By Michael
Brendan Dougherty
Monday, June 28,
2021
Over a year ago, seeing the immediate
effect that quarantines, shutdowns, and lockdown policies were having on
Western democracies, I put out my futile prayer: “Let’s Never Get Used to This.” I was appalled by the culture of snitching taking
over the United Kingdom, the open contemplation by major Western governments of
“antibody certificates,” and the U.S. attitude of going into lockdown without
ever explaining what measures would end it. There were none.
Some injustices of this period have been
fought out in a way that makes them harder to repeat. Churches in California at
least managed to establish that they could be tyrannized only as much as
businesses were, not more so. Spotting an opportunity, Florida’s Ron DeSantis
has promised amnesty for violators of COVID rules. Similar suits
are under way in other countries.
The problem we face is almost too large to
confront honestly. You can try to turn to the culture wars as they were before
the pandemic, when some of us aimed to defend the Constitution from those who
would seek to replace it (I’ll raise my hand). Or you can work yourself into a
lather about the ongoing threat to democracy from Donald Trump and his
followers, as those on the left have done. Maybe that’s life getting back to
normal.
But I’m worried that, in the future,
historians will laugh at us. Over a period of 16 months, we have just
discovered that governance inspired by Chinese despotism could be practiced in
the West in the name of public health. Across the former free world,
constitutional rights were enthusiastically violated in the name of saving
lives, and the vast majority of people complied happily or even became zealous
enforcers themselves.
This is something governments can’t
“unsee.” When governments and other powerful entities take a hard look at the
wholescale shutdown of businesses and social and religious institutions, the
requirement to work at home if possible, the Zoomification of social life, the
suppression of dissenting opinion and the promotion of government party lines
by all major social networks across the globe, what will they see? Tools
available for many other problems.
And the problem of having seen reality in
the lockdowns affects the rest of society as well. “Experts” and lawmakers
categorized all work under two official labels, and a third one that no one
ever said out loud. Let’s deal with the two official categories: essential and
inessential. Essential workers are those who hold jobs that cannot be
deep-sixed or slowed down without causing obvious societal dysfunction and
deprivation. Inessential workers are those whose work can more or less be
performed by way of computers and telecommunications.
The categories of essential and
inessential make an intuitive and traditional sense, corresponding to Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs, which describes how humans seek food, shelter, and safety
before social opportunities. And in some societies — like that in the United
Kingdom — truckers, grocery-store workers, and nurses received special esteem,
because “knowledge workers” came to recognize their dependence on these
essential workers.
In the United States, though, one
profession fell in between the two categories, thereby revealing a more
sinister Orwellian meaning in the terms “essential” and “inessential.” That
profession was public-school teachers, who effectively argued — if they were
backed by powerful enough teachers’ unions — that they were “inessential
workers” who should stay tightly locked down at home and far from their usual
work in the classroom. This is an odd turn of events if you’ve ever been
accustomed to the self-importance
of public-school teachers.
But their argument was that schools were
far too dangerous, that schools were death traps in a way that grocery
stores weren’t. But then of course, if that were true, it would mean that
workers deemed essential (e.g., at grocery stores and gas stations) were in
fact mere cannon fodder in the war on COVID.
The “essential workers” — truck drivers,
the food workers — were acting as a servant class, making life possible for the
supposedly inessential ones. Teachers did not want to be thought of in this
way, but many parents who struggled to simultaneously work and proctor Zoom
school from home concluded that teachers are in fact more essential than the
pizza-delivery guy.
There was another category, never
officially named, but it was large, and people in this group surely recognized
the judgment made by governments and most of society: They were expendable.
Mostly, these were workers in restaurants, bars, and the hospitality industry.
The COVID recession hit hardest against the working-class women who dominate in
these fields.
But not all expendable workers were
low-wage earners. Expendable workers also included many small-business owners
and entrepreneurs who operate locally and in person, rather than on the
Internet. It included highly skilled workers such as airline pilots, many of
whom, during the lockdowns, lost their certification to fly, and who are now
being rushed back to work through recertification of their credentials. These
workers and businesses have been sustained by the closest thing we’ve tried to
a universal basic income. And the industries that are trying to hire them back
are having trouble scaling up because of a labor shortage and the slowness of
customers to return to their old habits.
Since the end of slavery and indentures,
the burdens of class membership in the United States have traditionally been
softened by the possibility of class mobility and the informal nature of our
classes, which are not legal classes. But, for the better part of a year and
half, these classes were partly formalized, and the economic dislocation of the
pandemic is likely to create further separation between them.
There was a time when a title of nobility
might have had some reason behind it. Your ancient ancestor was a particularly
great berserker in a skirmish against bandits on the trading route, or an
exceptional craftsman of weapons. But now you get the title of “inessential
worker” — and you are noble in that you can stay home and Zoom while others are
supposed to risk death by virus — just for being on a computer.
If today’s Marxists had any creativity or
any tolerance for being among working-class and poor people, they might use
this “inessential” title for a little workers’ revolution. But for good and
ill, all the Marxists are inessential workers, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment