• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

COVID-19 and the Infantilisation of Dissent

by Wilfred Thomas
12 May 2020 2:15 PM

Emotion words. The role they were playing in the media/political response to the COVID-19 outbreak first became apparent to me on Monday, 27th April. That was the day Boris Johnson returned to work following a period of convalescence from his COVID-19-related illness. Speaking outside No. 10, he announced that he was (as his press team no doubt suggested he put it in order to resonate with the salaried classes) “back at his desk”. His statement contained all the usual Churchillian allusions. We were thanked for our “effort and sacrifice” and our “sheer grit and guts,” particularly in relation to “collectively shielding our NHS”. Ultimately, though, strip away the rhetoric and what were we being given? A pretty bleak message. Continue staying at home, obey the lockdown and wait for the government to tell you when you can pick up whatever pieces remain of your lives, jobs, careers and companies. No sense of a timeline (however “phased”) for ending the lockdown; no sense of an ending to this period of unprecedented economic national self-harm; no sense of the certainty that our economy – and the people and businesses who make that economy tick – need in order to get back to generating the wealth and prosperity that publicly-funded institutions like “our NHS” need in order to do their job.

How should we “feel” about this? As a matter of fact, during his statement Johnson claimed already to know how we felt about it. “I ask you,” he said at one point, vamping the camera with the same type of nauseatingly faux sincerity that Tony Blair once made his calling card, “to contain your impatience.” Impatience. Did you know you were impatient? Personally, I thought I was “intensely sceptical of the government’s strategy” or “thinking about different ways to manage a pandemic”, or maybe even, in moments of self-aggrandisement, “intellectually dissenting”. Apparently not, however. Those of us who have done our best to research, read widely and think carefully about how it might be possible to, you know, defeat COVID-19 without ending up jobless, business-less and in rent or mortgage arrears, are apparently “impatient”. One wonders how much of this type of thing British people will be able to stomach. Our economy is set to shrink by 13% this year, its deepest recession in three centuries. Public borrowing is set to surge to a post-WWII high. In the April-June period alone, economic output could plunge by 35%, with the unemployment rate more than doubling to 10%. At least 21,000 more firms went under in March 2020 compared with the same month last year – a year-on-year increase of 70 per cent. Does any of this make you feel “impatient”? I’d imagine it might make you feel quite a few other things, most of them unprintable. But you will also undoubtedly be “thinking” quite a lot of things too. That’s the point from which this article jumps off.

Emotion words are dangerous things when it comes to democracy and democratic politics. The word “impatient”, for instance, suggests a tendency to be quickly irritated or provoked by something. It is, in that sense, the emotional response of the infantile and the immature (hence the common, everyday phrase, “impatient as a child”). Perhaps unsurprisingly, the neat rhetorical affordances of Boris Johnson’s phrase weren’t lost on those mainstream media types still fighting their last-ditch, tin-pot battles against Brexit or indeed any other social action that has even the slightest whiff of perceived nativism about it. Thus, in the days following Boris Johnson’s first speech, we find the Guardian (of course) citing Fionnuala O’Connor approvingly (6th May) to the effect that, “[UK] Ministers of slim talent have bumbled through daily briefings and now big-business Conservative donors are impatient to reverse a shutdown so contrary to Brexiteer dreams”. Elsewhere, the BBC’s Jenny Hill described Angela Merkel (6th May) emerging from a “stormy session with Germany’s regional leaders who were so impatient to restart their local economies that some had already announced plans to relax restrictions before the meeting even began”. Those leaders, she noted with a condescendingly elitist nudge and a wink, “got their way and many Germans will no doubt be delighted at the prospect of beer gardens and Bundesliga”. Beer gardens and Bundesliga – such a wonderfully middle-class, Islington dinner party euphemism for “the AfD-fancying great unwashed”. Meanwhile, the Guardian’s own entry into this impromptu “make lockdown critics stand in metonymically for nativists” competition (6th May) read as follows: “On Wednesday, chancellor Angela Merkel announced the latest gradual reopening of large shops, schools, nurseries, and even restaurants and bars – seemingly bowing to a growing impatience with lockdown restrictions that was manifesting itself in political pressure from the leaders of the 16 federal states, the mass tabloid Bild, and growing conspiracy theory-driven protests across major cities.” Lockdown critics: impatient, ill-educated… and also, it turns out, possibly unhinged too.

