How, where and who will we meet and hug again? And why this matters.

matches aligned together in a row. one match slides down preventing unburnt matches to be burnt by the others.
from https://www.instagram.com/p/B9wjq2xAVf9/
Cite this article as: Elisabetta Adami, "How, where and who will we meet and hug again? And why this matters.," in PanMeMic, 19/05/2020, https://panmemic.hypotheses.org/114.

Understanding communication in a global pandemic and the future of social interaction – Towards a collective semiotics

In this post, I’m sharing with you my reflections on why I believe it’s necessary and urgent that we think of how the pandemic is changing the ways in which we communicate and interact with others and why we need to do this collectively, to make sense of what’s happening and trace the implications for our future.

I hope this will trigger some further thoughts in others. If it does, please share by commenting here below!

Be warned: it will be messy – and partial (for one, I work from home in the UK, I have no kids nor caring responsibilities, and during lockdown I’m staying at my partner’s house in York – so it’s a rather specific and privileged situation – I’m a EU-migrant here and my elderly parents live in Northern Italy – they’re in good health at the moment, luckily – and all this affects my view too). But everybody’s view is partial by definition – and that’s the very reason why we’ve started PanMeMic. We need to start somewhere – and this is my personal take to get the ball rolling.

To navigate my messy post, here are a few shortcuts:

Luckily this website gives me the chance to break free of the constraints of academic writing, and gives those who read the chance to skim through – and comment to compare, contrast, confirm and integrate with their own experiences.

References and Sources: I’m providing links to online sources for relevant concepts and observations I refer to – I’m avoiding linking to academic work that is screened by a paywall, and I’ve prioritised links to introductory sources. Whenever possible, I’ve tried to pick sources (like Wikipedia or opinion pieces) that provide further links to both academic and non-academic work, should you wish to explore any given issue further.

Elisabetta Adami, University of Leeds

As a brief intro about me, I am a (linguist as a background, turned into) ‘semiotician’, based in the UK and originally from Italy. The way I conceive of it, ‘semiotics’ is the discipline that studies how we make meaning with whatever we use to make meaning (although it’s more generally considered to be the discipline that studies signs). The kind of semiotics I do is social semiotics. That is, I look at social life, the relation among humans, and the relation between humans and the world in terms of meaning-making practices – both how we make meanings out of what we see, hear, touch, smell and feel, and how we express these meanings through images, gestures, words, sounds, objects, dress, movement etc. I admit this is not a fully comprehensive way of looking at social life – but it’s the one I’m interested in and the one that helps me making sense of the world that surrounds me.

WHERE IT ALL STARTED (FOR ME)

me not knowing when I’ll be able to hug my dad again. in a picture.

This is more of a personal rambling, like many you’ve probably already read. So if you’re more interested in serious ‘communication and interaction stuff’, just jump to THE COORDINATES OF A CHANGING SEMIOTIC REGIME.

Can you remember when you first got the sense that coronavirus was getting real for you?

For me it was nearly three months ago. Towards lunchtime on Sunday 23rd February, my dad (who lives in Verona, Italy) replied to my “What are you up to today?” whatsapp with a casual:

This is the screenshot of our exchange for those who can read Italian

“just back from running errands. I should have watched Verona football match but suspended to prevent the virus”.

As I had been taking the weekend off from current affairs, that’s how I first got the news that coronavirus had hit Northern Italy – and that’s when I first felt it was real.

Since then both my offline interactions in the UK and my online ones with many people across Europe and elsewhere have changed dramatically. Before then, I had only exchanged a few messages with colleagues based in China and nearby countries, and with my students who have families there, to check on the virus that I heard in the news had hit “over there” – but the whole thing was still far away for me.

Everything has changed that evening. I’ve started to check the news and social media obsessively, and check the daily numbers, and check on my parents and friends in Italy multiple times a day, awfully worried for them and feeling useless and guilty to be far away. I’ve started to have weird dreams and nightmares (which I rarely have normally). I’ve started to feel frenzy, restless and – dare I say it – overexcited. (a few weeks later, I’ve identified myself so well in this powerful Letter to the UK from Italy: This is what we know about your future)

I’ve also soon realised that it all caught me earlier than it did to my UK-based friends who had no connections to Italy and still perceived it as far away. My partner didn’t quite understand the urgency when I first mentioned we needed to start thinking about lockdown arrangements soon. And while I had Italy-based friends messaging me warning that this would arrive to us soon, I went through awkward discussions with a couple of English friends, whose posts revealed rooted cultural misconceptions and some sort of internalised cultural superiority (of the sort “yes, but that’s Italy…”).

It quickly changed in the UK too. All of a sudden, on my Facebook wall, the themes of posts from Italy and from the UK became strikingly similar, only a couple of weeks apart. And all those based in other countries followed suit. Unfolding on my screen, in all languages (automatically translated for me by the apps), were battles of graphs and numbers, “it’s just flu – no, it’s not”, flatten the curve and supportive messages, facemasks, war metaphors, blaming and shaming individual behaviours, or blaming the government, scientists explaining, and everybody else grabbing scientific sources and making an effort to digest and explain them in their turn, and then memes, and jokes, and conspiracy theories… and food and baking… the list is still going on and unfolding every day on my screens.

