Public Discourse as Real and as Ideal: Against Viewpoint Inclusivity as Overriding Principle
Friday, October 13, 2023
8:00 AM – 9:15 AM ET
Location: Laurel CD (Fourth Floor)
Public discourse addressing existentially vital issues of public health has always taken place within contested spaces. Within these spaces, voices vying to be heard can be reasonable and open to opposing claims; they can also be the opposite, fueled by hardened dogmas that allow for no disagreement. While the normative ideals of public discourse embrace maximal inclusion of stakeholder views, failures of such idealism are on glaring display in this era of the pandemic. While many sought answers to how best to save lives, preventing the worst of the illness, others turned to science denialism and conspiracy theories. Useful public engagements with this latter group bordered on impossible. Whether in public forums or elsewhere, calls for adherence to some standards of evidence--or, indeed, to some levels of empathy--repeatedly failed. Three years later, much effort was spent and much evidence shared, mostly to little effect among those whose dogmas reject any claims destabilizing their convictions. I argue that given our (ongoing) experiences with COVID-19 denialism, as a harm-reducing measure, we should reconsider ideal stakeholder inclusivity in public health discourses. Our approach should be twofold: First, we improve our own methods, striving for greater transparency and clarity in public communications. Second, we consider the possibility that maximal viewpoint inclusivity should not be an overriding value after all, and shift from fruitless engagement with those whose primary drivers seem to be harmful denialism. I conclude with a few thoughts about how bioethicists can be especially helpful in this difficult process.