A ‘nudge’ too far? The rise of behavioural science and technocratic rule

Many commentators suggest that psychology and science have come to play a more prominent role in the management of society today. At the height of the first wave of the pandemic, the government’s Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours recommended that ‘the perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased… using hard-hitting emotional messaging’. Such conclusions, according to author Laura Dodsworth, were part of a trend to put behavioural psychology at the heart of government. Similarly, a debate about the idea of ‘lockdown fatigue’ shone a further light on the role of behavioural scientists – psychologically informed ‘experts’ on how people and groups behave in real-life scenarios.

Governments using psychological tactics to change behaviour is not new. The use of so-called ‘nudges’ – such as moving Mars bars from the checkout counter to the back of the store – have been prominent for many years. Indeed, a reliance on recommendations from scientists and other experts has featured heavily in everything from alcohol restrictions to ‘early years’ interventions in nurseries. Many label this use of the imprimatur of science to manage the population ‘technocracy’. With a slew of behavioural changes required to reach ‘net zero’ greenhouse-gas emissions, many foresee even more technocratic interventions in the future.

But many claim that there can be no ‘experts’ in political decisions at all. Who decides what is an appropriate goal – and how much money it is worth to meet it? Moreover, many claim that so many expert predictions – such as those made about the course of the pandemic, or about the effect of Brexit – have been so thoroughly wrong that the whole idea of scientific expertise about social and political issues is a mirage. Similar questions, today, are being asked about more specific areas of social science, such as behavioural economics and psychology, particularly when many headline-grabbing results of behavioural research have not subsequently been replicated.

All societies need expert advice, but what is the line between legitimate advice and sinister attempts to shift behaviour? Why has psychology especially become so prominent in how the government relates to the public? Does the rise of experts and ‘evidence-based policy’ capture a real shift in how people are seen, no longer as agents of their own destiny but as data-points to be managed to generate better policy outcomes? What is the line between a gentle nudge in the direction of better choices and an authoritarian shove? Who even decides what is the better choice? What happened to the traditional model of the self-directing citizen, or was it always a mirage?