The Hong Kong protests marked the end of 2019 with an image summarising the political upheaval
that characterised the whole year. A year whose ordeal was in fact, protesting, most notably for the
fight against climate change
What put an halt to such political unrest, together with other forces of communal social and political
life, was the outbreak of the tragic Covid-19, alias Coronavirus. The subsequent adaptive and
reactionary methods enacted by individuals and governments in response to this epidemic outbreak
can be a point of anthropological study.
I have selected those that might signal a fundamental cultural
shift and bring with them a new way of living. Such measures of adaptation and reaction share the
common denominator of being of digital form.
Before exploring these practices, however, I would to point out my own bias in proposing such
theoretical perspectives by leaving at the end of this paper, the resources I have selected that inform
my claims. Additionally, being a young, Italian “Gen Z”, whose life was influenced, if not even shaped
by technology, I personally relate to this theme and depending on what anthropological school of
thought you preferred, this might be good or bad.
2014’s multi-million-views TedTalk of Bill Gates, the front face of the technological revolution,
explaining the risk of an imminent virus outbreak arguably symbolises how “technology” is a step
ahead of governments. And thus has, unlike governments, the solution to society’s issues. Let’s discuss
whether that’s for good.
From my understanding, the first digital solution that gained momentum in Italy was that of
“crowdfunding”. With the emergence of numerous crowdfunding platforms, this phenomenon has
been quickly on the rise. One could argue that this is a positive tool for helping people out. It allows
them to directly contribute to individual and collective causes. However, one could also argue that it
could institutionalise the weakness of states to respond to such issues, relegating them to individuals
initiative and responsibility.
The second method of adaptation to the novel coronavirus is the digitalisation of work: “smartworking”. Remote work policies are becoming more and more popular and are reshaping how we
work. Investors direct their attention to this new sector, praising startups allowing remote events.
Together with online education, it is widely appreciated for accommodating people’s love of
simplicity, flexibility and freedom (today synonym independence). It also provides new opportunities
to engage with a vast audience at a low marginal cost and share one’s own abilities. Nevertheless, if
in the long run governments leave technological innovation to venture business enterprises and
furthermore, unregulated, people’s best interests might not be assured and democracy might be
threatened.
This is why: firstly, the organic human interactions that take place in real life, at school or
in the workplace, which allow people to freely exchange opinions, might disappear if these measures
persist even after the state of emergency. The internet is allowed to filter out what does not resemble
our past search history unless we actively look for something that doesn’t. In real life tho, we can more
easily come in contact with ideas differing from ours, debate and compromise. Unlike arguably, what
happens in non-democratic systems (appearing more appealing to new generations).
Furthermore,
we might end up focusing on doing our own thing and lose the sense of cohesion and community that
drives collective demand for change. In fact, that’s the job of trade unions, struggling places in gigeconomies where Uber drivers work for a few pounds an hour. Secondly, having the right tools is what
allows one to be effectively accessing the smart-working realm. Both in terms setting it up and
participating in it. People working in the least profiting sectors, might be further excluded from this
innovation. For example, social care workers might not enter this scene at all. And what about
students who simply do not have a good enough broadcasting internet to access online teaching? This
is obviously not a digital issue per se. As I previously stated, it is a political one too.
But it would be
preferable that smart-working, instead of being the extension of pre-existing inequalities, was shaped
so that it provided some solutions. Just think of data privacy. However, many have also claimed that
social life has positively improved, since people have more time to dedicate to talking to one another
via social networks. Perhaps, that would have been similar a few decades ago, just that instead we
would have been having the longest phone calls. Being nostalgic of the past is never good and neither
is the past itself.
Nonetheless, the issue I wanted to underline with exemplifying how technology has
entered many spheres of our lives and how it is changing them is that while it can be fantastic, it needs
to happen wisely, fairly and cautiously. Especially at this time, when short-term solutions seem evermore appealing.
Resources:
- Jamie Bartlett “The People vs Tech: How the Internet is Killing Democracy (and how We can Save It)” (2018)
- Andrew Keen “How to Fix the Future” (2018)
- Yuval Noah Harari “The World After Coronavirus” (2020) Financial Times
- Gideon Lichfield “We’re Not Going Back to Normal” (2020) MIT Technology Review
- Arman Tabatabai “Where top VCs are investing in remote events” (2020) TechCrunch
- Walter Thompson and Natasha Mascarenhas interview (2020) TechCrunch
Milano, 2 aprile 2020
Maria Alessandra Panzera
BA Law and Social Anthropology
SOAS University of London
This blog is managed by the work group of the World Anthropology Day - Public Anthropology in Milan of the University of Milan-Bicocca. It welcomes short (self)ethnography, theoretical reflections, reading and studying suggestions.
This blog is managed by the work group of the World Anthropology Day - Public Anthropology in Milan of the University of Milan-Bicocca. It welcomes short (self)ethnography, theoretical reflections, reading and studying suggestions.