The Construction of a Hegemonic Social Representation

Hegemonic Social Representations as a Matrix and the Battle for Meaning (Generating Alternative, Polemic Representations)

To summarize, an HSR is conceptualized as a matrix of socially shared meanings constructed as something “valuable,” and vital for a community. By assigning different meanings to the elements of the matrix, the same HSR may legitimate dominance and the status quo, or nourish dissent and minorities which will fight to reverse it (Gillespie, 2008). HSRs are socially, historically, and culturally embedded, but they can encompass different time periods and cultures. For example, democracy, as an HSR comprises different models, from the democracy of ancient Athens to representative democracy or socialism (Held, 2006). Importantly, this conceptualization of HSR as a matrix of constructs allows for different groups to attach different meanings to its components. In this sense, HSR functions as platforms for different forms of subjectivities and social identities.

In this light, if we see HSRs as matrixes of empty signifiers rather than actual content, we can imagine how – by filling the “matrix” with different concepts, the very same HSR can take on a very different meaning. In other words, the agenda-setting literature (Shaw et al., 1997) suggests that media do not tell us what to think, but what to think about, and HSRs establish the important components to be considered when thinking about “big issues.” Opposing social identities and alternative SRs are then mobilized to “fill in” the matrix with meaning in order to legitimate different forms of action, allocation of means, and intergroup conflict or cooperation. For example, as we will discuss later, an HSR of CC will include elements such as science, nature, and democracy, but what these elements actually mean to a group member, will depend on the predominant interpretation of the in-group. When the in-group (i.e., the group one belongs to and/or identifies with) interpretation of the matrix elements is different from the dominant one, it will come to construct what are the “alternative” voices, or “alternative social representations.” The “winning” HSR will be the basis upon which political, social, and institutional decisions are made for the society at large.

To summarize, an HSR is conceptualized as a combination of “empty signifiers” (Laclau, 1996) associated with core values with a highly legitimating power. They are matrixes of meaning-making, but are also historical and societal, involving institutions, social control mechanisms, and social practices. They constitute the battleground of opposing interests and are co-constructed through power struggles, symbolically and materially.

Climate Change and Survival

By drawing parallels between some of the key issues brought to the fore by the pandemic and those pertaining to the CC debate, we will argue that this ongoing process will determine whether COVID-19 will raise awareness and influence policy-making toward environmental protection and a new form of globalization (with regional and global political power stepping in to support people and communities). Additionally, we argue that it may also influence the degree to which it will stimulate hateful and stigmatizing forms of action. Raising awareness that we are in a malleable phase of the reconstruction of an HSR of survival will allow reflection on the determinants and consequences of the prevalence of certain interpretations of reality over others. It will also support identification of the challenges ahead concerning the renegotiation of meaning, structures, and behaviors which will allow the COVID-19 crisis to open the door to a “new normal,” in which addressing the negative impact of human activity on the environment are incorporated in the post-COVID recovery plan. Jetten et al. (2020) argue that a common social identity is a key to success in facing this new global challenge. We argue that positive social identities refer to HSRs for legitimation. It is by reinforcing the argument of a democratic balance of powers and a concept of nature and science as stakeholders in an understanding of an international public sphere and resources that “we” will not be created in opposition to “they” as in Sherif’s seminal work (e.g., Sherif et al., 1988).

In building this argument, we will rely on examples drawn from the COVID-19 ideological battleground, and highlight parallels to the CC issue. As illustrative examples, we will focus on how COVID-19 has led to the challenge and redefinition of hegemonic representations of science, politics/democracy, and nature. These constructs are also key elements in the constellation of meanings associated with the phenomenon of CC and the role of human beings in relation to it. At the same time, these ideas have become the ground of a battle of ideologies, and it is our contention that the winners of the battle will have also an increased weight in the CC battle.

To summarize our objective, after reviewing the ongoing research on COVID-19 and CC (e.g., Emiliani et al., 2020), we observe two potential tendencies: (a) alignment of the symbolic and meaning construction of CC with COVID-19 for the HSR of survival with a common social identity (see also Jetten et al., 2020); or (b) survival in opposition to CC where it is the survival of a group against others (of the fittest, the most powerful, the ingroup).

The Meaning of Survival

COVID-19 has had a great impact, amplified by the lack of coordination in the global sphere. The multilateralism put in place after the major crisis of WWII, with a system of international organizations financed by nation-states, has been in crisis and a lot of uncharted areas without political or other regulation have become exposed (Le Drian, 2020). The World Health Organization, for example, has an advisory role and depends on nation-states for funding. COVID-19 is exposing further its vulnerabilities and the organization does not have the legitimation and means to take the necessary action (Hale & Held, 2017). Individuals, local communities, and nation-states are left to face an emergency that would require more cooperation and coordination (e.g., Jakovljevic et al., 2020).

