Every morning for about an hour I read the newspapers. Its a ritual that began when I first arrived back in New Zealand, a covid refugee. Living life across two and often more time zones I have time early in the morning to indulge my interest in current events. From the early days of the pandemic I have followed the responses of various countries; read the opinions of a wide range of scientists and other commentators and formed some fairly strong opinions of my own.
What has become increasingly obvious - and I'm not saying anything startling or new here - is that the pandemic - a global health emergency - has become not an issue about science or health but one about politics and ideology. There is a culture war, there is a clash of ideologies - and it is the fundamental one - right wing individualism versus left wing collectivism. The contrast is stark and there is no more time to sit on the fence.
There are two opposing sides and we all have to decide which one we're on.
And before we go any further let's be clear. I stand on the side of collectivism; of community; of social responsibility and of science and medicine.
That's because what has become increasingly clear is that the divide in our society is not between a few anti-science nutters who believe in a range of increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories and those of us who would prefer to believe the evidence of science and indeed our own eyes! Rather this divide is between those of us who are on the side of the collective and those who are paid up believers in the cult of the individual. The line, the sides, are the same ones they have always been - this is a class war and it always has been.
Let me explain.
In an increasingly Orwellian narrative the individualists are coopting the language of protest - they shout about freedom, they heckle about their rights. And remember, not all of these people are actively anti-vaxx. In fact, many of them pre-empt their comments with the "I'm double-vaxxed but..." prefix. The softer varieties make calls for unity, for an end to discrimination, for us to all be in it together. I'll come to these odd calls for social solidarity from those who refuse to show any later.
The issue at the heart of this is the people who believe they have rights but do not realise that those rights are always contingent on responsibilities. Not just that, but they seem to have a rather twisted conception of what a right is. It would appear that for the individualists in our midst pretty much anything they personally want to do is a right.
We do have rights - some basic human ones - and a whole series more granted by the fact that generations of working class people have fought for them. But some of the most basic, like the right to go about your daily life in relative freedom, come with some equally basic responsibilities. Responsibilites like not causing deliberate or avoidable harm to others living alongside us. That's why we have a series of laws and why since Hamurabi societies have had laws. Are these laws always just? Are they applied equally? Are they fair? No - not always - we live in a grossly inequitable capitalist society - they can't possibly be. But we can all, I would have thought, agree on some basic ones that seem reasonable. Like not killing other people. Or beating them up. Like not driving your car down the wrong side of the motorway. Or driving at all when you are blind drunk. If you choose to abdicate these particular responsibilities, then some of your rights are taken away. You might be incarcerated, or fined. You might have your car impounded. You may well have already seriously injured yourself and others.
The rights we have, in general, come with an expectation - an obligation - to also meet our responsibilities. It seems to be something those railing against vaccines and mandates and restrictions have completely forgotten - or - and this is what I increasingly believe - they do not think those responsibilities apply to them.
Which brings us to those softer folk - the ones calling for unity, the ones who tell you we shouldn't be trying to divide the vaxxed and unvaxxed - as if your vaccination status was equivalent to your ethnicity or maybe your sexual orientation. These people call for solidarity. But they are not doing the most basic of things to provide it to others. Because unless you are one of the only tiny percentage of people who cannot for pressing medical reasons, be vaccinated then you are unvaxxed by choice. Its not a special identity. Its not equivalent to being black or gay or one gender or another. Its an active conscious choice you've made. Like getting a tattoo (or not). Or dying your hair green.
And having made this conscious choice to not show solidarity or unity with your fellow human beings - you suddenly find they don't want you in their house or bar or gym - it really is a little unreflective to suggest that they are the ones being divisive. I'm all for unity - the unity of the majority of kiwis who have been double-vaxxed.
Now, let's really get to the heart of the matter. Why people should be vaccinated in the first place. German Health Minister Jens Spahn has put it most bluntly - its because within a year you will fit into one of three categories - vaccinated; recovered; or dead. Bit confronting? Death tends to be. Especially when it involves drowning in your own lung fluid. But the real answer goes further. Because there are plenty of individualists, who are not crazed conspiracy theorists, who are vaccinated. They are vaccinated because, quite sensibly, they'd rather not be seriously and then chronically ill or die.
The real difference between individualists and collectivists is not whether we've been jabbed or not - its why we have been and the consequences for society that then flow from that. Let's use me as a kind of hypothetical example. I'm double vaxxed because I don't want a terrible, debilitating illness that can easily be moderated by a painless and safe medical procedure which takes less than five minutes. But that's only part of the story. I'm double vaxxed because I spend a lot of time with immunocompromised and elderly people - even with vaccination they remain vulnerable, I'm double-vaxxed because I teach and some of the younger people I teach can't yet be vaccinated. I'm double vaxxed because I know aside from those children under 12 there are other medically vulnerable members of my community. And I know, like the WHO keep saying, none of us are safe till all of us are.
That's because the virus uses the unvaccinated as hosts, as petri dishes to breed and to mutate. That's why we keep seeing new variants; why those variants are often worse, more dangerous. As someone who believes in collective, social responsibility I have my vaccination because that's the best way to protect the most vulnerable people in my community. I have a responsibility to do that. All my other rights are contingent upon me taking the most basic of responsibilities - to keep other people safe.
