Another important structural feature of most controversies is that one side is associated with an establishment position representing corporate business, the professions, or the federal government. The other side sees itself as challenging this mighty establishment and naturally develops a rhetoric which emphasizes the virtue of the common man standing up for his rights against big business, big government, or the military-industrial complex. Challenge groups often refer to themselves as "citizen," "consumer," or "public interest" associations, suggesting that they speak for the average person. They see the establishment side as very powerful, capable of suppressing information or manipulating the mass media through bribery or coercion. Almost invariably the establishment is seen as forcibly imposing its will on the populace, violating their rights as citizens, and perhaps endangering their lives in the process. If the challengers are political leftists, as in the ABM or nuclear power controversies, then the establishment may represent corporate capitalism, grasping for profits. If the challengers are political rightists, as in the fluoridation and Laetrile controversies, then the establishment may represent creeping socialism, smothering the rights of the individual. In either case, some ideologists see a conspiracy at the center of the establishment position, the plotting of a few ambitious and powerful men who manipulate the society for their own advantage.

The establishment's rhetoric emphasizes the nonorthodox position of the challengers, portraying them as deviant (hence disreputable), uninformed and perhaps misguided (if well meaning). When challengers lack proper academic or professional certification as experts, this is used to undermine their credibility; when they are properly certified, they are attacked for bringing their case to the mass media rather than publishing in peer-reviewed professional journals; when they do present their cases in professional journals and meetngs, establishment experts prepare refutations showing bias and error in the analysis. The challengers are seen as naive, irrational, disruptive violaters of proper procedure, extremist, alarmist, either radical rightists or radical leftists (depending on the right or left orientation of the challengers), fanatic, myopic, and stupid but crafty. Some establishmentarians believe that a single conspiratorial network unites all challenge movements, and that it is financed from sources outside of the country.

In most controversies the establishment side is the promoter of the technology, and it therefore appraises need and benefit from the perspective of corporate, federal America. Thus, it is believed that the technology will spur the economy, or it will improve national defense. On the other side, the challenger-opponents of the technology believe that it is being forced on the people, to the detriment of both the populace and the environment, in order to enhance the power of the elite.

When the establishment opposes the technology, as in the controversy over the reputed cancer cure, Laetrile, then it views the risks of adoption to be grave for the nation, and the benefits to be dubious, largely because of the unorthodox credentials (hence questionable skill and motives) of practitioners. The unorthodox challenger-promoters believe that they are being persecuted and that their individual rights are being violated because they threaten the prerogatives of orthodox practitioners.

Similarities in anti-establishment rhetoric across controversies, like similarities in anti-technology rhetoric, have given rise to a theory of mega-controversy which links all of the challengers in these diverse disputes into a single coalition (The Movement) which is fighting an opposing coalition of all the diverse establishment partisans (The Establishment). The fact that this theory of massive confrontation exists in the minds of some partisans gives it some reality&emdash;at least symbolic reality&emdash;but I believe that its importance has been exaggerated. There are many instances when partisans in a controversy become anti-establishment only after the fact. A protest over a particular power line, or an airport, or a nuclear power plant may begin when local residents perceive that the new project will intrude on their property or present a hazard. In this sort of situation, when common citizens must take their complaints to electric utility corporations and government agencies, and when they do not receive satisfaction, it is natural to develop a viewpoint which emphasizes the problems of the little man in his battle with the larger powers.

Undoubtedly there are people who sometimes join protests because of their ideological objection to establishment control. If this were a deeply felt motive, then any movement which protests against establishment control should be attractive to such people. However most challenge partisans are quite selective in supporting protests. While anti-fluoridationists receive support from pro-Laetrilists (Markle, et al. 1978), neither of these conservative anti-establishment groups gives or receives support from the protest groups of the left. I have often raised the subject of fluoridation in discussions with liberal environmentalists and anti-nuclear activists, and while they might agree that the addition of fluorides to a community's water supply is an environmental insult, only a few support the protest against fluoridation. In many cases they were clearly reluctant to associate themselves with "right-wingers." Perhaps if fluoridation had a protest from the left rather than the right, then many of these people would be active supporters of that movement. One's left-right political alignment seems at least as important a motive for joining a protest as one's particular ideology regarding the establishment. In the following chapter, when I describe the movement of elite scientists from one controversial issue to another, we will see additional deviations from pure pro or anti-establishment positions, as when scientists in John Kennedy's circle joined the "anti-establishment" protests against the SST and the ABM, and when opponents of the ABM joined the "pro-establishment" supporters of nuclear power plants. These alignments are not consistent with the notion of a solid front dividing the establishment from its challengers.

Classes of Technology

So far I have pointed to ideological content which arises as a natural consequence of asymmetries between the two sides, one side being the establishment while the other challenges the establishment and one side promoting the technology while the other side opposes it. Thus much of the content of the controversy comes from these social structural features and is independent of the particular technology that is in dispute.

Obviously the rhetorical content will also be shaped to fit the specifics of the technology, for example, beliefs about whether or not supersonic transports will deplete the earth's protective ozone layer. However, each technology need not be treated purely on its own terms but instead may be regarded as one example of a particular class of technologies. There is, for example, the important class of technologies which give people low doses of something which, in higher doses, is very toxic. These substances include fluoride, radiation, saccharin, some pesticides, and certain food additives. Controversies over technologies in this class almost always require ideological positions on, say, the proper form of dose-response curves at very low dosages. Typically such curves are fairly well specified at higher doses but not at the lower levels typical of population exposure. Should one assume a linear dose-response relationship, or is a threshhold effect more appropriate (Chapter 2)? If cancer is found in rats given large doses of the substance in a laboratory experiment, what inference should be drawn about cancer induction in human populations receiving chronic low doses? How firm must such evidence be to justify regulatory action by government agencies? How many cancers should we tolerate in exchange for the benefits of the technology? These issues appear repeatedly, and the positions of opponents and proponents are predictable.

Another important class consists of those technologies which have the potential for very low-probability but very high-consequence accidents. Examples are nuclear power plants, the ABM, and recombinant DNA. Proponents invariably emphasise the very low probability of accidents, while opponents focus on the very high consequences. Any technology that is very costly will produce ideological positions on corporate profit and responsibility. Any military technology will require positions on foreign policy. A technology that is deployed at specific sites will produce positions on local (community or state) versus distant (state or federal) control. Any technology which cannot be adopted or rejected voluntarily will produce positions on individual rights and freedom of choice. Thus, it is possible to predict several features of ideology from the general characteristics of the technology of concern, without regard for its specifics.

We have seen that many of the ideological disputes in a controversy arise as natural consequences of structural asymmetries between the two sides; such disputes occur independently of the particular technology that is in question. Also, many partisans articulate the reasons for their alignments only after they have chosen a side, often on the basis of social influence. Thus, from the sociologist's perspective, rhetoric and ideology cannot be accepted at face value as the reason for a controversy or as the motive for a partisan's involvement. There are surely instances when such statements of belief reveal the core of a dispute, but there are other instances when they are merely epiphenomena.

I suggest that the most important links between controversies are not their ideological similarities, which may only be surface features, but rather the social networks which tie some activists together. The formation of coalitions and the pooling of resources are based more on these networks than on shared ideologies. These social links, particularly the sharing of personnel between one controversy and another, are explored further in the next chapter.

Back...