Of course, this is all to hang a lot of analytic weight off just one word. True enough. So it’s probably worth noting in passing that emotion words have proliferated elsewhere in media/political responses to COVID-19. Terrified, scared, anxious – all have recently been pressed into action within the public sphere. But here, let’s briefly consider the word “fearful”. Its implications of a purely emotional response to an external stimulus helps it perform much the same rhetorical work as “impatient”. In his 10th May speech to the nation, for example, Boris Johnson was at it again, imputing certain emotions to his audience. “There are millions of people,” he declared, “who are both fearful of this terrible disease, and at the same time also fearful of what this long period of enforced inactivity will do to their livelihoods and their mental and physical wellbeing.” Again, did you know that you are fearful? And even if you did… is that all that you are? I would say that I’m “concerned” about what happens as the lockdown is phased out; that I’m “studying” all the available epidemiological/medical/scientific evidence to the best of my (admittedly limited) ability; and that I’m also “planning” for ways in which my business can respond to what will undoubtedly be a fluid, rocky and rapidly-evolving situation. Concerned, studying, planning – these are action descriptions, not emotion words. True, they might be tinged with emotion, but fundamentally, deep down, each of these actions constitute a rational, cognitive response to an external stimulus. Indeed, they point to the type of cognitive work that individuals in any fully-functioning democracy need to undertake all the time – lockdown or no lockdown.

Does this imputation of certain types of feeling to the voters of the UK matter? I think it does. It was the American sociologist Arlie Hochschild who, in the 1980s, first argued that emotional cues may be among the most important cues in social interaction. Feelings, as we all know, are a kind of pre-script to action. That much is obvious. It is internal behaviour that we engage in that prepares us to act externally. In days gone by, you got angry (feeling) and then smashed things up (action); now, you get angry (feeling) and you engage in passive-aggressive social-media one-upmanship with your followers (action). There is, then, a clear link between how we feel and how we act. But Hochschild went on to point out that in modern societies, there is much more to feeling than just some simple kind of inner authenticity. Her research into modern labour markets made clear that the feelings of individual employees were something that companies were increasingly seeking to own, and, in owning, control. People weren’t just buying an airline ticket anymore, they were buying the simpering smile of an airline hostess; similarly, people weren’t just buying a hamburger, they were buying a friendly encounter and the server’s cheery exhortation to “have a nice day now!” Employees were being (badly) paid as much for aligning their emotion management with the needs of their employer as they were for their physical labour.

In complex mass societies, governments also tend to put a surprisingly large amount of work into ensuring not only that the actions, but also the emotions, of the population are aligned with the norms and expectations that they’ve set across multiple different settings. Some of that is right and necessary, of course – we shouldn’t “hate” foreigners, just as children shouldn’t “trust” strangers and we should all feel “disgust” when we see prejudice in action. But what we also find is that modern government increasingly involves the repositioning of issues that would once have been seen as intellectual and cognitive issues as emotional phenomenon. This matters to and for democracy. If something political like a society’s overall response to the threat of a pandemic is seen – as it should be seen – as an intellectual issue then it requires debate, argumentation, criticism and negotiation. In the end, of course, there might turn out to be arguments that are more workable, viable and plausible than others. But everything here depends on continuing debate, negotiation and compromise between equals. On the other hand, if something political starts to be seen as an emotional issue, then there’s a definite tendency for the subsequent interaction to become laden with unequal power relations: the government and its appointed representatives announce a position or perspective, and then get to position everyone’s subsequent response on an emotional spectrum from usefully “docile” and “happy” to unhelpfully “immature”, “infantile” or, of course, “impatient”. Here, then, there’s only ever one argument which is workable and plausible (the government’s argument, of course) and a series of emotional responses to that argument which are either acceptable or unacceptable. In some ways, this is weirdly akin to a doctor-patient interaction on a psychiatric ward. Whatever you say to your Doctor, your words are never taken at face value, and only ever taken as the channel to some deeper emotional malaise that you yourself can’t see.