Through our news feeds on our screens we watched Wuhan on lockdown back in January – but, at least for me, the sources and images were very limited. Then we watched Italy on lockdown and I started to see many more images of how it was… and started to count the days before experiencing it over here in the UK. It arrived – and we’re still in it while I’m writing this, although some restrictions have been eased, among controversies between those who feel the numbers of cases are still too high and blame the government for putting the economy first, and those who are concerned for the massive social and economic costs as well as the restrictions to individual freedoms (spoiler alert: I’m more leaning towards the former at the moment).

Whether it’s only momentary or the pandemic is marking a historical threshold between “the before times” and “the new normal”, the changes in our social lives have been radical.

And while we’re all (similarly and differently) undergoing this enormous change, I can’t help but noticing it everywhere and in anything we do.

While all this has been happening, I’ve felt the need of recording, tracing and reflecting on the changes. So I started to take random notes of what I was observing and experiencing, to screenshot social media posts and to bookmark articles that I was coming across. But this whole process was extremely messy and limited – what I took note of, through my personal window on the situation, was partial and very fragmented, and while the situation was changing rapidly, I was struggling to keep track of it all and felt I needed to reach out for help.

I know I’m not the only one, as I can see everybody is constantly observing, reflecting, trying to make sense – and commenting about it.

As an aside, sometimes I’m wondering if it’s only me, because of my professional (and personal) interest in communication and social interaction. And to check on this, I’ve started to take notes and observe others. Well, it’s not just me. It’s everybody. And if you start looking and listening, the insights everybody has are so many and profound. One example from my notes here: Friday night we joined some friends on Zoom for our weekly online catch up. We usually start with a pubquiz and then we move onto random chats and more drinks, until one after the other everybody drops out and goes to sleep… At some point I stopped participating actively to the random chats and started to note down the topics of conversation (a quite tipsy and live version of thematic analysis, as we call it in qualitative research, for a quite tipsy conversation with many voices alternating and changing topics). Well, in the one hour while I was taking notes, a full 45 minutes were taken up by reflections about how people interact with others now.

That’s why, with colleagues and friends worldwide, we have set up PanMeMic – to start a collective reflection and conversation with everybody (well beyond academia) who’s interested in how the pandemic is changing the ways we communicate and interact with others.

Here below you’ll find a revised and expanded version of the bullet list that opened the invitation I sent out to those who are now part of the PanMeMic founding team – consider it as a personal list of why we should be concerned of communication and interaction practices while the world seems to be falling apart.

illustration portraying people outdoor in a park, each with mask and each circled around, keeping social distance.
created by freepik – www.freepik.com

THE COORDINATES OF A CHANGING SEMIOTIC REGIME

Again, what follows is messy and partial. It requires verification through analysis of actual evidence, and ordering through abstraction and relations. It’s like at the start of a PhD: I have scattered (and hopefully insightful) intuitions and observations, pointing to different questions. Shall we start a collective PhD?

We live in a moment that has no precedents in many respects.