And that's the difference between collectivism and individualism. For me, my rights are no more important than anyone elses. My rights, anyone's rights - are not absolutes.
This goes way beyond vaccination. Let's for a moment look at mask-wearing. Wearing a mask is an even simpler act than getting a vaccination. Its in no way invasive. But look around you at the people refusing to wear them; wearing them half-heartedly; finding excuses not to wear one. These are the individualists. They are also the crybabies. The people too childish and selfish to do the most basic of things to keep other people safe.
Its with mask wearing and adhering to other restrictions that the real depth of this individual vs collective divide becomes clear. Because wearing a mask, or following a restriction about who you can see or how far you can travel doesn't impinge on your bodily autonomy; it doesn't make you unwell (even for a short time); it has no possible long term consequences. All it means is that for a short time you can't do exactly what you want.
Generally we associate an inability to step aside from instant gratification with children. And individualism is, I think, a kind of retardation of social development. Individualists are people forever stuck in the three year old phase of "I want...", unable to understand that their wants are not more important than societies needs.
In the extreme, it is a kind of solipsism. An ignoring of or inability to perceive reality. A type of madness.
There's another common argument you hear - related to the "rights" argument. Its "everyone should be able to make a personal choice about their health options". On the surface, it looks almost reasonable. Bodily autonomy; feminist pro-choice in the face of the anti-abortion right; support for euthanasia; defence against forced sterilisations and all the rest. But let's dig a little deeper - because there are a number of other "health options" that we already regulate heavily because most people in society recognise such regulation is for the social good. Let's take smoking as our example - because its now fairly clear cut. Breathing in tobacco smoke, whether deliberately or passively is categorically bad for your health. Choosing to smoke is a choice, but its definitely a bad one. Nonetheless, its not illegal. But it is highly regulated. Most of us who are non-smokers would have no problem telling our smoking friends (are there any such people left...?) that they have to step outside to indulge in their dangerous habit. That's because they would be harming not just themselves but everyone else in the room were they to light up inside. Governments almost everywhere in the world have legislated so people cannot endanger the health of others by smoking in buildings, in bars, in offices - anywhere others might be impacted. In New Zealand the government has gone a step further and stopped people smoking in their private cars if they have children on-board. My point? Smoking is a personal choice about your health options. But that choice has consequences - one of which is that the places where you can go to indulge in your habit are severely limited. A restriction on the movement of unvaccinated people is no different - they pose a palpable risk to everyone else, just like passive smoking does - so where they can go has to be limited for the safety of the community. In the adult world our rights come with responsibilities and our choices with consequences.
The smoking analogy goes further. I am reminded of one of the most bizarre conversations I have ever had. Many years ago I was sitting chatting with my aunt and her friend. They were both smoking like little chimneys and I was positioning myself closer and closer to the open door. Restrictions were just beginning and the pair of them were indignant. "I don't believe its even harmful." said one, through a cloud of smoke and with a slight cough. The other rushed to agree. It was all a terrible conspiracy. I realise with hindsight that the look I must have given them both did not hide my utter contempt - and of course I argued back. There was a large amount of scientific evidence now that smoking was harmful - it was simply undeniable. And besides - who would benefit from such a bizarre conspiracy? Unperturbed, perhaps they'd missed the contemptuous look, they continued. One asserted that "smoker" was her identity - long before the arrival of actual identity politics the ridiculous extremes of it were being expressed by a middle aged woman from a small NZ town. The other said she would absolutely not visit anyone who would not permit her to smoke in their house. I pointed out I already had that rule in my house - so I guess friendly aunty visits were now off the cards. The conversation, oddly enough, petered out at this point.
But it left a lasting impression on me. People can go to extraordinary trouble to justify their own behaviour to themselves and others. They can tie themselves in logic knots; ignore the facts and act with utter selfishness. The cult of the individual is nothing new but once established in someone's sense themselves, its very hard to shake.
How did we get to this point? How did we get to a place where there are violent demonstrations; threats; people believing the most outlandish conspiracy theories? How did we get to a point where neo-Nazis are marching alongside people carrying the flags of Maori sovereignty? Or where ordinary people would rather lose a job than have an injection?
Individualism is a cult - in the end its a death cult. Its part of that giant death cult - capitalism.
I've become even more intolerant of business owners whinning about their loss of profits when the counterpoint is to let the virus rip. Every business owner that complains about restrictions is actually saying "I'd rather people were ill or dead, than that I lose profits." When you listen carefully, its a frightening discourse - where the right to make a few bucks becomes more important than the right to health and safety.
And its not that any of this comes as much of a surprise to anyone who already has a critique of capitalism. Its that this discourse has realigned - become both more and less obscure because of the pandemic.
This is what capitalism really looks like. A mish mash of the foolish and fooled; led by the craven and solipsistic. Those who are taken in by the conspiracy theories and those who materially benefit from them. Those who don't really understand what rights and responsibilities are and those who think the most important, the only, right - is for them to continue to make profits.
Thus, in the words of the old song - which side are you on? Because the time has come to choose one. There is no middle ground. There's no "yes, but...". There's get a jab, wear a mask, look after the health and safety of your community or there's worship the death cult of lies, misinformation and the individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment