Skepticism about health/vaccination policies during Covid-19 was considered a key example of “science-related populism” mainly based on far-right case studies. However, criticism also spread among various left-wing and environmentalist milieus, which represents an understudied phenomenon. Relying on different strands of scientific literature, and on a qualitative research design aimed both to take account of the political heterogeneity within this critical area and to deepen its links with environmentalism, we aim to highlight the limits and normative implications of its interpretation as solely populism, and to contribute to the elaboration of a different interpretive model. Qualitative and frame-bridging analysis highlighted the consolidation of worldviews in clear opposition to hegemonic values, where the criticism of science finds a more appropriate explanation in a denunciation of the intrusiveness of capitalism in science production, as well as in a rejection of “reductionism” and a claim to self-determination that extend from ecological to health issues.
AlteriLParksLRRaffiniLVitaleT (2021) Covid-19 and the structural crisis of liberal democracies. Determinants and consequences of the governance of pandemic. Partecipazione e conflitto2021(14/1): 1–37.
2.
AttwellKSmithDT (2017) Parenting as politics: Social identity theory and vaccine hesitant communities. International Journal of Health Governance22(3): 183–198.
3.
AttwellKWardPRMeyerSBRokkasPJLeaskJ (2018) “Do-it-yourself”: Vaccine rejection and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Social Science & Medicine196: 106–114.
4.
BazzoliNLelloE (2022) The neo-populist surge in Italy between territorial and traditional cleavages. Rural Sociology87: 662–691.
5.
BelgraveLSeideK (2019) Coding for grounded theory. In: BryantACharmazK (eds) The Sage Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 167–185.
6.
BertuzziN (2021) Conspiracy theories and social movements studies: A research agenda. Sociology Compass15(12): e12945.
7.
BertuzziNImperatorePLelloERaffiniL (2024) Contentious science? Democracy, epistemologies and social movements facing the scientization of politics. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia65(4): 711–734.
8.
BickertonCJInvernizzi AccettiC (2021) Technopopulism: The New Logic of Democratic Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
BordignonF (2023) Alternative science, alternative experts, alternative politics. The roots of pseudoscientific beliefs in Western Europe. Journal of Contemporary European Studies31(4): 1469–1488.
10.
CharmazK (2015) Grounded theory. Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods3: 53–84.
11.
ChlupR (2023) Covid vaccination disputes in Czechia: Political myth-making and boundary work. Minerva61: 383–405.
12.
CloverJ (2019) Riot. Strike. Riot: The New Era of Uprisings. New York, NY: Verso Books.
13.
ColgroveJ (2005) “Science in a democracy”: The contested status of vaccination in the progressive era and the 1920s. Isis96(2): 167–191.
della PortaDPiazzaG (2007) Local contention, global framing: The protest campaigns against the TAV in Val di Susa and the bridge on the Messina Straits. Environmental Politics16(5): 864–882.
16.
DenzinNKLincolnYS (2011) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Washington, DC: Sage.
17.
DotsonT (2021) The Divide: How Fanatical Certitude Is Destroying Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
DunlapARiquitoM (2023) Social warfare for lithium extraction? Open-pit lithium mining, counterinsurgency tactics and enforcing green extractivism in northern Portugal. Energy Research & Social Science95: 102912.
19.
Eslen-ZiyaH (2020) Right-wing populism in New Turkey: Leading to all new grounds for troll science in gender theory. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies76(3): 9.
20.
Eslen-ZiyaHGiorgiA (2022) Populism and Science in Europe. New York, NY: Springer.
21.
FoucartSHorelSLaurensS (2020) Les gardiens de la raison: enquête sur la désinformation scientifique. Paris: La Découverte.
22.
GoboGSenaB (2022) Questioning and disputing vaccination policies. Scientists and experts in the Italian public debate. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society42(1–2): 25–38.
23.
GoldenbergMJ (2016) Public misunderstanding of science? Reframing the problem of vaccine hesitancy. Perspectives on Science24(5): 552–581.
24.
GoldenbergMJ (2021) Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
25.
GreenTFaziT (2023) The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor. London: Hurst.
26.
HarambamJAupersS (2015) Contesting epistemic authority: Conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science. Public Understanding of Science24(4): 466–480.
27.
HarsinJ (2018) Post-truth populism: The French anti-gender theory movement and cross-cultural similarities. Communication Culture & Critique11(1): 35–52.
28.
HickelJKallisG (2020) Is green growth possible?New Political Economy25(4): 469–486.
29.
JasanoffS (2021) Knowledge for a just climate. Climatic Change169(3–4): 36.
30.
KahanDM (2014) Vaccine risk perceptions and ad hoc risk communication: An empirical assessment. Yale Law and Economics Research Papers491: 1–82.
31.
KatzRSMairP (1995) Changing models of party organization and party democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics1(1): 5–28.
32.
KaulSAkbulutBDemariaFGerberJ-K (2022) Alternatives to sustainable development: What can we learn from the pluriverse in practice?Sustainability Science17(4): 1149–1158.
33.
KothariASallehAEscobarADemariaFAcostaA (2019) Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary. Chennai, India: Tulika Books.
34.
