Trigger warning : This article includes mentions of anti-semitic, racial and other violence. Right now especially, when we are all under a lot of stress due to the very real epidemic around us, this may be a trigger for some, so please proceed with caution. Thank you and stay safe.
When the body of a young boy was discovered in the woods, the suspicion of the community immediately fell on the Jews. It was obvious that the presence of the Jewish community in the town was joined with threat to not only Christianity, but also to the non-Jewish people… the belief that Jews sacrificed children in mockery of the passion of Christ was not only a form of conspiracy theory, but perceived as an irrefutable fact.
What followed was a massacre of the Jewish community… not the first and certainly not the last or the only in history (cf. William of Norwich –footnote 1).
In reality, the Jews were not in any way involved in the death of the boy. Most likely, according to later research and the suppositions of modern thinkers, based upon what little we have of how the body was found, the child fell prey to a sexual offender.
But that would have been unimportant. The Christian community “knew” that Jews were responsible for evil, and attached, to them, a number of other suppositions that everyone “knew” as well – with the idea that they sacrificed children in a mock ritual being well preserved even today, in one of Child’s ballad collections (Sir Hugh, or the Jew’s daughter, Child ballad # 155).
Hate is a group creature. Without a group belief, hate is just a lonely grumble of an anti-social or paranoid person. But put it into the sphere where “everyone knows”, and suddenly, it is not only inconceivable to share it, it becomes incredibly dangerous… something history teaches us again and again, be it from the sad fate of the Jews in Middle Ages, the Holocaust or, more recently but no less alarmingly, the lynchings in India due to unfounded rumours spread via WhatsApp (cf. BBC link).
Who is responsible? We like to point fingers at tech, because technology is often used these days to propagate rumours and hate. On any given day, if you sit down and spend a few minutes searching the internet, you will stumble upon rants and hate and conspiracy theories, not all of which you even need any real insider knowledge for (e.g. specific terms or numbers used in closed groups). In 1144, there was no tech as we know it now, and yet, the rumours spread just as readily. We may have changed the medium, but we certainly have not changed the behaviour.
Geertz wrote about aura of factuality. In simple terms, this is the behavioural phenomenon of taking what the society around us believes, however unlikely, at face value, with disbelief being impossible to even conceive of. In terms of psychology, it is equatable with fallacies. In terms of example, it is visible in what “everybody knows”. Everybody knew that the presence (or even existence) of the Jews was offensive to god and Christianity. Everyone knows that some people are witches or werewolves (I should probably use the word wereanimals, as which animal one changes into may differ in some communities, e.g. throughout sub-Saharan Africa). Everyone knows… and no true member of society (e.g. ‘no true Scot’ fallacy) could possibly think otherwise… in fact, if they do, they are probably suspicious themselves.
Disagreeing may equal ostracising, persecution or even death. Disagreeing is tantamount to voluntarily becoming Other… and questioning, even if one clearly sees that the logic of the claim is questionable or even faulty, is dangerously close, and therefore discouraged.
In societies that are less rigid (cf. footnote 2), i.e. less bound to aura of factuality, the danger is generally lesser and aura of factuality less developed. Usually, it is reserved for the fringe groups. But in times of hardships, such as economic shifts, civil unrest, conflict or indeed a pandemic, this may change dramatically.
The current pandemic is complicated. On one hand, it is a serious situation; on the other hand, it has invited a lot of panic, and panic leads to both irrational behaviour and opportunistic violence. This is not new – during the time of plague, according to legend, a traveller allegedly took shelter in a castle, as was then customary. Within a short time that day, an unfounded rumour spread that he had come from the lands infected with black plague. Within an even shorter time, he was considered to be a (deliberate?) carrier. The result was that the combined peasanthood of the area beleaguered the castle, closed all incumbents in and burned them alive (cf. footnote 3). All over the fear of infection, but also the fear of Otherness, which can mean anything from a person of a different religion, race, colour, gender, beliefs or sexual orientation.
In the light of current pandemic, we have seen the Asian community targeted in ways that are terrifyingly similar to what I have just described for you above. What’s even more alarming is that this may be just the start – one source suggests that in the US, people are arming themselves, expecting general breakdown of law and order; at the same time, so is the Asian community, in fear of what this might mean for them. Those who have any knowledge of how it was to live in the shadow of the KKK know what I’m talking about – the ever-extant potential of a lynch mob at ones door.
We have already seen attacks on Asians (all Asians), including some in groups; we have seen religious leaders point out the virus as a divine punishment. Here in France, in Orleans, we saw a protest at the start of the epidemic during which a group protested the existence of the virus, the government because it allowed the virus to exist, the foreigners because they are dirty and bringing diseases.