“I ask you to contain your impatience.” “There are millions of people… who are both fearful of this terrible disease, and at the same time also fearful of what this long period of enforced inactivity will do to their livelihoods.” These might seem like small, unimportant little snippets of what are, after all, “just” speeches. Indeed, it might seem like the real action, the big important stuff, is happening somewhere else. But when the Prime Minister of the UK imputes to the voting population feelings like “impatience” or “fearfulness” over something as important as the country’s response to COVID-19 it matters in deep, politically fundamental ways. His choice of words subtly starts to establish feeling rules for what should actually be issues of intellectual debate and discussion. We move from differing forms of cognition and argumentation to “good” and “bad” types of emotional response. Happily clapping the NHS every week? Virtue-signalling one’s love for key workers on social media? Good emotion. Useful emotion. But we shouldn’t forget that it’s also politically docile emotion. In this new political economy of emotion that Boris Johnson and others seem to be proposing, however, there’s also bad emotion. Here, a lot of us – lockdown sceptics in particular – no longer need to be listened to. We need to grow up. We’re not “sceptical” about the way in which the lockdown is continuing without any clear sense of an ending in sight; we haven’t “proposed” a dissenting virological or epidemiological viewpoint; we haven’t “deconstructed” elements of the computer code used to model the outbreak’s impact on society; we aren’t “advocating” for free speech in an era of unparalleled censorship; we’re not “intellectually opposed” to the idea of state power being wielded on this scale for such a prolonged period. In each and every case, we’re “impatient”. In this way, the dissent and debate that’s necessary to a fully functioning democracy is quietly repositioned at the end of the emotional spectrum marked as “infantile” and “immature”.

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

A Postcard From Spain

Next Post

Leaked Analysis of the Impact of the Lockdown by a Senior Official at the German Ministry of the Interior

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

18 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GLT
GLT
4 years ago

What a fantastic essay. Many thanks.

20
0
ANDY MANSELL
ANDY MANSELL
4 years ago
Reply to  GLT

Absolutely. Sums up modern life in general for me.

3
0
Barney McGrew
Barney McGrew
4 years ago

A brilliant article. Many thanks.

11
0
Anton
Anton
4 years ago

Superb. And timely.

12
0
Mike May
Mike May
4 years ago

The latter part of that final paragraph – poetry!

As for the Thursday evening clap-for-key-workers ceremony I doubt I’m the only one eerily minded of Orwell’s two-minutes’ hate from 1984.

25
0
ANDY MANSELL
ANDY MANSELL
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike May

I’ll be honest- I take part. Originally, I thought it a nice idea, but as it dragged on and it became apparent that there were some people clearly watching to see who was and was not complying it started to feel a little creepy and not a little like an episode from ‘The Prisoner’- especially in a small village. I now take part to save my family from being declared ‘unmutual’…

3
0
Bertie Fox
Bertie Fox
4 years ago

Wonderful article! Thank you!!

8
0
rodmclaughlin
rodmclaughlin
4 years ago

Brilliant. Far-ranging analysis of modern society which goes way beyond just a critique of the lockdown.

10
0
Tom
Tom
4 years ago

The emphasis that the government – or, perhaps better, the state – places on citizens’ emotions and perceptions is a hallmark of dystopian societies: in “1984” Winston must not merely say that 2 + 2 = 5, but actually believe it; in Zamyatin’s “We” the state surgically removes the imagination from the population to reduce them to mere functionaries; and in “Brave New World” people are relentlessly conditioned to identify with the state: “everyone’s happy now”. This of course goes hand-in-hand with our new-found love of censorship – “dangerous” is the new “degenerate” – and the constant appeal to security. The principle of individual autonomy – probably the defining idea of the West – is apparently now the greatest threat. Thanks for the article.

14
0
Hieronimusb
Hieronimusb
4 years ago

A good essay which eloquently deconstructs the message but fails to name the ‘science’ behind it: Applied Behavioural Psychology (see Edward Bernays et al). Call it spin, call it what you like, governments have been ramping up their use of it for decades and it is now an insidious virus with far more potential for harm than SARS-COV-2.

