This article might be best read not just as an analysis of how Canadians reacted (and still react) to the ongoing pandemic, but as an object lesson predicting our behaviour during the various crises still with us and ahead. Using the same categories of passive nihilism, active nihilism and ethical subjects will we continue to fail as badly? “So when the next pandemic, or food shortage, or war threat comes along, we will deal with it not as decent human beings but as self-centred nihilists.”
Perhaps nothing references more directly the factors at the core of why communities survive or die.
How COVID Broke Canadian Society. The Tyee. June 15, 2022. ‘Canadians failed to come together in the face of adversity, failed to protect some of the most vulnerable, and failed this test of common decency.’
June 15, 2022 at 12:31 pm
An excellent article! And represents exactly how I have come to understand what ‘Society’ and ‘Community’ mean to many Canadians. In my experience the majority still tried to be the ethical subjects. But the silent majority was buried under the story of the nihilists. I have said many times over the last 2 plus years that the fractioning in society that we saw over the pandemic scares me for how the general population will deal with the next pandemic, or food insecurity. There will be another pandemic in the next 10-15 years if not sooner. Food insecurity will grow with continued climate change and wars. The minority nihilists can rampage and unless the silent majority speaks louder we stand a chance of being overrun by the chaos. It is also important to view this social phenomenon of chaos, as discussed by the article in the Tyee, within the mathematical world of Chaos Theory.
Chaos theory:
Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.
So what we term chaos is not as chaotic as we sometimes view it. And that reality is scary moving forward, because we still haven’t come to understand the patterns within the chaos that occurred and continues to occur. What is the underlying pattern and interconnectedness within the chaos we saw in society over the last 2 years?
As the nihilists multiply it forces more ethical subjects into nihilism to save themselves in the perceived chaos. The next social crisis will probably further fraction society unless we understand those patterns in the chaos. Instead of a cohesive Society working together, as I was taught, I see the growth of tribalism again, becoming more necessary for the ethical subjects to survive the rampage of nihilists. And though Tribalism can help save the tribe itself, it actually further fractions and redefines the concept of Society.
I think I was taught wrong as to what Society and Social Conscience should mean to all of us, as what I was taught continues to crumble.
Margaret Thatcher’s view of Society, if correct, will ultimately lead to greater tribalism than a cohesive society.
“They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.” – in an interview with Margaret Thatcher in Women’s Own in 1987.
June 15, 2022 at 7:25 pm
I don’t think philosophical terms such as “nihilism” or “tribalism” can explain human behaviour in times of crisis. In times of crisis there are three types of people: those that cause the crisis or fuel the crisis, those that band together to protect themselves and others from the crisis, and those who for their own reasons do not join the second group. The second group, by the way, has the highest rate of success over time.
One could argue that those that cause the crisis or fuel the crisis are nihilists, but they probably wouldn’t even know what that philosophical term meant. They would probably describe themselves as “protesters,” “the oppressed” or “freedom fighters.” Those on the other side wouldn’t describe them as nihilists either; they might use terms like “fanatic,” “zealot” or “psychopath.” Members of the third group might consider themselves to be “brave'” or “heroic.” Whereas from the other groups point of view they would likely be judged as “foolish” or “selfish.” Very few of them would describe themselves or each other as nihilist, nor is applying that term to anyone provide any helpful hindsight.
If we are to learn anything helpful from the pandemic we need to appreciate and understand the behaviours of the group with the highest survivability rate. Those that bonded together to protect themselves and others teach us the value of cooperation, the value of institutions for the purpose of protection and caring, and the value of an ethos that is non-judgemental, inclusive, hopeful, loving, forgiving and anything but “nihilistic” or “tribal.”
May I conclude by commenting of the often cited quote from Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher had a very limiting view of what a “society” is, and her determination that it didn’t exist was a result of defining it out of existence. In fact, all three groups of people exist within society at any given time, and individuals in society can exist within all three groups at different moments in time. Part of our “duty to look after ourselves” in a large and complex society is to insure we have functioning institutions as free from corruption and prejudice as possible, a dynamic economy free of monopolies and regulated to protect the environment, workers and their rights, and a educated populous as free from the propaganda of government and grifters as is possible.
June 16, 2022 at 7:17 am
I think one of the challenges of analyzing an article like this is that because it is so multi-faceted it makes it easy to talk past one another when trying to evaluated its contents.
I accept the comments on chaos theory and on the limitations of philosophical terms like “nihilism” and “tribalism.” There are other models like reciprocal altruism game theory that also come to mind to describe some aspects of the responses of western culture under Covid, which could further complicate the thinking. I also recognize that the three categories of response to the pandemic set out by the author aren’t entirely comprehensive (additional categories could also be described) nor necessarily mutually exclusive (at different times of the day and/or stages of the pandemic, I have felt and subscribed to all of them).
But what I do find potentially useful is the descriptions of three major responses to the pandemic both by individuals and institutions. One: life is chaotic (and with Covid even more chaotic), but I’m going to find a way to be happy within it. Two: life is chaotic so I’m not about to accept anyone imposing any restraints on my trying to be happy within it. And how these two approaches are really just variations of a single perspective: my life (and happiness) is only about myself and only concerns me.
