Scientific reason versus populism in times of coronavirus
Julio Solís Moreira[1]
In critical situations, nuances and positive aspects emerge. Humanity, when faced with extreme circumstances, has found countless ways to overcome them. This time will be no different, and this window of opportunity may lead us to a time of great possibilities and new answers for rethinking the nature of human issues, relationships, subjectivities, the State and government, the market, and the role of technology.
For many years now, the noise of conservative waves and populist agendas has prevailed over reason; these have been times of little opportunity for social development, for sustaining spending on health and education, and for social welfare in general.
Behind these reactionary agendas, seemingly "hidden and discredited," were many useful knowledge and historical achievements of humanity, diminished in importance by some discourses of power that have ravaged the world, leading us towards rampant inequality, exclusion, and the violation of the rights of the majority.
Thus, in recent weeks, the positive power of science and its role in the modern world have once again taken center stage. The scientific community has dedicated itself, anonymously, generously, and enthusiastically, to understanding and providing answers to a pandemic that is emerging as a potential turning point.
In this context, Manuel Castells has rightly pointed out:
“Now we realize the importance of science and technology in protecting us as a species from the disasters we ourselves have created.”
The world is waiting expectantly for news that may emerge for its own good, its self-preservation, and psychological certainty; and for this purpose, there has been no shortage of information, articles, open databases from the World Health Organization (WHO), data in Tableau, the use of Geographic Information Systems, large real-time databases, information barometers, real-time updated graphs, maps of evolution over time, all forms of representation of the world seeking to order chaos and complexity through methods such as Big Data, Artificial Intelligence (AI), cybernetics, and Data Science, whose purpose is oriented towards action and our own survival.
Similarly, scientific communities, in their various forms, have been searching for explanations, investigating cures, and finding reasons. In practice, we see daily the global sacrifice of exhausted medical personnel exposed to the disease. Intellectual debate and critique have also been fostered from diverse perspectives: Agamben, Mike Davis, Byung-Chul Han, Chomsky, Žižek, Castells, Yuval Noah Harari, Badiou. All these authors are rethinking, projecting, and imagining, for better or for worse, a post-Coronavirus world.
This renewal of reason has occurred under a regime of necessity (illness) and has encountered a very current obstacle, namely, the emergence of populisms, based on the lowest passions: the commitment to simple solutions, opinions, religious fanaticisms, denialisms, radical solutions (from the left and the right), apologies for inequality, nationalisms, among many other characteristics.
In this context of crisis, populist rhetoric emerges, simplifying the event and its consequences, in the form of an obscurantist policy confronted and challenged by a complex issue such as COVID-19. It is observed how some political elites and their visible figures in various governments—the United States, Brazil, England, Nicaragua, Mexico—have called into question the seriousness of the events.
Such a situation—characterized by oversimplification, denial, lack of knowledge, and bureaucratic inertia—could, in the worst-case scenario, hinder the ability to strategically address the crisis and its subsequent impact on the lives of populations and healthcare systems. The outcome of this scenario remains to be seen in the coming weeks.
Populist rhetoric, confronted with facts and data, has forced a change of heart and action in many countries. There is a growing awareness of the exceptional situation, based on a calculation of political risk, followed by economic and social risk, and the subsequent obligation to heed expert (scientific) advice for the protection of those at risk.
Finally, this situation showed that, in moments when the lives of the majority and of the elites themselves are in danger, the great interests "nobly" surrender to the State, science, and reason.
[1] Sociologist and researcher. Member of the CLACSO Working Group on Violence, Security Policies and Resistance. Center for Research in Culture and Development (CICDE), Costa Rica.
If you would like to receive more information about CLACSO's training programs:
[widget id=”custom_html-57″]
to our email lists.
