The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Story of Anthropocene, Multispecies, Neoclassical Economics, Neoliberalism, Local Knowlege, and Reflection for The Future
An essay for a final examination of a Biological Anthropology course
By: Muhammad Althaf Nandiati Yusfid
The COVID-19 Pandemic and The Current State of Events
It’s been 2 years (almost 3) that we, humans, live in the COVID-19 pandemic. With more and more relaxed regulations being imposed, the pandemic seems to have reached its endgame, whether in Indonesia or other parts of the world. For instance, in Indonesia, the president has announced that it is not mandatory to wear a mask in open spaces (Tambun & Lumanauw, 2022). Another instance would be Indonesia’s regulations for 2022 that allow people to go home (mudik) during Eid al-Fitr which previously was restricted (Fardah, 2022). Across the globe, things also folded in a similar tone. For example, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Eid al-Fitr also folded the way things should be thanks to the relaxed COVID protocol (Chaudhary, 2022).
Until this essay is written, the World Health Organization (WHO) (2022) recorded around 6 million deaths worldwide and around 156 thousand deaths in Indonesia. Through grieves, perseverance, and struggles, humans once again seem to come out “winning” in this pandemic. “Again?” Yes, this is definitely not the first time a pandemic has ever happened to humans. From the infamous black plague in the 14th century to the Spanish flu in 1918, and to one of the most recent pandemics (prior to COVID-19) the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, humans have won fighting the pandemic.
However, could we really call ourselves winning? Are we actually “fighting” something? Or, are we actually experiencing a “normal” thing? Experiencing a cycle?
These are questions that pondered people that, in my view, make the COVID-19 pandemic different from previous pandemics. In this pandemic, humans started to ask about our position in nature and our relationship with it.
What Is COVID-19?
Before I discuss the COVID-19 pandemic, let’s start with the most basic question of all and perhaps even boring to most people, but nevertheless important: what is COVID-19? SARS-CoV-2 or best known as COVID-19 is a type of virus spreading from person to person (Jribi et al, 2020). Jribi et al (2020) continue that COVID-19 would lead to respiratory illness and even death for people who have serious underlying medical conditions. Kirksey (2020) and Mohamadian et al (2021) explain that SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 is a part of the coronaviruses family which belongs to the Coronaviridae family to be more precise. It is an RNA virus (Hassanpaur et al, 2020; Kirksey, 2020) and is known as a family leading cause of common cold and severe infection (Hassanpaur et al, 2020). Johns Hopkins Medicine (2022) explains that SARS-CoV-2 was first discovered in 2019. However, it is not the first time for the SARS-CoV virus to “emerge” on the surface as the 2002 and 2003 SARS-CoV incidence and the MERS-CoV in 2012 have shown (Mohamadian et al, 2021). In fact, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV (which are kind of one family with SARS-CoV-2) have caused epidemics with COVID-19 now being the third (Mohamadian et al, 2021). Zhu et al (2020) noted that there are similarities between SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 pandemic which is they are prone to infect the lower respiratory tract. The ironic thing is that even from the previous two pandemics and clearly posing a threat to humans, there are no medicines and/or vaccines until the case of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 (Zhu et al, 2020). This indicates an understudy of the deadly hCoVs. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers are now creating a systematic review of SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 and what we can learn from the previous pandemics in terms of facing the current pandemic.
Johns Hopkins Medicine (2022) continued that COVID-19 spread through droplets emitted by humans, such as breathing, talking, coughing, and sneezing. Hassanpaur et al (2020) stated that it was first discovered in Wuhan city in China. The World Health Organization (WHO) explains that there are several symptoms a person could experience when they have COVID. The most common symptoms according to WHO are fever, cough, tiredness, and loss of taste or smell. The less common symptoms are sore throat, headache, aches and pains, diarrhea, a rash on the skin or discoloration of fingers or toes, and red or irritated eyes. The World Health Organization also adds more serious symptoms which are the difficulty of breathing or shortness of breath, loss of speech or mobility or confusion, and chest pain. But, Hassanpaur et al (2020) stated that most cases fall into the category of mild symptoms or most common symptoms.
However, “COVID-19” is not just “COVID-19”. COVID-19 has so many variants. Mas (2021) explains that viruses are often mutating, and so does the SARS-CoV-2. Mas (2021) continues that because humans let the virus spread around, it gives the virus a chance to replicate and adapt to human natural defenses or immunity, making it more transmissible. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2021), to understand these variants, you can think of them as branches on a tree with each branch being slightly different. McIntosh (2022) explains that in general there are 4 COVID variants. Those are alpha, beta, gamma, and delta. Before the COVID-19 vaccines existed, people relied on masks, social distancing, and most importantly quarantine to protect themselves (CDC, 2022; Jribi et al, 2020). Although, just because vaccines have been invented, those safety protocols are still the “main weapon” of society in facing the COVID-19 pandemic.
As for the origin of COVID-19, there’s no clear answer until today. Previously, it was believed that the virus comes from a wet market in Wuhan, particularly in Huanan because all kind of wild animals is available there, but it was objected to due to evidence that showed earlier cases had nothing to do with the wet market in Huanan, Wuhan, China (Jin et al, 2020).
