This week, critics of Jeremy Corbyn dug up a 2010 tweet in which he justified his signing of a parliamentary motion in favour of NHS provision of homeopathic treatments (his voting record, including votes in favour of scientific funding and against the use of the designation of “doctor” for complementary therapists is available here).
Although I am not a proponent of homeopathy, the response to this “revelation” has been discouraging. In particular, Ian Dunt of politics.co.uk used belief in homeopathy as a test not only for idiocy, but also for morality. Dunt suggests that in holding a belief in homeopathy (or any other “enemy of objective truth”), proponents are showing that they fail to understand the world and rejecting objectivity in favour of experiential evidence or intuition.
Despite this rhetoric’s troubling potential to tie into a media discourse that portrays the progressive politics of Jeremy Corbyn as “loony”, the central issue in Dunt’s piece is its outdated assumptions about scientific understanding. Dunt suggests that supporters of homeopathy display a lack of knowledge and a conscious refusal to comprehend the extensive research that has shown homeopathic remedies are no more effective than placebo. This way of understanding public knowledge – the deficit model – was developed by social researchers in the 1980s. Research has since highlighted the importance of openness, dialogue and engagement, rather than lack of facts.
Since it is often perceived to be easy to access data, those who fail to agree with the scientific consensus are considered ignorant (or incapable of determining fact from fiction, which is a big jump). Of greater concern, however, is the impact these ideas may have on those attempting to communicate science and critical thinking. Aligning belief in homeopathy with “idiocy” and lack of reason may actually be helping to reinforce some of the ideas that lead to people turning to homeopathic treatment in the first place.
One of the attractions of homeopathy is the inclusiveness it offers patients, in contrast to the perceived exclusivity and elitism of medicine and science. Participants are welcomed and can engage in an extended discussion with their homeopath. They are able to develop a longstanding relationship with an individual who gets to know them personally and offers supportive guidance. Consider this in contrast to the doctor’s surgery, often over-subscribed, where patients may be required to wait up to two weeks for an appointment. Drawing from my own experience, on a recent surgery visit I was informed that I had to pick one of the two issues I needed to discuss with my doctor, as patients were only allocated a 10-minute slot and there would not be enough time to discuss both.
The criticism of people who embrace homeopathy also fails to appreciate that the individuals’ beliefs are influenced by cultural, social and political narratives. Here, distrust and disillusionment benefit those who offer easy solutions and, more often than not, are trying to make some quick cash. Studies have shown that when people with deeply entrenched beliefs are confronted with facts that offer proof to the contrary, they can paradoxically become firmer in their beliefs.
An understanding and appreciation of these processes is needed if we’re going to encourage critical thinking and get more people involved in science. Corbyn’s critics’ attempt to reinforce the perception that believers in homeopathy are ignorant is divisive political rhetoric and an attempt to discredit a progressive political figure.
It also helps to reinforce the perception that science and the methods that it applies are elitist and exclusionary. Here, considering discourse leads us not to “despairing nihilism”, but offers solutions in response to failing and often counter-productive approaches.
Those who sneer at homeopathy may be enjoying a cheap laugh at Corbyn’s opinion, but they are making the work of science communicators even harder.
