Á Rogvi Sofie, Hoeyer Klaus
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Minerva. 2023 Jan 25:1-21. doi: 10.1007/s11024-022-09486-5.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a data-political spectacle. Data are omnipresent in prediction and surveillance, and even in resistance to governmental measures. How have citizens, whose lives were suddenly governed by pandemic data, understood and reacted to the pandemic as a data-political phenomenon? Based on a study carried out in Denmark, we show how society became divided into those viewing themselves as supporters of the governmental approach to the COVID-19 pandemic, and those who oppose it. These groups seem to subscribe to very different truths. We argue, however, that both sides share a positivist ideal and think that data and facts ought to rule. Both sides have also come to acknowledge that data are not unambiguous, and both cast increasing doubts on political uses of data. Though the people agreeing with, and the people opposing, the government strategy are in many ways surprisingly similar with respect to epistemic norms, they differ in what they perceive as dangerous or desirable, and in who they believe are telling the "truth" about the pandemic. These different perceptions result in different types of pandemic-related activism. Resistance against restrictions is often understood as inspired by conspiracy theories and in some countries anti-restrictions activism has turned violent. In our case, however, we suggest that when looking at similarities and differences across both groups, the gap between those opposing and those agreeing with the government approach is not as unbridgeable as might be suggested by their beliefs in differing truths and the emerging societal division.
新冠疫情已成为一场数据政治奇观。数据在预测和监测中无处不在，甚至在对政府措施的抵制中也是如此。那些生活突然被疫情数据所左右的公民，是如何将疫情理解为一种数据政治现象并做出反应的呢？基于在丹麦开展的一项研究，我们展示了社会是如何分裂为两部分的，一部分人将自己视为政府应对新冠疫情方法的支持者，另一部分人则持反对态度。这些群体似乎认同截然不同的真相。然而，我们认为双方都秉持实证主义理想，认为数据和事实应该起主导作用。双方也都开始认识到数据并非明确无误的，并且都对数据的政治用途越来越持怀疑态度。尽管在认知规范方面，赞同和反对政府策略的人在很多方面惊人地相似，但他们在认为什么是危险的或可取的方面存在差异，在相信谁在讲述关于疫情的“真相”方面也存在不同。这些不同的认知导致了不同类型的与疫情相关的行动主义。对限制措施的抵制通常被认为是受阴谋论的驱使，在一些国家，反限制行动主义甚至演变成了暴力行为。然而，就我们的研究而言，我们认为，在审视这两个群体的异同之处时，反对和赞同政府应对方法的人之间的差距并不像他们对不同真相的信念以及新出现的社会分裂所暗示的那样难以弥合。
