This article analyzes the role of science and technology in modern society, where the values of equality and democracy are emphasized, and discusses the impact of science and technology on democracy based on the arguments of Professor Roald Hoffmann. It challenges Hoffmann’s position on whether science inevitably contributes to democratization and whether scientists need to be involved in politics, and argues that equipping citizens with scientific knowledge and encouraging the political role of scientists can have a positive impact on democratic societies.
Today, our society considers equality an important value and is constantly striving to realize it. The Korean Constitution emphasizes the importance of equality, and Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all human beings are equal in dignity and rights. It is part of this social change that women, people with disabilities, foreign naturalized citizens, and cleaning workers are now being named and reported in the media as candidates for proportional representation in political parties. However, the reality that they are being specifically promoted paradoxically shows that our society has not yet provided full equality to these groups. At the same time, it suggests that equality has become a value that resonates positively with voters. Political efforts to ensure equality go to the heart of democracy.
Democracy is one of the dominant ideologies in the world today, and the 20th century saw dramatic democratization in countries such as South Korea, Yugoslavia, Myanmar, Cuba, and many others. It’s interesting to see how science and technology relate to democracy in this process.
In his book The Same and Not the Same, Professor Roald Hoffmann views democracy as a social invention and explains its interaction with science and technology. He describes the development of chemistry and its applications, from the Roman purple dye Tyrian purple to the now widely used synthetic indigo, and compares ancient Athenian democracy to democracy today. Hoffmann argues that science, including chemistry, has inevitably contributed to the democratization of societies, where science is defined as a discipline that includes the natural sciences and engineering. He explains that while science and technology have also been used for negative purposes, such as war and torture, they have mostly brought about positive changes in society, bringing necessities and conveniences that were once reserved for the privileged to a wider audience.
However, I believe that Hoffmann’s argument is incorrect when considering actual democratization processes. China, for example, is one of the world’s leading scientific and technological powers, but its level of democratization is nowhere near as high. If science inevitably contributes to the democratization of a society, as Hoffmann claims, then democracy should develop as science develops.
In the end, I think Hoffmann’s argument is flawed by a misunderstanding of cause and effect. Yes, science and technology have provided material abundance to the masses since the Industrial Revolution, when mass production became possible. But this is only possible in societies that are already somewhat democratized, and where democracy is not well realized, the benefits of science and technology will be smaller. In well-democratized societies, social power is focused on improving the lives of the electorate, so the fruits of science and technology and industrialization can trickle down to the general population. In societies with weak democracy, the benefits accrue to a privileged few, or social capacities are decentralized, resulting in less progress.
Hoffmann discusses the role of science and scientists in democracy, citing environmental issues as an example. He argues that understanding science is a citizen’s right and duty, and raises the question of who can provide correct information if, for example, chemists don’t know chemistry. It is not democratic, he argues, for citizens who do not know science to blindly trust the word of a chemist. Hoffmann argues against Platonism, arguing that scientists and technologists should not rule the world. By Platonism, Hoffmann is referring to the rule of the philosophers, or government by experts, proposed by Plato, Aristotle, and others after Socrates was executed for his democratic politics. According to Hoffmann, scientists tend to be oriented toward rationality, but social problems cannot be analyzed by simple rationality, and scientists can become complacent when they are in power.
However, Hoffmann also admits that his claims are exaggerated, adding that scientists in politics are no better or worse than traditional politicians.
I strongly agree with the argument that citizens should know science. If citizens don’t know science, they can be easily misled by the claims of some capitalists or their hired scientists. Nowadays, with the development of the internet, it is easier to get information about science and technology, but there is also a lot of misinformation, so personal knowledge of science is still important. In a democratic society, education should be a citizen’s right and duty, as inequality can arise due to knowledge gaps.
However, it is difficult to agree with Hoffmann that scientists should not have power in politics. Even if scientists are complacent and don’t recognize the difference between natural and social sciences, it’s not just them. Non-scientists can suffer from the same problem in their own fields. Even if this tendency is stronger among scientists, Hoffmann’s generalization could have a negative impact by making society shun scientists. On the contrary, Hoffmann argues that scientists are currently underrepresented in politics, which means that their values are not fully reflected in society, and that society’s budgeting and spending often lacks rationality, so there is a lot of room for scientists to get involved and lead to better policies.
Hoffmann argues that scientists should act as non-powerful advisors in politics, but in practice, non-powerful advisors can be less accountable and less respected by the recipients of their advice, so he believes that scientists should have equal power with non-scientists.
The above is a review and refutation of Hoffmann’s argument about the impact of science and scientists on democracy. Hoffmann argues that science inevitably contributes to democratization, and that citizens need to understand science to maintain democracy, but that scientists’ participation in politics is undesirable. I argue that science does not directly contribute to democratization, and that scientists’ political participation should be encouraged. In today’s scientific age, I think the discussion of the relationship between science and politics is a topic worthy of further consideration. I hope that readers of this article will take the time to think about it.
