Exploring risk. The RHS of this diagram is now mostly not operating. But neither is much of the LHS, for most. Personal responsibilities crystallise out of shared framings and priorities. There are no easy answers for how to manage a pandemic, from here. /1
As individuals we can try to add as many slices of personal responsibility cheese as we can afford and maintain. But for how long? A decade? More? The rest of our lives? Recognising also that this creates a profound change in our social arrangements as well. /2
Most of our friends and even families are not doing this. So we’re making a decision about whether to alter our relationships, perhaps even permanently. My sense is this diagram made sense at a time when all of the slices of cheese were more or less in place. /3
I’m less convinced it can operate with only half the slices of cheese, or even less. As above, personal and shared responsibilities are not distinct. The personal and the shared are mutually defined. Some of us do our best to devise our own Covid strategies. /4
But again, this is akin to a type of survivalism now. You have to confront the idea of creating an almost mini-society of your own, to pull it off. Public health interventions are social interventions, not medical interventions. How many years will people commit to that? /5
This is also absolutely not to argue for ‘living with the virus’, in that surrendering way. It’s not to suggest there’s any simple answer at all. It’s to suggest that much more is in play here than simple slices of cheese i.e. individual interventions. /6
What I see is social media doing what it always does. Taking the slices and turning them into symbolic team sports battles. Is that person wearing or not wearing a mask? Are you for or against clean air? For or against lockdowns? Etc. /7
The more the whole edifice collapses, the more strident the symbolic battles become. Nothing is working, so the resultant anger is invested in increasingly furious touchstones for appropriate Covid action, that are just individual slices of cheese broken off from the rest. /8
We’re re-discovering what life was like for most of human history, when there was no public sphere to handle collective problems, often invisibly to us. It’s not the same as saying there is no collective life now, though. All life is always collective. /9
The personal and the shared are mutually defined, not two things. I have solar panels and a battery, for example, for my personal use but which also has collective impact on the country’s power grid. It’s not two things. Our individual acts always derive from shared origins. /10
Including the language we speak. What varies throughout history is the degree of coordination of all of our individual/collective acts. If as an individual you avoid Covid infection, you’re possibly saving thousands of lives. You’re interrupting transmission chains. /11
But how long can you keep doing it, alone? Again because it also means re-writing your entire social life. These are the questions that are coming for us all. There are no easy answers. For me, we need to stop the process of team-sporting the individual slices of cheese. /12
Progress won’t be our degree of fanatical commitment to this or that Covid measure, and the strength of our angry denunciation of those who aren’t meeting a symbolic level of commitment to the same. We’re going to need an appetite for a lot more ‘shit happens’ in our lives. /13
Because for most of the world’s population, this has ALWAYS been life. Lots of shit happens, that shouldn’t. Our beautiful public sphere that cleared away a lot of that shit is terminal. Only catastrophe put it there, and only catastrophe will likely put it back. /14
In the meantime, those who want to keep fighting may need to be more nuanced in how the devise their risk management strategies. Each person’s situation may be quite different, on a whole range of measures. Their health history, work set-up, social relationships, etc. /15
Whether they mask all the time, or find ways to create pockets of relative safety that also protect wider social relationships. Whether they devise ventilation strategies with cheap equipment that can be introduced almost invisibly to home and work. /16
There is no must-do list of things. Public health was invented to remove the need for this sort of individual calculation of risk, but it’s not realistically going to be re-adopted any time soon, on current trends. We can try, but also plan for when that may not work. /17
Above all else, I say we need to stop thinking social media methodology for addressing problems, i.e. constructing teams who then fight ruthlessly over how many angels fit on the end of a pin, will fix anything. Righteousness only makes platform owners rich. /18
This is life in a post-public world. Which is life as it has been for most of human history. The public was a short, gloriously successful project for about 150 years. I for one will keep fighting to save it. But I’ll also think strategically about that failing. /19
About how to shape my life and that of my family for maximum safety without surrendering at the same time to survivalism. I don’t want to live in a bunker, though I will use more elements of bunker life than I would have 20 years ago. /20
It’s how most humans have had to negotiate life not just in history, but also right now, in most of the world. We lose sight of it from inside rich Western democracies. For many even inside these democracies, that’s been life, always. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
While simpletons use their Left/Right electoral goggles to understand what’s happening, Gil’s ‘Nerd Reich’ begins to implement exactly what they openly promised to do.
Gil rightly identifies the focus of the tech bros as the dismantling of democratic *institutions*.
Those institutions ARE democracy. Without them democracy is just what it’s become now. A facile popularity contest every 3-4 years. /2
Decades of all-out assault on those institutions, now widely and popularly labelled as ‘red tape’ and ‘bureaucracy’, has done the work of mobilising widespread support for their dismantling.
People from every corner of society despise bureaucrats. /3
Social media is not just where people share information. It’s a replacement for society itself, and intended to be. The decoupling of societies from their foundations.
Now, a literal de-coupling! This fascinating data will get a range of interpretations I’m sure. /1
Initial analysis shows the trend being driven strongly by women, enabled by their use of software via their mobile phones, to ‘leapfrog’ their usual cultural options.
That sounds extremely plausible. Women wanting a better cultural deal. But I think it’s more than that. /2
Because I suspect online life, and particularly social media, doesn’t offer a new deal. It offers you ongoing dependency, to the apps.
It decouples our lives from some basic social and cultural institutional foundations. /3
For 5 years now many of us have come here to express anger and disbelief that basic things like controlling the spread of a pandemic aren’t being done.
A few years ago I realised doing that is part of the problem. Mistaking these platforms for society. /1
These platforms operationalise a view of society. It’s what IT more generally has always done. Technologies embed a view of the world.
They promote and produce a view of society that says ‘the people’ generate society. /2
Anybody who follows me knows I think this is a suicidal belief, for civilisations. Not only do ‘the people’ not run societies (and never have), ‘the people’ is not even a thing.
It’s a retrospective justification for high status individuals and groups, for their actions. /3
The 20th century was a century of revolutions. Russia, China. And we had one too, the 1960s ‘counter-cultural’ revolution.
Like Burke I think all revolutions are disasters for societies. They can be the catastrophes I often say bring the only real change. But…. /1
They’re not good change. They can sweep away existing status hierarchies. But they just replace them with new ones. Orwell’s Animal Farm was about that.
Burke’s reflections on the French Revolution of that time were prescient too. What did that revolution lead to? /2
An even greater ‘authoritarian’ status hierarchy than the one it replaced. Napoleon.
We have a harder time seeing this same dysfunctional pattern in our own Western societies, because our revolution seems more benign. /3