But, it is known that COVID-19 has a zoonotic origin which means it moves from animal to humans and bats are most likely the natural hosts for COVID (Jin et al, 2020). However, Jin et al (2020) continue that it is not bats that directly infect humans because SARS-like-CoVs in bats couldn’t infect humans unless they undergo mutations or recombination. Therefore, Jin et al (2020) concluded that it is not bats that directly infect humans, but other animals. Jin et al (2020) also add that bats’ habitats are usually far from human activity.
Anthropocene, The Pandemic, and The Dynamic Between The Two
Throughout modern history, it seems like humans started to see themselves as “god”. Humans started to see themselves as different from other species and other living entities. To be more specific, anthropocentrism might be the term best to describe how humans see themselves throughout modern history. Anthropocentrism roughly translated means human-centered (Goralnik & Nelson, 2012). From a philosophical standpoint, anthropocentrism means that humans have intrinsic value that makes them special and viewed non-human living entities as means to humans’ end (Goralnik & Nelson, 2012). In short, humans are the end in and of themselves, meanwhile, nonhumans are an instrument. Therefore, literature through modern history positioned humans as active subjects and nonhumans as objects or at best as subjects but on the margins (“under-voiced”) (Tallberg, et al, 2020; Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010).
However, it seems like COVID-19 started to challenge this premise or notion. I’m not saying that there are no efforts prior to COVID to challenge this idea, but I think COVID really is the moment. A tiny creature, that the human eye couldn’t see, suddenly forced the world to take notice of them (Howard, 2020). COVID forces humans to think beyond themselves. Although we can debate whether a virus is a living being or a species or not, it is clear that they live among us. As Chadarevian and Raffaeta (2021) argued that viruses might be not living entities, but they are certain stages of living processes and interact with other living entities. However, as Lowe noted, most people, even microbiologists, disregard viruses as not a species or at best a quasi-species (Kirksey, 2020).
This kind of paradigm forces people to see disasters (in this case a pandemic) as a “new problem” that suddenly emerges among people. Why you might ask? It’s because this kind of paradigm — a paradigm that sees a virus as not a living entity — does not account for our activity and its relations with other creatures, in this case, a virus. In other words, this paradigm makes humans arrogant. As long as it doesn’t bother humans, then we don’t need to pay attention. This is what Anthropocene is all about.
Multispecies and How Viruses Interact with Humans
However, viruses are actually an essential part of humans’ lives. As Lowe (2017) noted, viruses have impacted the life of a human from the very beginning when they could infect sperm or egg. Lowe (2017) also suggests that the very genes of humans are, in part, constructed by viruses when they’re inserting their genes into ours. Lowe (2017) furthermore stated that it is due to viruses that contribute to our evolution that we evolve the way we are. Chadarevian & Raffaeta (2021) noted that half of the human genome is acquired from viruses — driving the course of evolution. As suggested by Larsen (2020) and Trevathan et al (2017) mutations are the only source for new alleles that could drive the evolution and one source of that is, in fact, viruses. This happens even to this second. Pride (2020) noted that there are at least 380 trillion viruses living inside the human body. It’s hard to imagine a number as big as 380 trillion, but just imagine the 12 zeros hanging behind that. The very viruses that humans deemed as “aliens” or “quasi-species” live inside of us. However, we, humans, live our day-to-day lives without any major health problems. This is because not all viruses inside our bodies are deadly (Pride, 2020). Some of them are even beneficial for our body, such as viruses that target bacteria (Pride, 2020). Hence, we, humans, are living with the virus every single day, whether it is prior to COVID, during COVID, or post-COVID. Even COVID itself has lived alongside humans prior to the pandemic. Kirksey (2020) noted that coronaviruses have been around for thousands of years and have been jumping and mutating from species to species.
Nevertheless, as suggested previously, our arrogance would not allow humans to form a symbiotic relationship with viruses. Rather, viruses are seen as a threat. Therefore, viruses only take our attention when they cause harm (Lowe, 2017). When viruses “attack” humans, humans see it as a nature attack on culture. However, as stated before, viruses actually live alongside us. They are not the “others’ ‘. They are a part of our culture. They helped shape our culture. This is what is called the multispecies perspective, the juxtaposition of nature and culture, hence, the term nature-culture (Howard, 2020). Then, one could say that the multispecies perspective is the antithesis of anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism reigned in most of modern society, always prioritizing humans’ right to nature but never prioritizing humans’ responsibility toward nature (Sanjatmiko, 2021). Sanjatmiko (2021) suggests that nature has its own agency. Therefore, in interacting with nature, humans need to compromise and take into account the “active” existence of nature.
