Search

This paper explores how masculinity may help us understand the varying ways political leaders are responding to the coronavirus crisis. By focusing directly on masculinity as a social process, this analysis contributes to the broader literature on gender and leadership, unpacking the gendered double bind that leaders who identify as men must navigate in acknowledging and responding to risks. I examine the responses of Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump suggesting that their respective struggles to acknowledge and respond to the public health threat were not simply the result of a lack of available information to inform rational policy decisions. Acknowledging risk and taking measures to prevent rather than 'fight' are not culturally neutral, they are coded as feminine and 'weak'. Clearly, the delay in the response and subsequent spread of the virus in North America was not inevitable, other jurisdictions were able to respond more quickly. The masculinity double bind may have been one of the factors that undermined a prompt response in the increasingly macho context of North America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this brief paper, I argue that the coronavirus pandemic is functioning like an ethnomethodological 'breaching experiment'. In short, it is putting a gigantic spanner in the works of neoliberal governance, in the process exposing the widening cracks and fissures of what I have called the 'fractured society'. I begin by recalling Garfinkel's notion of the breaching experiment and by listing the principal attributes of the fractured society. I then explore the response to the coronavirus in the UK, from the government's initial commitment to 'herd immunity' to its present policy of 'muddling through'. The bulk of the remainder of this contribution addresses precisely how this global health crisis shines a harsh and unforgiving searchlight on the strategies and policies pursued by governments in the UK since 2010, and most especially after the passing of the Health and Social Care Act of 2012. In the closing paragraphs, I examine possible scenarios for a post-fractured society, making particular use of Fraser's concepts on 'reactionary' versus 'progressive populism', and conclude with a comment on sociology and engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and medical devices needed during the COVID-19 pandemic were widely reported in early 2020. In response, civic DIY volunteers explored how they could produce the required equipment. Members of communities such as hacker- and makerspaces employed their skills and tools to manufacture, for example, face shields and masks. The article discusses these civic innovation practices and their broader social implications by relating them to critical making theory. Methodologically, it is based on a digital ethnography approach, focusing on hacker and maker communities in the UK. Communities' DIY initiatives display characteristics of critical making and 'craftivism', as they assessed and counteracted politicised healthcare supply shortages. It is argued that their manufacturing activities during the COVID pandemic relate to UK austerity politics' effects on healthcare and government failure to ensure medical crisis supplies. Facilitated by open source design, communities' innovation enabled healthcare emergency equipment. At the same time, their DIY manufacturing raises practical as well as ethical issues concerning, among other things, efficacy and safety of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Management of a pandemic engages multiple sites where previously settled or uncontroversial understandings may be transformed by global and domestic forces. This article examines the iconography of social distancing implicated in the discourses of 'quarantine' and 'risk control' in public health, and the tension between scientific and popular media readings of the contours of acceptable public health models for managing particular pandemics. The role of culture in shaping and reshaping borders at an operational level is explored as a basis for explaining the apparent paradoxes in the way historic and contemporary pandemics are actually managed, and the different ways particular pandemics are framed. The article argues that a rational-scientific approach to pandemic management is insufficient and that a more nuanced socio-political blend of science, culture and public perceptions offers a more substantial basis for public health policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]