Table of Contents
By Filippo Orlando
Often and willingly, on the left and not only on the left, we prefer to remove the events or an inexplicable and elusive phenomenon, which contradicts dogmas and certainties rooted in behaviors and beliefs, to remove the events and place them in an imaginary attic where they can be silently exorcised. But this attitude turns out to be negative, it erases some problems that must be analyzed, which must force an organization to investigate reality and adapt to it to better pursue its underlying strategic objectives. I believe that this is the clear case of the refusal of Covid vaccination in the years 2020 and 2021. The movement that decisively and spitefully opposed the need to overcome the disease with strong vaccination campaigns, the movement called No Vax, which was composite and supported by forces organized in various degrees and of opposite political orientation, in the opinion of the writer, is the result of a phenomenon that it would be foolish to demonize and classify as simple madness of the moment. Society has split between those in favor and those against vaccination, to the point of determining a lack of communication between the opposing fronts; an issue which in certain cases has split families, countries, political forces and caused divisions in the workplace, and has denoted a disconnect between the top levels of institutions and the feelings of vast sections of the population. The reasons of the anti-vaccination movement certainly had evident and justified reasons in the criticism of the lack of transparency with which the large pharmaceutical powers impose prices and treatments on the public authorities; I also feel like stating that there was little sensitivity on the part of governments towards a relaunch of the public health system, which would have allowed for a less invasive intervention with respect to general freedom of mobility. Theses have been put forward by the movement, often either far-fetched or poorly informed about medical techniques, a culture of conspiracy and of the supposed total domination over the lives of powers as pervasive as they are invincible has spread in multiple directions. On the part of the institutions and the major newspapers there was a response that demonized all criticism, they launched into a witch hunt, as demanding as it was poor in results, and they did not have the sensitivity to open a dialogue with the most dialoguing parts of the dissent, starting from the admission that a disagreement arose between the right to care and the violation of the right, also constitutionally sanctioned, to individual and collective mobility. However, this seems to me to be the point: what gave rise to an explosion of such strong feelings, contrary to the principle of collective sharing of responsibilities in a moment of social danger? I believe that the answer lies in a small essay, written a few years ago by Giorgio Agamben, an intellectual who was also not marginally involved in the dynamics of the movement mentioned above. The title of the book is ‘The mystery of evil, Benedict XVI and the end of times’, published by Laterza in 2013. In this small volume the entire historical and doctrinal significance of the gesture of Pope Benedict XVI who resigned with this so much fuss. Leaving aside the considerations on the Church that are contained in Agamben’s short but intense essay, what interests us is the philosopher’s examination of the crisis of authority that affects the Church and also secular institutions, i.e. the State and the institutions cultural and business. Over the course of four decades or so, there has been a noticeable disconnect between the upper social classes, their institutions, and the social base which no longer finds in them a guide, an answer to its problems, a tool for acting. in reality and raise one’s social condition. Power has lost authority, Agamben tells us, and therefore legitimacy. It is not a question of stigmatizing the corruption of power, it is not a problem of legality, as the Five Star Movement and many others before them have often thought; it is about the fact that vast masses do not believe that current power should exercise such force because it is not, in fact, legitimate. Agamben writes on page 18 of the essay: ‘… the problem of legitimacy, … is liquidated at the level of the rules that prohibit and punish, only to then have to note that the bipartition of the social body becomes more profound every day. From the perspective of today’s dominant liberalist ideology, the paradigm of the self-regulating market has replaced that of justice and it is pretended to be able to govern an increasingly ungovernable society according to exclusively technical criteria. Well, this seems to me to be the point; a society governed by a power that reduces politics to a mere technique for managing the market competition, which, instead, should contain within itself principles of social and moral justice, to be democratic in the modern sense, can only arouse rejection of power, perhaps of every institutional power. Furthermore, it appears that our society, in which a neoliberal and technocratic conception of political power has dominated since the nineties, has caused, at the level of vast social strata, an oscillation between the