Alternative to that perspective, the author proposes a third perspective (only a second perspective if you combine the first two), which in some ways may be a bit (needlessly) cumbersome because he has included chaos as a factor. He refers to the third category as those “who realize their inability to fix things…” (as a nod to life being chaotic) but “… they commit to doing whatever they can to minimize the suffering of others.” In other words, rather than thinking my happiness is only my own business, it is thinking that it encompasses and is also affected by the happiness of others in the group.
At that point, doesn’t the book/article come down to tracking the beneficial versus unhelpful nature of individuals and/or institutions who practiced one or the other approach (looking after themselves only versus looking after themselves by looking after others)? And doesn’t it primarily conclude that our culture has deep roots and investments in only looking after our individual selves (e.g. a la Thatcher, etc.), but that maintaining that perspective will cost us as much in dealing with other crises (and in socio-political breakdowns) as it has cost us in dealing with Covid? That is we have become so multi-fractured as a society/culture that we have lost (and will continue to lose) many of the advantages possessed by more reciprocally altruistic groups?
June 16, 2022 at 8:47 am
Wow. I agree with Don that the article itself is multi-faceted. It would be interesting to read the actual book, because the writer of the article has a focus on what he believes is important, as do the rest of us in reading his points. Russ, Dan and Don make interesting and valid points.
In my opinion, the pandemic has simply highlighted a situation that was there before and sadly may continue. Humans do not do well in the face of impending crises and when one actually happens we are ill prepared to deal with it. How many people reading this have emergency kits ready to use in the event of an earthquake?
Early on in COVID, the virus was limited to other countries in the World (China) and was far enough removed that effective, early, preventative actions were not taken. I am not just talking about governments. As individuals we were also slow to react. Look at the folks who still went on cruises and got “stuck” in that little world after an outbreak occurred.
In my opinion the true culprit is our economic system which relies on continuous and ever increasing consumption of resources to “function.” We already had great divides in who was important in Nanaimo, in Canada and in the rest of the world (and these remain) and there was already a great split in how people were valued. I love Dan’s description of the group with the highest survivability rate “recognizing the value of cooperation, the value of institutions for the purpose of protection and caring, and the value of an ethos that is non-judgemental, inclusive, hopeful, loving, forgiving. ” It could just be my state of mind at the moment, but as lovely as this sounds, I have never truly seen it happen.
There is something looming in the horizon that I have been reading about, trying to make changes in my lifestyle and pondering for decades. I have seen little “real” movement in making attempts to mitigate the causes enough to actually stop or, at this point, reduce the impending disaster. That is climate change, which we are already seeing the impact of. Even our City has declared a “Climate Emergency’ but has taken few steps toward concrete actions. We will likely keep studying it, and setting up committees, just as has been done with those living unhoused and not getting real supports in Nanaimo and beyond.
I’m not sure where I place myself within the three categories provided in the article. Like Russ, I was taught about the value of a cohesive society working together, but I don’t think that this has ever really existed. Having tried to advocate for change in something as “simple” as safety and comfort for people walking in Nanaimo, I have come to a better understanding of the “political” nature of trying to get change to happen. I would like to think of myself as an ethical subject (who wouldn’t) but I do wonder how long someone can keep beating their head against a wall (or feeling like they are) without eventually giving up and simply trying to live their life in peace. Is this nihilism or simply self care?
June 17, 2022 at 9:46 am
The more I think about this article and the responses to it, the more I think that it brings us to the core issue of community: how those that belong to a community regard and act towards one another. Dan’s three types of people is consistent with this. The focus of the article is on crisis, and more specifically on Covid, but that is just one aspect of the core principle.
Whatever the focus of the article/discussion, it raises the same question: Do we look after ourselves by looking after one another or do we look after ourselves by only looking after ourselves? The first part is a community approach; the second is not. Can we be a community and only apply that principle to select areas or must the application be consistent across the board?
It doesn’t matter how many articles on this are posted for discussion, we are still debating the same question. We might as well resolve it here as anywhere. (Assuming it’s resolvable.)
June 17, 2022 at 11:57 pm
When I worked and volunteered at the Counselling Centre in Victoria, I was surrounded by people who truly wanted to help others. Those who counselled at the Centre most certainly wanted to look after each other and the clients who came for counselling. Those who worked there truly supported their coworkers, the volunteers, and the clients who wanted to receive counselling. It was by far the “best” community I have ever been attached to. People from diverse walks of life, all with the intention of helping others.
However, it was also acknowledged that there are times in all of our lives when we need to use our energy to support ourselves. The analogy used was recognizing that if your cup isn’t full, it is very difficult to help others fill their cups. Yes, there are certainly times when one can look after oneself and others simultaneously. This is the sign of a community that functions well. The pandemic, particularly early on in its life, demonstrated this for the most part. Somewhere along the way, this community support seemed to diminish and its hard to say why. Indeed, there may be a variety of reasons that this happened.