  • The global scope is unprecedented, in its pace of spread and the radical changes it provokes to our social lives. The pandemic has hit nearly everywhere. It affects everybody (differently and yet similarly) around the world – and the perception of its global scope is even more significant, maybe because it has hit the richest areas of the world, like China, Europe and the USA, but also because we have a communication and information system that was not in place in other moments in history. From what I’ve noticed so far, there’s as much sharedness across different countries as there is difference among individuals depending on each personal situation. We need to widen the participation into sharing observations to be able to come to a better mapping of the global-and-the-particular.
  • Spaces, places, times and paces of social life have changed. The world has started to be one same place all of a sudden, caught in one big emergency (that has foreshadowed all the other global and local ones), while we ourselves have started to be separated in our own physical worlds, and in our own personal emotional rollercoasters, each with our own specific privileges, disadvantages, challenges, and resources to cope.
  • The times have both delayed and accelerated at once. While many of us mention not knowing what day it is during our life in lockdown, the pace of information has sped up massively – and for many key workers, scientists, parents juggling between work and homeschooling, people struggling economically or with difficult household situations, and those who are sick or have their dear ones in hospitals, time is running out. Some can’t wait for it to be over, others are appreciating the slowing down they’re experiencing. And still I’m feeling I’m in a sort of suspended time in my personal and our social histories. The spaces, places, times, means and rules for our priorities, behaviours and activities have changed, but we still don’t know if it’s only temporary or how and which of these changes will become normalised.
  • While health and the economic implications of this situation are understandably main concerns, we must not forget that communication plays a huge role in our lives (without communication, most of us would not even know about the pandemic nor how to behave) and that the ways in which we regulate how we interact with others have massive implications for our societies.
  • Former ideological groupings seem to have reshuffled. At least in my personal social network, the “before” divisions (left and right wing, pro- or against Brexit, pro- and anti-experts, climate change advocates and deniers, government supporters or critics) do not quite match the current positions, debates and arguments on the virus – but maybe it’s just the emergency moment and everybody will go back to their ranks soon?
  • Social interaction is changing in unprecedented ways. Social distance (term originated in the work of cultural anthropologist Edward T. Hall), self-isolation, staying at home, are all policies and practices that we are adopting to save lives. And yet these are forcing us to change our communication practices and the ways in which we interact with others.
  • What was familiar, almost ‘natural’ before, is no longer – but there’s no new familiar yet. Am I the only one who feels weird watching a film or a TV show shot before the pandemic, when I see characters gathering, hugging each other, getting on crowded buses, and talking close to each other? A voice in me says “you can’t do that; you don’t do that (anymore)”. And yet, what we do now is still new and awkward; there’s a sort of alertness not only of the health danger outside, but also on how to go about to do things. We are re-disciplining ourselves, our bodies and our actions anew. And we do this all the time, when managing turn-taking on zoom, while prepping to surpass the safe/danger threshold to go food shopping and to get back in the house, or when walking in the streets with a mask while trying to detect other people’s body trajectories and readjusting our own to keep social distance.
  • The level and character of mediation is unprecedented. We have technologies that enable us to be connected like never before. Now that lockdown measures have been imposed in many countries, largest numbers of people have resorted to using these technologies to carry out activities that were previously done offline. Some of us were already using some of them – for others it’s all new. It’s a massive learning curve, but also a massive pool for creativity in how we use these technologies to express ourselves. (and the so-called digital divide is now a much more salient exclusionary boundary, between those who have access to connectivity and devices – and the abilities to use them – and those who don’t).
  • The type of mediation we have available reconfigures the channels of perceptions through which we communicate. The audio-visual dominates. Online through our screens we can only use resources that rely on auditory and visual perceptions – the resources for expression (or semiotic modes) afforded by these channels are plenty, like images, sound and music, speech, writing, gestures, face expressions, objects, numbers, body movements… But they are not all those that humans have developed to communicate. Offline too, by keeping at a distance, our bodily communication still relies heavily on the audio-visual. We can only show, sound, and say. All the unsayable and unshowable meanings that we can perceive and express through touch, smell, taste and all other complex sensory combinations involved in the close physical co-presence of bodies are ruled out. When they happen outside the safe and acceptable space of our homes, they are re-signified as threats or signs of disrespect.
    • In this, I’ve been fascinated at how bodies move in space when walking outside or in shops. It’s a choreography of bodies – I rely on the visual to detect other people’s trajectories and re-adjust my own to keep social distance; and I interpret the way they adjust their own trajectories as a sign of how they stand on the whole coronavirus issue. In shop aisles, my partner said he feels it’s like playing Pac-man; you see a free aisle and get in, if somebody arrives, then you turn and go away. This all by relying on the visual (we used to do that also earlier, trying to avoid bumping into each other in crowded streets – but the social distance now requires planning at a much earlier stage than we would normally do in the past).
    • I’ve also been fascinated by the silence. Sure the silence on lockdown has been caused firstly by the reduced street traffic. But I would have thought that, being physically separated, people would speak louder to each other, from the windows or in the streets. At least here in York, instead, everybody is terribly quiet. Maybe it’s a local thing – as in the UK you tend to be loud only when socialising in groups (alcohol playing a big part on the level of loudness too), while socialising is now limited. Maybe it’s something we’re bringing from what was acceptable behaviour in urban public areas in the “before times”, when it would be rude to be loud in public (I’ve always been amazed at how sound would be considered more invasive, while we usually tolerated all sorts of visual pollution in our in-built environments). Maybe it’s an acceleration of the ongoing trend of individualised societies, where contacts among strangers are rarer and even in public we tend to mind our own businesses and interact (through our mobiles) only with those we know. Sound with strangers seems to be used only in rituals (like the weekly flashmobs singing from the windows in Italy and Spain, and the weekly clapping for the health and key workers in the UK). I don’t know, but it would be interesting to hear how this works in other environments and settings.
  • We’re both isolated and connected selves. Our personal bubbles (a term we used to associate with social media networks) are now the physical environment in which we live, while the screens are our windows to the world and to others. In the physical environment we are isolated in the spaces of our homes (if we are lucky to have one) and with the members of our household (if we have any – and here too we might be more or less lucky depending on who’s living with us). Mobility restrictions have massively reduced the ‘slice’ of the offline worlds that we can physically access.
  • The social functions of offline and online have changed. All sorts of activities that we used to carry out offline can no longer take place, and have been reshaped to be carried out online. This has massive implications – too many to list here as they would deserve a whole piece (or many) of its own.
  • Private and public have both separated and merged (further).
    • Offline, there is now a dramatic threshold between our private/home space and our public/outside space. Outside we need to discipline our bodies, the way they move in space, how close we get to others, and what/who we touch. The threshold is marked and salient, as we are not yet accustomed to what we need to do to prep ourselves, mentally and physically, to cross it both to venture outside and to get back inside. But the threshold comes with us everywhere, as it marks the separation between our own bodies (or intimate units, if we go out with somebody in our households) and those of others. The way we conduct ourselves with others, what Goffman called the interaction order, is undergoing   a resetting of its parameters, as Ben Rampton has pointed out in a PanMeMic comment.
    • Our private/home space has changed its nature – for some it has become also a workplace, and a school, for some it’s overcrowded, for others it is peace and solitude, or loneliness – and for most it is where online and offline blur and intertwine.
    • Online, private and public have merged (even further) as online connectivity on screens shows each other’s private space, be it when interacting online with friends, for a work meeting, or for public appearances. Through the backgrounds of what is shown on screens, we all have access to slices of others’ private places, be our friends, colleagues, authorities, scientists, teachers, trainers or celebrities.
  • Maybe because of this constant entering of the private into the public and vice versa, also the levels of formality and informality cross and intertwine. Outside like in their houses, people wander around in home-clothes more and, occasionally, dress up just to throw out the bins or for an online chat (as many have joked on my facebook wall). On video in work meetings and even in public appearances on TV, people appear less groomed, less beautified, less perfect. Will this foster a more ‘natural’ look in the future or not?
  • The pace and volume of information (an infodemic?) is unprecedented. Communication about the pandemic is done ‘live’, at the minute, from multiple sources, which everybody engages with their own way, re-interprets, explains, re-signifies, and shares to others. I’ve never seen these many interested in knowing more, in wanting to make sense, in telling others about many different aspects of one single (global) event. True, the sources can be more or less reliable, and some can be purposefully designed to mislead and manipulate. Yet we’ve never all witnessed the chaotic dynamics of science and research this close and this live and we’ve never talked this much about it (for an insightful take on this, read here – in Italian only). Unprecedented are also the pace and volume of all other sorts of communications that are influenced by the situation – checking on friends, doing artwork on Instagram, sharing memes, or the dishes we cook… And this also implies that it is all very fleeting and transient. It will be difficult to retrieve and track it backwards at a later time.