desire to fill this ‘technocratic void’ with the rediscovery of a religious absolute to which to entrust the spiritual foundation of a legitimate collective power, and the use of the individual ego of an atomized society without great points of reference, for which we are all wise and can contest everything. In this last meaning there is a pathological emergence of a horizontality of the principle of authority, which allows everyone to feel like doctors, architects, constitutionalists and legislators, without however feeling the need to delve deeper into the themes and accept a confrontation with opposing theses. Nowadays, with the delirium of the Web, everyone feels capable of issuing sentences but protected from any logical factual verification. Democratic discussion, moreover, is based on the need for the interlocutors to be masters of the logos to communicate with each other, and for the possibility, through the logos itself, of defining the truth to be clear. Without rational methods of discussion there cannot be democratic discussion and social recomposition within the confines of collective power. We are, therefore, faced with a manifestation of the social and cultural crisis that undermines the foundations of democratic living. The idea of social disintermediation, a concept that was very dear to a Florentine politician some time ago, causes the isolation of power restricted to a top, compared to an atomized society which however perceives every manifestation of authority as the expression of a domination without legitimacy, as we argued before with Agamben. The intermediate powers, understood as those social, party and association bodies, which were capable of absorbing contestation pressures and allowing participation in democratic life, educating democratic confrontation and discussion, are completely out of use. An increasingly distant summit prey to delusions of omnipotence, a restless social base pervaded by atomistic impulses and infantile individualism, and by the need to rediscover social bonds that it believes it can only find in the function of the ethnic and religious element. In the midst of the upper and lower strata of society, a void of mass democratic participation and discussion that leaves room for a crisis of legitimacy of democratic power that corrodes and weakens the institutions. This is social life today, as has been revealed by the strong controversies and irreconcilable conflicts that have come to the surface with the events of the Covid 19 pandemic. It turns out that it will not be the demonization of the various populisms that will be of any use, if anything one might ask whether the liberal and technocratic culture mentioned above has the tools to address these issues. And if it was a true sign of wisdom to believe that once the large mass organizations of parties and trade unions disappeared, democracy could be strengthened and new social forces liberated. The resulting picture is desolate and worrying, to say the least. We can only add that there is much to reflect on.
Philip Orlando
I like:
I like Loading…
How do cultural beliefs and values influence individual attitudes towards vaccination and the acceptance of scientific advice?
Title: Acknowledging the Anti-Vaccine Movement: Exploring its Roots and Implications for Society
Introduction Questions:
1. The article discusses the anti-vaccine movement in the context of Covid-19 and the need for dialog between different viewpoints. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to the polarization surrounding vaccination?
2. Can you talk about the importance of dialog and understanding across political and social divides, particularly in times of crisis like the Covid-19 pandemic?
Thematic Section 1: Understanding the Anti-Vaccine Movement
3. Can you elaborate on the arguments made by the anti-vaccination movement, including criticism of pharmaceutical pricing and lack of transparency in the vaccine development process?
4. What role do you think social media and misinformation have played in the spread of anti-vaccination sentiments?
Thematic Section 2: The Crisis of Authority and Democratic Institutions
5. The article suggests that the crisis of authority in both the Church and secular institutions has contributed to the challenges we are facing today. Can you explain how this crisis has led to the anti-vaccine movement and the erosion of trust in democratic institutions?
6. How can democratic institutions better address the concerns of social strata feeling disconnected and disenfranchised?
Thematic Section 3: Addressing the Covid-19 Pandemic and Future Crises
7. Given the challenges posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, what lessons can be learned from the anti-vaccine movement and the broader erosion of trust in democratic institutions?
8. As we navigate future crises, how can we ensure that democratic institutions are responsive and accountable to the needs of all citizens?
Concluding Questions:
9. Looking ahead, what do you see as the key steps for addressing the social and political divisions that have emerged during the pandemic and ensuring a more inclusive and democratic future?
10. what role do you believe the media and social media platforms have in promoting constructive dialog and bridging these divides?
