Much more than a panel: social resistance in times of coronavirus
Breno Bringel[1]
As the coronavirus pandemic spread to Brazil, a wave of multiple sentiments spread among the population. Agony due to the saturation of events, anxiety in prison, frustration in the face of impotence and perplexity in the face of confusion. The negligence and disastrous public appearances of an irresponsible president have, in turn, left the entire country feeling unprotected and, even, given the political irresponsibility of two world leaders who want to openly contradict the recommendations of the World Organization. gives Health and two scientists.
The virus (and, in many cases, mainly its consequences) is a very widespread position, but even worse is the denialism that continues to minimize the importance of the pandemic. With arguments such as “the lethality is not too high”, “the flu kills more” or “we will no longer have worse epidemics and pandemics”, Bolsonaro and his entourage will seek, once again (as well as the fact that the Holocaust and the climate changes), generate controversies based on empirically and historically verified facts about those that exist. a broad consensus. Whether due to selfishness, religious convictions, political strategy or psychic disturbances of some kind, this time we are placing the lives of enormous contingents of the population at risk, especially the most vulnerable.
Despite this dramatic situation caused by a light and unusual position during the pandemic, the measures of social isolation and the harsh policies of restriction of mobility, becoming necessary to try to contain the spread of contagion, reveal aspects that need to be problematized. It is necessary to be faithful not to the motives exposed for extreme-directness and simply because it can place our liberties in democracy, strengthening authoritarianism that has not recently spread.
Mundo afora, or intervening State, is currently claimed by neoliberals, but with the military on the streets and the installation of a war logic not only against viruses, but also against some sectors of society. Power concentration measures that we see being taken to combat Covid-19 may also be necessary to make public health care viable and the “protection” of the population, therefore there is a tenuous border between this and authoritative drifts. Furthermore, it is necessary to point out that mass confinement appears practically as the only alternative today, which has been, to a large extent, à privatization policy in recent decades. Neoliberalism is so damaging that, in situations like this, we do not have the capacity to count (in the European countries that were previously proud) with a public response at its height.
Quarantine is necessary, but the emergency policies that are beginning to spread are unsustainable. They, indeed, do not come like the coronavirus and, in some cases, may not disappear when the pandemic has passed. The militarization of two territories and life has already been widely disseminated in recent years, as well as the subsequent creation of new enemies – internal and external –, from which it derived. We are facing biopolitics in its purest form, with a grain of oil unpublished by the population. Before, vigiavam e puniam. Now, vigiam, punem and we all applaud, locked in our houses. Let's not fool ourselves: permanent surveillance – in the most classic ways with digital tracking and drones –, or control and management of two big dataNew facial recognition devices and other sophisticated forms of social control are being developed not only to combat a virus.
It is necessary to neutralize the deniers and opportunists of plantation, but also to reconstitute a tragic dimension in confinement: it is socially necessary, but politically dangerous. This is because we cannot isolate the exceptionality of the typical measures of this political moment with the disturbed situation that we live in in Brazil, in Latin America and in the world. Let's think, for example, about the consequences of the possible complete closure of borders and the lack of a state of siege in countries like insurgent Chile, Bolívia with its aftermath of a coup, or Venezuela already affected by internal supply problems. We are only at the beginning of a health emergency, which must also be seen as a political and social emergency, mainly in societies as diverse as Latin America.
Political learning and social resistance in times of coronavirus
This somber portrait of politics in times of confinement, fortunately, is a partial image. For all that is necessary and increasingly urgent #ForaBolsonaro, as social resistances are being built, embora nem always seen. There is, in fact, a series of political apprentices who, at the present time, contribute to making visible and which constitute fundamental pillars to build an alternative horizon at the present time.
First of all, the importance of fighting against anthropocentrism. The very emergence of the coronavirus is a result of our ecosystem imbalances, the slowdown of the economy and a little more than a week of restrictions on cars and airplanes will serve to ensure that most of the world's capitals have seen their stratospheric pollution levels descend towards the end. This tells us that we are fighting against climate change, for alternatives to predatory economic development and environmental justice, the planet will not have life that is sustained in the near future.
Another societal lesson learned from politics in times of coronavirus is the centrality of care in the maintenance of life and its absolutely unequal division in terms of gender. As feminists insist for a long time, but now the confinement of most of the world's population in their homes, with children without schools and families inteiras on the same subject, makes this scandalous reality even more explicit. So that care tasks do not continue to fall exclusively on women's bodies, quarantine should be seen as a unique opportunity for men to be actively involved in a radical change of scene, transforming the organization of work at home and abroad. Today, the message is clear: it is not worth starting now and saying that after, after the end of the quarantine, “it's not time.” It must be a path without going back. Only then will we be able to build, in practical terms, more egalitarian societies and anti-patriarchy alternatives.
A third apprentice's job is the defense and reconstruction of public services. Fighting against the coronavirus is making visible the importance of public health, free and universal, as well as the centrality of public financing for research as some of the amalgams of our societies and forms of protection of people. The moment here is also critical: we defend and rebuild public health (and public services in general), in a moment where its importance is lost, and we will not go back. It is about the importance of being general in the market reactions and the political operators of mercantilization.