Multispecies Perspective in The COVID-19 Pandemic
It is difficult to change an anthropocentric perspective, however. Even when COVID-19 emerges, people are still “practicing” the anthropocentric activity. For instance, due to COVID, during the earlier period of it, people are becoming over-sanitized (Lasco, 2020). Lasco (2020) noted that people are cleaning their hands too much that it could kill other creatures in human hands that are actually beneficial — microbiomes that are essential for the immune system, digestion, and many more. Yet, people still do that. Data shows that in Indonesia, at least in one e-commerce, the sale of hand sanitizer increased tremendously in 2020 when 72 thousand hand sanitizers were sold in just 42 minutes (Burhan, 2021). In the United Kingdom (UK), the increased sale of hand sanitizer is around 255% in February 2020 (Taylor, 2020). While it is profitable for the industry, people are still yet to take into account the existence of other creatures or species. Humans still treat them as “non-living objects”. Lasco (2020) adds that there’s a post-Pasteurian paradigm. The Pasteurian paradigm is a paradigm that stresses that blame germs, viruses, and any other living entities for illness, while the post-Pasteurian stresses the importance to embrace them (Lasco, 2020). I see this as a way to build a relationship with nature or what we see as the others. However, Lasco (2020) noted that even the pandemic still makes the Pasteurian paradigm the “go-to” paradigm. In short, the demarcation between nature and culture, or between nature and humans still perseveres.
The multispecies perspective rejects the demarcation between nature and culture. The term used in the multispecies perspective, as mentioned previously, is nature-culture. From this perspective and its relation to the pandemic, it is because culture has “dominated” nature for a long time that nature starts to adapt. This “domination” could be shown by the decrease in biodiversity. Howard (2020) said that virus transmission risk is greater when there is a decrease in biodiversity. Howard (2020) stated that it creates a space for transmission or a lack of space for the virus to roam around. Kirksey (in Howard, 2020) believed that the pig is one of many other contributors to the pandemic because pigs are everywhere, particularly in this economy. What he tries to say is that because domesticated animals increased in their population, but there’s a lack of biodiversity, viruses become easier to transmit from animals to humans. Kirksey (2020) also reported that some animals close to humans (like farm animals and cats) possessed a receptor, an ACE2 receptor to be precise — which is a receptor that is formed when coronavirus “spike” protein locks in our cells. This finding Kirksey (2020) suggests that the space or barrier for transmission between animals and humans is small. For me, it looks like yet another form of culture “dominated” nature because why do you think the biodiversity that is supposed to be a space between humans and viruses is depleted? The main cause for the decrease in biodiversity is human activities which resulted in multiple changes on a global scale that drive the decrease in biodiversity (Isabell, 2010). Land use, an invasion of exotic species, and climate change are some of the human activities that resulted in the decrease in biodiversity (Isabell, 2010). In other words, yet another form of culture “dominated” nature — another anthropocentric paradigm. Chadarevian & Raffaeta (2021) noted that it is the political and economical life of humans (read: culture) that often threatens the habitat of the virus, making the space between humans and the virus smaller and smaller. Faas et al (2020) also suggest that the increase of the livestock industry and indeed accompanied by the growth of political and economical power has exposed humans to the virus. Higgins et al (2020) also suggest that humans (again, read: culture) have a disproportionate power relation with nature that even visitors from Mars could notice. Fuentes (2020) also noted that human construction creates an ecological, biological, social, political, and economic system that sets and shapes the world, setting the stage for the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, the COVID-19 pandemic is not merely a natural phenomenon, but also cultural. Therefore, it is difficult to dichotomize nature and culture as the two will always interact and be intertwined. That is what the multispecies perspective tries to advocate for. From this perspective, it is clear that what humans thought of as a natural phenomenon is actually cultural.
Nature Defined Culture
Nature should be seen together with culture (nature-culture, not nature and culture). This is because nature and culture are not separate entities. The two are intertwined with each other, not independent from one another (Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010). What that means in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and any other pandemic is that the pandemic happened not because nature “attacked” culture, but because of the interaction between the two. Sanjatmiko (2021) suggests that there’s a reciprocal interaction between nature and culture and if one dominates the other, the other would release the tension. In other words, the other would adapt and respond to the tension.
Lestel and Taylor (in Locke and Muenster, 2015) argue that human life is not in opposition to nature, but human life is interdependent with what nature does. Hence, what that means is culture is not necessarily defined by humans. Culture could be defined by nature, in this context, a virus. Therefore, cultural adaptation — which is a form of adaptation where humans utilize their culture to adapt to stress received (Larsen, 2020) — is not just “human adaptation”, but also nature adaptation. It is a way of nature to adapt to stress employed by us, humans. In other words, as cliche as it might sound, nature could “fight back” (Sanjatmiko, 2021). The reciprocal interaction between nature and culture allows both of them to be in conflict and then make peace again. This pandemic is also a way for nature to adapt to stress employed by culture (humans) over the years — a form of reciprocal interaction between nature and culture. The idea that nature could adapt or “fight back” is not really surprising actually. Sanjatmiko (2021) noted that people in Kampung Laut believe that one should not “attack” nature because it is dangerous that they could “fight back”, albeit it took time for them to realize that. It is the notion of anthropocentrism reigned in modern society that makes the idea a kind of new idea. Therefore, there’s a lot to learn from traditional society or local people. In fact, in research, it is by listening, observing, and participating with local people that researchers could employ the multispecies perspective in their research (which I’ll continue further later) (Sanjatmiko, 2021).