COVID-19 emerged quickly and has become the epicenter of our existence, and a life-death issue. It is difficult to escape conversations, jokes, fear, the sickness itself, or the death of a loved one. Mesfin (2020) explains:

Despite the existence of a common objective and the realization of common destiny in facing a threat to survival, if action is not coordinated and our common resources are not put together, groups will be fighting literally and symbolically for meaning-making in order to legitimate their course of action (Bibby et al., 2020).

Actions to counter the COVID-19 pandemic are taken at the level of the individual, the communities, and nation-states. Both at the individual and community level, the rupture provoked by the pandemic raises questions like: Why has the pandemic happened?; How? What does it mean for me (us)?; Who should be blamed?; What should be done? In other words: How to make sense of it? A dilemma faced by ordinary citizens, policymakers, scientists, religious leaders, and atheists alike. Meaning-making is a collective process involving both dialogues, and conflict, and the literature on intergroup communication processes in intergroup contact situations highlights the crucial role played by dialogic engagement in promoting positive outcomes (Nagda, 2006). The battle of signification will therefore have consequences for survival: How we define it?; Who are the main actors?; and What are the key components of the redefined global community’s response to this threat? As we discussed earlier, when reviewing the SRs associated with COVID-19, three other HSR and main areas of contention among different groups in this battle, have been science, politics/democracy, and nature. We will now turn to analyze each and to link them to CC as a matter of survival.

Science

The COVID debate often revolved around the role of science in our society. So in one camp, we see science as responsible for the creation and spread of the virus in certain conspiracy-theory accounts (Imhoff & Lamberty, 2020), as backing up with fake or manipulated data an inexistent threat, or science – and the production of a vaccine – as the only potential savior, able to rescue humanity from this “invisible enemy.” Thus, a discussion on the role and purposes of scientific evidence in the public sphere is brought to the fore with unprecedented urgency and emphasis in this context. Luckily for scientists, Plohl and Musil (2021) show that in a sample of 525 English speaking participants recruited on social media, the average level of trust in science is high (4.12 in a 1–5 Likert scale), in line with polls that suggest that (at least in the UK) the majority of people would rely on [medical] scientists’ advice on the best way to address the emergency (Carrel, 2020). Thus, while social psychological work warns us against ignoring the impact that a small, but consistent and committed minority has on the general populations’ attitudes and behaviors (Wood et al., 1994), the debate over where the responsibility lies, what is the role of science in it and what is the best way forward is still very much in favor of science being a guiding principle in the public’s decision making when facing a threat to survival.

When it comes to the CC debate, we see similar tensions between a view of science and scientists as interested elites who are responsible for or complicit in the environmental crisis (Douglas & Sutton, 2015), proponents of an inexistent crisis for their interests and gains, or committed and competent members of society who are capable of guiding us to safety (e.g., Woods et al., 2018). We argue that the way in which we understand the role of science in our societies, and its legitimacy in driving political decision-making is an important element in the matrix also when it comes to the challenge to survival posed by CC, and that the way in which this has been seen within the COVID-19 crisis could play an important role in the debate. We make a case, however, that – while science must be included in the considerations about the best way forward, in order to be able to develop the sense of “we-ness” that Jetten et al. (2020) refer to, it is important to reconsider and reshape the way in which we understand “expertise.”

Political Leadership and Trust

Politics is a fundamental area of contention and debate. On the one hand, we have a representation of politics as decision-making for the collective. In this case, politicians present themselves as custodians and protectors of the public interest, in a primus inter pares fashion. On the other hand, politics can be represented as “other,” and politicians as self-serving representatives of the elites. The extraordinary case of Dominic Cummings (chief advisor to the UK prime minister at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic) illustrates this point. It emerged that during national lockdown Dominic Cummings – who had tested positive for COVID – violated the travel restriction he contributed to establish. This gave rise to a scandal and the demand from the part of the public for Cummings to resign; it seemed that the political elite was issuing rules for the population, while not abiding by them. While this is in itself a very interesting case study, which illustrates many issues (including the attempts on the part of government and majority MPs to reframe the actions of Cummings as the behaviors of a concerned father and loving husband), in this specific circumstance, the battle of meaning concerns politics and what political representatives stand for. In a way, this debate resembles the debate concerning populism and populistic views, and the fact that this faux pas was committed by a populist leader is not lost on some journalists (Hide, 2020). The divide between political elites and citizenry in the public’s understanding of what politics is and what it is for is present also in the CC debate, where academics call for a re-definition and re-construction of the political in relation to this issue (Swyngedouw, 2013). The below description of the way in which CC is addressed in the post-political Western democracies seems to parallel significantly what happened during the COVID-19 emergency:

In other words, the hegemonic definition of politics in the anthropogenic western world has completely lost elements in the HSR matrix which allows to us imagine and construct a different future for its survival. One of these elements concerns human beings’ relationship with nature.

