This article explores the impact of equality and democracy on society, and introduces and critically analyzes Professor Roald Hoffman’s argument about whether science and technology contribute to democratization. While Hoffman argues that science promotes democratization, I argue that technological advances are not directly linked to democratization and that scientists need to be encouraged to participate more in politics.
Today, our society values and strives for equality. Korea’s Constitution states equality, and Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that all human beings are equal in dignity and rights. The fact that women, people with disabilities, naturalized immigrants, and cleaning workers are currently running for proportional representation in political parties in Korea and being featured in the media shows that, paradoxically, our society has not yet provided full equality to these groups. However, it also shows that our society is pursuing equality, so the message of “guaranteeing equal rights” can make a positive impression on voters. When this equality is combined with political participation, it becomes democracy. Democracy is one of the most important ideologies governing the world today, and in the 20th century, dramatic democratization has occurred or is underway in Korea, Yugoslavia, Myanmar, Cuba, and other countries. As an aspiring scientist, I wonder what science and technology have to do with these democracies.
In his book The Same and Not the Same, Professor Roald Hoffman explains that democracy is a social invention that interacts with technology. He traces the development of chemistry and its applications, from the purple dye Tyrian purple in ancient Rome to indigo, a widely used synthetic dye, and compares democracy in ancient Athens with democracy today. Along the way, he argues that science, including chemistry, has inevitably promoted the democratization of society. By science, he means the disciplines that fall under the categories of natural sciences and engineering. Although science and technology have been used for unsavory purposes, such as war and torture, they have generally brought about positive changes in society, providing more people with the necessities and comforts that were once reserved for the privileged.
However, I think this argument is somewhat out of touch with the actual democratization process. For example, China is one of the world’s most advanced countries in science and technology, but not in democratization. If “science inevitably contributes to the democratization of society,” as Hoffman claims, then democracy should tend to develop as science develops.
In the end, Hoffman’s argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding of causality. Science and technology enabled mass production after the Industrial Revolution and provided material abundance to the masses. However, this may be more effective in societies that are already democratized, and the contribution of science and technology may be limited in undemocratized societies. In democratic societies, social resources can be focused on improving the well-being of the electorate, whereas in less democratic societies, the benefits may accrue to a privileged few, or social resources may be misallocated, reducing the contribution of science and technology.
Hoffman also discusses the role of science and scientists in democracy, using environmental issues as an example. He argues that it is our right and duty to know science, and that if a chemist doesn’t know chemistry, who can give the right opinion, and that it is undemocratic for citizens to blindly believe what a chemist says because they don’t know chemistry. Furthermore, Hoffman argues against Platonism, arguing that scientists and technologists should not dominate society. His argument is based on the fact that scientists are used to “analyzing” phenomena in their research system, but society’s problems are not solved by analysis. Scientists, he argues, value rationality and want societies full of emotion and collective action to be governed by rational principles. He uses communism as an example, pointing out that communism aimed to be a “scientific social system” but failed because it was based on an overconfidence that society could be infinitely improved. Therefore, he argues that scientists should be involved in politics as advisors, but not in positions of power, and that there is a danger of falling into the trap of thinking that only scientists are rational. At the same time, however, he acknowledges that he exaggerates somewhat elsewhere in the article, and says that scientists’ involvement in politics is no better or worse than traditional politicians.
I strongly agree that citizens need to know science. If they don’t know science, they may not be able to properly judge the claims of some capitalists and hired scientists, which could put them at a disadvantage. Today, the internet and networks make it easier to access scientific information, but there is also a lot of misinformation, so scientific knowledge remains an important factor. Lack of scientific literacy can lead to inequality due to knowledge gaps, which emphasizes the need for education as a right and duty in a democratic society. However, there is some disagreement with Hoffman’s opinion that scientists should not have power in politics. Of course, Hoffman is right that some scientists may not recognize the difference between social issues and natural science, and may be overly rational in their scientific opinions. However, this is only a problem for some scientists, and non-scientists may have similar tendencies in their own fields. These generalizations about scientists can have a negative impact, as they can make scientists look bad. Currently, scientists are relatively underrepresented in politics, and their values are not fully reflected in society. There are also many examples of a lack of rationality in budget allocation and execution, and scientists need to be more involved in politics. If scientists are relegated to a non-powerful advisory role, they will not be held accountable and those who receive their advice will not respect them. Therefore, it makes sense to allow scientists to have the same power as non-scientists.
In this article, we have examined and refuted Roald Hoffman’s arguments about the impact of science and scientists on democracy. Hoffman argues that science inevitably contributes to democratization, and that the average citizen needs to know science to sustain democracy, but that scientists should not be involved in politics. However, I argue that science and technology do not directly contribute to democratization, and that scientists should be encouraged to participate in politics. In the age of science, the relationship between science and politics is worthy of consideration, and I hope readers will give it serious thought.
