When doubt becomes political

Modern society expects its citizens to hold two contradictory attitudes: they should follow the rules and recommendations set by authorities and experts but, at the same time, also critically question them.

In the current political and intellectual climate, this is seen as a negative, says Anna Durnová, Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Vienna: "Yet this contradiction is exactly the opposite – it is an essential tool of democracy." It is critical thinking, after all, not blind trust, that allows for the scrutiny of political decisions and enables citizens to become informed enough for democratic participation. A 'healthy dose of scepticism' is a prerequisite for democratic participation.

Yet when scepticism turns into the categorical denial of authority and expertise, a movement often fuelled by political agendas, we run the risk of losing common ground – that shared reality which is essential if we are to talk to one another, discuss issues and make collective democratic decisions. When does doubt turn political? 

Does 'post-truth' spread resistance to authority?

Durnová is part of the international project "Understanding Resistance to Knowledge Authorities" (REACTOR), which was carried out as a collaboration between the universities of Aarhus, Amsterdam, Leiden and Vienna between 2020 and 2025. 

Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, post-Brexit society and increasing political polarisation and populism, the project found itself in a unique set of global circumstances that allowed them to study why and how citizens placed their trust in knowledge authorities and experts – and under what circumstances they oppose them. 

COVID-19 as unexpected testing ground

Lars Thorup Larsen, the international project coordinator at Aarhus University, explained that the research project took shape between 2016 to 2020, during the years of Brexit, the anti-vaccine movements and the Trump administration's first election. The debates on post-truth as well as science scepticism and denial led to the central question of the project, i.e., what causes these dynamics. According to Lars Larsen, the crux of the matter is "whether people listen to expertise and place their trust in the authority of experts." 

The project proposal was approved in 2019, which meant that the research began at the eve of the COVID-19 pandemic. "COVID turned out to be yet another layer that is closely intertwined with the developments relating to Brexit and the rise of populism," says Durnová. "Starting from an originally straightforward problem, we became aware of the many layers condensed within it."

While the unexpected development presented the researchers with practical challenges, the pandemic helped participants better understand core concepts that were previously challenging to grasp, such as obedience to authority. "The consequences of the pandemic and the debates surrounding it made the issue more tangible for our participants," says Patrick Brown, academic and project team member at the University of Amsterdam.

Populists are sceptical, but respond to convincing arguments

The project began with a quantitative study carried out in five countries – the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States. It focused primarily on two questions: Do people with populist attitudes place less trust in expertise and, if so, to what extent? Does the perceived potential danger posed by societal challenges influence this behaviour?

The survey showed that people with populist tendencies tend to have less trust in experts. However, as is the case with most people, the researchers found that convincing arguments can influence this level of trust. It also became clear that raising awareness about the potential risks posed by a certain problem increases trust in expert knowledge. However, this connection is still significantly influenced by the populist attitudes of the individuals. All in all, "our findings dispel the myth that populists are completely resistant to reasoned arguments," says Larsen.

The expression of political emotions as a form of resistance

The University of Vienna joined the project in 2022. Anna Durnová, project lead at the University of Vienna, previously explored issues of truth and expertise as well as their significance in the political sphere and for democratic participation. Together with Vendula Mezeiová, who is now a doctoral researcher at the University of Oxford, they conducted qualitative interviews in the Czech city of Jihlava. 

"For the qualitative part in Czechia, we deliberately chose a location that is closely connected to a rural area," explains Mezeiová, who conducted the interviews on site. "This enabled us to specifically reach people outside the better-paid urban centres and also take into account different educational backgrounds."

Their approach was to use methods developed by Durnová that analyse and interpret political emotions. This allows the researchers to draws conclusions about underlying emotional structures from the explicit and implicit statements made by the interviewees. By embedding these emotions into their social contexts, they can be linked to questions such as "Who is allowed to feel what?" or "How are certain emotions socially constructed?" 

When analysing the Czech interviews, it became clear that the interviewees used emotional expressions to generate performative resistance. In doing so, they are able to distant their self-image from 'individuals in the know' based in institutions they perceive as untrustworthy and out of touch with everyday life. 

"One of the beauties of our approach is that we immerse ourselves in people's everyday world – where they actually deal with risk, uncertainty and authority," says Durnová. "These forms of everyday resistance are extremely powerful and are often under-represented in the dominant discourse of political sociology," she continues.

Scepticism is not absolute

By allowing the interviewees themselves to decide which topics and perspectives they wanted to focus on, the team was able to observe unexpected findings thanks to the non-hierarchical, open-ended interview format. 

"During the discussions, it often became apparent that most people did not take a clear stance on one side or the other, but rather positioned themselves somewhere in between. A clear separation was much rarer than expected," reflects Mezeiová. Surprisingly, very few respondents clearly position themselves as pro- or contra- science. 

The findings suggest that resistance to authority is significantly more complex than commonly assumed. It is rare to identify clear camps when it comes to social positions. "It is important not to approach people who are sceptical with preconceived notions from the start," says Larsen, "A certain type of debate can ultimately lead to polarisation, even though our intention is exactly the opposite."

When does doubt become political?

Critical scrutiny remains a key tool of democratic societies. In a highly complex world, however, it is not always clear where it is still constructive and where it may turn into fundamental mistrust. "The project helps to conceptualise this contradiction and, by drawing on everyday stories, to better understand how we navigate this tension," says Durnová.

Scepticism towards authority thus shows to be a multifaceted phenomenon that arises from a variety of experiences, emotions and relationships of trust. This is why it has such great democratic potential. It creates a space between trust and mistrust, in which criticism and negotiation remain possible and in which we can prevent absolutism from establishing firmly. It is crucial to endure these tensions, reflect on them and address them productively in order to prevent the shared reality – which has become fragile and which is the foundation of democratic understanding – from eroding further.