But, in addition to the public defense, the current crisis also alerts to the importance of collectivity and community life. Paradoxally, in times of profound individualization of society and in a moment where isolation has an eminently individual character, various social initiatives come to value and defend life in common. We feel more sozinhos and we are more vulnerable to the various risks in the game, but we also multiply empathy, solidarity and networks of mutual support. Young people who are willing to buy food or medicines for the population in a dangerous situation that cannot leave home; families who are willing to take care of the children of other families who need to continue working; initiatives that promote exchanges, directly and indirectly, when the doors of many businesses date and economic needs begin to open; groups that offer psychological, legal and occupational support for those who are suffering in a more direct way with the consequences of the crisis. Strengthening social and community ties, therefore, increases the potential for resistance in times of coronavirus.
Likewise, another learning that emerges with the pandemic is related to food. Making a purchase is for two reasons because many of us leave home, in some cases scared by the possibility (real or imaginary) of shortages of basic products. The communication channels reproduce images of huge lines in supermarkets due to a social alarm caused by compulsive buying. Little does it say that it is really in the game and it is directly feeding. For decades, the rural movements, food networks and the United Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture have been paying attention to an unsustainable model of food, highly concentrated in large distribution areas, claiming food sovereignty as an alternative to security. In critical moments like today, more than ever, we begin to think about what and how it is produced, consumed and distributed. The dilemma is clear: either we bet all our chips on a change in our habits, but also in the food system as a whole (with local chains and sustainable and ecological products, above the demands of supermarkets, large companies and the market) or we will be destined to deepen a food catastrophe.
Given the emergency caused by the health crisis, social resistance is not restricted to the panels on the janelas and varandas. They are fundamental, but only with them Bolsonaro will not fall, nor will we change the fundamental bases of our most pressing problems. Therefore, these various initiatives signal social emergencies for a necessary transition. By strengthening the collectives, the networks and the two movements that they sustain (mainly environmental, feminist, youth, community and peasant-indigenous) our future horizon will be even more limited.
[1] CLACSO researcher. GT Critical extension: theories and practices in Latin America and the Caribbean. Professor at the University of the State of Rio de Janeiro. Member of the steering committee of the Latin American Association of Sociology and president of the Committee of Social Movements of the International Association of Sociology. Artigo published na Folha de São Paulo, 31 / 03 / 2020.
Much more than a pot-banging protest:
social resistance in times of coronavirus
Breno Bringel[1]
As soon as the coronavirus pandemic reached Latin America, a wave of diverse feelings swept through the population. Overwhelmed by the sheer volume of events, anxious about the confinement, frustrated by the powerlessness, and bewildered by the unknown. In some cases, like Argentina, the government response was swift and relatively well-coordinated. In others, like Mexico, there was considerable initial negligence. And while Sebastián Piñera in Chile, Lenin Moreno in Ecuador, and Iván Duque in Colombia certainly tried hard to earn the title of the most foolish president in the face of the health emergency, obviously no one has managed to surpass Jair Bolsonaro. His irresponsible stances and disastrous public appearances left Brazilians with a profound sense of vulnerability and even anger toward one of the few world leaders who has dared to openly contradict the recommendations of the World Health Organization, also delegitimizing scientists.
Fear of the virus (and, in many cases, primarily of its consequences) is a widespread sentiment, but even worse is the denialism of those who continue to downplay the importance of the pandemic. With arguments like “the lethality rate isn't that high,” “the flu kills more people,” or “we've had worse epidemics and pandemics in history,” Bolsonaro and his entourage seek, once again (just as they did before with the Holocaust or climate change), to generate controversy around empirically and historically verifiable facts on which there is broad consensus. Whether out of selfishness, religious convictions, political strategy, or some kind of psychological disturbance, they are putting the lives of enormous segments of the population at risk, especially the most vulnerable.
Despite this dramatic situation caused by an inhumane response to the pandemic, the physical distancing measures and strict mobility restrictions, while necessary to contain the spread of the virus, have consequences that require further discussion. This discussion should not be based on the arguments put forward by the far right, but rather on the fact that these measures could jeopardize our freedoms and democracy, strengthening the already widespread social and political authoritarianism.
The interventionist state is now being championed even by neoliberals, but with it come the military in the streets, states of emergency in which everything is suspended, and the establishment of a war-like logic not only against the virus but also against certain sectors of society. Measures concentrating power adopted to combat Covid-19 may even be necessary to enable public healthcare and the “protection” of the population. However, there is a very thin line between this and authoritarian tendencies. It is also important to remember that if mass confinement appears today as practically the only alternative, this is largely due to the privatization policies of recent decades. Neoliberalism has so devastated public health that, in situations like this, we lack the capacity to rely (even in European countries that were once proud of it) on an adequate public response.