Hence, nature, in this case, the virus, “fight back” or reciprocate in order to release the tension humans or culture have deployed towards them over the years. Almost everything humans do (activities, policies, etc) is “dictated” by the virus (Perdani, 2021). If you pay attention to how policies are released, whether “large scales” policies such as the one from the government or “small scale” policies such as the one from office or school, most of them are starting to take into account the existence of the virus. The virus now tries to make itself present in order to release the tension culture has burdened them all this time — constructing human culture. Nature, though has always been all this time, now seemed to be an active agent making seeing nature as an object or passive agent old and irrelevant (Perdani, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic has shaped human culture again and again. Though one might see that it is just another cultural change, I would argue that the changes are happening due to the virus itself, “dictating” implicitly what needs to be done. King (2020) reported that, due to COVID, people now have to change the way they mourn death. The COVID-19 pandemic also changes the way we interact with animals with more and more people now paying attention to the welfare of animals (although sometimes it sparks more problems) (King, 2022). Handwashing that are previously not getting any attention now is receiving the spotlight with more and more experts “propagandizing” individuals to wash their hands to save lives (Lasco, 2020). Not to mention, the way humans organize their work and education is also changing with work and school from home. Arregui (2020) also adds that animals are becoming freer to roam around the public making people warier with interacting with wildlife or wild animals. Travel that was prominent in almost all modern society suddenly come to halt with no absolute certainty in the future (Salverda, 2022) and makes people rethink and reshape the culture of travel These are all simple examples of how the virus is changing human culture. From the holistic and multispecies perspectives, this is not a “just cultural change”, but it is a way of nature to adapt and shape human culture by “dictating”. The holistic perspective in this is seeing how humans are both cultural and natural (or biological) creatures — not dichotomizing between nature and culture (Ji & Cheng, 2021). Therefore, the world is shifting from an Anthropocene and anthropogenic state of affairs to what people called the “coronacene” where things are “directed”, “caused”, and “dictated” by the virus (Perdani 2021; Higgins et al, 2020). Nature is “taking over” in order to reach the equilibrium once more between nature and culture. The “taking over” of nature (or virus in this context) is not particularly new. Every time a species starts to “dominate” over the other. whether it is human or not, nature will, again, reciprocate back to release the tension. Aronsson & Holm (2022) explained that viruses often stabilize the ecosystem, for instance by killing marine bacteria that, if it’s not done, could sink the ocean floor. In addition, it is also not new that nature could “dictate” human culture. For instance, previous pandemics, particularly the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, became the starting point of the “wearing a mask” culture in Japan and it strengthened around 2000 (Lasco, 2020; Burgess & Horii, 2012). Burgess & Horii (2012) noted that during the swine flu pandemic in 2009, the wearing of face masks became a public discussion, strengthening the culture. One could see, yet again, that nature adapts and reciprocate back with culture.
Maladaptive Adaptation during The COVID-19 Pandemic
The adaptation by nature harms us indeed. For instance, Gusterson (2020) reported that some people in Iran are drinking methanol because they believe that it could kill the virus. Even in France people now start to turn to cocaine to dispatch the virus (Gusterson, 2020). Perdani (2021) also reported that people in Desa Kukusan choose to believe that God would never create a disease without a cure, hence, there’s no need for health or safety protocol. Perdani (2021) also reported that people now change the way they interact and perceive the hospital as people that die from the hospital, doesn’t matter whether it is due to COVID or not, will be discriminated against. People of Asian descent also have to carry the burden of racist and xenophobic treatment because people thought they are the ones that bring the virus — as noted by Kirksey (2020) that the pandemic reanimated old stereotypes of Asian people and/or descent. Although it is hard to accept, it is a form of reciprocation by nature — a form of adaptation enacted by nature to once again reach equilibrium. We put in the work and we’re also the ones that need to receive the output. It is an adaptation that is adaptive for nature but maladaptive for humans. As Larsen (2020) and Trevathan et al (2017) have noted that not all adaptations are adaptive, some of them could actually bring harm or be called maladaptive. Like it or not, want it or not want it, humans have to face them. But, it does not mean that humans are doomed. Humans have what’s called plasticity which is the ability to change, the fluid and flexible characteristics of humans. Moreover, humans, as noted by Foley et al (2005), are probably the most plastic species of all. However, back to the multispecies perspective, it is important to also note that humans are not the only ones. Nature also has the ability to change, plasticity, and fluidity. Therefore, the concept of adaptation needs to be rethought.
