Applause and the Hidden Truth

In 1942, as Winston Churchill delivered one of his most stirring wartime speeches to the House of Commons, the chamber erupted in thunderous applause. His words—laden with defiance and hope—were broadcast across the empire, bolstering morale and reinforcing the myth of British resilience. Yet only a few miles away from Westminster, in the poorer districts of East London, families were still digging through the rubble of their bombed-out homes, searching for the bodies of loved ones. The government had delayed publicising the true scale of civilian casualties from the Blitz. The grandeur of Churchill’s oratory, while historic, obscured the anguish on the ground. It wasn’t that his words weren’t sincere—they were—but the applause in Parliament rang louder than the silent grief outside it.

This moment captures the essence of a truth buried beneath applause: that even the noblest rhetoric can coexist with human suffering, and that sometimes, applause is not a reflection of total reality, but a curated fragment of it.

In the grand theatre of society, praise often arrives like a thunderous ovation—loud, dazzling, and contagious. Yet behind the curtain, in the shadows of this spectacle, there frequently lies a quieter truth, one that trembles with sadness or stark contradiction. Philosophy teaches us that appearances are seldom the whole story; Plato’s cave reminds us that what dazzles the eyes may only be shadows of a deeper, unspoken reality. In politics, the leader hailed as a visionary may, in truth, be steering the ship toward dangerous waters, all while basking in applause orchestrated by loyal spin doctors and curated media narratives. Socially, communities may celebrate achievements that, beneath the surface, are built on the silent suffering of the marginalised or the overlooked. Culturally, what is venerated might be a hollow echo of former greatness, propped up by nostalgia rather than lived relevance.

In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956, Doubleday Anchor Books), Erving Goffman argues that social life is fundamentally theatrical. Individuals—and institutions—perform roles in daily interactions much like actors on a stage. What the audience sees is the “front stage,” a carefully curated space where behaviours, expressions, and symbols are managed to produce a desired impression. Here, people wear metaphorical masks, adjusting their speech, appearance, and gestures to fit the expectations of the situation, whether it be a classroom, courtroom, corporate office, or press conference.

However, behind the scenes lies the “back stage,” a more private realm where individuals or groups can drop the act. This is where frustrations are vented, mistakes admitted, personas removed, and contradictions exposed. Goffman suggests that while the front stage is about maintaining face and social order, the back stage reveals the hidden labour, conflicts, and hypocrisies required to keep that performance running smoothly. For example, a politician may present themselves as calm and decisive in front of cameras, but in the back stage of party meetings, they might express doubt, anger, or panic. Institutions, too, curate a pristine image in public while internally grappling with inefficiencies, internal politics, or ethical compromises.

Goffman delves into the nuanced techniques that individuals use to control how others perceive them during social interactions. He explains that since people are constantly performing, they must also constantly manage the impressions they give off. This involves not only projecting a particular image but also tactfully concealing anything that might contradict it.

Goffman discusses how performers—be they individuals or institutions—rely on various “defensive” and “protective” techniques to uphold their front-stage persona. Defensive practices help the performer avoid embarrassment: for example, rehearsing what to say, managing expressions, or preparing props like clothes or documents. Protective practices, on the other hand, involve the audience being complicit—like politely ignoring a social misstep or pretending not to notice a contradiction in the performance.

What Goffman lays bare is that impression management is an ongoing negotiation, a kind of subtle choreography between the performer and the audience. Both sides have a role to play in sustaining the illusion. He illustrates that failures of impression—like wardrobe malfunctions, slips of the tongue, or awkward silences—can threaten the integrity of the performance, and therefore must be swiftly repaired or hidden. Goffman essentially shows that social life is held together not by truth, but by a shared willingness to maintain appearances.

Goffman’s insight is that much of social interaction is not about truth but about managing appearances. What we often take as genuine may, in fact, be a performance designed to sustain legitimacy, protect ego, or manipulate perception.

In his short yet piercingly insightful essay On Bullshit (2005, Princeton University Press), philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt dissects the phenomenon of statements that sound persuasive, even profound, but are in fact entirely devoid of commitment to truth. Frankfurt draws a critical distinction between a liar and a bullshitter. A liar, he argues, at least acknowledges the truth by deliberately attempting to conceal it. The bullshitter, on the other hand, is more dangerous because he is entirely indifferent to whether what he says is true or false. His only concern is whether the statement serves his purpose—whether it persuades, impresses, or performs.

According to Frankfurt, bullshit arises when people speak without regard for the reality of their words. It's not that they are trying to deceive in the traditional sense, but that they simply do not care about truth at all. Their aim is not to mislead someone from the truth, but to construct a narrative that suits their goals, regardless of factual accuracy. This makes bullshit insidious—it is slippery, immune to correction, and thrives in environments where image and impression outweigh substance and integrity.

Frankfurt explains that in a society saturated with performance—where individuals are rewarded more for sounding right than being right—bullshit becomes the dominant currency of communication. Whether in politics, corporate branding, or social media self-promotion, people are often more interested in sounding confident or impressive than in being truthful. The danger, Frankfurt warns, is that when bullshit prevails, the very notion of truth begins to erode. Once truth becomes irrelevant, discourse becomes theatre, and accountability evaporates.

