de

“Without credibility there can be no communication during a pandemic”

[Translate to Englisch:] Colourbox
© Colourbox

Infection figures at a record high, intensive care units in a state of emergency - not a good time for discord in society. We have talked with sociologist Prof. Dr. Joost van Loon about reaching skeptics, risk communication and questions of tolerance.

 

Mr. van Loon, among many other things, in your research you have looked into health communication. What is your professional opinion on the official communication in this pandemic?
It was surprisingly good in the beginning. The government made plain what it knew and what it didn’t. They articulated clearly that protecting the population was paramount. That set an example even for other countries. States in which this was not done - for various reasons - consequently had more problems. In the second wave of the pandemic, the focus was on the hope of a vaccination. However, the uncertainty about its impacts rather stayed on the sidelines. The lockdown also had serious social, economic and political consequences, so that increasingly other interests came into play in communication that went beyond pure health protection. This then in turn affected communication and decisions during and in preparation of the third wave. The scaling back of test offers, for example, created the impression that vaccination can offer people complete protection, even though there were findings from other countries, like Israel, that indicated otherwise. In general, many other interests have come up besides the protection of public health. Politics have weighed the initially propagated line that “health is paramount” against other interests, resulting in a communication that is no longer unambiguous. Then add reports like the one on the mask affair and the credibility of the administration is seriously undermined. But without credibility, risk communication is not possible.

Has this kind of communication that you have just described, contributed to the formation of two camps of supporters of the measures on the one side and opponents on the other side?
I think that it has consolidated it. After all, communication has had to painstakingly react to precisely these camps and to misinformation, and still has to react. On the one hand, there is actual uncertainty, which is in the nature of any research that is still under way. On the other hand, there also is incorrect information, which communication has to deal with. It is an incredibly difficult task to present your own uncertain position and the on-going research while at the same time fighting off misinformation. Nevertheless, I think that we should not have allowed this to hound us.

What do you see as the cause of the formation of these camps? Was it only triggered by the pandemic or did the coronavirus actually cause it?
In my opinion, the beginnings of this development date back to the 1970s. That is when the Welfare State dismantled and the promise was put about that the market would change everything for the better. But that has not happened. No better world for all has come about, only a better world for some. This not only had an impact on social and economic policy, but also on culture and the media. There are hardly any debates in the public any more. Instead, assertions are made. We have undergone a shift from the publicity of discussions to a publicity of assertions and opinions. The field of sociology terms this phenomenon “culture wars” - conflicts in which parts of society can no longer debate with each other. In times of the coronavirus pandemic, this leads to a situation in which there are no longer any debates, but only camps making their assertions. There are no more bridges. The same was to be observed in the refugee debates, during the financial crisis or in the climate change debate. People no longer listen, but are very vocal. This also makes it harder for science. After all, the value of scientific findings lies in the ultimate principle that they are not predetermined by particular interests. But take the example of vaccinations. Especially in the testing of vaccines the responsible bodies are greatly independent. Only - how do you bring this across to a public that is no longer receptive?

What is the public position on science at the moment?

You have to differentiate between the 75 to 80 percent in Germany that are at least from a pragmatic viewpoint accepting of the measures and believe that the vaccination works. On the other hand, that also means that a fourth of the population does not think likewise. That is not a small number! The biggest problem with this group is their lack of interest in science and its methods. They’re only looking for results that will support their attitude. Thus, a collection of assertions and facts emerges that constructs a separate reality. If you find yourself in there, it will be very hard to get out again, because everything is under suspicion. People like that, you can no longer reach by talking with them.

Loon
Prof. Dr. Joost van Loon holds the Chair of Chair of General Sociology and Sociological Theory at the KU.

The sociologist Ulrich Beck argues in his book “Risk Society” (original German title: Risikogesellschaft) that the focal point is never the risks, but rather how the media portray these risks. When he wrote the book, there were no social media. What is their role in comparison to classical media?
At the time that “Risk Society” was written, the commercialization of the media was gaining in importance. Since then, the logic of the quota has begun to also drive non-commercial media. Social media, in turn, are in a sense hyper-commercial media without any supervisory authority. Users are producers and consumers all at once. These platforms, in turn, earn a lot of money when misinformative contents cross-reference other such contents. In this way, social networks generate and export supposed risks that do no longer reflect reality.

What can be done to counter this development?
The majority of people at least thinks that there is no alternative to the current measures. However, this does not automatically mean that they have a great deal of trust in politics, whose credibility has declined. What is more important is that these people still show by their actions how much they care about finding a solution and that they want to participate. I think that should give us hope! Not everyone needs to be staunchly convinced, we simply need to strengthen people’s pragmatism. In addition, citizens should be much more involved in scientific processes to improve acceptance. It is also incomprehensible to me that politicians can still earn money with sideline activities in times of the pandemic. In my opinion, if you really take a political office seriously, you should refuse all side jobs, especially in times of crisis. Otherwise, your conduct will not only call into question the trustworthiness of your own position, but of politics itself. Moreover, the state must not only emphasize the importance of health, but must also pay the bills - through reforms in the health care system or in health insurance. Only then will solidarity be credible.

Sociology also looks at the interaction between individuals and society. What conditions should apply to the pandemic?
You have to differentiate between the concepts of community and society. A community has inclusive and exclusive aspects. A society, on the other hand, groups together strangers. Take road traffic as an example of a total society: On the road, we all meet as strangers and adjust our actions according to certain norms - regardless of the person. Racism, for instance, bears no meaning in traffic. It is immediately conspicuous if someone behaves antisocially. Any pandemic policy must be guided by the conditions of a society, not a community. In a sense, we must all regard ourselves as potential carriers of the infection. This principle still held true at the beginning of the first wave of the pandemic.

What is the role of tolerance during the pandemic?
For me, tolerance in this context is not a normative, not a moral aspect. Rather, for me, it goes hand in hand with questions of a just distribution of means. I, for example, as an academic that is well provided for don't need any assistance myself - unlike a single mother who works in retail, from whom much more tolerance is demanded.

How resilient are societies when it comes to dealing with such phases?
A society in itself is not resilient. It doesn’t take much to destroy our world. Take for example the war in the former Yugoslavia. In the shortest possible time, former neighbors were fighting each other. But our great ability is to adapt to new situations. In the end, there are usually enough people who don’t try to only push their own agenda. The outrage over politicians taking advantage during the pandemic is a sign. The people who keep the country running are simply doing their jobs. Volunteers, for example, simply do not have the time to spread myths. Social media therefore don’t represent reality, as only a loud minority uses its voice. We can by no means sit back and relax, but it's not hopeless either.

Back to overview
Legal notice Privacy Policy