How Local Knowledge Could Help Humans
Sanjatmiko (2021) argues that local communities are the ones that understand their ecological reality and functions. This is because local people or communities are using their feelings and love for nature and coexist with them throughout history (Sanjatmiko, 2021). From their folklore to their traditions, most local communities possessed the knowledge of coexisting with nature — thinking from a multispecies perspective. Nature is part of their culture. The example given by Sanjatmiko (2021) previously in Kampung Laut where they believe that it’s not “ethical” to fight nature shows how the local community possessed the knowledge to coexist with nature. However, with industrialization, people now often live in a nation-state and, unconsciously, shove local communities aside (Kottak, 2015). Industrialization brings about an anthropogenic state of affairs that makes the world the way they are. As Kottak (2015) argues that the disproportionate relations of power between culture and nature are shown by changes in the world, such as climate change. I would argue that the neoclassical economics and neoliberal notions contribute to the Anthropocene and anthropogenic state of affairs that resulted in the disharmony of culture and nature. As mentioned before, local communities often possessed knowledge that resulted in harmony between culture and nature, but due to neoclassical economics and neoliberalism, local knowledge that supposedly could help is deemed useless.
Local Knowledge, Neoclassical Economics, Neoliberalism, Homo Economicus, and its Relation with The COVID-19 Pandemic
According to neoclassical economics, utility is the key and most important factor in economics (Kenton, 2021). However, as Herry-Priyono (2017) suggests, the notion of utility in neoclassical economics differs from those of classical economics where classical economics defines utility in terms of morals and the welfare of others. Neoclassical economics, on the other hand, defines utility as what’s best for an individual (Herry-Priyono, 2017). Hand-in-hand with neoclassical economics, I would also suggest the emergence of neoliberalism, with its homo economicus notion also fostering the arrogance of humans. Neoliberalism constituted that humans are homo economicus which means that they are a market fundamentalist, seeing things in terms of price and profits in every sector or aspect of society (Herry-Priyono, 2022). Herry-Priyono (2017) explains that homo economicus would seek the most efficient way to achieve utility. Because utility in neoclassical economics and neoliberalism is defined as what is best for an individual, it could only be known by that individual alone, hence, everything could be justified (Herry-Priyono, 2017), including the disruption of balance or equilibrium between culture and nature. Efficiency is the rationale for homo economicus and therefore things that hinder their efficiency in accumulating wealth would not be included in their calculus and would be deemed as externalities (Herry-Priyono, 2017). Therefore, taking into account the existence of other species or nature, in general, would be deemed as irrational and as an externality because it would only hinder the efficiency of homo economicus. Herry-Priyono (2017) also adds that homo economics often colonize in terms that they’re commercializing everything, including the environment. This resulted in undermining the existence of other species. Other species are deemed as commodities that could be traded — as an object, rather than an active subject. While economics does indeed possess different paradigms, neoclassical and neoliberal are the one that is most “used” by society at large (Herry-Priyono, 2017; 2022).
However, things don’t have to be that way. Humans don’t necessarily have to follow the neoclassical and neoliberal model approach to the environment and other species. I don’t try to say that humans should replicate the indigenous model local communities have (because it’ll not work in a different context), but I certainly say that humans could learn one thing or two from how local people interact with nature or other species. In Indonesia alone, there is a tremendous amount of ethnic groups that possess multispecies knowledge in regards to interacting with nature. For instance, Cambah (2022) explains that the people of Dayak possessed the knowledge that nature is part of their family. In other words, nature is a living entity, rather than a mere object. Cambah (2022) continues that the people of Dayak think that hurting nature would be the same as hurting another family member. Therefore, the people of Dayak internalize the importance of nature from the very beginning from traditions such as Nahunan. Nahunan is a tradition from Dayak that introduces a newborn baby to nature to integrate nature as part of the baby’s family (Cambah, 2022). People of Nuaulu and people in Negeri Sepa in general also see nature as part of the cosmos — possessing a soul and positioning nature as a subject (Fahham, 2016). Therefore, the people of Nuaulu need to compromise when they want to use nature. One tradition is called sasi or siri where they restrict people to extract from nature for some period of time to ensure nature could grow first (Wenno et al, 2021). From these two examples of local knowledge in Indonesia, humans could learn that it is important to position nature as a living entity and internalize it. Although, the way to express that could be different, according to each culture. Nevertheless, the point is the same — making nature a living entity (a multispecies approach and perspective). In terms of the COVID-19 pandemic, Degawan (2020) reported that some local communities utilized their local knowledge to face the pandemic, such as Orang Asli in Malaysia that “used” the forest. However, Degawan (2020) also adds that local people are facing trouble in practicing their local knowledge due to industrialization which decreases their land and resources — decreases in biodiversity that is mentioned above. Yet again, neoclassical economics, neoliberal, and homo economicus lead to more problems. Ji and Cheng (2021) also argue that today, the western model of health and environment is being “forced” worldwide, making local people couldn’t utilize their local knowledge, and worst the western model did not work for them because, as it is repeated throughout this essay, the western model (or the neoclassical and neoliberal model) undermining the importance of and the existence of nature (other species). In other words, the western model tries to homogenize the approach toward nature. The problem is that the western model is not adequate enough (if not at all) for culture to interact with nature.
