There exist any number of conspiracy theories regarding the distribution of Covid-19. The most popular ones are that Bill Gates or 5G towers somehow released the virus, and the most plausible ones are that the virus either escaped or was purposely released from a Chinese biolab. The theory which I personally find the most intriguing, though, is that Covid-19 was released by some world government for environmental and social reasons - or, in other words, for the benefit of its population.
Of course, this theory is completely baseless (not to mention completely insane). Biological warfare is probably not the conclusion most world leaders would jump to when hoping to garner patriotism, and most don't value patriotism particularly strongly anyway. The theory stems not from any critical thought on the cause of the virus but instead from observing its effects, and indeed, it is all but undeniable that the effects of Covid-19 have been at least partially beneficial. Maybe not concretely so, but on a more abstract level, we see that Covid-19 has fostered a stronger sense of community, with the distribution of signs asking everyone to "hang in there," or some other similar platitude. Not all businesses can close, but the ones that do offer respite, and the ones that don't experience financial success that boosts the earnings of workers. As much as people complain about lockdown and social distancing, it is perfectly arguable that Covid-19 has done more good than bad.
In my last post, I discussed the fact that the images used in media during the Covid crisis have primarily been images of hope and enduring rationality rather than images of fear and suffering, and I argued that this may partially be the result of an effort to distract from the nonexistence of such suffering by manipulating positive emotions. Unfortunately, I did not take as nuanced a position on this issue as I would have liked. There are a few factors I didn't consider which I would like to reintroduce here.
That the media focuses on positive images is not unprecedented, and in fact may be the standard, though I personally have not lived through enough crises to say. I mentioned 9/11 in my last post but neglected the fact that there were just as many hopeful and assertive images as there were photos of death and destruction. Harriman and Lucaites address this when they discuss patriotism in the wake of 9/11, saying "the many thousands of flag images... included many striking images of patriotism and resolve" (Harriman and Lucaites 129) and addressing specifically a picture of firemen raising a flag which went on to feature more prominently than any of the thousands of other pictures taken at Ground Zero that day. Positivity is something to which people naturally attach themselves, and it offers some sense of power to see the firemen raising an American flag in spite of the ruin America had just suffered.
However, blind positivity doesn't quite lubricate the American mind as these observations would suggest. Returning to Harriman and Lucaites, they contrast the extremely famous photo of soldiers raising a flag on Iwo Jima with the practically unknown photo of the immediate aftermath. The "follow-up photograph, according to the common sense of snapshot photography, should be the preferred picture" (Harriman and Lucaites 97), they say, but it obviously is not. The first photo always looks to me like raising the flag is a great struggle, perhaps even a last stand after a bloody battle (fitting for Iwo Jima.) The second could be any photo of any soldiers with no particular context. There's a reason there are no news stories about the economy running like a well-oiled machine or improved quality of life. Positivity doesn't breed in positive environments. Positivity breeds in periods of struggle, when it is absolutely necessary. It is much more impressive to be positive in the wake of death and destruction, and just as this is the impact of the Iwo Jima photo, so too is it the impact of the Covid-19 images.
This is the last post this blog is likely to ever receive, and frankly, it seems like the best possible note to end on. I don't mean that this is the best written the post could be; I'm not that arrogant. I mean that this is the best narrative that could end the prevailing arc of Performative Pandemic Politics. Of course, though we write our posts as commentary on narratives, it is inescapable that they should be narratives as well. The narrative thus far has been that the state and the media are using Covid-19 for personal benefit. I believe this is true. I also believe that, as cynically as we've treated the handling of the crisis, there are certainly some good things to say. Covid-19 gave rise to a world with less bickering and more cooperation. Perhaps that's the narrative that future history classes will accept.
Goodnight, and goodbye.
No comments:
Post a Comment