Professor Jan Willem Duyvendak: “Science has never been so unelitist”
The elite versus the public, city against countryside: if you believe the politicians, the divides in Dutch society are greater than ever. In his book Spookkloven (ghost divides), Jan Willem Duyvendak, professor of sociology at the UvA and director of NIAS-KNAW, argues the opposite. “Politics has become detached from reality, and that is a huge problem.”
Why did you want to write this book?
“I didn’t know I was going to write this book, so I’m also surprised by the outcome of our research. However, since my inaugural lecture in 2004, I have argued that the Dutch are much more united in their opinions and behaviour than we think. But I hadn’t done any research on inequality yet. I came across the subject last year when I was doing research for the Knowledge Centre on Inequality (Kenniscentrum Ongelijkheid) into the accumulation of inequality gaps and came across so many sloppy reports. They were very imprecise, and it remained unclear how these gaps related to each other. I was very shocked by this and thought: I am now going to systematically examine all kinds of areas where inequality is said to be very high to see if this is indeed the case.”
And?
“Seven of the eight alleged gaps – income inequality, growing poverty, differences in education, urban and rural areas, generational differences, gender, the gap between Dutch people with and without a migrant background, religion – turned out to be much smaller than most people think. This overestimation is linked to the experience of inequality: people find inequality less and less acceptable and are therefore less tolerant of the remaining differences. This emotional involvement, which you also see a lot in politics, distorts the view of the actual differences in the Netherlands.”
What gap does exist?
“The wealth gap. In that respect, the Netherlands is among the top four most unequal countries in the world. Yet no one seems to care about that.”
Which gap surprised you the most?
“The gap between lower and higher educated people (higher professional education and university, ed.). There is a perception of superiority among higher educated people. Higher educated people are said to look down on lower educated people, a statement recently made by the director of the Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP). An employee checked this with the SCP’s figures and found that it was not true at all.”
“Because if you look closely, the opposite is true: we have never been so close to each other. The terms ‘practically educated’ and ‘theoretically educated’ were coined for a reason.”
“Scientists themselves perpetuate these divisions. For example, my colleague Mark Bovens wrote a book about diploma democracy, arguing that education is the new dividing line. But that is exactly the wrong way to think about it. The whole idea that if you now obtain a scientific degree you belong to the elite is – sorry to the students – less true than it used to be. Simply because many more Dutch people are studying.”
You also write that we should abandon the idea of an academic elite. Why?
“The idea that universities are left-wing, elitist strongholds is increasingly cropping up in politics. And not only there; Professor Mark Schillemans recently gave an interview about it in de Volkskrant.”
“It leads to scientists making the wrong decisions out of guilt. People think: oh dear, maybe I am elitist and I’d better go and teach in Dutch. Otherwise, the right-wing radicals will become even more powerful.”
“I also refer to the whole idea that science should turn to society as populism in science. You start to take a very populist stance: doing as much research as possible together with the population and politicians, just so you’re not dismissed as elitist. Even though we’ve never been less elitist.”
What’s wrong with doing research together with the population?
“In principle, there is nothing wrong with that, and we are already doing it extensively. There are disadvantaged neighbourhoods where so many researchers come that residents have become tired of research and will only cooperate if they are paid. In hindsight, I don’t think the National Science Agenda (Nationale Wetenschapsagenda, an NWO programme in which citizens, politicians and scientists jointly draw up a research agenda for science, ed.) is a good idea. Because suppose an extreme right-wing government comes to power, will it then determine the scientific agenda? Regardless of what you think of the initiatives in terms of content, it hasn’t worked out. The radical right’s distrust of science has only increased.”
That goes very much against the idea of science communication.
“Those people are also a bit angry with me. And there is also a lot of useful research that does indeed provide direct solutions for society. What matters to me is who ultimately makes the decisions that science researches? Science funder NWO sometimes commissions far too much fashionable research that appeals to politicians. Science needs to define its own themes much more.”
How do you think science should position itself?
“I would say: you should not cozy up to politicians and the public, but keep as much distance as possible. On Prinsjesdag, NWO presented another statement in which they claim that science is extremely useful to our society. We can tackle all the major challenges of our time. That is a very utilitarian perspective on science, as if you are only useful if you have bite-sized solutions to social problems. That is far too narrow.”
But surely it cannot be the intention that a scholar in an attic room should solve problems that are unrelated to the problems in society?
“That is a fundamental question. I realise that we should count ourselves lucky that part of our tax money is given to science. But curiosity-driven research is already very rare in the Netherlands. That is why the Netherlands is at the bottom of the European ranking for academic freedom. In science, it should not be a case of “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. After all, the greatest discoveries that have changed the world most did not come about as a result of a request from the government, but from curious individuals who were investigating things. Let those scientists tinker about a bit. That really does produce the best results by far.”
So inequality in the Netherlands is not as bad as it seems. Can we now sit back and relax?
“I wouldn’t conclude that. Yes, in the sense that we can be more optimistic about the current situation than many people think. Objectively speaking, things are going quite well, but subjectively we are at each other’s throats and emotionally very polarised. Politics has become detached from reality, and that is a huge problem. So we need to seriously consider how we can counteract the far-reaching emotionalisation of politics. In that sense, I have a traditional view. I don’t want to take the place of politicians, but I do believe that politics should base its narrative on facts as much as possible.”
What can you do about it?
“You can see that the centrist parties in particular have recently been emphasising that politics should not only become more decent, but also more factual. So I think it’s important to support those politicians.”
Are we right to fear an American situation in politics?
“It’s a little more justified than I thought when I started the book. In America, the actual polarisation – the gaps in income and healthcare – is greater than here, and the emotional polarisation is also greater. This is reflected in the attacks on science, motivated by anti-intellectualism. Here in the Netherlands, the difference between emotional and factual polarisation is greater; in fact, there is less going on here than in the US. So we need to formulate our policies less on the basis of emotions. So no, America is not necessarily our future, but it is a serious warning.”
Jan Willem Duyvendak, Spookkloven. Waarom Nederland minder gepolariseerd is dan we denken. (Thomas Rap, 2025). ISBN 978 94 004 12 088 Price: €19.99