Looking Ahead
So, what do we learn? Is there anything that can be taken as a “moral message” after this pandemic? Well, I believe that there’s always something one could learn from any event. The COVID-19 pandemic clearly affects every aspect of our society due to demands created by it in every sector of society (Khoo and Lantos, 2020). From mental health to research ethics, everything is changing due to the pandemic (Khoo and Lantos, 2020). Six million people might be a tiny percent of the total population of the world, but life has nevertheless been lost. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2020) mentioned that one of the things that we could learn from this pandemic is equality. Katella (2021) also suggested that one of the things that we learn from this pandemic is how unequal our society is, whether it’s gender, race, ethnicity, and so many more. Khary Lazarre-White mentioned in an interview conducted by Vox (2021) that the pandemic only intensifies and makes inequality more apparent in our society. But, I think there’s something missing in the talk about inequality during this pandemic. People have been talking about inequality between humans. However, applying the multispecies perspective, it is clear that there’s also inequality between humans and nature or between culture and nature. Hence, for me, the real impact of this pandemic is the reflection of our position with nature. The pandemic makes us rethink the hierarchy of culture and nature. The pandemic makes us challenge the anthropocentric perspective that has been ingrained deeply in our society. Therefore, not only the pandemic challenges inequality in social terms but also challenges the inequality between humans and nature. As Hunt (2021) noted that the pandemic is a wake-up call. It makes people realize how they have been dominating nature for so long.
Chalmers (2021) reported that more and more people are rethinking their relationship with nature. Morse et al (2020) also reported a relatively similar tone that more and more people valued the human-nature relationship or nature-culture relationship. This is why I think this pandemic is rather different from the previous pandemics. It’s not about the use of masks. It’s not about quarantine. And definitely, it is not about the disruption of economics. It is about the rethinking of the Anthropocene and our position in relation to nature. Not only that, neoclassical economics and neoliberalism are being rethought. For instance, the economic policy proposed by the UNICEF for Indonesia (2021) advocates for more government intervention to ensure social welfare, rather than advocating for the private sector which is the main tone of neoclassical economics and neoliberalism. Although, I would add that economic policy needs to incorporate nature for the future to ensure not only a non-neoclassical and non-neoliberal policy but also a non-anthropocentric policy. Moreover, local knowledge will also be noticed more. The point of incorporating local knowledge is not to replicate the model exactly, but more on incorporating local people and local values (which often place value in a harmonic relationship with nature). As far as I am concerned, more people are advocating local knowledge. People are starting to realize how these local people that are often marginalized actually could help in preventing and facing a disastrous event. Not only is it good for our relationship with nature but also good for local people because they’ll be more likely to be involved in decision making. In short, it is a “win-win” solution, for nature-culture and for indigenous people.
It is not going to be easy and quick, however. As mentioned above, the anthropocentric perspective, neoclassical economics, neoliberalism, and the marginalization of local knowledge have been going on for a long time. As Harari (2015) stated humans or homo sapiens are on the verge of becoming a god (or maybe it already has). However, Harari (2015) also adds that the increase of power by homo sapiens does not necessarily lead to an increase in welfare, whether for humans or for non-humans. Harari (2015) mentioned that other animals (or non-humans in general) have been deteriorating more rapidly than ever before. Harari (2015) calls humans an “irresponsible” god. Descartes (2020 [1637]) also mentioned that people are more willing to accept imperfection, rather than change and perfect it because it is easier and more practical rather than creating a new situation for the better. Changing the current state of affairs, as Koentjaraningrat (2007) puts it, will take a long time, even a generation (or more). Therefore, it is not going to be an easy task. However, it is needed nonetheless. Hence, it is worth the fight.
So, to answer the question mentioned at the beginning of this essay, “could we really call ourselves winning? Are we actually “fighting” something? Or, are we actually experiencing a “normal” thing? Experiencing a cycle?”
we’re definitely not winning and we’re definitely not fighting something. We are interacting in a reciprocal way. We put in the input, and we are also the one that receives it back from our interlocutor. And this pandemic is what we get from our interlocutor. It is the fruit of our input. It is the answer from nature for what we have done. And we have to pick up where we left off and learn from it, for a better future.
REFERENCES
Aronsson, A., & Holm, F. (2022). Multispecies entanglements in the virosphere: Rethinking the Anthropocene in light of the 2019 coronavirus outbreak. The Anthropocene Review, 9(1), 24–36.
Arregui, A. G. (2020, March 31). Viralscapes. The bodies of others after COVID-19. Allegra Lab. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from https://allegralaboratory.net/viralscapes-the-bodies-of-others-after-covid-19/
Burgess, A., & Horii, M. (2012). Risk, ritual and health responsibilisation: Japan’s ‘safety blanket’ of surgical face mask-wearing. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34(9), 1184–1198.
Burhan, F. A. (2021, January 7). Pandemi Membuat Penjualan Produk Kesehatan di E-Commerce Melonjak — E-commerce Katadata.co.id. Katadata. Retrieved May 28, 2022, from https://katadata.co.id/pingitaria/digital/5ff70b7ee2da0/pandemi-membuat-penjualan-produk-kesehatan-di-e-commerce-melonjak
Cambah, T. M. (2022). Alam Adalah Keluarga: Internalisasi Nilai-Nilai Ekologis Dalam Ritual Nahunan Suku Dayak Ngaju. Jurnal Ilmu Lingkungan, 20(2), 210–218.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, August 6). Understanding Variants. CDC. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/understanding-variants.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2022, February 25). How to Protect Yourself & Others. CDC. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html
Chadarevian, S. d., & Raffaetà, R. (2021). COVID‑19: Rethinking the nature of viruses. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences volume, 43(2), 1–5.
