Why is the fearing of bears and epidemics not automatic? The contribution of Ch. S. Peirce to the analysis of fears in the constitution of public problems
The contribution of the work of Ch. S. Peirce to the study of emotions is often misunderstood. Yet his epistolary exchanges with W. James about what is to be afraid of a bear, is at the origin of a fruitful reflection. In retrospect, one can consider that its analyses allow to overcome divisions that still shape contemporary studies on emotions. They invite, firstly, to the overcoming of the opposition between internal exploration and the observation of the external bodily manifestations of emotions. In describing the emotions as hypothesis, Peirce also refuses to reduce their indeterminacy. Finally, he operates a shift from a study of the objects of emotions to the study of the situations in which they arise. The purpose of this article is to apply these three characteristics to the fear of diseases and epidemics in contemporary societies, and its role in the constitution of public problems. This empirical study examines the problem of antibiotic resistance, source of many pathologies or difficulties to treat diseases previously curable through antibiotics, and the production of catastrophist discourses that it generated. If the apocalyptic discourses first appeared as a convenient way to create fear in order to change behaviors regarding the consumption of antibiotics, they also generated criticism. Those debates deserve attention because they reveal ways to design fear, and its role in the communication of public health problems. In return, the theories of Peirce cast light on their lack of anchoring in sensitive situations.