Flattening the Wave: US Technocracy in Action
Peter Schultz
I once knew
a philosophy professor who would, deliberately, make the following “mistake:”
He would say to his class that he had gone to McDonalds and had gotten a
Whopper for lunch. Immediately, his students would correct him, telling him
that he must have gone to Burger King because McDonalds didn’t sell Whoppers.
Later though, when he tried to get his students to engage in discussions about
philosophical or ethical issues, they were pretty much incapable of doing so. They
were lost, most unlike their ability to navigate technical issues like the
differences between Burger King and McDonalds.
This strikes
me as apropos of the current US reactions to the pandemic created by the
coronavirus. That is, we Americans seem perfectly content to address this as a
technical problem, viz., how can we “flatten the wave.” And we obsess over what
technical adaptations, in available medicines, in living styles, we should make
to moderate the impact of this virus. Other, non-technical issues are not
addressed and, hence, are made to seem irrelevant.
For
example, I have seen very little written about how this virus’s impact is
affecting the poor and what might be done to offset those affects. The virus is
treated as if it were indiscriminate in who it affects, when this is clearly
not the case. Moreover, people speak as if everyone can employ the same
strategies to mitigate the virus’s affect, for example, as if everyone has “a
place” to “shelter in.” “Stay home” the highway signs in my state of North
Carolina are announcing but not everyone has a “home,” do they? And what about
concerns with justice? That is, what about concerns about how some have the
means to escape from those places most dangerous, while others cannot do so? And
aren’t all small businesses “essential” to their owners? Why is Wal-Mart
considered essential but a barber’s business is not?* Is that just?
By viewing
the pandemic as a “problem” to be “solved,” the tendency is to embrace technical
solutions while leaving the justice, the morality, and the discriminating
character of those solutions unaddressed. We focus on the number of cases and
the number of deaths, congratulating ourselves when those numbers first plateau
and then begin to descend. Indeed, that is perfectly understandable. But what
about the injustices, the unethical actions, and the discrimination that we embraced
in our understandable obsession with mitigating this virus? There is, of
course, no way to measure these phenomena as there are ways to measure the virus
itself. But even though they are not measurable, they are still real. And
perhaps we should try to say something about them, to address them even though,
or perhaps precisely because we are in the midst of a crisis.
*Just to let you know: my computer corrected my spelling of
Walmart to Wal-Mart! My professor friend would be pleased with my ignorance.
No comments:
Post a Comment