Chalmers, M. (2021, February 27). How the Pandemic Is Changing Our Relationship with Nature. Sentient Media. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://sentientmedia.org/how-the-pandemic-is-changing-our-relationship-with-nature/
Chaudhary, S. B. (2022, May 3). Residents soak up Eid Al Fitr fervour in UAE — thanks to relaxed COVID protocol. Gulf News. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from https://gulfnews.com/uae/residents-soak-up-eid-al-fitr-fervour-in-uae--thanks-to-relaxed-covid-protocol-1.87604415
Degawan, M. (2020). Kasiyanna: Turning to Indigenous Knowledge During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Cultural Survival. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/kasiyanna-turning-indigenous-knowledge-during-covid-19
Descartes, R. (2020). Diskurus dan Metode (A. F. Ma’ruf, Trans.). IRCiSoD.
Faas, A. J., García-Acosta, V., Barrios, R., Garriga-López, A., Mattes, S., & Trivedi, J. (2020). Entangled Roots and Otherwise Possibilities: An Anthropology of Disasters COVID-19 Research Agenda. Human Organization, 79(4), 333–342.
Fahham, A. M. (2016). Sistem Religi Suku Nualu di Pulau Seram Maluku Tengah. Aspirasi, 7(1), 17–32.
Fardah. (2022, May 2). Eid vibe returns after two years of restrictions. ANTARA News. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from https://en.antaranews.com/news/227881/eid-vibe-returns-after-two-years-of-restrictions
Foley, R. A., Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N., Bogin, B., & Mascie-Taylor, H. o. D. o. B. A. C. G. N. (Eds.). (1995). Human Variability and Plasticity. Cambridge University Press.
Fuentes, A. (2020). A (Bio)anthropological View of the COVID-19 Era Midstream: Beyond the Infection. Anthropology Now, 12(1), 24–32.
Goralnik, L., & Nelson, M. P. (2012). Anthropocentrism. In R. Chadwick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. Elsevier Science.
Gusterson, H. (2020, May 12). COVID-19 and the Turn to Magical Thinking. Sapiens.org. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from https://www.sapiens.org/column/conflicted/covid-19-magic/
Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (J. Purcell, H. Watzman, & Y. N. Harari, Trans.). HarperCollins.
Hassanpour, M., Rezaie, J., Nouri, M., & Panahi, Y. (2020). The role of extracellular vesicles in COVID-19 virus infection. Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 85, 1–12.
Herry-Priyono, B. (2017). Homo Economicus. Melintas, 33(2), 103–129.
Herry-Priyono, B. (2022). Ekonomi Politik: Dalam Pusaran Globalisasi dan Neoliberalisme. PT Kompas Media Nusantara.
Higgins, R., Martin, E., & Vesperi, M. D. (2020). An Anthropology of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Anthropology Now, 12(1), 2–6.
Howard, M. (2020, April 15). More Than Human: Eben Kirksey and Multispecies Ethnography in the Era of COVID-19 — Matters Journal. Matters Journal. Retrieved May 28, 2022, from https://mattersjournal.com/stories/more-than-human
Hunt, L. (2021). How the pandemic has changed our relationship with nature. The University of Derby. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://www.derby.ac.uk/magazine/issue-13/how-the-pandemic-changed-our-relationship-with-nature/
Isabell, F. (2010). Causes and Consequences of Biodiversity Declines. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10), 54.
Ji, R., & Cheng, Y. (2021). Thinking global health from the perspective of anthropology. Global Health Research and Policy, 6(47), 1–3.
Jin, Y., Yang, H., Wu, W., Chen, S., Zhang, W., & Duan, G. (2020). Virology, Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Control of COVID-19. Viruses, 12(372), 1–17.
Johns Hopkins Medicine. (2022, February 24). What Is Coronavirus? Johns Hopkins Medicine. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus
Jribi, S., Ismail, H. B., Doggui, D., & Debbabi, H. (2020). COVID‑19 virus outbreak lockdown: What impacts on household food wastage? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22, 3939–3955.
Katella, K. (2021, May 14). 8 Lessons We Can Learn From the COVID-19 Pandemic. Yale Medicine. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/8-lessons-covid-19-pandemic
Kenton, W. (2021, June 4). Neoclassical Economics Definition. Investopedia. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoclassical.asp
Khoo, E. J., & Lantos, J. D. (2020). Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Paediatr, 1–3.
King, B. J. (2020, April 22). Animal Grief Shows We Aren’t Meant to Die Alone. Sapiens.org. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from https://www.sapiens.org/biology/animal-grief/
King, S. (2022). Of companionship, curfew, and conflict: multispecies leisure in the age of COVID. Leisure Studies, 41(3), 301–309.
Kirksey, E. (2020). The Emergence of COVID-19: A Multispecies Story. Anthropology Now, 12(1), 11–16.
