Isolation, despite its inconvenience, has given us all an abundance of time to be able to do anything we like – so long as ‘anything’ remains within the confines of our own homes and isolation circles. An entire month of (relative) freedom to do with what we will and despite the upheaval we’re currently experiencing, an epoch I entered determined to be productive. That hasn’t entirely gone as planned. I have, however, had more than enough time to ponder humanity’s place in such an expansive universe and other such mind-numbing, existential questions.
What I find fascinating, is the extreme fragility of our civilization despite its complexity. Particularly during a time such as this, amid an epidemic, how simple it is for our intricate social structure to unravel into pieces if we don’t put enough effort into holding it together. The stupefying dread that has taken hold of many of us has worked to either bring people together or distance them, and though the two words appear similar, solidarity and solitary are worlds apart.
For many nations, this epidemic has created an internal enemy, ostracizing people from one another, in a time when the exact opposite is needed most. An idea that has been aggrandized by the media which has festered moral panic within our global community. In many ways, the value many developed nations place upon meritocratic individualism could prove to be their downfall, as it places them at a disadvantage and amplifies socioeconomic disparities. New Zealand by comparison, has from the beginning of this tumultuous time, hastened to unite and face this crisis as a unanimous nation. This isn’t to say that other nations haven’t, more that New Zealand’s prompt, harmonious approach has, touch wood, spared us from the worst of the virus.
Violence, I believe, is a trait hardwired into humanity, an innate part of ourselves that the mutualistic benefits we find in our structured society obscure and masquerade, a faux form of peace to satisfy the masses. In saying this, however, society also obfuscates its people. For many nations’, the ideas of free will and independence are the government’s fundamental factors to placate its subjects. Our compliance with this, with the in’s and out’s of daily life and our restricted free will, when it comes down to it, is because we’re able to catch more flies with honey than vinegar. It’s when our own volition or safety is jeopardised and we’re better off on our own, that cracks in the fragile maintenance of social structuralism emerge.
With COVID-19 and the temporary lockdown New Zealand has been placed under, it’s the reduction of our free will that has been most prevalent. There’s been noteworthy correspondence between the initiation of the lockdown and the influx of New Zealanders flooding beaches nationwide as we all canvass the new constraints that have been placed upon us. We, as a species, challenge any confines placed upon us and this epidemic has proved no different.
I question how it is we challenge these confines. I do grant you that most people interrogate the notions of restricting our freedoms in instances where such restrictions are irregular, unprecedented. However, for the average citizen, concerned for his or her own economic welfare, operating under the social structures which are contingent on the actions of others, the means are limited to question the government’s restriction of certain freedoms. They understand the outcome (that is the preservation of societal harmony) that is common as much to his or her own livelihood as to the continuation of society. Part of the participation in civilized society is the redistribution of (limited but broad) autonomy from the individual to the state and to question the confines upon us is not only to question this mandate but to question whether we want to remain members of this society.
I agree that this pandemic has exposed many cracks in our society and has resulted in people becoming increasingly willing to test the boundaries of law of of what is socially acceptable. As an addition to your conclusion that we will naturally challenge confines placed on us, I would argue that this is specifically pronounced in this pandemic due to the intangible nature of the ‘enemy’ we are fighting. Since the beginning of the pandemic many have attempted to humanise the virus as means of controlling it. As we have seen, this led to awful discriminatory behaviour against Chinese people, which despite providing absolutely no benefit to fighting the virus, would have enabled people to feel as though they were fighting against something. This is ultimately very worrying, as it demonstrates that our desire to control conflicts has the potential to triumph over logic and ethics. As the pandemic has progressed, it appears that people have sought to tangibly ‘fight’ the virus by diverting their efforts into fighting the lockdown/law, which again provides no help, but allows for a misplaced sense of achievement which exposes the deep flaws in our humanity.
It seems that yes, we as a species endeavour to challenge confines placed against us and that if we are unable to successfully challenge one issue, we shall simply divert our efforts onto another one in hopes of providing a false sense of action and security.
I completely agree, and this is an idea that I’ve been grappling with too – faux free will. It’s quite a scary thought when you consider the lack of control that we actually have in our own lives, and the limitations that are placed upon us but often masked until times such as this. It’s funny how, when we lose control, we all try to rebel in whatever way possible – how quickly we challenge our boundaries, like how many people felt the sudden urge to go to the beach after we had reached Level 4. We’re a species that values freedom of choice, and once we feel these boundaries, we almost have to push them. I loved your perspective on this.
I do love the empowering nature of the article, and yes to some extent violence is hard-wired into humanity. Though what type of conflict would you call this? Obviously, a pan-demic but COVID is an indiscriminate passive killer, an invisible enemy that cuts through one’s defenses without making a sound. We are resilient, but what happens to us when the threat is something we cannot see? The world opposes Hitler when he came to power but people of that weren’t powerless they could move. COVID is a psychological killer to so these tests are different types of resistance to the ones found in war stories. We are a tough species but when have we ever been at war with our own minds. Fact and science are subjective depending on what news channel one listens too. What good is anarchy if it means death? What good is apathy if it means death?