‘We will multiply the fires of resistance’: The catalysts of dissent against institutional science and their interplay with refused knowledge communities

Abstract

Drawing on a 12-month virtual ethnography on the main online spaces of three refused knowledge communities (RKCs) in Italy, this study aims at contributing to the debate on emerging forms of science-related populism from a two-fold perspective. First, we identify and describe the main features and the role played by an understudied figure who we label the ‘catalyst of dissent’ – a public influencer who does not belong to the scientific community and contributes to the spread of science-related populist narratives within a grassroots ecosystem of resistance to institutional science. Second, our research highlights how RKCs – communities proposing visions of science and medicine denied acceptance or even consideration by institutional science – can appropriate some key resources produced by the catalysts. The analysis focuses on the interplay between the catalysts and three main RKCs during the pandemic crisis in Italy: The No-5G, the Free-Vax, and the 5 Biological Laws communities.

Keywords

Catalysts of dissent refused knowledge communities science-related populism No-5G free-vax 5 biological laws pandemic

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AIRC (2018a) Il cosiddetto metodo Hamer è una cura per il cancro? [Is the so-called Hamer method a cure for cancer?] Available at: https://www.airc.it/cancro/informazioni-tumori/corretta-informazione/nuova-medicina-germanica-metodo-hamer (accessed 13 June 2022).

AIRC (2018b) È Vero che i campi elettromagnetici aumentano la probabilità che insorga il cancro? [Is it true that electromagnetic fields increase the likelihood of cancer occurrence?] Available at: https://www.airc.it/cancro/informazioni-tumori/corretta-informazione/vero-campi-elettromagnetici-aumentano-la-probabilita-insorgenza-del-cancro (accessed 13 June 2022).

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. London: SAGE.

Chas

(2006) Critical Readings: Moral Panics and the Media. London: McGraw-Hill Education.

Cohen

(1973) Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Boulder, CO: Paladin.

Collins

Evans

Durant

Weinel

(2020) Experts and the Will of the People: Society, Populism and Science. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

D’Amato

(2017) Dossier Hamer. Milan: Mondadori.

Fairhead

Leach

(2012) Vaccine Anxieties: Global Science, Child Health and Society. London: Routledge.

Falcioni

Bua

Tibaldi

Lauriola

De Angelis

Gnudi

, et al. (2018) Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environmental Research 165: 496–503.

10.

Galland

(2020) Le populisme sanitaire contre la science [Health populism against science]. Telos, 14 April. Available at: https://www.telos-eu.com/fr/societe/le-populisme-sanitaire-contre-la-science.html (accessed 13 June 2022).

11.

Gerbaudo

(2012) Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism. London: Pluto Press.

12.

Hine

(2004) Virtual ethnography revisited (Paper summary prepared for session on Online Research Methods). In: Research methods festival, Oxford, 1 July.

13.

ICNIRP (2018) Note on recent animal carcinogenesis studies. Available at: https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPnote2018.pdf (accessed 13 June 2022).

14.

Marcus

(1995) Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.

15.

Mede

Schäfer

(2020) Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science 29(5): 473–491.

16.

Moffitt

(2016) The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

17.

Pellegatta

(2020) Italian MP amplifies debunked COVID-19 conspiracy theories on the floor of Parliament. Medium, 16 May. Available at: https://medium.com/dfrlab/italian-mp-amplifies-debunked-covid-19-conspiracy-theories-on-the-floor-of-parliament-fa0a88999142 (accessed 13 June 2022).

18.

Polichetti

(2019) Emissioni elettromagnetiche del 5g e rischi per la salute [5g electromagnetic emissions and health risks]. ISS. Available at: https://www.iss.it/documents/20126/2265547/5G_e_rischi_per_la_salute.pdf/d50f25e6-25e4-48c8-b8c3-7da28cc57827?t=1575725274470 (accessed 13 June 2022).

19.

Prasad

(2021) Anti-science misinformation and conspiracies: COVID–19, post-truth, and Science & Technology Studies (STS). Science, Technology and Society 27(1): 88–112.

20.

R2020 (2020) Facciamo rete. R2020 30 Giugno e 1 Luglio Roma [Let’s network. R2020 June 30 and July 1 Rome]. Available at: https://r2020.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/DOCUMENTOCOLLETTIVOR2020-1.pdf (accessed 13 June 2022).

21.

Rieder

(2015) YouTube Data Tools (Version 1.23) [Software]. Available at: https://tools.digitalmethods.net/netvizz/youtube/ (accessed 13 June 2022).

22.

Saltelli

Funtowicz

(2017) What is science’s crisis really about? Futures 91: 5–11.

23.

Sarewitz

(2015) CRISPR: Science can’t solve it. Nature 522: 413–414.

24.

Saurette

Gunster

(2011) Ears wide shut: Epistemological populism, argutainment and Canadian conservative talk radio. Canadian Journal of Political Science 44(1): 195–218.

25.

Saveski

Kooti

Morelli

Diuk

Bartlett

Adamic

(2021) Social catalysts: Characterizing people who spark conversations among others. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5: 292.

26.

Silverstone

Hirsch

(eds) (1992) Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces. London: Routledge.

27.

Smallman

(2016) Public understanding of science in turbulent times III: Deficit to dialogue, champions to critics. Public Understanding of Science 25(2): 186–197.

28.

Tosoni

(2021) Misinformation, social media and the pandemic crisis: Challenging the return to a powerful media effects paradigm. Tecnoscienza 12(2): 174–192.

29.

Van Zoonen

(2012) I-Pistemology: Changing truth claims in popular and political culture. European Journal of Communication 27(1): 56–67.

30.

WHO (2020) Radiation: 5G mobile networks and health, 27 February. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/radiation-5g-mobile-networks-and-health (accessed 13 June 2022).

31.

Ylä-Anttila

(2018) Populist knowledge: ‘Post-truth’ repertoires of contesting epistemic authorities. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 5(4): 356–388.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.29 MB