Social Distancing and the Deficit of Presence (Philosophical Reflection of the Covid-19 Pandemic)

The paper claims that if the COVID-19 pandemic turned out to be a man-made risk (А. Giddens), i.e. an unforeseen consequence of a person’s own behavior and actions, then in order to avoid such fatal contingences that occur so unexpectedly, it is necessary to change the type of behavior and actions that have established in the culture of the Modern Period. During the pandemic people are forced to observe the spatial order. Distancing, self-isolation, the Red Zone and other spatial limitations made people acutely aware of the deficit of presence, the lack of their independent active participation in life. The new virus, on the one hand, returned a person to the awareness of the biological, natural origin of human existence, which has been forgotten by culture (science). On the other hand, the practices of social rationing and restriction revealed the influence of various forms of alienation — social, political, economic, cultural — on the fate of each individual. The introduction of the bioprinciple (the virus) into the social, cultural and political space radically changes the relationship between people and nature. This situation makes one think about the meaning of the notion of culture, which got its definition in the 18th century and is understood as non-nature reflected in the formula culture vs nature. The paper shows that the cultural ideal of human activity, which was established in modern times, became the reason of the alienation of technogenic civilization and social forms of life from nature. By destroying nature, turning it into the material for people’s various techne, people found themselves in conflict with their own life. Culture has lost its inner meaning of the presence of the world and of an individual which dissolved in various interpretations and ideas. Contemporary history is moving towards the establishment of a culture of Presence, where the world is viewed not as a mere material to be used, but an area for humans to engage with. What we see today is the assertion of the right to difference and the right to the presence of diversity — in nature, culture, politics (struggle for a multipolar world), in the personal domain (selfies, blogs, chats, etc.).

1. Colavizza, G. et al. (2021) ‘A scientometric overview of CORD-19’, PLOS ONE. Edited by C. R. Sugimoto, 16(1), p. e0244839. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244839.

2. Kousha, K. and Thelwall, M. (2020) ‘COVID-19 publications: Database coverage, citations, readers, tweets, news, Facebook walls, Reddit posts’, Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), pp. 1068–1091. doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00066.

3. Leal Filho, W. et al. (2021) ‘COVID-19: the impact of a global crisis on sustainable development research’, Sustainability Science, 16(1), pp. 85–99. doi: 10.1007/s11625-020-00866-y.

4. Felson, M., Jiang, S. and Xu, Y. (2020) ‘Routine activity effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on burglary in Detroit, March, 2020’, Crime Science, 9(1), p. 10. doi: 10.1186/s40163-020-00120-x.

5. Szocik, K. (2021) ‘Conceptual Issues in COVID-19 Pandemic: An Example of Global Catastrophic Risk’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(1), pp. 199–202. doi: 10.1017/S0963180120000687.

6. Beck, U. (1994) Riskante Freiheiten Individualisierung in modernen Gesellschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (Russ.ed.: (2000) Obscestvo riska na puti k drugomu modernu. Moscow: Progress-tradicija Publ.).

7. Giddens, A. (1999) Runaway World. London: Profile. (Russ.ed.: (2004) Uskol’zaiushchii mir : kak globalizatsiia meniaet nashu zhizn’. Moscow: Ves’ mir Publ.).

8. Pietrocola, M. et al. (2021) ‘Risk Society and Science Education’, Science & Education, 30(2), pp. 209–233. doi: 10.1007/s11191-020-00176-w.

9. Kraemer, M. U. G. et al. (2020) ‘The effect of human mobility and control measures on the COVID-19 epidemic in China’, Science, 368(6490), pp. 493–497. doi: 10.1126/science.abb4218.

10. Bogardus, E. S. (1926) ‘Social distance in the city’, in The urban community: Selected papers from The Proceedings of the American Sociological Society, 1925. Chicago: The Univ. of Chicago Press, pp. 48–54. (Russ. ed.: (2003) ‘Social’naja distancija v gorode’, in Sotsialnoe prostranstvo : mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniia : referativnyi sbornik. Moscow: INION RAN, pp. 179–186.).

11. Derrida, J. (1972) Marges de la philosophie. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. (Russ.ed.: (1999) ‘Differаnсе’, in Gurko, E. (ed.) Teksty dekonstrukcii. Tomsk: Vodolej Publ., pp. 124–160.).

12. Heidegger, M. (1927) Sein und Zeit. Halle: Max Niemeyer. (Russ.ed.: (1997) Bytie i vremja. Moscow: Ad Marginem Publ.).

13. Derrida, J. (1967) La voix et le phénomène : introd. au problème du signe dans la phénoménologie de Husserl. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. (Russ.ed.: (1999) Golos i fenomen : i drugie raboty po teorii znaka Gusserlia. Saint Petersburg: Aleteiia Publ.).

14. Marx, K. (1970) Ökonomisch- Philosophische Manuskripte : Geschrieben von April bis August 1844 nach der Handschrift. Leipzig: Philipp Reclam. (Russ.ed.: (1974) ‘Jekonomichesko-filosofskie rukopisi 1844 goda’, in Marx K., Engels F. Sochinenija. T.42. Izd. 2-oe. Moscow: Politicheskaja literatura, pp. 86–127.).

15. Foucault, M. (1975) Surveiller et punir. Paris: Gallimard. (Russ.ed.: (1999) Nadzirat’ i nakazyvat’ : rozdenie tjurmy. Moscow: Ad Marginem Publ.).

16. Tishchenko, P. D. (2020) ‘“Time to Kill, and Time to Heal”: The Human Being in a COVID-19 Pandemic’, Chelovek, (6), p. 31. doi: 10.31857/S023620070013081-6. (In Russian).

17. Gumbrecht, H. U. (2004) ‘Production of presence what meaning cannot convey’. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, pp. xvii, 180. (Russ.ed.: (2006) Proizvodstvo prisutstviia : chego ne mozhet peredat znachenie. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ.).

18. Grima, N. et al. (2020) ‘The importance of urban natural areas and urban ecosystem services during the COVID-19 pandemic’, PLOS ONE. Edited by F. X. Aguilar, 15(12), p. e0243344. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243344.

19. Pfaller, L. (2020) ‘Theorizing the virus: abjection and the COVID-19 pandemic’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 40(9/10), pp. 821–829. doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-06-2020-0243.

20. Konev, V. A. (2018) ‘The Galaxie of Zuckerberg versus the Galaxie of Gutenberg’, in Diagnostics of Modernity: Global Challenges - Individual Answers & Conference Proceedings. Samara: Samarskaja gumanitarnaja akademija Publ., pp. 16–27. (In Russian).

21. Habermas, J. (1985) Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne : zwölf Vorlesungen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. (Russ.ed.: (2003) Filosofskij diskurs o moderne. Moscow: Ves’ mir Publ.).

22. Konev, V. A. (2020) ‘Pedestal Person and Podium Person’, International Journal of Cultural Research, (2), pp. 6–17. doi: 10.24411/2079-1100-2020-00018.