Marsh for example, claims that the notion of ‘truth’ does not apply to interpretations and chides Bevir and Rhodes for suggesting so (2011: 36). But this shows only that Marsh implicitly adheres to a naïve realist correspondence theory of truth, in which each representation has an exact correspondence somewhere out there in the world (Allen, 1993: 9-10; Wagenaar, 2011: 59). (This is yet another example of the sway that empiricism holds over social scientists of all stripes.) . . . [A]fter Nietzsche ‘Truth’ has become ‘truth’: multifaceted, theoretically loaded, and embedded in historically situated language games and ordinary practice.