LaclauE (2005) On Populist Reason. New York, NY: Verso.
35.
LatourB (1979) The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Washington, DC: Sage.
36.
LelloE (2020) Populismo anti-scientifico o nodi irrisolti della biomedicina? Prospettive a confronto intorno al movimento free vax. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia61(3): 479–508.
37.
LelloEBertuzziNPedroniM, et al. (2022) Vaccine hesitancy and refusal during the Covid-19 pandemic in Italy: Individualistic claims or repoliticization?Partecipazione e conflitto15(3): 672–696.
38.
McIntyreL (2018) Post-Truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
MairP (2023) Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. New York, NY: Verso.
40.
MancosuMVassalloSVegettiF (2021) L’opinione pubblica italiana durante la pandemia. Aspettative e giudizi sulle istituzioni nel confronto con altri 5 paesi europei. Bologna: Fondazione di Ricerca, Istituto Carlo Cattaneo.
41.
MedeNGSchäferMS (2020) Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 473–491.
42.
MényYSurelY (2001) Democracies and the Populist Challenge. New York, NY: Springer.
43.
MerkleyE (2020) Anti-intellectualism, populism, and motivated resistance to expert consensus. Public Opinion Quarterly84(1): 24–48.
44.
MonticelliL (2022) The Future Is Now: An Introduction to Prefigurative Politics: The Future Is Now. Bristol: Policy Press.
45.
Moragues-FausAMarsdenT (2017) The political ecology of food: Carving “spaces of possibility” in a new research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies55: 275–288.
46.
MuddeCRovira KaltwasserC (2018) Studying populism in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies51(13): 1667–1693.
47.
NavinM (2016) Values and Vaccine Refusal: Hard Questions in Ethics, Epistemology, and Health Care. London: Routledge.
48.
OreskesNConwayEM (2011) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
49.
PikettyT (2013) Le capital au Xxie siècle. Paris: Média Diffusion.
50.
PilatiFMiconiA (2022) The “Green pass” controversy in the Italian Twittersphere: A digital methods mapping. Partecipazione e conflitto15(3): 549–566.
51.
PleyersG (2020) The pandemic is a battlefield. Social movements in the COVID-19 lockdown. Journal of Civil Society16(4): 295–312.
52.
RutjensBTZarzecznaNvan der LeeR (2022) Science rejection in Greece: Spirituality predicts vaccine scepticism and low faith in science in a Greek sample. Public Understanding of Science31(4): 428–436.
53.
SaltelliADankelDJDi FioreMHollandNPigeonM (2022) Science, the endless frontier of regulatory capture. Futures135: 102860.
54.
SaurettePGunsterS (2011) Ears wide shut: Epistemological populism, argutainment and Canadian conservative talk radio. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique44(1): 195–218.
55.
SchadeeHMASegattiPVezzoniC (2019) L’apocalisse della democrazia italiana: alle origini di due terremoti elettorali. Bologna: Il Mulino.
56.
SchattschneiderEE (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
57.
Shir-RazYElishaEMartinBRonelNGuetzkowJ (2022) Censorship and suppression of Covid-19 heterodoxy: Tactics and counter-tactics. Minerva1: 1–27.
58.
ShivaV (2022) Philanthrocapitalism and the Erosion of Democracy: A Global Citizens’ Report on the Corporate Control of Technology, Health, and Agriculture. Santa Fe, NM: Synergetic Press.
59.
SimisMJMaddenHCacciatoreMAYeoSK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science25(4): 400–414.
60.
SnowDAVliegenthartRKetelaarsP (2018) The framing perspective on social movements: Its conceptual roots and architecture. In: SnowDASouleSAKriesiHMcCammonHJ (eds) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 392–410.
61.
SoboE (2016) Theorizing (vaccine) refusal: Through the looking glass. Cultural Anthropology31(3): 342–350.
62.
SoboEDrazkiewiczE (2021) Rights, responsibilities and revelations: COVID-19 conspiracy theories and the state. In: MandersonLBurkeNJWahlbergA (eds) Viral Loads Anthropologies of Urgency in the Time of COVID-19. London: UCL Press, pp. 67–88.
63.
StoccoN (2022) The conspiracy theory/vaccine hesitancy nexus as rhetorical boundary work. A critical analysis of the production of scientific ignorance in literature reviews. Partecipazione e conflitto15(3): 779–799.
64.
StreeckW (2014) Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. New York, NY: Verso Books.
65.
TroianoGNardiA (2021) Vaccine hesitancy in the era of COVID-19. Public Health194: 245–251.
66.
Van ZoonenL (2012) I-Pistemology: Changing truth claims in popular and political culture. European Journal of Communication27(1): 56–67.
67.
WalkerET (2014) Grassroots for Hire: Public Affairs Consultants in American Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
68.
WodakR (2015) The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Political Discourses Mean. London; New York, NY: Sage.
69.
WoodMJDouglasKM (2018) Conspiracy theory psychology: Individual differences, worldviews, and states of mind. In: UscinsckiJE (ed.) Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 245–256.
70.
Ylä-AnttilaT (2018) Populist knowledge: “Post-truth” repertoires of contesting epistemic authorities. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology5(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.
