The human costs of the current pandemic are clear — as of 9 March 2021 there have been over 116 million reported cases of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) worldwide, resulting in more than 2.5 million deaths. What’s more, as people around the globe contend with the loss of family and friends, they also face significant changes to their social and political lives. The global pandemic introduced a range of challenges to interpersonal behaviour, liberal democratic values, and policy implementation. For example, throughout the pandemic we have seen general disregard for basic etiquette and appropriate norms of interaction, overtly immoral acts of discrimination and hate, and policies that fail to fully incorporate an understanding of the emerging scientific evidence about the virus and its social effects.
Moreover, we continue to see ongoing challenges to expectations around mask wearing and an increasingly vocal vaccine hesitancy movement. These forms of opposition often take on impolite, if not rude and disparaging, modes of expression. Impolite political exchange regarding mask policies (such as comments about “Neanderthal thinking”) can exacerbate partisan tensions. When individuals hold intractable anti-mask beliefs, confrontations have the potential to escalate into incidents of extreme violence. Coalitions appear to be forming around what advocates describe as “health freedom”.
How can we better understand and respond to these challenges? In our recent book Recovering Civility during COVID-19, we argue that a focus on civility provides useful insights into these kinds of issues. The civility concept includes two key dimensions: civility as politeness and civility as public-mindedness. The former relates to norms of etiquette and good manners, which play an important role in signalling respect and consideration for others, as well as facilitating social cooperation. The latter involves treating others as free and equal. This entails, first, avoiding hateful, discriminatory, and violent behaviour (what we call “moral civility”). And second, it requires that we refrain from justifying policies based on self-interested or sectarian reasons, or reasons that fail to take into account scientific evidence and the uneven effects of political rules (what we refer to as “justificatory civility”).
The pandemic has generated numerous challenges on both fronts, disrupting people’s ability to behave politely and in a public-minded way.
Want the best of Religion & Ethics delivered to your mailbox?
Sign up for our weekly newsletter.
Civility as politeness
From the outset, this pandemic has disrupted many of the norms that regulate people’s polite interactions in their everyday lives, resulting in a series of unprecedented challenges.
First, COVID-19 has called into question previous norms of politeness that were widely recognised, making it more difficult for people to know how to behave politely in different circumstances. For example, at the start of the pandemic, considerations related to the transmission of COVID-19 disrupted previous practices and added new layers of complexity to queuing. New demands emerged about maintaining physical distance in public places, but solutions came quickly. People acknowledged the need to make small changes to their behaviour and almost immediately began to help others understand new expectations. In Seattle, for instance, vendors at a local farmer’s market provided additional guidance with tape, chalk, and signs to help patrons adhere to new best practices.
Furthermore, COVID-19 also caused disruption to norms of politeness in such environments as restaurants, bars, and cafés. People recognised many of these challenges to etiquette and politeness norms early on during the pandemic. Both experts and popular news outlets provided some basic advice on behaviours when restaurants reopened after mandatory shutdowns, and the public was able to draw from some guidance regarding the new “dos and don’ts” for restaurant patrons.
Moreover, with the onset of a pandemic, previously understood expectations regarding appropriate greetings became less clear. People soon realised that a polite handshake meant to initiate a pleasant social exchange could make the other party uneasy or be perceived as unsafe at best or offensive at worst. COVID-19 turned some of the politeness norms related to greetings on their head, where an other-regarding demonstration of care may now entail abstention from previous polite behaviours. Given the health risks associated with proximity and touch, the public could benefit from a “hug and handshake hiatus” and develop alternative ways to exhibit politeness when greeting others.
Second, the ongoing uncertainty surrounding norms of politeness and etiquette may deprive people of clear, ready-made polite signals to communicate respect and consideration to others — speech or behaviour that in the past may have been unambiguously perceived as a polite signal might now go awry during the pandemic. For instance, COVID-19 has created new points of confusion as to norms of communication in the workplace, especially regarding the best ways to express politeness in email correspondence and proper etiquette during meetings.
Likewise, wearing a mask can hinder our ability to communicate with others, especially people with hearing difficulties and those who speak other languages. Wearing a mask may also obscure other ways of sending signals — for example, by concealing smiling, frowning, and other facial expressions that help to signal emotions like happiness, surprise, anger, or disapproval, which are often crucial to polite interactions. A reduced capacity to visibly communicate emotions or perceive others’ expressions inhibits the signalling function of polite facial expressions. COVID-19 has also disrupted etiquette and politeness norms in contexts where they were previously well-established. Simple gestures like holding a door open for strangers or delaying a lift to allow for another passenger are no longer straightforward acts of politeness that signal social cooperation and consideration.
Third, when people no longer know for sure how to be polite this can also pose an obstacle to cooperative social interactions. For example, snitching became a prominent issue during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of stay-at-home orders and laws around lockdown measures, some people have been reporting fellow citizens, neighbours, and businesses that violate the rules. Given the potential public health and safety effects, one might understand snitching in this context. However, snitching can be impolite since it often contravenes norms of social etiquette which demand that we abstain from snitching on others. As the well-known saying “snitches get stitches” suggests, snitching is often understood as something that you are not supposed to do, and which may result in social stigma and ostracism on the part of others, or even worse. And, like most impolite acts, snitching can have negative implications for social cooperation and increase social tension. Indeed, many of those reporting on others have become targets of public shaming and criticism, as when in July 2020 someone in Melbourne posted a photo of and criticised people in a park not wearing masks, and was strongly condemned for doing so.