Kirksey, S. E., & Helmreich, S. (2010). The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 25(4), 545–576.
Koentjaraningrat. (2007). Aneka Warna Manusia dan Kebudayaan Indonesia dalam Pembangunan. In Koentjaraningrat (Ed.), Manusia dan Kebudayaan di Indonesia (pp. 374–395). Penerbit Djambatan.
Kottak, C. P. (2015). Cultural Anthropology. McGraw-Hill Education.
Larsen, C. S. (2019). Our Origins: Discovering Biological Anthropology. W.W. Norton.
Lasco, G. (2020, April 8). Hand Hygiene — Could COVID-19 Permanently Change Hand Hygiene? Sapiens.org. Retrieved May 28, 2022, from https://www.sapiens.org/biology/hand-hygiene-covid-19/
Locke, P., & Muenster, U. (2015, November 30). Multispecies Ethnography — Anthropology. Oxford Bibliographies. Retrieved May 30, 2022, from https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0130.xml
Lowe, C. (2017). Viral Ethnography: Metaphors for Writing Life. RCC Perspectives, 1, 91–96.
Mas, K. (2021, June 16). Why so many Covid-19 variants are showing up now. Vox. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://www.vox.com/22537118/covid-19-variants-alpha-beta-delta-gamma
McIntosh, K. (2022, March 1). ﺳﺎﻣﺎﻧﻪ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﺪﯾﻠﯿﺐ. ﺳﺎﻣﺎﻧﻪ ﺁﻧﻼﯾﻦ ﻣﺪﯾﻠﯿﺐ. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://www.medilib.ir/uptodate/show/126981
Mohamadian, M., Chiti, H., Shonghli, A., Biglari, S., Parsamanesh, N., & Esmaeilzadeh, A. (2021). COVID-19: Virology, biology and novel laboratory diagnosis. The Journal of Gene Medicine, 23(2), 1–11.
Morse, J. W., Gladkikh, T. M., Hackenburg, D. M., & Gould, R. K. (2020). COVID-19 and human-nature relationships: Vermonters’ activities in nature and associated nonmaterial values during the pandemic. c. PLoS ONE, 15(12), 1–23.
Pride, D. (2020, December 1). Viruses Can Help Us as Well as Harm Us. Scientific American. Retrieved May 28, 2022, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/viruses-can-help-us-as-well-as-harm-us/
Salverda, T. (2022). Ethnography in Pandemic Times. Journal of Business Anthropology, 11(1), 103–106.
Sanjatmiko, P. (2021). Multispecies ethnography: reciprocal interaction between residents and the environment in Segara Anakan, Indonesia. South East Asia Research, 29(3), 384–400.
Tallberg, L., Huopalainen, A., & Hamilton, L. (2020). Can Methods Do Good? Ethnology and Multi-species Research as a Response to Covid-19. ETHNOLOGIA FENNICA, 47(2), 103–112.
Tambun, L. T., & Lumanauw, N. (2022, May 17). Jokowi: Masyarakat Tak Perlu Pakai Masker di Ruang Terbuka. BeritaSatu.com. Retrieved May 29, 2022, from https://www.beritasatu.com/news/928189/jokowi-masyarakat-tak-perlu-pakai-masker-di-ruang-terbuka
Taylor, C. (2020, March 3). Coronavirus: Hand sanitizer sales surge, leading to price hikes. CNBC. Retrieved May 28, 2022, from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/coronavirus-hand-sanitizer-sales-surge-leading-to-price-hikes.html
Trevathan, W., Bartelink, E., Jurmain, R., Ciochon, R. L., & Kilgore, L. (2017). Introduction to Physical Anthropology, Loose-Leaf Version. Cengage Learning.
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2020, May 20). Lessons we will learn from this pandemic. UNICEF. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://www.unicef.org/eca/stories/lessons-we-will-learn-pandemic
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2021). Analysis of the Social and Economic Impacts of COVID-19 on Households and Strategic Policy Recommendations for Indonesia [Policy Report].
Vox. (2021). Is Meritocracy a Myth? [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://youtu.be/YUbSpI0J9aQ
Wenno, A., Puttileihalat, M. M. S., & Latupapua, Y. T. (2021). KEARIFAN LOKAL SEBAGAI BENTUK KONSERVASI TRADISIONAL SUMBERDAYA ALAM DI DESA TAMILOUW KABUPATEN MALUKU TENGAH. Jurnal Hutan Pulau-pulau Kecil, 5(1), 107–115.
World Health Organization. (2022, May 27). WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. World Health Organization. Retrieved May 28, 2022, from https://covid19.who.int/
The World Health Organization (WHO). (n.d.). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). WHO | World Health Organization. Retrieved May 31, 2022, from https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_3
Zhu, Z., Lian, X., Shu, X., Wu, W., Marraro, G. A., & Zeng, Y. (2020). From SARS and MERS to COVID-19: a brief summary and comparison of severe acute respiratory infections caused by three highly pathogenic human coronaviruses. Respiratory Research, 21(224), 1–14.