Quarantine is necessary, but some of the exceptional policies we're beginning to see in several countries are unsustainable. We also know that they didn't start with the coronavirus and, in some cases, may not disappear once the pandemic is over. They were already there, militarizing territories and lives, and contributing to the creation of new enemies, both internal and external. We are experiencing biopolitics in its purest form, with historical acceptance from the population. Before, they watched and punished. Now, they watch, punish, and we all applaud, locked in our homes. But let's not fool ourselves: the constant surveillance—from the most classic forms to digital tracking and drones—the control and management of big dataNew facial recognition devices and other sophisticated forms of social control are not being deepened just to combat a virus.
It is necessary to neutralize the deniers and the opportunists, but we must also recognize that there is a tragic dimension to confinement: it is socially necessary, but politically dangerous. This is because we cannot separate the exceptional nature of the measures typical of this moment from the turbulent political situation we are experiencing in our region and the world. Let us consider, for example, the consequences of a possible total border closure and the uses and abuses of the state of siege for other purposes. This is no small matter in the current scenario of political confrontation, from insurgent and rebellious Chile to a battered Bolivia or a Venezuela already so beset by unrest and instability. Moreover, we are only at the beginning of a health emergency that, in societies as unequal as ours, must also be seen as a political and social emergency.
Political learning and social resistance
in times of coronavirus
This bleak portrait of politics in times of confinement contrasts, however, with a landscape of political lessons that the current situation is helping to bring to light. The first of these is the importance of combating anthropocentrism. If the very emergence of the coronavirus is a result of our ecosystemic imbalances, the economic slowdown and little more than a week of car and flight restrictions have led to most of the world's capital cities seeing their stratospheric pollution levels drop by half, while we witness unprecedented images of animals roaming empty streets. This reminds us that, without fighting climate change, for alternatives to development, and for environmental justice, there will be no planet or life to sustain itself in the near future.
Another societal lesson learned from politics during the coronavirus pandemic is the centrality of care work in sustaining life and its utterly unequal distribution. Feminists have long emphasized this, and now the confinement of half the world to their homes, with children out of school and entire families under one roof, makes it even more explicit. Almost scandalous. To prevent caregiving responsibilities from continuing to fall almost exclusively on women, the quarantine should be seen as a turning point, an opportunity for men to actively engage in a radical shift, transforming the organization of work both at home and outside. The message to men is clear: it's not enough to start now and then, after the quarantine ends, say "I don't have time." We must embark on a path of no return. Only in this way can we build, in practical terms, more egalitarian societies and anti-patriarchal alternatives.
A third key lesson concerns the defense and reconstruction of the public sector. After decades of dismantling public services under neoliberalism, the fight against the coronavirus has highlighted the importance of free, universal public healthcare, as well as the centrality of public funding for socially relevant research. This is also a critical moment: either we defend and rebuild public healthcare (and public services in general), at a time when its importance is crystal clear to all of society, or there will be no turning back. It is about prioritizing the general well-being of people over the reactions of the market and the political operators of commodification. And, ultimately, it is about putting life before the economy and capitalism, something that is exceptionally resonating at this moment, although we do not know for how long.
Beyond the defense of public services, the contemporary crisis is also calling into question the importance of collectivity and community life. Paradoxically, at a time when isolation is primarily individual, several social initiatives are placing greater value on communal life. We feel more alone and more vulnerable, but empathy, solidarity, and a range of mutual support networks have also been strengthened. Young people are offering to shop for groceries or medicine for at-risk individuals who cannot leave their homes; families are taking care of children for other families who must continue working; initiatives are promoting exchanges and bartering during times of business closures and pressing economic needs; and groups are offering psychological and/or employment support to those already suffering the most direct consequences of the crisis. The strengthening of social bonds and community ties, therefore, is another potential source of resilience in times of coronavirus.
Likewise, another lesson that has emerged from the pandemic is related to food. Going grocery shopping is one of the few reasons we can leave home, and many of us are frightened by the possibility (real or imagined) of shortages of basic products in many places. The media broadcasts images of queues at supermarkets amid public alarm and panic buying. But what is truly at stake is the right to food. For decades, peasant movements and food networks have been drawing attention to an unsustainable food model concentrated in large retail chains, advocating for food security and sovereignty as an alternative. In times like these, more than ever, we are reflecting on what and how food is produced, consumed, and distributed. The choice is clear: either we bet everything on a change in our habits, but also in the food system as a whole (with relocalized chains and sustainable and ecological products, above the demands of large companies and the market) or we will be doomed to a deepening of the food catastrophe.
In the face of the emergency caused by the health crisis, social resistance is not limited to banging pots and pans from balconies and windows. It is also taking root in diverse social initiatives that foresee the social emergencies of a necessary transition. Without these initiatives and the strengthening of citizen and neighborhood networks, and the movements that sustain them (primarily environmental, feminist, youth, community, and peasant-indigenous), our future horizon will be even more restricted.
[1] Researcher at CLACSO. Working Group on Critical Extension: Theories and Practices in Latin America and the Caribbean. Professor at the State University of Rio de Janeiro. Member of the Steering Committee of the Latin American Sociological Association and President of the Social Movements Committee of the International Sociological Association. Article published in Latin America 21 and in Open Movements / Open Democracy, 1/4/2020.
[+] Thinking about the pandemic
If you would like to receive more information about CLACSO's training programs:
[widget id=”custom_html-57″]
to our email lists.
