社会技术想象的盲点:巴西、英国和美国的COVID-19怀疑主义

IF 1.7 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Renan Gonçalves Leonel Da Silva, Larry Au
{"title":"社会技术想象的盲点:巴西、英国和美国的COVID-19怀疑主义","authors":"Renan Gonçalves Leonel Da Silva, Larry Au","doi":"10.1177/09717218221125217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, experts and policymakers mobilised various slogans to compel the public to help defeat COVID-19. By comparing Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States, this study shows how dominant sociotechnical imaginaries tied to the slogans were mobilised. We argue that the blind spots of these dominant sociotechnical imaginaries contributed to subversive sociotechnical imaginaries and made room for COVID-19 scepticism. In Brazil, calls to ‘take care of yourself’ contributed to a sceptical stance that individualised responsibility. In the United Kingdom, calls to ‘protect the NHS’ contributed to sceptical accusations of whataboutism and the neglect of other vital social institutions during the lockdown. In the United States, calls to ‘flatten the curve’ contributed to scepticism that challenged public health interventions through discourses of individual choice and freedom. By paying attention to the blind spots of dominant sociotechnical imaginaries, we argue that experts and policymakers should be sensitive to how public health messaging may have feedback effects that detract from the initial aims of interventions.","PeriodicalId":45432,"journal":{"name":"Science Technology and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Blind Spots of Sociotechnical Imaginaries: COVID-19 Scepticism in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States\",\"authors\":\"Renan Gonçalves Leonel Da Silva, Larry Au\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09717218221125217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"During the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, experts and policymakers mobilised various slogans to compel the public to help defeat COVID-19. By comparing Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States, this study shows how dominant sociotechnical imaginaries tied to the slogans were mobilised. We argue that the blind spots of these dominant sociotechnical imaginaries contributed to subversive sociotechnical imaginaries and made room for COVID-19 scepticism. In Brazil, calls to ‘take care of yourself’ contributed to a sceptical stance that individualised responsibility. In the United Kingdom, calls to ‘protect the NHS’ contributed to sceptical accusations of whataboutism and the neglect of other vital social institutions during the lockdown. In the United States, calls to ‘flatten the curve’ contributed to scepticism that challenged public health interventions through discourses of individual choice and freedom. By paying attention to the blind spots of dominant sociotechnical imaginaries, we argue that experts and policymakers should be sensitive to how public health messaging may have feedback effects that detract from the initial aims of interventions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Technology and Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Technology and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221125217\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Technology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221125217","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在2020年冠状病毒大流行的第一波期间,专家和政策制定者动员了各种口号,迫使公众帮助战胜COVID-19。通过比较巴西、英国和美国,这项研究显示了与口号相关的主流社会技术想象是如何被动员起来的。我们认为,这些占主导地位的社会技术想象的盲点助长了颠覆性的社会技术想象,并为COVID-19怀疑主义提供了空间。在巴西,“照顾好自己”的呼吁助长了对个人责任的怀疑态度。在英国,“保护国民健康保险制度”的呼声引发了怀疑主义的指责,称封锁期间存在“什么都不关心”和忽视其他重要社会机构的行为。在美国,“使曲线变平”的呼吁助长了怀疑主义,通过个人选择和自由的话语挑战公共卫生干预。通过关注主流社会技术想象的盲点,我们认为专家和政策制定者应该对公共卫生信息可能产生的反馈效应保持敏感,这些反馈效应会损害干预措施的初始目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Blind Spots of Sociotechnical Imaginaries: COVID-19 Scepticism in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States
During the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, experts and policymakers mobilised various slogans to compel the public to help defeat COVID-19. By comparing Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States, this study shows how dominant sociotechnical imaginaries tied to the slogans were mobilised. We argue that the blind spots of these dominant sociotechnical imaginaries contributed to subversive sociotechnical imaginaries and made room for COVID-19 scepticism. In Brazil, calls to ‘take care of yourself’ contributed to a sceptical stance that individualised responsibility. In the United Kingdom, calls to ‘protect the NHS’ contributed to sceptical accusations of whataboutism and the neglect of other vital social institutions during the lockdown. In the United States, calls to ‘flatten the curve’ contributed to scepticism that challenged public health interventions through discourses of individual choice and freedom. By paying attention to the blind spots of dominant sociotechnical imaginaries, we argue that experts and policymakers should be sensitive to how public health messaging may have feedback effects that detract from the initial aims of interventions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.80%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Science, Technology and Society is an international journal devoted to the study of science and technology in social context. It focuses on the way in which advances in science and technology influence society and vice versa. It is a peer-reviewed journal that takes an interdisciplinary perspective, encouraging analyses whose approaches are drawn from a variety of disciplines such as history, sociology, philosophy, economics, political science and international relations, science policy involving innovation, foresight studies involving science and technology, technology management, environmental studies, energy studies and gender studies. The journal consciously endeavors to combine scholarly perspectives relevant to academic research and policy issues relating to development. Besides research articles the journal encourages research-based country reports, commentaries and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信