And here I come to why we need to collectively report on our experiences, gather data, analyse, interpret and reflect on the communicative changes that we’re undergoing.

TOWARDS A COLLECTIVE SEMIOTIC RESEARCH

From the changes I’ve listed here above (and many more that you might have observed) and the various implications that these may have in our futures, here come the reasons to start public forms of sharing of experiences and knowledge:

  • Perceptions of changes need to be recorded while they happen – as we can easily become normalized into new habits, while the changes escalate – the metaphor of the Boiling Frog comes to my mind here – the pace is certainly faster, but every new change can let us easily forget the previous one and how we perceived it.
  • We need to understand how this is affecting people in different parts of the world and in different demographics (age, class, ethnicity, gender, abilities, type of household etc.), as well as in different areas of social interaction (work, leisure, personal relations, relations with strangers, at home and outside…). We need to understand the sensory, cognitive, social, emotional, physical, political (and you can add more here) implications of the changes in our communicative and interactional practices – we also need to understand how people are creatively coping with this, to gather best practices and help share them.
  • We need to understand what is fully new, what is an acceleration of past practices, or what could be a turn against past trends. And we need to understand what these new, accelerated, or u-turned trends point towards.
  • Never before it has become so manifest that the times, processes, and means of dissemination of traditional research are utterly inadequate, as they are too slow to keep track of the changes and provide insights that can be useful when we need them – as is happening in scientific research on the virus worldwide (read more here and here), also for research on communication and interaction during the pandemic we need to start sharing insights now, openly, and live, among as many as possible – and we need to analyse the now to foresee (and try to act towards) the future.
  • Academic researchers cannot do this on their own. So many people – and the media – have been reflecting and posting about how the pandemic is affecting human communication and interaction – and observing also how authorities have been communicating. The more I look at it, the more I’m seeing everybody constantly commenting on how interactions are changing. And each has a different perspective because of their own situation. We are both all together in this and yet all very different in it. That’s why we need as many different perspectives as possible to join forces.
  • There are precedents in ‘citizen science’ that we can follow (and adjust). The so-called hard and natural sciences have long involved non-academics in collecting data and in collaborative, participatory forms of research. This method is generally called citizen science (or ‘community’, ‘civic’ or ‘crowdsource’ research – for an introduction read here). In the social sciences and humanities the method has been approached more recently, like in ethnography (see this great crowdsourced anthropological project on the pandemic); citizen sociolinguistics has emerged too (read here and here for examples). This has never been attempted in semiotics though – and yet everybody constantly reflects not only on language use but on all forms of expressions (or ‘sign-making’ as we call it in social semiotics) and on how they and others communicate. And now more than ever, we need to make the best of distributed knowledge to try to make sense of what’s happening.
  • I propose not to use ‘citizen’ in the label; although originally the use was meant to refer to ‘non-professional’ (as in citizen journalism, for example), rather than to those who have ‘citizenship’, it has however potentially exclusionary values, for non-citizens, such as migrants. So I’d propose grassroots, collective or distributed semiotics. But let’s see where this takes us and if we can come up with a better term.
  • This collective research initiative needs to involve as many people as possible, in as many areas of personal and professional expertise as possible – we can start with a founding team covering all continents that coordinates the first activities – but it needs to involve both academics and non-academics who have a special interest in communication and social interaction – from communication and media studies to linguists, from software designers to architects, from artists to PRs, from dancers to film-makers, from key workers to those who have lost their job, to reach anybody who has a special insight into some sphere of communications (which we all do, in our everyday life, work, leisure, personal relations).

In sum, it is the time to find a way to start collective forms for researching on the semiotics of these pandemic times.

Here are the characteristics of this initiative:

  • No limits on the aspects to be researched: all spheres of communication and social interaction are admitted, both interpersonal and institutional, both private and public, both in relation to contents and to forms, and the focus can be on anything: on interaction while wearing masks, on touch, on videocalls, on deserted cities, on online playdates for kids, on authorities’ press conferences, on infographics, on fake news, on ads, on apps….
  • A call for people beyond academia to share their reflections and experiences on how their communication practices have been changing, their fears, their surprises, their successes… but also on what they have observed in others, and in the institutions
  • All researchers posting their own reflections ‘live’, on the moment, without the constraints of academic writing and publishing, and through a sharing rather than competitive effort – no editorial process; everybody will be responsible for what they post and will receive feedback through the conversations that will follow up in the comments.
  • From this joint sharing of reflections, we can start thinking about
    • how to develop methods for collective and individual collection and analysis of the experiences and data – and agree on more structured ways of conducting collective research, as well as
    • how to derive from all these the implications for the future – the losses and the gains – the possibilities and the threats and dangers.
    • And maybe, by predicting these, start providing indications on good practices and policies, and shape forms of collective actions that try to impact towards positive change for the common good, to minimize risks for the future of social interactions, and design new and better futures.
  • As semioticians, we could assess whether and how ‘distributed knowledge’ can work, and start a new approach and method in semiotic research (akin to participatory methods used in other disciplines)
  • This would all start as a free and voluntary-led enterprise (no grants, no obligations, no research productivity) – which hopefully will give us ideas also for more formal forms of collaborations among those who contribute – in all cases, we will be fostering distributed research knowledge outside the self-referentiality of our academic circles, and frankly, I (am terrified but) can’t wait.