15
0
Jacqueline Johnstone
Jacqueline Johnstone
4 years ago
Reply to  Hieronimusb

Susan Michie of Sage, Boris Johnson’s new BF advisor, is one of those (Applied Behavioural Psychologist). An avowed communist to boot. Lordy, Lordy.

1
0
Dene Bebbington
Dene Bebbington
4 years ago

Emotion and fear (whether because of a supposed internal or external threat) have always been two of the many tools of government.

4
0
Dene Bebbington
Dene Bebbington
4 years ago

This quote from Fahrenheit 451 is pretty apt:

“But you can’t make people listen. They have to come round in their own time, wondering what happened and why the world blew up around them.” 

I think a lot of the lockdown supporters have yet to really understand the extent to which the world blew up around them: the avoidable non-Covid deaths and the massive economic damage which means we’re probably in for another 10 years of so-called “austerity”.

10
0
djc
djc
4 years ago
Reply to  Dene Bebbington

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Charles Mackay, 1852

8
0
Rachel
Rachel
4 years ago
Reply to  Dene Bebbington

Been speculating they’ll start waking up when they visit Walmart and can’t find their favorite coffee brand on the shelves. “Oh no! Who ever thought economic devastation could disrupt my creaturely comforts while staying home forever.” Or the coffee will be there and suddenly cost $30 a canister instead of $2.50.

1
0
Julian
Julian
4 years ago

Spot on. The PM is at it again in the Mail on Sunday today, saying he understands our “frustration”. In other news, Spain has said it is planning “one last extension” of the emergency decree imposing restrictions, before “most of the country” returns to normality in June. Note how they need to explicitly extend it, in contrast to ours that is more or less open ended (ministers I believe can extend the Coronavirus Act) and how there is no mention of “new normal” (though I have to admit I don’t follow Spanish news closely so I may simply be ignorant of this). Who would have thought a country that has seen a long running fascist dictatorship in living memory would make our government look like sinister despots. I am placing my hope in two things: The strong drive of the British people to go to the pub and to want to make babies, and the strong drive of the government to look like it knows what it is doing when we are the only country in Europe living a “new normal” and the sky has not fallen in for them.

7
0
Rachel
Rachel
4 years ago

The Nanny State has Munchausen’s by Proxy.
Almost as bad across the pond.
Things will change (probably not for the better) come November.

0
0
Melanie Oxbrow
Melanie Oxbrow
4 years ago

Great! Thanks so much for this. If only it could be headline news instead of the lies and scaremongering that has become ‘normal’! Everyone needs to know this.

1
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

In Episode 35 of the Sceptic: Andrew Doyle on Labour’s Grooming Gang Shame, Andrew Orlowski on the India-UK Trade Deal and Canada’s Ignored Covid Vaccine Injuries

by Richard Eldred
9 May 2025
1

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest

News Round-Up

9 May 2025

Sun-Dimming Quango has £800 Million of Taxpayer Money to Blow – and a CEO on £450k

8 May 2025

BBC Quietly Edits Question Time After Wrongly ‘Correcting’ Richard Tice on Key Net Zero Claim

9 May 2025

The Sugar Tax Sums Up Our Descent into Technocratic Dystopia

8 May 2025

What Does David Lammy Mean by a State?

9 May 2025

News Round-Up

26

The Sugar Tax Sums Up Our Descent into Technocratic Dystopia

26

Electric Car Bursts into Flames on Driveway and Engulfs £550,000 Family Home

15

“I Was a Super Fit Cyclist Until I Had the Moderna Covid Vaccine. What Happened Next Left Me Wishing I Was Dead”

11

What Does David Lammy Mean by a State?

11

BBC Quietly Edits Question Time After Wrongly ‘Correcting’ Richard Tice on Key Net Zero Claim

9 May 2025

Electric Car Bursts into Flames on Driveway and Engulfs £550,000 Family Home

9 May 2025

“I Was a Super Fit Cyclist Until I Had the Moderna Covid Vaccine. What Happened Next Left Me Wishing I Was Dead”

9 May 2025

Nature Paper Claims to Pin Liability for ‘Climate Damages’ on Oil Companies

9 May 2025

What Does David Lammy Mean by a State?

9 May 2025

POSTS BY DATE

May 2020
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr   Jun »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
wpDiscuz
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences