www.abertay.ac.u k
Contesting Scientific Authority in the Age of COVID: Conspiracy Theories and Symbolic Power David Hollick, Division of Business, Law and Social Sciences, Abertay University Email: d.hollick0000@abertay.ac.uk Introduction
Theory Scientific Authority
• Science does not speak with one voice; it is a contested space, a field of struggle between orthodox and heterodox positions. The central struggle within the field is that over scientific authority (SA), defined by Bourdieu as: “the socially recognised capacity to speak and act legitimately … in scientific matters” (1975:19).
A common refrain heard from politicians throughout the pandemic has been to 'Follow the Science!'. While few would argue with the sentiment, in practice it is less straightforward. Science provides the analytical and technical means of fighting the virus, and should form the evidentiary basis of the decision making process. However, the idea of ‘The Science’ is more problematic. Science does not function in a manner conducive to the level of certainty required for such a slogan. Its invocation by political actors places science and scientific authority in the political firing line. In the ensuing struggles over “the monopoly of legitimate scientific opinion" (Bourdieu, 2004:7273), ‘the science’ is often cast in opposition to ‘misinformation’ and ‘conspiracy theory’. However, these terms as nebulous as the one to which they are opposed. How are we to make sense of claims of scientific authority in such circumstances?
Aims
• Questions regarding the autonomy of scientific agents (e.g., Pfizer’s economic interest in mass vaccination) often fall within the domain of ‘conspiracy theory’. • Such theories are broadly viewed as the product of cognitive and epistemic impairment (Popper, 1966, Hofstadter, 1964). They are considered both unscientific and anti-science.
• It is predicated upon the possession/display of technical competence, and on the recognition of that competence by those able to judge. • It is recognised as a form of symbolic capital primarily within the scientific field, however it may be converted for use outside of the field. For example, it may be appropriated by political actors as a means of legitimating political action (i.e., as an instrument of symbolic power) • This power shapes the mental dispositions of its subjects (habitus), inducing a way of seeing the world that renders its ideological function invisible. • In order for SA to work in this manner it must be recognised as legitimate by its subject to it (in this instance, the public) • Concerns regarding the publics capacity to recognise 'legitimate' scientific authority (i.e., tell the difference between a political claim and a scientific one) have been prominent throughout the pandemic.
Scientific Autonomy
This study will utilize the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002), bringing his concepts of habitus, field, capital, and symbolic power to bear on the analysis on the following questions:
Conspiracy Theories
• Rather than treating them in this manner, this study will consider how the term itself operates as part of “a routinized strategy of exclusion” (Husting and Orr, 2007:127) that disqualifies claims (and claimants) that contradict the orthodox conception of ‘the science’. • The label carries with it a "negative symbolic capital" (Bourdieu, 2000:242) that serves to diminish the scientific, political, and social capitals of those so labelled, along with the symbolic efficacy of their pronouncements.
Objectives • Carry out a discursive analysis of ‘mainstream’ UK press outlets •
Discern the role played by ‘conspiracy theory’ in (1) discursive strategies governing the allocation and distribution of scientific and political capitals, as they pertain to issues concerning vaccine safety/efficacy and virus origin, and in (2) normative journalistic metanarratives.
•
What are the ‘vocabularies of justification’ used by both proponents and critics of such theories?
•
What is the relationship between conspiracy theory and critical social theory?
• The question of legitimate authority is bound up with questions regarding the autonomy of science from political and economic interests. • The appropriation of SA by political and economic agents brings this autonomy into question.
• How is scientific authority constructed and contested in public discourse? • What role do the labels ‘conspiracy theory/conspiracy theorist’ play in this process? • What are the consequences for open and constructive scientific and political discourse?
• As SA becomes an object/instrument of political struggle, mechanisms of scientific knowledge production become subject to political interests. (e.g., as in concerns over the virus’ origin)
References: • Problematisation of SA brought about by these concerns is considered a hindrance to efforts at tackling the virus (e.g., as in concerns regarding the promotion of ‘vaccine hesitancy’)
Bourdieu, P., (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), pp.19-47 Bourdieu, P., (2000). Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, P., (2004). Science of Scientific and Reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity Press Hofstadter, R., (1967). The paranoid style in American politics. New York: Vintage Books. Hustings, G. & Orr, M. (2007). Dangerous Machinery: “Conspiracy Theorist” as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion. Symbolic Interaction, 30(2), p.127-150 Popper, K., (1966). The open society and its enemies. Vol. 2. London: Routledge.
Abertay University is an operating name of the University of Abertay Dundee, a charity registered in Scotland, No: SC016040.