Social-distancing or physical-distancing?

by Susantha Hewa

Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head And pretend that he just doesn’t see?

                                   Bob Dylan

“From rags to riches” is old hat. It no longer kindles any hope in the aspiring hearts of the poor. Now it’s “from super-rich to super-viral rich.” millions have lost their lives, livelihoods, health, wealth and loved ones. However, the world’s billionaires and the super-rich have prospered. Covid–19, has turned out to be a blessing in disguise for business tycoons. According to Americans for TaxFairness and the Institute of Policy Studies, “between 18 March 2020 and 19 February 2021, the combined wealth of US billionaires increased by $ 1.3trn, a 44.6% in the space of just 48 weeks.” The US specimen, surely, proves the rule rather than the exception.

As for the average person, the virus has enriched both his vocabulary and the perception of suffering. Among some unfamiliar terms that have invaded our personal dictionaries are PCR, RAT, PPE and lockdowns. A few not so unfamiliar words like masks, sanitizers, hand-washing, quarantine and vaccine have acquired an unusual sense of urgency. There are yet other ‘semantic’ changes, so to speak. For example, the term “social distancing” which would have been more relevant in a decadent social context where underprivileged groups are excluded and denigrated on cultural notions of so called ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’ has been used to mean “physical distancing.” And, to “keep someone at arm’s length” has dropped its figurative sense of disdain and acquired its literal sense of keeping someone at a meter’s distance.

During the early phase of its onset, the idea that the pandemic was going to be a leveller- a no respecter of differences based on ethnicity, religion, social status, wealth and power began to sink into people’s collective psyche. Now people are much less convinced. Since big-time scammers of every sort lost no time in realising that the tide of the coronavirus waits for no speculator, we have further improved our lexicon with novel additions, like “vaccine nationalism.”

In a global democracy, which, one may cynically call a “marketocracy,” any global catastrophe is a profit venture for Hoard-More Sapiens, considering how the market controls and almost defines our life in a consumerist society. We, in Sri Lanka, aren’t short of examples. Currently, sugar and garlic top the list of household words. They are uttered either with a hiss or a shrug of resignation. A few moons ago, ‘vaccine-nepotism’ and high-pricing and hoarding and underhand dealings in testing-tools used to be the hot topics, which were then crowded out by more mundane subjects like sugar and garlic. The latest addition to the list of woes is the crippling price hike of LP gas, milk powder, wheat flour and cement. A delay in supplies helps people to come to terms with the increased prices; the longer the delay the readier they are to pay the extra amount without grumbling.

Isn’t this a real mess? How many more pandemics must strike the world to make us feel ashamed of the wealth and power earned over the misery of millions? How many more centuries of mass suffering must we pass before we realise that intimate human relations are more beautiful than living alone in one’s island of prosperity amidst oceans of misery? Should the sense of happiness and wellbeing of all allowed to be subordinated to any convention or institution- be it the ethnicity, race, religion, culture or the all-powerful market? Bob Dylan asks:

And how many ears must one man have

Before he can hear people cry?

Yes, and how many deaths will it take ’til he knows

That too many people have died?

If politicians are all out to serve people, why should they be on two opposing sides? How can they have diametrically opposing attitudes to peoples’ problems depending on where they “sit” ‘for the benefit of the people?’

The problem lies in the shifting distance between the people and the politicians as they change slots every five years or so. The Opposition always keeps close to the people while the ruling party keeps its distance- much more than a meter! Elections are a matter of deciding which party is going to win and be distanced from the masses from day one. Hasn’t this been the long and the short of our political experience, which is our life?

The Norwegian sociologist and criminologist, Nils Christie, sees empathy or fellow-feeling as the single most important factor in deep and fulfilling human relations. He describes how the “distance” between people determines how indifferently or sympathetically we interpret their motives and actions:

“Think of children. Our own children and those of others. Most children sometimes act in ways that according to the law might be called crimes. Some money may disappear from a purse. The son does not tell the truth, at least the whole truth, as to where he spent the evening. He beats his brother. But still, we do not apply categories from penal law. We do not call the child a criminal and we do not call the acts, crimes. Why? It just does not feel right. Why not? Because we know too much…” (Crime Control as Industry).

He goes on to describe how the boy who steals money from the purse and beats his brother has on numerous occasions “shared his money or sweets or warmth. He hit his brother, but he has more often comforted him; he lied, but he is basically trustworthy.” Although Nils here is dealing with our attitudes to “crime,” the underlying appeal and the thrust of the argument is that empathy makes a world of difference in our seeing and interpreting the ‘other’ in all matters in life.

The all-important question is how much distance we keep with the ‘other.’ If we know enough of the other, will there be so much suffering for the “faceless” millions? Can the market, however revered and celebrated as “efficient,” alleviate the suffering of the masses? Doesn’t the term “the masses” trivialise the profound concern it deserves, which has been abandoned for too long? Perhaps, “the answer is blowin’ in the wind.”