M) AietBsche e a 5rande .ol2tica da Linguagem& 3io de :aneiro:
'ivilizaPo Brasileira&
NIE7OS'#E, Friedric! (2<GJH2;GG) 8Cn 7rut! and Bie in an E+tra%Aoral Sense9, in:
"he .ortable AietBsche& Bondon: Penuin Boo*s&
3EN.3I, :&%B& Rumeurs et LCgendes Drbaines& Paris: PUF, Je (dition, 4556&
3C37T, 3ic!ard (2;<;) Contingency, 3rony, and 0olidarity& 'am"ride: 'am"ride
University Press&
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ (2;;2) /b$ectivity, Relativism, and "ruth& 'am"ride: 'am"ride
University Press&
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ(2;;<) "ruth and .rogress& 'am"ride: 'am"ride University
Press&
S#C3, Ira (2;;;) 8D!at is 'ritical Biteracy/9, in: Eournal for .edagogy, .luralism F
.ractice, issue K, vol& 2, !ttp?HH)))&lesley&eduH,ournalsH,pppHKHs!or&!tml&
$ETNE, Paul (2;<J) 1id the 5ree's Gelieve in "heir 7yths? 6 An 8ssay on the
Constitutive 3magination, translated "y Paula Dissin& '!icao and Bondon:
7!e University of '!icao Press&
D#.7BET, Aariamne #& and #ENSEN, Elissa 3& (4555) 1id you Hear About the
5irl Who!!!? 6 Contemporary Legends, :ol'lore, and Human 0e#uality& Ne)
Tor* V Bondon: Ne) Tor* University Press&