Everything is political. This mantra of the social sciences is used so often among us students of international development studies that it has become somewhat of a meme. When a particularly desensitised economist claims their field is actually a natural science, the other social scientists in the Leeuwenborch look at each other in surprise, burst into laughter, and pass the joint.
No, economics is not a natural science. When Friedman, the austerity-happy neo-liberal economist, urged the Chilean dictator Pinochet to privatise Chile from the water to the healthcare system, he equated himself to a doctor healing the sick Chilean economy; an apolitical expert, a scientist.
When you claim that algae and corrals can settle really well on oil platforms, you are making a very political statement
Now, the beehive that I would like to poke is exactly this one. The apolitical scientist. The expert. Biology, unlike economics, is a natural science. But even then it remains political. When you claim that algae and corrals can settle really well on oil platforms, you are making a very political statement. Whether they do or don’t is not the main problem, but the fact that one would even conduct research on such a topic without wondering ‘Hmm, what could the political implications of this research be? How could this be used for green-washing? Who might fund such research? And, is this ethical?’ flabbergast me.
As long as I can disagree with something, it is political. I disagree, for example, with Unilever having settled on campus, I disagree with the words ‘climate-proof’, I disagree that the Varroa mite is the main reason bees are going extinct, I disagree that any scientist or their research should be funded by a private company, I disagree with the fetishisation of economic growth, I disagree with upscaling agriculture, I disagree with the fact that so much research is not being done at WUR because the private sector would never fund it.
As long as I can disagree with something, it is political
Now, you might reply by saying ‘ah, but you are an idealist, a hippie and a dreamer; you are not being realistic’. I would reply by saying that sticking to what is now realistic, is driving species into extinction, people into poverty, and the earth into a dust-bowl, and that therefore I don’t agree with your conception of what is and isn’t realistic. And that that too, therefore, remains a political question. But feel free to disagree.
Luuk Slegers is a Masters student of Sociology, majoring in International Development. He lives on Droevendaal in Wageningen with his five housemates and likes to start the day with a walk through Bennekom forest.