Experimenting with new forms of sociality in order to recover

Paper by Francesco Grillo and Claudia De Sessa expanding Francesco's column published on the Italian newspapersIl Messaggero e Il Gazzettino del Nord Est

Scan of paper edition

 "Fantasy without reason produces impossible monsters: with it, it’s the mother of the arts and source of wonders”.

This is how Francisco Goya explained his drawing, now housed in the Prado Museum, that became one of the most famous representations of what awaits us in a society plagued by irrationality. The “Sleep of Reason” reminds us that science and humanity have to meet, otherwise dreams become nightmares. This is the risk we’re facing, when we lay in between a past that isn’t there anymore and a future we hardly comprehend. In 2021, 3M has compiled its State of Science Index Survey, qualitative research that aims at gauging the perception of people towards science, from different countries. Concerning data has emerged.

In the US, 35% of people declare themselves to be in agreement with the statement “I am skeptical of science”. In Germany, that number amounts to 30%, 26% in France, 24% in the UK, 21% in China, 20% in Japan 20% and finally 16% in Italy. Another survey conducted in Italy by CENSIS also highlights how a significant portion of the population believes in control through 5G networks (19,9%), that the vaccine is an experimental drug tested on Italians (31,4%) and other folkloristic tales. The numbers also do not lower that much when taking into consideration the number of graduates that hold to similar beliefs (24,4%). This last fact is especially surprising.

One possible route that may be explored is, indeed, if there is a correlation between investments in Research & Development and the level of skepticism. Although one may hypothize that the higher the investments, the lower the skepticism, data paints another picture.

As shown in the graph below, China registers high investments in terms of R&D but with only Italy and Japan scoring lower in terms of skepticism. In this sense, R&D and skepticism seem to be inversely proportionate. Colombia, with low investments and high skepticism, seem to present a situation where low investments correspond to high skepticism. Germany and France present middle/high investment levels and middle/high skepticism level. The US is, then, a case that seems to disprove the correlation. Indeed, it scores the highest both in terms of skepticism and in investments. If we calculate the regression between these two datasets we will notice that r2 only amounts to 0,016, meaning that investments in R&D do not significantly explain the level of skepticism. 

What this suggests is that lowering trust in science may just be a symptom of a greater problem and not just a lack of investment: the number of people that feel at the mercy of uncontrollable events and decisions is rising and with it, the idea that reason may not be the instrument to tackle them is emerging. This is the widespread feeling that needs to be nipped in the bud and the quickest road is calling everyone to be part of a transformation project that the pandemic has made inevitable.

The same aforementioned Italian survey also highlights some issues that pre-empt the diffidence towards progress. Among youths and their parents, more than 80% believes it is hard to ripe the benefits of the time and money invested in study and work (even more disheartening if we think about how low Italy scores in terms of employment and number of graduates). This is also linked to a decline in pro-capite wealth, that saw Italy going from third position in 2010 to ninth, among the G7 countries. Moreover, Italians are feeling ever more disconnected from their elites, with 57% of citizens believing that there’s “a global elite that controls everything”.Surely, we can blame social media and lack of investments in education, but as we have seen, it is not the full picture.

Skepticism in science needs indeed to be seen as an alarm bell for deeper issues that are often dependent but not to be lumped together. In order to devise effective policies, indeed, we need to first understand what it is meant by science skepticism. One error that is indeed often done by politicians and policy makers alike is that of lumping together various forms of science mistrust. Not all are, indeed, the same and different kinds of skepticism are associated with different predictors and thus have different kinds of possible “antidotes”. Literature highlights among the most effective predictors: political ideology, religious beliefs and science literacy [1] . These predictors seem to apply, however, in different ways in different countries and about a range of issues. Political ideology in North America is, for example, often a predictor for climate change skepticism, but it is not for issues related to GMOs.

This complexity closes some doors for policy makers, but opens others. Indeed, if science skepticism is a phenomenon as global as it is specific to countries – thus begging for more national research – one overarching theme remains constant: we need to devise a new kind of policies, more holistic, more local and more bottom-up. In parallel, we need to devise evaluation instruments that capture this complexity.

The pandemic has given rise to new forms of social structuring.

More and more people have discovered the utility and pleasure of organizing self-managed networks of solidarity that, in case of emergencies, can also replace the State.

It’s a great energy that, if well structured, becomes what Michael Taylor called “social innovation”. A post-pandemic world needs new forms of social collaboration in order to recover and renew. Not only because public expenditure cannot rise indefinitely, chasing after ever more complex and specific needs; but also, because a society where citizens have no ownership over history ends up becoming a society without of strength.

It is fundamental for the Recovery plan to work, to empower citizens through the sponsoring of bottom-up projects. It’s important to identify those who work through simple and few indicators, those initiatives that end up repaying the initial investments and that can be replicated anywhere.

Among some of the novelties that appeared during the pandemic there’s the one where young people help seniors over 70 to learn digital skills. This then allows them to access healthcare services, but also gives them a window on the wealth of information contained on the internet. On the other hand, seniors advise youths who want to open their own start-ups and enterprises. If these projects work, they should be supported, as they answer uneasiness with willingness.

Devising policies on an economic rationale is alright.

But growth will not occur unless it will also be cultural, of cohesiveness and trust. Not only of GDP.

We will never grow is we cling to the misunderstanding that there’s someone – the State or the Market – that will do it in our place. If we do not start to conceive every policy as an instrument to change individual behaviors. Only like this reason and fantasy will be able to meet, like Goya hoped when he observed with fear how enlightenment ideas detaching from people’s needs were generating nothing but monsters.

[1] Rutjens, Bastiaan T., Nikhil Sengupta, Romy van der Lee, Guido M. van Koningsbruggen, Jason P. Martens, André Rabelo, e Robbie M. Sutton. «Science Skepticism Across 24 Countries». Social Psychological and Personality Science, 28 aprile 2021.