“We have to strengthen the cohesion in the population, because when difficult times come, as they did now […] somehow, we need to cultivate the community spirit again, we will need it for measures to combat climate change, we will need it for future crises, so this division is very bad, I think it’s very stupid.” (Interview October 2021 with a woman over 50 who lives with her young children in a large city in Austria)
People were concerned about social division and marginalisation during COVID-19 in Austria (regardless of their attitude towards vaccination), according to a study by the Centre for the Study of Contemporary Solidarity (CeSCoS) at the University of Vienna’s Department of Political Science. The current publication, led by Dr Isabella M. Radhuber, is based on a total of 127 in-depth interviews conducted with the same people in Austria in 2020 and 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study shows that the social polarisation in this crisis was already causing deep concern among the population in 2020 and 2021. At the same time, this polarisation phenomenon prompted the interviewees to reflect on how future crises – such as the climate emergency – can be better handled. A key finding of the study is the need for inclusive policies that avoid binary distinctions (such as those between vaccinated and unvaccinated people). Otherwise, there is a risk of unrest, mistrust and resistance among the population – which can be exploited by populist parties. The study was conducted as part of the research project Solidarity in times of a pandemic, which covers 10 European and 12 Latin American countries and is led by Prof Barbara Prainsack, Dr Isabella Radhuber and Dr Gertrude Saxinger.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the calls for cohesion from politicians and health experts stood in stark contrast to the growing social divisions between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. In the first 18 months of the crisis, the social environment of many people changed noticeably. They increasingly experienced themselves in social bubbles defined by vaccination attitudes and behaviour and reported how collegial, friendly and family relationships broke down as a result. Without being specifically asked by the researchers, many interviewees expressed concern that measures such as a lockdown exclusively for the unvaccinated can jeopardise social cohesion in the long term. This fear was so pronounced that some people rejected measures that they would have been in favour of in other circumstances. A middle-aged man who lives in a large city with his children aptly described this: „I know that mandatory vaccination would not go down well with many people. So, I’m only against it because I know that it upsets a lot of people too much. But otherwise, of course, I’m totally for it.” Such binary distinctions in political measures as well as incoherent or coercive regulations were often perceived as drivers of social division in Austria.
Our interviewees also described how the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) and the Menschen – Freiheit – Grundrechte (MFG) party were fuelling societal opposition to vaccination policy, protective measures and the ultimately unimplemented vaccination mandate. There was a widespread opinion among the interviewees that it was irresponsible to instrumentalise these attitudes of resistance to mobilise votes. At the same time, it was criticised that these emotions should have been addressed more strongly in the political communication of the governing parties. An interviewee described anti-vaccination attitudes as a form of “subtle resistance” to the government's policies.
Against this backdrop, this study shows that social divisions are a significant obstacle to maintaining public health and formulating health policies in times of crisis. It highlights the need for inclusive crisis politics – and to pay attention to social polarisation in times of crisis – in order to effectively tackle future challenges such as the climate emergency. This analysis is in line with international developments and emphasises the need for inclusive politics in times of crisis also in Austria.
This study is published in a scientific journal:
Radhuber, I., Kieslich, K., Paul, K., Saxinger, G., Ferstl, S., Kraus, D., Roberts, S., Varabyeu Kancelová, N., Prainsack, B. (2024). Why ‘Inclusive Policymaking’ Is Needed During Crises: COVID-19 and Social Divisions in Austria. SSM Qualitative Research in Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100539
