The Miasma of Science and Ideology: A Postscript on the New Episteme

 

Of all of the various regressions under Trump 2.0 the anti-vaxx aspect seems to be the most perplexing. As disturbing as Trump's racism, nationalism, and everything else are, at least you can say that they were there since the beginning. Trump's political career began with calling for the death penalty for the "central park five" and his run for President began with nativist hostility to immigrants. The anti-vaccination stance seems new. The initial COVID vaccines were even developed under Trump, and one can imagine that he could take credit for them, since he loves taking credit for things, even for things that he had nothing to do with, or that have not happened. As Plato noticed, however, demagogues find themselves controlled by the same mob that they seem to control. I have not subjected myself to that much of coverage of Trump's rallies, but the only time I have ever seen Trump's mob ever boo him is when he mentioned vaccines.

It is possible to see Trump 2.0's opposition to vaccines to be an effect of precisely this reversal. Trump's attempt to tame the savage beast of the mob, to stay with Plato's terms, means that he ends up necessarily reflecting its prejudices and biases. That is one possible explanation. Given Trump's thirst for revenge, the animating principle of his second term, one could argue that his opposition to the CDC is part of that revenge. They made him look bad. However, in following with horror the progression of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s dismantling of any vaccination program I came across this little tidbit, Kennedy is not just an anti-vaxxer, and not just someone who is asking questions about vaccines, he apparently subscribes to the miasma theory of disease.  I believe that this offers another explanation. 

The miasma theory was the theory before the "germ theory," the theory that diseases are caused by pathogens such as viruses or bacteria, this theory underlies pretty much all of modern medicine from antibiotics to vaccines. Miasma theory maintains that diseases come from bad air, or other generalized contaminants. In the old days this was due to something like night air, or vapors, but the modern versions claim it is everything from processed foods to cellphone signals that make us sick.

This return of an outdated and discredited theory seems perplexing until one remembers Sylvia Wynter's central claim about the relationship between knowledge and society, that society can only accept forms of knowledge that conform to existing social hierarchies and structures.  Wynter's central point is that a society that depends on racism as a social structure and hierarchy can never dispense with race as a concept. Her general point also offers an explanation of sorts as to why germ theory is in some sense out of step with our society. Germ theory is in its own way egalitarian, we all can get sick from the same viruses which plague rich and poor, white and black, and in practice it necessarily demands a collective response. Vaccination is not an individual strategy but a collective strategy. We get vaccinated to protect not our own individual health, but the health of others. So in that way vaccines, masking, and lockdowns are, as their most vocal critics claim, communist. At the very least such practices suggest a recognition of a common good that is in may ways out of sort with our existing ideals and values. 

In contrast to this miasma theory, especially in its new MAHA version, is profoundly individualistic and hierarchical to the point of being eugenicist. Everyone is responsible for the own health, even has a patriotic duty to be healthy. Those who fail to do so, who continue to eat the wrong food, take the wrong drugs, and so on, have only themselves to blame. 

Miasma theory is not some odd return of an old idea from the past. It is, to put it in Deleuze and Guattari's terms, an archaism with a current function, an old idea that is perhaps more in sync with existing social norms and structures than the newer germ theory which replaced it. Which is to return to my central thesis with respect to the new episteme under Trump 2.0, what we are seeing is not just populism, not just the revenge of a damaged narcissist, but an attempt to bring the production of knowledge in alignment with the mode of production, to have theories meet the practices of contemporary capitalism.