This paradox—of applause concealing agony—is not merely poetic, but a recurring feature of human civilisation. From ancient empires to modern democracies, public praise often masks private suffering. Behind every triumphant image lies a history of compromise, suppression, or exploitation that rarely makes it into the headlines or history books.

We cheer the hero, often uncritically, accepting the narrative crafted for us. But rarely do we pause to ask: whose voices were muted so that this figure could shine? In every grand ascent, there are stories of the discarded—those who were inconvenient to the myth and thus erased from the stage.

History is replete with statues and memorials that proclaim glory, but never mention the bloodied hands that lifted the stones. The grandeur of the monument speaks only to triumph, never to toil. We see the finished product, never the suffering etched into its foundation.

In modern times, the same script continues. We celebrate innovation without reflecting on the burnout it causes. We praise billionaires while ignoring the overworked employees who made their fortunes possible. We broadcast images of prosperity while airbrushing poverty from the frame.

Social media, our digital amphitheatre, thrives on applause. It rewards image over depth, appearance over authenticity. The more curated the life, the louder the claps. Yet behind every polished post, there may be anxiety, loneliness, or quiet despair—realities unfit for the stage.

Politics, too, is drenched in performance. Leaders craft personas that radiate strength, empathy, or intelligence. But behind the press conferences and photo ops lie strategy rooms filled with fear, doubt, and ruthless calculation. The public face is merely a mask, rehearsed and worn for survival.

Even in personal lives, this paradox endures. The friend who always seems cheerful may be crumbling inside. The couple who receives endless praise for their “perfect” relationship might be harbouring unspoken resentments. We rarely look beyond the surface unless something cracks.

Progress itself, that sacred word of modernity, is often built on exclusion. Who benefits from the new? And who is left behind, unmentioned, without access or opportunity? For every city that rises with sleek towers, there are communities that are displaced, disoriented, and disregarded.

In institutions, we see this duality again. A university may boast its diversity figures, while students of colour quietly battle microaggressions and systemic bias. A corporation may parade its social responsibility, while ignoring the environmental damage it exports abroad.

Even art, often hailed as the purest form of human expression, is entangled in this contradiction. The celebrated artist may have exploited collaborators. The revered novelist may have drawn from cultures without acknowledgment. The gallery may display beauty while gatekeeping access.

What Goffman called the “front stage” is ever expanding. It grows into every part of life—our work, relationships, and identities. And as the performance intensifies, so does the labour to maintain it. What remains hidden grows heavier, more corrosive with time.

We have created societies that reward the well-played role, not the truth. The spotlight is blinding, and few dare to step outside of it. The applause becomes addictive. To be seen is to exist. And so the show goes on, even when the soul behind the performance is breaking.

But perhaps the greatest tragedy is not the performance itself, but our complicity in sustaining it. We prefer the illusion. We are more comfortable with the curated. We scroll past pain and pause for perfection. Our gaze helps build the mask.

And yet, within every standing ovation, there is a shadow. A quiet absence. A truth omitted. A cost unspoken. The stage may glitter, but the backstage is littered with fragments—of what was lost to maintain the illusion.

To recognise this paradox is not to reject admiration, but to complicate it. To look deeper. To honour what’s hidden. To remember that the loudest applause often echoes over the softest suffering.

Ultimately, both Goffman’s theatre of impression and Frankfurt’s anatomy of bullshit point to a society increasingly structured around image rather than essence. The value of truth is diminished when performance becomes the norm, and authenticity is replaced by narrative control. What matters is not whether something is true, but whether it appears compelling, inspiring, or strategically useful. In such a climate, the line between sincerity and manipulation becomes dangerously thin.

This does not mean that all performance is malicious or that every persuasive statement is inherently deceptive. But it reminds us that in an age saturated with applause, likes, and curated personas, we must be vigilant. Critical thinking is not a luxury—it is a necessity. To question the polished image, to listen for the silences behind the slogans, and to care about truth even when it’s inconvenient—these are now radical acts of intellectual resistance.

In the end, resisting the lure of bullshit and performance culture is about reclaiming our relationship with truth. It is about choosing to value substance over spectacle, depth over surface, and integrity over applause. In a world where illusion dominates, simply telling the truth—even quietly—is a revolutionary gesture.

In a world increasingly dominated by appearances, the art of saying something without saying anything has become a defining feature of public discourse. The applause that follows a powerful speech, the viral post that garners admiration, or the grand statement that feels profound—all can be saturated with bullshit if they prioritise impression over integrity. As Frankfurt cautions, the real threat lies not in deliberate deception, but in the growing indifference to whether words connect to truth at all.

This culture of performance fosters an environment where sincerity is seen as naïve and manipulation as savvy. Public figures polish their personas, institutions craft their narratives, and even ordinary individuals participate in daily acts of impression management. The boundary between honesty and illusion becomes blurred, and over time, we lose our capacity to care whether a statement is genuine—as long as it’s convincing. The danger is that when bullshit becomes the norm, truth becomes not just inconvenient, but obsolete.

To resist this erosion of meaning, we must relearn how to value truth not for its immediate appeal, but for its long-term substance. It means asking difficult questions, tolerating uncomfortable answers, and accepting that truth may not always be popular—but it is necessary. In a world drowning in performance, choosing honesty becomes a radical act. And perhaps, the quietest truth is worth more than the loudest applause.

[Bahasa]