Nature: “Bras De Fer” With Nature or a Socially Constructed Hegemonic Social Representation?

Nature and our relationship to it is another area which has been brought forward in the COVID-19 debate: nature can be seen as an “invisible enemy,” a “threat” to human lifestyle and our very existence (Morin, 1973; Moscovici, 1968): for example, bats or wild animals are carriers of viruses; the last frontier is between them and us; contact with them might be dangerous (e.g., Harari, 2020). This understanding of nature might also target and stigmatize the eating habits of certain populations and cultures which put in danger the rest of humanity. It divides “us” and “them” which can bring further conflicts and divisions. In this logic, punishing these populations is the best way of action (Kappler, 2020). Nature is also represented as a passive resource to exploit for humanity, particularly in neoliberal discourses of modernity. In this sense, there is a division between humanity and nature, but also a relationship of dominance.

Contrastingly, nature is seen as a resource and a refuge for people struggling in these unprecedented times, with calls for individuals to take advantage of the forced reduced reliance on technology and artifacts, to re-engage with nature and “the old ways.” People have started noticing the effects of reduced pollution in the atmosphere, the appearance of birds and animals in the absence of noise and threat posed by transport, and have started appreciating the value of walks in parks and in the countryside to de-stress (Honey-Rosés et al., 2020). This is a more positive view of nature but still relies on the same idea of nature being something at the service of human beings.

Naomi Klein, in This changes everything (2015) argues that the key to addressing the climate crisis is to reconceptualize our perception of nature, and our relation to it. Conceptualizing nature as something we are part of, and we need to respect and work in harmony with, would help address the thorny problem of the way we relate to it. Thus, Klein challenges the predominant representation of nature and proposes an alternative representation. The philosopher Michel Serres argues that global environmental change has forced us to reconsider our relationship to nature. In his influential 1990 book, Le Contrat Naturel, Serres calls for a natural contract to be negotiated between the Earth and its inhabitants. In the author’s view, our survival depends on the extent to which humans can join together and act globally, on an earth now conceived as an entity. Tracing the ancient beginnings of modernity, Serres examines the origins and possibilities of a natural contract through an extended meditation on the contractual foundations of law and science. The new legislators of the natural contract must bring science and law into balance.

The very definition of nature, its relationship with human beings, and its role in the organization and management of our societies is, therefore, an important area of contention, intensified by the COVID-19 crisis, which will play a significant role in the way in which we deal with CC as a survival issue.

The “New Normal”

We contend that in this battle of meaning, the “winning” versions of an HSR will determine the dominant view of what is “normal” and “desirable” in society. In other words, the “winning” representations will determine the reference points against which individuals will construct and evaluate their position and understanding of society, the default.

In this light, it is not surprising to see how environmentalists and environmental groups have tried to claim the space of representation, adopting a similar language to that used in the context of COVID-19 to advance its demands on CC. An example is the slogan “let’s flatten this curve too” proposed by Extinction Rebellion to stress how the COVID-19 emergency has shown that societies are able to radically change their way of living in the face of an emergency when faced with an existential threat. The movement’s name in itself is evocative of survival and often claims its actions are driven by the need to guarantee the survival of all forms of life on Earth.

The popular hashtag #notgoingback is used on Twitter to indicate the desire of activists to use the COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity to move away from the “old” normal, which has contributed to the emergence of the CC. Interestingly, Prideaux et al. (2020) draw on lessons learned from COVID-19 to re-design and transform the tourism industry in order to address the CC. Similarly, Honey-Rosés et al. (2020) illustrate post-COVID-19 considerations concerning the future of public spaces. There seems therefore to be an appetite, at least among some, to transform the challenges posed by COVID into opportunities to redesign societies and lifestyles in a more environmentally friendly way.

While desirable (at least for the authors), this endeavor, and its outcomes are not guaranteed. Indeed, the push to “go back to normal,” and the exploitation of the crisis to push further current ideological (capitalistic) agendas and values, constitute a significant challenge (Swyngedouw, 2013). The outcome of which, we argue, will depend also on the outcome of the “battle of meaning.”