That’s it, more or less. Let’s see how it goes. Waiting to meet and hug you all again soon.

Elisabetta Adami

Elisabetta Adami is Associate Professor in Multimodal Communication at the School of Languages, Cultures and Societies, University of Leeds, UK. Her research specialises in social semiotic multimodal analysis. She is currently working on developing methods for the semiotic analysis of inter- cross- and trans-cultural communication, with a focus on issues of mediation and translation. Recent publications include journal articles, edited special issues and volumes on sign-making practices in place (on urban visual landscapes and superdiversity), in digital environments (on webdesign, interactivity, YouTube, mobile devices, and digital literacy) and in face-to-face interaction (in intercultural contexts and in deaf-hearing interactions). She is editor of Visual Communication, coordinates PanMeMic, and leads Multimodality@Leeds.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebook


Elisabetta Adami

Elisabetta Adami is Associate Professor in Multimodal Communication at the School of Languages, Cultures and Societies, University of Leeds, UK. Her research specialises in social semiotic multimodal analysis. She is currently working on developing methods for the semiotic analysis of inter- cross- and trans-cultural communication, with a focus on issues of mediation and translation. Recent publications include journal articles, edited special issues and volumes on sign-making practices in place (on urban visual landscapes and superdiversity), in digital environments (on webdesign, interactivity, YouTube, mobile devices, and digital literacy) and in face-to-face interaction (in intercultural contexts and in deaf-hearing interactions). She is editor of Visual Communication, coordinates PanMeMic, and leads Multimodality@Leeds.

You may also like...

20 Responses

  1. Abbey says:

    I visit everyday some web pages and information sites to read content, except this website presents
    feature based posts.

  2. Hey, Elisabetta!

    I really enjoyed reading your insights and have absolutely sensed a lot of what you talk about in my own experiences over the past three months. I’m excited, too, for the prospect of a grassroots/collective/distributed semiotics and think the time is now to embrace less formal modes of knowledge-sharing throughout our institutions.

    Firstly, I think it is important to take note of one very important arena that has been forced to resist some of the strictest social-distancing measures in order to face up to the kind of deadly prejudice that dwarfs the pandemic in terms of its weight in history: the Black Lives Matter movement. The deep sense of injustice reaching into American communities after (although not solely because of) the murder of George Floyd – along with the widespread trauma caused by systemic racism in the US – has motivated many Americans to join protests that by definition undermine participators’ ability to adhere to the pandemic etiquette we’ve been normalising in many places. While many UK streets remain, as you note, eerily quiet (mine, too) in terms of the volume and frequency of non-digitally-mediated conversations, American protesters are chanting in their thousands… While many of us in the UK have not come within two metres of persons living outside of our households for weeks now, American protesters are marching in unified masses… While many across the globe are acting their activism out through screens, American protesters on the frontline of this movement have been subjected to tear-gas and rubber-bullet tactics… These protests are brave and necessary acts, and I just wanted to say something about that first.

    My other musings:

