@misc{Pieńkowski_Piotr_Poza,
 author={Pieńkowski, Piotr},
 howpublished={online},
 language={eng},
 abstract={This article analyses the legitimacy of the criticism regarding the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions implemented as part of social rationality. The theoretical part is based on Ulrich Beck’s concept of the (world) risk society theory according to which potential threats are rising in late modernity, the power of experts is weaker while security-related conflicts continue to intensify. Four types of rationality –expert, administrative, political and social – are distinguished in the face of the pandemic risk, and the publicly contested pandemic regulations are outlined. The text identifies criticism strategies regarding the pandemic regulations claimed to be legitimate and radically different from the illegitimate strategies of total denial questioning the very existence of the pandemic and the efficacy of vaccines. A detailed analysis of 13 strategies is conducted including: ‘Dissociating from groups one considers illegitimate’, ‘The cure is worse than the disease’, ‘Criticism of tunnel vision’, ‘Unequal treatment’, ‘Dead letter’, ‘We have no tools’, ‘No harm is done to the willing’, ‘I drive fast but safely’, ‘Not enough restrictions’, ‘Defending the autonomy’, ‘Highlighting contradictions’, ‘Legalistic’, and ‘There is another alternative.’ The limits of legitimate criticism are proposed, and conclusions are drawn about conflicts in late modernity.},
 type={text},
 title={Poza racjonalnością ekspercką. Prawomocność społecznej krytyki obostrzeń pandemicznych},
 doi={https://doi.org/10.34616/151508},
 keywords={pandemic, legitimacy, risk, social rationality, protests},
}