Policy responses: Social work in a pandemic panopticon

From a national perspective, the strict measures taken in response to Covid-19 initially seemed to have popular support among the population in many countries. Policies of social distancing, lockdowns and control have been met with public acceptance and informal policing has occurred through moral rhetoric. These efforts can be seen as successful examples of governmentality and emotional governance (Wan, 2021). On the other hand, social stigmatization may be a byproduct of these forms of governance for people who were not able to adhere to the ever-changing rules and who have contracted the virus (Rashmi and Nair, 2021).

While crisis might breed consensus and declaration of wars on enemies (including viruses) may create patriotic unity it can also result in disagreement. At the time of this writing, a second deadly wave of infections, illness, and deaths are unfolding, and we have seen widespread protest against renewed restrictions to curtail it, for example, in the U.S., Italy, and Germany.

In short, global national responses to the pandemic have not been uniform. The seven essays in this section reflect that diversity and offer snapshots from very different parts of the world highlighting different challenges, solutions, and contexts. Other examples are found throughout the special issue.

Together the essays show how there is a taken-for-grantedness of the strategy in its national context, even though different countries have adopted quite different strategies. For example, in April 2020, the Norwegian government claimed face masks were inefficient and could even be counterproductive in stopping viral transmission. This did not change until November 2020, when the government turned on a coin, recommending face masks, even making them mandatory on public transportation and in shops in parts of the country. Interestingly, the public’s response to the government’s altered position was just as supportive in April as in November. In contrast with the neighboring Nordic countries, Sweden adopted a strategy of herd immunity with the same sense of taken-for grantedness by its populace. Nonetheless, the conflicting approaches sowed discord between the neighboring countries.

As the essays in this section demonstrate, responses to Covid-19 are also related to macrostructural context; cultural, political, economic and social. Some of the responses described, like mandating ankle bracelets, door seals and daily temperature reporting through apps (Abu Sarhan, 2021; Wan, 2021), might seem totalitarian from another national or cultural perspective. Yet arguably even in those places, general public tolerance has grown for government restrictions, surveillance, and control that would have seemed inconceivable a year prior to the Covid-19 outbreak.

Most of us have readily accepted these government issued directives as part of the battle against this virus. Yet different national contexts have dictated the level of acceptance about the boundaries, the extent of the restrictions and constraints. As social workers we frequently work in the tension between help and control, we have the power to enforce government rules in mental health, child protection or criminal services. So, it is not surprising, social workers have also become part of national responses, and surveillance systems executed to restrict the transmission of Covid-19 as some of the essays in this special issue show (Abu Sarhan, 2021; Wan, 2021). Social workers must execute this role while trying to balance it with their professional ethics and values.

Of course, responses to the pandemic reflect different contextual and structural variables like population density or health care systems. Covid-19 hit countries differently. Countries in the global south have offered few measures to soften the economic and social impact of lockdowns and social distancing on its residents (Isangha et al., 2021). For some countries, the crisis came on top of several others, like economic recession or the dismantling of the welfare state, which was accompanied by ruthless neoliberal ideology, but also revealing untapped possibilities (Garcia et al., 2021; Ross, 2021).

Even though there are important lessons to learn from the countries which have successfully controlled the virus, wholesale adoption of measures from other countries may come with risks that the costs are greater than the benefits (Isangha et al., 2021). Arguably, for restrictive, control measures to outweigh their costs, there must be healthy systems of service delivery, information dissemination, and support systems in place. The governmental responses also show the need for cooperation among the international community, as well as solidarity with local efforts such that shortcomings in supply can be met and collective notions of community care built. Discord between different countries adopting different strategies or blaming one another does not help.

Several of these essays engage in topics centered around surveillance and what is termed “emotional governance” (Wan, 2021), efforts trying to govern our feelings to reduce anxiety. Among other forms of social control, digital surveillance has been added to the panopticon. This takes the form of monitoring the public’s health or movement. Thus far, these policies have been met with both critique and support but, in general, the measures have been legitimized and many of us have accepted them as necessary. It has been an impressive operation but, at some point, it must be reversed. Yet lessons from history over the last 50 years have shown us the power of regimes to exploit crises. When the pandemic abates social workers will need to be “immune cells” (Moshtagh et al., 2021), and vigilantly watch out for the forces that would like to keep the Panopticon in place (Ross, 2021).