    – In response to your partner’s supermarket-PacMan comment: I’ve also noticed a quasi-gamification(?) of the shopping experience, in which supermarkets have become spaces to navigate not in the irregular ways we are used to pre-pandemic – i.e., for the most organised among us, guided by the order of a shopping list and, for the least organised, by what items or aisles pique our interests from one moment to the next – but in a unidirectional/clockwise/etc. fashion that seeks to boost the safety of both shoppers and staff but can often feel quite frustrating an experience – even for those among us that are keen to adhere to the tightest measures imaginable. There might be gendered (and other) discrimination of those who are “letting the team down” in this new, highly structured, site-dependent (not all supermarkets are operating the same systems) rewards- and losses-based shopping environment, where one’s body and bodily motions have become sites for detailed scrutiny, transgressions a cause for reprimand. I overheard a fellow shopper bemoan her partner the other day as he held up the socially-distanced queue in Tesco: “It’s always the men!” (Those were her words, and the statement betrays something about how rapidly we habituate ourselves and our discriminatory speech within the new norms we’re experiencing: “It’s *always* the men,” despite the fact that three months surely doesn’t constitute “always,” does it?)
    – I’ve also taken part in a video-call-mediated quiz, and the thought arises: What changes about the ethics of such games when the devices potentially used to cheat (in some very shifty pubs across the UK…) become the devices used to mediate the quiz itself – that is, we cannot sneakily ask Google for an answer when it’s our phone being used for the call, or when our opponents can view our movements in ways barely possible with the disorganised, drunken crowding of tables at the pubs we gathered in for quizzes before the pandemic. We’ve become, perhaps, better – fairer – players in this sense, but we’ve also become our own gamemasters: every player is afforded equal legitimacy to pause the game. In quizzes played out via multi-player video calls, nothing can be lost of the game in total when we interrupt its sequentiality to nip to the kitchen for another drink (vs. in the pub: when it’s our round, the quiz MC won’t stop the entire game just to honour our trip to the bar, and our chance to contribute to the questions we miss while waiting to be served is lost). What does this say about legitimacy in turn-taking/legitimacy to the equal stakes in a game in general, and can these ideas be extrapolated to more socially pressing issues than pub quizzes? I know that an advocate for victims of domestic violence is convening weekly Zoom calls, chaired each week by different academics/police officials/legal professionals/etc., and that many abuse survivors are likely to join onto these calls. Does the potential reconfiguration of legitimacy to equal shares in turn-taking in this sense amplify survivors’ voices, or do other platform-specific limitations and issues around media literacy only serve to extinguish them further? (By the way, I’m not so read-up on turn-taking as a concept, so forgive me if I’m playing a bit loosely with it here…)
    – Finally, I’m quite excited by something I’ve noticed emerge on SoundCloud: a new genre of DJ mix, variably termed a “quarantine,” “isolation,” or “lockdown” mix. I will write more about this soon (I intend to), but there are a couple of reasons as an avid SoundCloud listener that this new genre is interesting to me from an analytical perspective: 1) The quarantine/isolation/lockdown mix crosses traditional sound genre lines, being a semiotic choice I’m seeing used from techno to dancehall to experimental DJ/label/promo accounts, whereas earlier (pre-pandemic) mix genres such as the “chillout” mix are more prescriptive in terms of sound genre – e.g., chillout mixes are more likely to be a choice found by artists in ambient and other lower-BMP music genres; 2) Social-distancing measures subvert the usual ethics and aesthetics of highly participatory, corporeally involving genres like techno, house, and drum and bass, but is the SoundCloud function of user commentary on mixes of the quarantine/isolation/lockdown mix genre enabling the restoration of these, to the extent that quarantined/isolated/lockdowned DJs and listeners cannot share in the forms of physical proximity associated with these musical genres (techno, etc.) but can share in the affective experience of the mix (e.g., narrating their own and appreciating one another’s experience in comments like “PERFECTION” and bundles of loveheart emojis, etc.), achieving somewhat the sense of unity that pre-pandemic rave-going enabled…? (There is so much more going on here, and it is especially exciting from a social semiotic multimodal perspective, so that is why I’m keen to do something with this!)

    There’s so much more to say in general, actually, but these were some thoughts that immediately came to mind in response to what you’ve written and from the perspective of my own interests. Particularly, I want to stress how much I agree with your call for us to collectively make moves to chart what is shifting as it shifts – to reflect on the liminal(?) experience of norm-emergence while we are situated within that experience (“It’s always the men!”).

    Best wishes to all, and congratulations on this fabulous project, Elisabetta!

    Becky

  3. ANNA DE FINA says:

    Thank you Elisabetta. This was very interesting and though provoking. One thing that I have noticed (being Italian myself and living in the US) is that however this is a global pandemic it has also brought to light incredible differences between people in different countries. I am thinking of protesters bringing guns to marches against governors that have closed their state here. Or I am thinking of an online narrative collected by one of my students telling of how her father refused to wash his hands after going shopping and of how to her recriminations he responded °I am an American!”.
    On the other hand when you mention that brexiters are more likely to oppose lockdowns than remainers, I think of the same divide here between republicans and democrats.
    So I feel that this dynamic between global and local is worth studying.

    • Grazie, Anna, very useful thought re the global-local. it’s an intertwining of commonalities and specificities, isn’t it? and this is certainly the phenomenon that would allow an exploration like possibly never before. Shall we think of threads to pursue? (as the global-local is also my own ‘obsession’)

      The adult sons/daughters struggling to convince their elderly parents to stay home and take precautions is a story I’ve heard from everywhere (mentioned also in that Italian letter to the UK I’ve linked up there) – then maybe reasons advocated were different (‘I’m American’ vs ‘I’ve survived the war’ from my partner’s mum, who’s Yorkshire born and bred…) but I’m suspecting there’s also a generational clash in there that is transnationally common, a sort of rebellion to having your son/daughter discipline you (who raised them), and struggling to accept a virus that has sanctioned you as old, weak and needy (the agism that occurred was often quite awful).
      Alt-right protests against lockdown have been attempted in italy (Meloni) too – and recently also in the UK, with less success than in the US though and certainly not with guns (but the fact that the alt-right is internationally networked is no news). With this, I’m not denying the effect of nationalism (quite the opposite) and country-based specificities. This is really the phenomenon that can offer unique data on global-local dynamics – so let’s think of ways to explore them together!

  4. Diane Potts says:

    My post to my MA students on January 31, 2020. By this point, we had had an in-class discussion of the developing pandemic in addition to the lengthy discussion at the Dissertation Bazaar referenced in my post. The developing situation had also been discussed in one of my UG classes.

    Best,

    Diane

    ————————–

    Hi everyone,

    After yesterday’s dissertation bazaar, I decided to email our cohort and offer my own perspective on global events. I will emphasize that this is my opinion, but it is an opinion based on solid sources and not rumor. That’s very important in a situation such as this.

