I don't know where Sawyer came up with those ideas for the shift, but I heartily disagree with them. I believe it's due more to a proliferation of very good fantasy authors - Mercedes Lackey and Anne McCaffrey being two that jump to mind immediately - than some sort of craving for escapist literature. After all, who says science fiction isn't escapist? "Escapist" is
not a synonym for "unrealistic." I am a fan of both fantasy and sci-fi, and I find science fiction to be just as good for escaping the "real" world as fantasy. Have you ever read
Ringworld,
The Integral Trees or
Fallen Angels by Larry Niven? Larry Niven is one of today's very best "hard" sci-fi writers, but that doesn't mean his books aren't escapist. After all, who wouldn't want to escape into a world where humans live in free-fall, building their villages in the foliage of hundred-kilometer-long trees shaped like integer signs? (Really, read
The Integral Trees and its sequel
The Smoke Ring; it may all be real-life science, but it's as escapist as you can want
)
To summarize: I think Sawyer's claims are a load of fetid dingo's kidneys (a term from a truly wonderful sci-fi/fantasy book,
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
)