Background
In recent decades, science communication has increasingly focused on involving citizens and other social actors in research. This stems from two important insights. First, that science is not neutral but shaped by people. And second, the understanding that a purely technical-scientific perspective is inadequate for solving complex societal problems. Therefore, broad societal engagement is essential for a meaningful role of science in a democracy.
A common process in this type of research is co-creation, where people work together to develop science or technology that is socially acceptable. However, it has proven difficult to sufficiently allow for conflicts and different perspectives in this approach. Therefore, Theatre Dialogues of Dissent proposes a new approach: engaging in uncomfortable conversations that highlight conflicts and different interests. This idea builds on Chantal Mouffe's concept of "agonistic pluralism," where democratic politics revolves around embracing conflicts rather than pursuing consensus.
To put this concept into practice, three theatre dialogues are organised around scientific controversies arising from the climate and nitrogen debates. The theatre dialogues challenge participants to be courageous in discussing difficult topics while also providing a creative and participatory way to explore complex issues.
Objectives
With Theatre Dialogues of Dissent, we explore how to deal with differences of opinion and division over complex societal problems in which science and technology play a central role in an innovative way. How can we engage people in better understanding a scientific controversy by using differences of opinion and division as a means of making progress?
We aim to achieve the following concrete goals:
- Develop a new way of communicating about science, focusing on discussion and differences of opinion, suitable for use in science museums and possibly also in high schools.
- Compile an overview of what different people think and believe about climate and nitrogen issues.
- Contribute to the discussion on these problems, not shying away from differences of opinion.
- Promote knowledge and actions stemming from democratic decision-making on climate and nitrogen issues.
- Create a practical guide for policymakers and communication professionals on how to apply this new way of communication.
- Develop a new vision on how science museums can contribute to society in an era where science is becoming increasingly important but also generates more discussion when forming policies.
Approach
Three controversies are chosen in collaboration with science museums already focusing on related topics. The first is a partnership with Sonnenborgh Museum & Sterrenwacht, in which we explore various perspectives on the future of the Earth in light of the climate crisis. In the public debate, optimists seem to oppose pessimists: some believe that technology will save us, while others think we are doomed to disaster. Additionally, different ideas about the relationship between humans and nature play a significant role. The second controversy revolves around conflicting views surrounding the nitrogen crisis, which we map out with the Naturalis Biodiversity Center. This ongoing issue affects many: high nitrogen emissions threaten both human health and biodiversity. On the other hand, policies cause unrest among farmers, and construction projects are halted while there is a housing shortage. For the third controversy, in collaboration with Museon Omniversum, we focus on justice in relation to the climate crisis. Here, various opinions clash over who is most affected and who bears the burdens of the solutions.
For the theatre dialogues, we first engage in conversations with various stakeholders involved in the three debates. We seek to understand how they perceive the problem, their experiences with conflicting discussions and viewpoints, and what they believe the role of science can be. Together with the theatre dialogue-specialised company Mens in de Maak and the mentioned science museums, we devise the format and participants for these dialogues based on these discussions.
At the end of the project, we organise a session for learning and reflection. Alongside the science museums, we discuss how to more actively engage societal debates in their activities. We also examine the insights gained and how they can aid in planning future events.
Athena’s role
The Athena Institute takes on a leading role as the initiator and driver of this project. Additionally, we serve as the connecting link between Sonnenborgh Museum & Sterrenwacht, Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Museon Omniversum, and Mens in de Maak. We also provide the scientific foundation for this project, conduct empirical research, and are responsible for data analysis.