Optimist or Pessimist?
The ‘Pandemic Perspectives’ academic discussion group has been arguing about the impact of the covid-19 since it was set up in April 2020 (see Group Membership section for participants and ethos). Given that worldwide deaths at the time of writing have been calculated to be at least 760,000 and rising, it seems crass to view the pandemic as anything other than a global catastrophe. The terrible loss of life and the suffering of the bereaved is, of course, appalling, and has remained the first thought of the group members in all our debates. What has come in the wake of this tragic loss of life, however, may well be a profoundly changed world, radically altered in its politics and economics, its social structure, its culture and humanity’s impact on the environment.
Early on in the group discussions, it became apparent that, whilst I felt that the pandemic could create opportunities for positive social change, the vast majority of the group felt that either the changes would be predominantly negative, or that the status quo would quickly reassert itself and the ‘new normal’ would soon look very like the ‘old normal’. Having split into broadly ‘optimistic’ and ‘pessimistic’ factions, we have carried on arguing ever since, picking a different theme to debate each week. The purpose of this first post is to open up the debate to anyone interested with the simple question – ‘Are you optimistic or a pessimistic about the post-covid future, and why do you hold that position?’
In later posts, other members of the group will advocate their positions, but to start the ball rolling I will try to summarise (in very broad terms) the basis of my optimism.
In politics and economics: the pandemic may have brought an abrupt end to the era of ‘neoliberalism’. Certainly the conception that the state should be perpetually rolled back and the market left to provide for all human need, almost instantly evaporated. We discovered that we did, after all, need the state, not only to protect us from disease, but in an extraordinary reversal of the manifesto commitments of right-wing governments, it was also required to provide the wages of a huge proportion of the populous, to invest in businesses, to run the transport system and to provide enhanced welfare systems. Suddenly it was not merely an economic possibility for the state to ‘print’ money and support struggling industry, but indeed it was a vital necessity for the state to ‘pump-prime’ the economy during a deep depression – thus reversing the economic orthodoxy of the last forty years.
In social and cultural terms: Under lockdown, there was a sustained re-thinking of who was, in fact, important in our society. No longer was it professional footballers and celebrities, but those who delivered vital services: the NHS and care home workers, refuge collectors, post service workers, supermarket staff… Under lockdown, local communities discovered strengths and connections they had not previously known existed, spontaneous networks of support sprang up and ‘neighbourliness’ became commonplace. Workers commuting long-distances were suddenly at home, giving renewed vigour to family life, and the sight of family groups on newly purchased (or dug out of the shed) bicycles became a common sight. The long-term consequences of ‘home-working’ will radically alter the very nature of our cities and positively enhance our relationship with our local communities.
On the environment: It was clear as the skies cleared over Beijing and other polluted cities, that covid had accidentally offered an opportunity to prevent the inexorable march of global heating. I propose that long-distance travel, for tourism and business, will be permanently reduced, and that manufacturers will shorten supply lines, reducing the global transportation of goods. Newly emboldened interventionist governments will invest in green technology and renewable energy, and cities will be remade to be more amenable to cyclists and walkers.
Broad-stroke stuff, of course, let us know your views….