However ridiculous these statements, along with the notion that you can protest a virus, they do give you a glimpse of the type of mentality that we see attacking people over their race right now, and who tend to be a future projection of all who have done so before. Alarmingly, from what I have been able to gather on the topic, much of the hate is directed towards the Asians (including second, third or later generation of European or American Asians who have nothing to do with China or Wuhan) as Other, not because the virus originated with them, but because, to these people, they embody it. It’s not something that incidentally started there, it is something Asians have, and are deliberately trying to spread among us. There is a clear connection there to other incidents of the same type there. It is the same type of thinking, the same type of action and reaction.
It represents the same type of perils.
Why is panic so easy to spread? My perception of the problem is that when we are tense, we require an outlet. My response to it is to exercise (I very much recommend that to everyone). But it has always been my response, whereas for many people, it is not. It’s not the only way to try to dispel the tension, although it does have an evolutionary approval – in dangers, we resolve the problem by fight or flight, and a good hour of exercise fulfils that need.
If we do not do anything to dispel it, it will end up in simply more tension, anxiety and irritability. Much of this has been showing in my own friend circle, often in little things, like a friend of ours grumbling that people do not need to have all the food and supplies they bought and that they should be forcibly reduced to one meal a day, all because they themselves did not manage to stock up as they wanted…
With supply chains seriously disrupted, what with all other factors, including human behaviour, what is to be expected? And yet, most people neither realise how much the world has been disrupted nor pay any attention to it… and then, it is easier to start pointing fingers.
Right now, it may be at a neighbour, and it may not result in anything but a verbal altercation. But what happens next?
On Sunday at the start of the quarantine, president Macron gave a speech. He said that we are “at war” no less than three times. I admit that I winced when I listened. He meant the virus. It was a figure of speech, and perhaps a little bit of grandiosity. But was it a good idea to phrase something this way, multiple times, when the country is already rocked by civil unrest and has been for other reasons, and when hate crimes towards the Asian community have been on the rise everywhere? In my opinion, it was not.
Returning to tech, the possibly biggest threat we face from that corner is that it is used to create a bigger community than just a village or town. Be it to perpetrate crime, to spread hate messages or to distribute fake cures, tech, especially social media, is the new pub, village well or village square. It is where pedlars distribute fake panacea against black plague or pieces of the True Cross; it is where people grumble together against the decisions of a governing body to act in accordance with, say, the weather (which massively influenced the French Revolution, for instance (cf. footnote 4)). It is where all confirm that they are a member of a society or group but affirming the same fears, same hates, same beliefs. As you can conclude from these deliberately chosen examples, it is not a new problem… it is merely bigger, and more clearly defined.
In many ways, when we blame the tech, we are, in a smaller way, contributing to the pattern of scapegoat behaviour. I have said previously, elsewhere, that nobody and nothing but us is responsible for what we believe – I know I’m not the only one who has pointed that out. Where is the difference between blaming the tech for “allowing” the spread of fake news, hate etc and blaming the Jews for a number of trumped up conspiracy charges or the Asians for Covid-19? In reality, there is none. We seek scapegoats because it is easier to find a scapegoat than to face our own darkness. It is easier to point a finger, to continue to disbelieve, than admit to oneself that we were fooled… by a bit of fake news, a hoax, a deepfake. Because the anxiety and pressures that caused us to do so in the first place are now joined with a further anxiety… of realisation that what we believe is now being called into question, which forms another level of social pressure. For some, it is a test that results in change of perspective, because the proofs to the contrary are good enough to spur logical thinking into action. For others, it is exactly the opposite.
Tech, too, is perceived as “having” a problem, embodying it. Just like the Asian community is perceived to “have”, embody, the virus. Neither is true and both represents the same behavioural patterns. And it is up to us to find a way to change it. It will not be an easy road to take… but it is the only one that leads anywhere where we, as a global society, should hope to travel.
Footnote 1 – William of Norwich – the initial medieval account is The Life and Miracles of William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth; other later cases include Harold of Gloucester, Hugh of Lincoln and Robert of Bury.
Footnote 2 – rigidity and fluidity are a system I developed for my work with clients
Footnote 3 – I came across this story years ago, and unfortunately cannot find reference for it now. There are many stories of panic and violent reactions to many events in history, and the sheer number makes it difficult to find the source. As with much of history, without the source, I cannot confirm whether that particular story is considered by scholars to be true or not… but many confirmed cases of violence against an imagined disease carrier – human or animal – exist, with this one being a good showcase of how far things can go, whether or not it is true, since the idea of doing so would have appeared to be perfectly acceptable even if the story is nothing more than a legend. We create stories that not only extoll real events, but create a framework for what we might do should an event occur.
Footnote 4 – Neumann, J. “Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: 2, The Year Leading to the Revolution of 1789 in France.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 58, no. 2 (1977): 163-68. Accessed April 6, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/26218058.