As Nietzsche shared his observation that “God is dead”, as we enter the (post)secular world, we seemingly departed from the need of revelation from supreme beings to ascertain the truth. However, Schmitt believed that political sovereignty remains (re)enchanted within the same theological framework, that modern national sovereignty is a reflection, or a derivative of Theo-sovereignty. In Chan’s book, he attempts to disenchant the Theo-political relationships in this atheistic age.
I cannot help but project the arguments & discussions in the book to my line of work: in health research and policy making, that Science is disguised to fill the gap of Theo-Sovereignty.
“Follow the science” – Not sure if anyone kept a count of how many times Boris Johnson and his crew repeated this phrase during the pandemic. They certainly walk their talk in at least 2 dimensions: party gate, and in policy making – slow & weak masking recommendations. Nevertheless, “follow the science” stirred up a lot of emotions and debates within the country – arm-chair epidemiologists, experts with polar opposite recommendations, fake news… Amongst the fury of opinions, the government framed science as the rightful king, filling the gap of Theo-sovereignty, as a voice of a justified and absolute authority.
A character of sovereignty is that it is above the law, that the sovereignty shapes the law, and the law serves the sovereignty. Social distancing, no home visits, masking… In this way “science” very well fits this description, determining “What” a society should do. Anything that strays away from “Science” deserves mockery and rejection, if not punishment and persecution.
All sounds good, only if science is as straight forward as a binary yes or no. In my view, science is an art of embracing and interrogating certainty. “It depends.” Science by nature cannot act as a sovereign power to rule a society. Hence what we observed in the UK (and many other places), is instead a colluded form of scientific sovereignty, a nationalism-biased evidence-picked aristocracy. This camouflage of nationalism in science is most evident in global (health) research. In the following paragraph, I wish to demonstrate how current approaches in defining “Who” should do research is colluded with nationalism (national sovereignty).
There is an increasingly popular narrative in academia that global research should be led by people from their corresponding country. Not to be mistaken, I am fully supportive of the said initiatives, providing funding and opportunities for scholarship to develop in the global south. I’ve gone out of my way to support researchers from overseas to learn research methods, statistical software, and job interview preparations.
However, this narrative is often reduced into a means of reattribution or reimbursement of the western colonial past. This emphasises on appearance and country of origin takes away from the researchers’ abilities, but more importantly, feeds into the increasingly prominent nationalist agenda: “it is their history, let them research it”, “it is their people, let them help them”, in short, “it is none of our business.” By no surprise, as the UK economy showed signs of slowing, the overseas aid (which is used to support a lot of global research) was immediately cut. This new “scientific” post-Theo-sovereignty is not gentle nor kind, but self-preserving, self-promoting and self-indulging.
Science does not happen in a vacuum. But it if does, we would easily reach the conclusion that researchers from the local countries are more likely to understand the context better, which makes research, communication, implementation and much more easier. The preferential development of scholars from the global south to solve local problems makes sense. These initiatives need not to be framed as promoting diversity, which could be twisted into a form of exclusivity, but simply as a better approach to produce better science.
Why hasn’t in the past global south scholarship taken a larger role in academic research and policy making? Why hasn’t they be considered suitable candidates? Our measurement of capability is always framed by a limited few. Did you graduate from Oxbridge? Did your parents work in academia? Did you publish from x y z journals? It is the university application season soon, have a look at the plethora of university league tables floundering themselves to their potential (mainly overseas) customers, aren’t we all playing by this game a greater authority designed, as they saw that this was good?
We are enchanted by the belief of certainty “Science” provides. This is no fault of the scientific approaches, but the collusion of other worldly powers (e.g., nationalism) that biases how progress is achieved and measured.
This is usually the place I offer a solution, some insight or revelation. But I really don’t have one. As a Christian, I believe in God’s provisions big and small. Researcher is a role equally as impactful to improving people’s lives as any. If God forbids, I shall do as much as I can as a researcher. My life and mission is bigger than this role. And I hope you find yours too.
This blog collects my early reflection from reading Dr Chan Ka Fu’s new book on political theology. I’m still very early on in this book, so I might have misrepresented Dr Chan, if so I apologise!
JosePhD 