    1. First and foremost, fear is not logical. By that, I mean emotional and physical responses to fear do not work the brain in the same fashion as ‘critical thinking’ – whatever you think that means. ^_^ So if you are afraid and/or people you know and care about are afraid, that means you and/or they are human. All of us need to remember that.
    2. Second, some of you are more directly affected by the epidemic than others. I don’t know who is more or less affected, but our geographic histories mean there are differences. All of us need to be aware of that. Despite our differences, we are an ‘us’, a ‘we’ and we need to take care of each other as the situation continues to unfold.
    3. Third, people do stupid things when they’re afraid. Here, I’m referring to media reports of discrimination and protest. I sighed this morning where I read S.Koreans are throwing eggs and protesting against their government’s decision over where to quarantine S. Korean citizens who have been flown back from Wuhan. I can ‘read’ Korean practices of protest, but do they ever look stupid from a distance. Your social media feeds will also be filled with instances of discrimination; I’m not sure if your feeds will cover statements and actions by local, regional and national governments that condone these behaviours. All I can hope is that none of us will have stupidity directed against us. Remember, we will not experience this equally and we need to support individuals whose experience is different from our own.
    4. Fourth, I have listed below the best information I have at this point in time. Again, I am writing from a personal perspective. However, I urge you to evaluate your sources carefully. There is considerable evidence over the last ten years of the negative impact of social media on public health information. Social media can be used wisely or poorly: check the quality of the information sources no matter who shares the information with you – including me.
    5. Fifth, as I touched upon in LING403, this is why we teach. Language education and particularly English language education is supposed to be about being able to communicate across difference, to gain new understandings of how others see the world and to jointly problem-solve even when we disagree. Again, this is why we teach. Let us model what language education can be in how we listen and support each other.

    Best,

    Diane

    Notes on current information on the new coronavirus…
    – China remains the only epidemic centre. This is important as the overall danger to the public’s health will increase if multiple epidemic centres develop.
    – WHO (the World Health Organization) declared a global emergency in large part because they are worried about a new/additional epidemic centres emerging in less developed countries. At this moment in time, the risk in developed countries is very – very! – low.
    – WHO has consistently complimented the Chinese national government for their response to the crisis. When the epidemic has subsided, there will be investigations into what happened and I won’t be surprised if the responses of health care officials in Wuhan/Hubei are found to be inadequate. Remember, though, that the same type of post-epidemic audit was carried out after the SARS outbreak in 2002-03. These audits are not carried out to punish people but to understand how we can do better next time – because there’s always a next time. Already, those of us from wealthier nations can see the difference from 2002-2003. (Note: I was in S.Korea during the SARS outbreak so I have multiple perspectives on this.)
    – Initially, officials did not think the disease could spread between humans. It’s when people became sick from human-to-human contact that this became a bigger issue. If you were following the news on this story before Christmas, you will have seen things change quickly once it became clear that human transmission was possible and/or more easy than was initially thought.
    – Countries are not hiding the number of people infected. Labs can only run so many tests a day – there’s only so many lab technicians, so much equipment, etc. One reason that the number infected is growing so quickly is that the medical community is speeding up diagnosis.
    – It is impossible to accurately calculate the mortality rate. In other words, it’s impossible to calculate the number of people who are infected who eventually die. There are two reasons for this:
    ~ The previous point about diagnosis. If you don’t know how many people are infected, you can’t calculate the mortality rate. Limits in diagnosing the illness prevent accurate calculation of the mortality rate.
    ~ Young people (<30 years ?) seem to develop minor symptoms, if any. They may not even know they're infected. In other words, young people may 'get better' without ever knowing they've been infected. That makes the mortality rate look artificially high.
    – It is clear that some people are more at risk than others.
    ~ Most if not all deaths – the 'all' isn't clear – are men over the age of 55. This is a virus that leads to a form of pneumonia. The elderly, people who smoke and those with cardio-pulminary diseases are always more at risk with respect to these types of viruses.
    ~ That doesn't mean others are safe or should move around freely. If a young person moves around freely and becomes infected, they may transmit the virus to someone who is vulnerable i.e. a grandparent. Travel restrictions take this into account: not being at risk doesn't prevent you from creating risk for others.
    – It appears that it is possible to spread this virus before you display any symptoms. For example – and I think I have the numbers correct – three Japanese citizens who flew on a government-organized flight out of Wuhan and displayed no symptoms were found to be infected. The medical community isn't sure how many days people are infectious before they display symptoms. It's quite possibly 1-3 days, but countries flying their citizens out of Wuhan are often quarantining people for 14 days out of an abundance of caution.
    – China determines who can leave the country. China does not recognize dual citizenship, which is why you're reading stories about governments (American, Canadian, British) evacuating one person and not their partner and/or child. Again, this is because China is not allowing Chinese citizens to leave and China does not recognize dual citizenship.
    – China decides who can fly in a plane to evacuate their citizens and when that plane can arrive/depart. If you know anything about current international events, you can spot a pattern in who is being given permission and/or the order in which countries are being given permission. I'll let you do your own analysis.
    – The best prevention is washing your hands frequently, the same as with any flu or cold. If wearing a mask leads you to touch your face, mouth or nose more frequently, you may actually increase your risk of becoming ill – common cold, flu, whatever. At the moment, there are problems in supplying health care workers with surgical masks as people around the world are buying and hoarding them. Ever so gently, you may want to consider the risk being created for health care workers globally if you are buying surgical masks. Buying the more flimsy masks doesn't create greater risk for health care workers, but it may increase the probability that you catch a common cold or flu if you touch your face more frequently.
    – Beyond that, we wait. Epidemics eventually subside. What happens next depends on whether the world is successful in preventing new epidemic centres from emerging. We wait, and those of us whose loved ones are not at risk are thankful.
    – Tell people if you're worried and/or stressed. Let your classmates know how you're doing. Let me know how you're doing. Again, we are we and we are language professionals. As a group of people from around the world, we can model how we want the world to work.

