A Cultural Theory of COVID-19

Ever since Mary Douglass wrote Purity and Danger, we have had the perfect tool to analyze how society functions both day to day and in crisis. Her collaboration with Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture, deepened this understanding. In doctoral school in the late 1980s, I took Aaron's seminar when he was a visiting professor at American University. During that time, he gave a series of lectures which became The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism. The Grid/Group Cultural Theory is, in the view of many, the field theory which puts all of social science in perspective. It lays bare the assumptions of each, from the libertarian bias of economics to the egalitarianism of sociology. This essay shows how the theory can be used to put the current pandemic in perspective.

First, a bit on the theory. Grid/Group Theory posits four basic ways of life based on social organization/prescription (rules) and social cohesion (group membership). The four ways of life are hierarchy (more rules/high group), egalitarianism (few rules/high group), individualism/libertarianism (few rules/low group) and fatalism/despotism/authoritarianism (more rules/low group).
Just by laying out the theory, you can likely see where the actors in our current national drama fall.

The medical establishment, from Dr. Anthony Fauci on down, are the hierarchs. They rely on their expertise and their social networking to provide us with an answer. In time of crisis, we rely on such people to organize a response, including organizing us.

Their core social belief is that if we do what they recommend, we will get through this. Their power is a consistent message. Everyone in the medical caste falls in line. They are self-protective. Members of the caste are the most important, so they must be protected with adequate masks, even those younger members who could easily manage their own symptoms and work through them. The older members cannot allow this, as they must save face. Prior experience with other epidemics, especially Ebola, provide the rationale for this protection, even if it is not appropriate to this pandemic.

In more traditional societies, rules were given a religious context. In modern society, morality has been replaced by health. Thus, today’s sinners are those who fail to keep the prescribed social distance. Their behavior is cast in moral terms. Young people who do not seem to get very sick (although capers may be more at risk) are told to fall in line for the health of the more vulnerable aged in their lives and the lives of others.

Egalitarians share the commitment to protect the elderly and themselves. They get upset (I have seen it) at the thought that some people are already immune and are no longer practicing social distancing. If they suffer, so must everyone else.

They object when testing is reserved for the medical caste and the wealthy, who seem to have no trouble being tested. Their chief demand is that those displaced by the crisis be made whole. Their saying so draws opposition from the authoritarian and libertarian believers who resist such accommodation because the egalitarianism demand it. The egalitarians respond by opposing subsidies to established industries, as this would help perpetuate inequality and control by institutions. They hope that improved distributive justice now will set precedent, which their opposing ways of life fear.

The Authoritarians fear economic justice because, in their view, work and social obedience can be better compelled from the hungry. Even libertarians buy into this belief because there are no other social norms to compel work from lesser beings. The libertarians are motivated by money and prestige. They agree with subsidies to the extent they are necessary for workers to pay their rent and credit card bills. These payments have largely been securitized and the libertarian elites hold the property and the securities. If more egalitarian knew the details, this pandemic will legitimize more strident calls for reform, even revolution.

Libertarians put their skills to good use in a crisis. They respond to unworkable rules with necessary work around, such as reusing masks and repurposing hotels as hospitals.

Libertarians think outside the box in ways the medical establishment may not accept. Libertarians propose solutions like more people getting sick to provide herd immunity. They come up with new diagnostic methods that outpace established routines. Kinsa's interactive thermometers provide maps of where the flu and Covid are likely to be, yet the medical establishment ignores them. Such creativity mutes calls for more testing and challenges expert authority.

More realistic assessments also mess with the established plan. One would think that by now, someone would have compared death rates in Milan to histories of cardiac illness. If those who died have no such history, it may explain why so many of the elderly are dying there. This type of analysis delegitimizes the plan. So would the examination of whether the pneumonia vaccine prevents Covid morbidity among the elderly. If mass vaccination works, no mass mobilization is required.

Young libertarians simply ignore social distancing. Parties continue. Spring break will not be stopped. Neither was Mardi Gras. For now, social rebellion is limited. If it turns out that the pandemic is more Swine Flu than Ebola, the consensus around the plan will evaporate.

For now, the population is fatalistic in their obedience to the plan. They truly fear the future. It is easy to do. Their acquiescence allows authoritarians (like Trump) license and has other leaders step into authoritarian behavior. The hierarchs cooperate with such nonsense (such as crediting the President for any progress) because it aids the mission.

Hierarchs will go along to get along, although their memoirs about Trump will likely be written with pens dipped in acid.
Authoritarians also draw egalitarian into action, even if it is only commentary. The media, with the exception of Fox, seems mesmerized by Trump's incompetence. The logical thing would be to simply ignore him in their coverage. While this risks a response from the despot, it also provides a morality play to fill dead air. It will continue until people stop watching, the libertarians who own the media and buy the ads will continue to talk about an old fool who should simply be pitied and ignored. Instead, he is our tragi-comic hero. Every story needs one.