<Back to Blog>

13th January 2023:

I want to talk about the application of social science to activism and achieving radical social and environmental change. That is, very deep structural transformations in our attitudes and behaviours and which is reflected in the way our society is organised. I want to talk about the way that social science is used in movements like Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil because it disturbs me.

 

The first reason it disturbs me is that the rise of modern science has been inextricably linked to the rise of rapid-forced-industrialism, without which the destruction of the earth’s biosphere could not have happened. I charge science and all scientists as guilty on all counts of gross misconduct and negligence in its responsibility and duty of care to all living beings. The scientific mindset, you see, does not care that it is going to be used to exploit people and planet, in fact, all too often, the scientists themselves are working for those very same ends. They experiment on animals, on humans when they can, and on ecosystems, in fact, they generally treat life and living beings as objects to be used and abused at will, because science is more important than life, apparently. And scientists do not care who uses their research. The important thing to them is whether they get a Nobel prize, or a lucrative career, or lots of papers published. They do not have anything close to what can be considered a remotely decent ethics. Einstein did not care that his work would be used to build nuclear weapons. A human being with decent ethics would have, and would have abandoned any such project. But not the scientist, the scientist does not care about such things, because the scientists is, like the caricature, a half-mad tool of industrial exploitation, and not the saviour of the human race.

 

So is this kind of mindset the mindset that we need to apply when we come to solve the very ecological problems that science itself is responsible for? Feminists charge patriarchs with objectifying the female body, and thus paving the way for rape and all other sexual abuses. I charge scientists with objectifying the earth and living beings, and thus paving the way for ecological abuse and mass species extinction. Science and the scientific mindset is directly responsible for the global holocaust now taking place, yet groups like XR want to apply science to the social body, treating it as a lab rat, thinking that doing so is somehow going to win the day? Isn’t the idea rather to divest ourselves of the scientific mindset, just as we divest ourselves of fossil fuels?

 

Okay, we need to divest ourselves of the materialist mindset that science is encased in, we need to liberate science from the objectifying mindset of materialism, rather than reject science itself. But the point is, until that is done, science is toxic, and should be kept at bay, and not invited in to our social and environmental movements as though it is a welcome guest. Worse, as though it is the tool par excellence of liberation for humans and the earth. So before anyone talks about science, let them first do the inner work of removing completely the materialism that has for the last few centuries held sway over science. Sadly, I don’t see people doing that, instead, I see science being applied as is, as though the social body is yet another lab rat for the social scientist to experiment on, and as though that kind of mindset is going to deliver us all from the multiple existential crisis we face as a result of two centuries of scientific ‘advances’.

 

So that is the first problem with applying social science to the problem of social and environmental change. The second problem is that there is no precedent for what we are facing, and the scientific process is very much a ‘tried and tested’ kind of process, whereby something is observed repeatedly, notes are made, experiments designed, and conclusions drawn. We can’t do that kind of thing with the social and ecological problems, because there is no precedent. So applying social science is in many ways a deception, because there is no science to apply, there is only someone’s educated guesses based on previous scenarios that bear very little resemblance to what we have to face and solve today. So no, this is not science, but pseudo-science.

 

The other thing that disturbs me about science is the degree to which it is placed on a pedestal, despite the fact that every single environmental problem we are facing today is directly the result of science. Yet still, science and scientists are worshipped, and placed on a lofty pedestal. If you want to give a talk, get a scientist, as they are the experts. Forget the single mother, or the neighbour on benefits, or the immigrants down the road, or the homeless guy outside, get the scientists in, they’re the experts, they’re the ones who will solve our problems. All this, despite the fact that for centuries scientists have lived off the backs of the exploited classes, have empowered colonialism, developed all the guns and other engines of war that kill and exploit and dominate everyone, experimented on races they deemed primitive or backwards, and directly caused climate change. Science and scientists have legitimised all of this for centuries, and yet somehow we think that they are going to be the ones to deliver us from social and environmental problems, and not the neighbour, or the single mother, or the benefits class?

 

I don’t like the way the rest of the population are totally sidelined for this group of elitists who think they are the experts, and that they are the ones who will solve this problem, rather than the ones most responsible. A healthy movement is a movement that thoroughly dethrones science and scientists, and treats them as a toxic influence that needs to be regarded with great suspicion, like the mainstream media, rather than the salve that will fix all our ills.

 

And when did numbers and equations become the driving force of activism? Maybe I’m old school, but where do things like integrity, heart, courage, honour, solidarity, compassion, and so on, where do these figure in social science? Could it be that they don’t figure at all? Of course, they’re not quantifiable, they are not measurable, so they are outside the scope of science. In which case, science is almost useless when it comes to understanding how social and environmental change is going to occur, because it is going to occur when people adopt these kinds of character traits, and not by more people signing away their humanity to numbers and equations and ‘peer reviewed papers’. How about an activism that encourages real human growth, and the development of integrity and honour? Or do we think that movements consisting of people without these qualities are going to achieve anything meaningful?

 

Activism ultimately is a journey back to the authentic Self. It may start out with demands for a government to do this or that, but ultimately these are actions undertaken on a journey back to the authentic Self. Starting out, you might use science and facts and figures to bolster and inspire your activism, but at some point, if your activism is rooted in an authentic drive (and not e.g. attention seeking or a messiah complex), you will start to become aware that the journey is an inner one of transformation, and not an outer one of convincing others of the need to act. That inner journey is the real activism, because it is only when people complete that journey that we will see real structural and transformational change. All those magical unquantifiable factors that are outside the scope of science then come into play, and the field of action is seen in a very different light. Then the goal of activism becomes that of helping others along their journey, and not one of pandering to politicians or the media.

 

In indigenous and land based cultures there is the notion of the elder. That is, a person who has made that journey to their authentic Self and have biologically matured and embodied that journey, with all its wisdom and other rich qualities. In our culture we have politicians and CEOs and entrepeneurs, playboys and playgirls and gameshow host types who are nothing like elders at all. What we need are elders, not social science, or more materialist numbers and equations that objectify everyone and and legitimise that as though that is not the number 1 most toxic mindset out there. We desperately need elders, not activists who spend their time pandering to politicians and the media and desperately striving for attention. We need elders, people who have matured and who have embodied the values of the heart, which puts place and community first. People with wisdom, people who inspire responsibility, people who have overcome the materialism of the age. Movements applying pseudo-social science are not going to produce these kinds of people, and if our movements are not producing these kinds of people then what good are they actually doing in the world?

 

 

   

<Back to Blog