  5. Ben Rampton says:

    Thanks, Elisabetta – that’s a really useful set of observations. I’m thinking quite a lot about how I’m going to build Coronavirus into my language & communication teaching in September, and these observations look like a terrific starting point for all sorts of collaborative reflection and analysis…. Hope there’s more.

    • thank YOU, Ben – yes to thinking about teaching and learning next year; let’s start some serious reflections on this! And possibly we could start building resources for lang&comm&interaction classes, like they’ve done for the virus: https://time.com/5808838/coronavirus-syllabus-history/

      p.s.: This year I’ve asked my students to produce reflective logs observing their communication practices – they came up with really insightful observations – for the assignment, I’ve opened them to the possibility of analysing the changes during the pandemic if they wished to – they’ve just submitted and I can’t wait to see what they’ve produced! (in spite of the abrupt going online of the last sessions, many of them having to fly back home and all sorts of difficulties that we know…)

  6. John Bateman says:

    wrt: “Former ideological groupings seem to have reshuffled. At least in my personal social network, the “before” divisions (left and right wing, pro- or against Brexit, pro- and anti-experts” : is this really the case? interesting corrleations appear to be there between particular political orientations and acceptance/rejection (or, more subtle) willingness to abide by prevention measures. So could well be deeper dimensions of variation here: cf. the recent Guardian article too: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/20/nudge-theory-brexit-divide-lockdown-coronavirus

    • yes John, my network too is more visibly re-aligning recently – and yet, also considering the survey results, you can still see the diversity: “A recent YouGov survey found that 47% of leavers supported the government’s easing of the lockdown compared with 26% of remainers” – it’s all in there: remainers are all by definition against brexit, while 1 out of 4 of them supports the governments’ easing of lockdown (and 1 out of 2 leavers don’t openly support the government). That’s made my facebook wall more lively and diverse in positions as I’ve seen friends who normally agree on politics debating quite lively on the pandemic instead. I’m not denying correlations, of course – and can see them quite intuitively across my network too – but the distribution across traditional camps does not fully coincide and that’s when it gets interesting – I have left wing friends who blame (shame?) individuals’ behaviours, arguing with other left wing friends accusing them of ‘snitching and policing’; I had battles of graphs between remainers advocating the ‘it’s just flu’ position and other ‘it’s not a flu’ remainers (the former were fewer than the latter, but they still were there). And yes, much deeper variables might be at stake – like ‘law abiding and enforcing’ vs ‘allergic to authority’ etc. – as well as personal situations (Kress’ ‘interest’ comes to mind). It’s also true that (at least in the UK and Italy) parties were caught a bit off guard at the start so they were not particularly fast and unite in framing their messages (Lakoff comes to mind here), while they seem to be catching up now…

  7. Emilia says:

    So much food for thought in this intro, Elisabetta! Thank you for the generosity. I remember thinking, around mid March, when things started getting frightening here, the feeling of unease about laughing at a picture of people wrapped in toilet paper, like mummies, with the caption “How Australians protect themselves against corona virus”.

    • I don’t know if that’s what you hinted at – but your comment made me think at the ‘too soon?’ response if you do want to make a joke about an issue that is still too emotionally serious to be joked about.
      I remember how my italy-based friends were sending memes about the virus back in January when it had hit only China – then Italy got hit and the memes stopped, while they were still appearing in posts in other countries. Then all of a sudden they all stopped, while they emerged back in Italy (as it was well into lockdown by then)…
      Unfortunately it’s hard to verify – but if we had a way to spot the appearance of memes on the virus in different countries and map them against the spread of the virus we could also see the timeframes for acceptability of humour during an emergency… (there are previous studies on specific events, but the global reach of this would allow so many more insightful findings)
      Any Big Data brains that can help us on this?
      Shame

  8. Yiqiong says:

    Thanks for this insightful introduction! It would be nice to have a column on how the pandemic is turned real to each of us.

  9. Jesse Pirini says:

    Great to hear your personal experience here, and so interesting to see the initial perspective from your friends in the UK towards Italy and the pandemic. It really has surfaced our frailties in managing viruses – we aren’t very good at it!

    I must admit the first time it really hit home for me was when the NBA cancelled their season! I get the impression that the sports organisations and some other businesses were ahead of many governments and public institutions like universities on this. I’m not sure why, but maybe they took a more pragmatic approach to protect their ‘assets’ or can simply make unilateral decisions more easily.

    • Yes, Jesse, you’re right – I hadn’t thought about it but in the UK too sport organisations and all sorts of other event organisations were ahead of the government (to be honest, also my own University was ahead in moving everything online a good week before government promoted their ‘stay home’ slogan – it’s also true that the UK government waited more than others…). It does make you wonder why that is, many variables, I suppose – any chance that you and your colleagues in management get hold of some data on the decision-making processes that went on?

  1. 28/06/2020

    […] though this infodemic may appear as unparalleled, at least in the last decades, the decline of trust in medicine and the […]

  2. 07/08/2020

    […] Adami, E. (2020) “How, where and who will we meet and hug again? And why this matters. Understanding communication in a global pandemic and the future of social interaction – Towards a collective semiotics” in PanMeMic, 19/05/2020, https://panmemic.hypotheses.org/114 […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search