The workplace provides another example concerning the potential negative effects of impoliteness on social cooperation during COVID-19, especially around relationships between co-workers. COVID-19 has clearly increased the level of anxiety and paranoia within the workplace, with colleagues becoming suspicious of one another for a variety of reasons and thus increasing social tension. Furthermore, incidents of impoliteness involving political leaders and public officials can contribute to a spiral of impoliteness that risks undermining international cooperation, as illustrated by disputes between China and Australia.
Fourth, and finally, citizens and politicians might sometimes exploit the uncertainty surrounding norms of politeness to engage in what would normally be considered impolite behaviour. For example, COVID-19 has been described as an introvert’s dream, in that it can provide introverts with an excuse for avoiding social situations and for “flaking” on other people, which is admittedly an instance of rude behaviour. Likewise, the uncertainty concerning norms of politeness during COVID-19 has also been exploited by political figures such as Donald Trump or Pauline Hanson as a cover for impolite behaviour domestically, but can also happen in international politics and further undermine interstate relations.
Civility as public-mindedness
In our book, we also examine new challenges that COVID-19 poses to both the moral and the justificatory dimensions of civility as public-mindedness. Different types of actors and institutions, at both the local/national and international level, have responded to the pandemic in ways that have sometimes failed to comply with the demands of moral and justificatory civility.
First, different forms of discrimination and hatred that emerged during the pandemic (some government-driven, others in the workplace, and within society more broadly) threaten moral civility and the free and equal status of citizens, especially members of vulnerable groups. For example, political leaders can use crises like the COVID-19 pandemic to advance political agendas that foster higher levels of racism and discrimination against some groups in society, or that degrade liberal democratic institutions. Politicians might also use the public health crisis as cover for an ongoing assault against liberal democratic institutions and freedoms.
Furthermore, COVID-19 can lead to greater moral incivility in the workplace in the form of discriminatory behaviour and outcomes. For example, the origins of the virus led to discriminatory conduct targeting employees with Asian backgrounds. The pandemic also increased instances of morally uncivil acts of discrimination and hatred in the public sphere more broadly, providing new opportunities for individuals and groups to advance causes motivated by religious and racial hatred. Alongside a rise in overt anti-Chinese discrimination and racist incidents in many parts of the world, we have also witnessed spikes in Islamophobia and antisemitism.
Second, COVID-19 has created opportunities for political actors to advance sectarian agendas that fail to comply with the demands of justificatory civility. They may do so, for example, by appealing to partial interests and controversial beliefs. For instance, many politicians have used the current health crisis to advance personal and party interests, along with those of their constituents, rather than the common good of the broader political community. Sectarian agendas and lack of consensus across partisan lines have created significant obstacles to the development and implementation of effective and publicly justified policy responses to the pandemic. In other cases, politicians have made overt appeals to controversial religious arguments in order to justify opposition to COVID-19 policies such as those concerning mask wearing.
Furthermore, in some cases governments have proposed or implemented policies in response to COVID-19 that violate justificatory civility by overly prioritising certain interpretations of the common good over others. For example, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro downplayed the severity of the pandemic as “just a little flu” and insisted that “the economy must come first”, thus prioritising the common good of economic growth over that of public health. In other cases, governments have failed to strike a reasonable balance between the promotion of public health and respect for individual rights and liberties such as freedom of religion.
Third, many of the policies implemented by liberal democratic governments in response to the pandemic have imposed what John Rawls refers to as unreasonable “strains of commitment” upon certain social groups whose members may already suffer from various forms of marginalisation and vulnerability — such as racial minorities, women, LGBTIQ+ people, and older people. The excessive burden borne by these groups, we argue, ought to be taken into account in the process of public justification, and governments should also implement measures to mitigate the uneven effects of their policies.
To start with, the pandemic has laid bare some of the deep structural inequalities in many societies related to race. COVID-19 has affected certain groups more than others because of differences in access to health services, housing type, levels of economic precarity, and employment types. Indeed, while many people have had to contend with greater financial uncertainty, current unemployment rates and the eventual “economic fallout” will continue to affect racial and ethnic minority communities in more pronounced ways. Indigenous communities are particularly vulnerable to some COVID-19 policies and face a grave situation worldwide. There are also clear political effects related to COVID-19 and race. In the context of the United States, public health measures presented additional challenges to voter turnout in the November 2020 presidential election and are likely to contribute to ongoing trends in racial disenfranchisement. Issues related to polling place access for in-person voting, excessive wait times that can deter participation for different reasons, and biases in the rates of rejection of mail-in ballots might all contribute to the ongoing and disproportionate marginalisation of voters based on race and ethnicity.
The impact of COVID-19 on society also highlights a clear gendered dimension, with different gender groups facing distinct challenges. While men (especially fathers with young children and those who are unemployed) have been especially vulnerable to mental distress during the pandemic, women have been affected to an even greater degree. Aside from the higher maternal mortality rates in developing countries, COVID-19 has in many ways also compounded existing gender-based economic inequalities. But perhaps one of the most significant effects of the pandemic on women has been the sharp rise in domestic and family violence. Furthermore, COVID-19 has also had a significant impact on the LGBTIQ+ community. In Australia, for example, it has amplified pre-existing disparities among members of this community related to health, rates of depression and suicide, as well as experiences with discrimination when accessing healthcare and support services or when engaging with law enforcement.
A further social category which has been particularly burdened by policy responses to COVID-19 are older people. They are at greater risk of contracting and dying from COVID-19 than children and younger adults. Moreover, aged care facilities have become sites for significant outbreaks with high fatality rates. But older people’s greater vulnerability also becomes apparent when we consider the implications of some of the policy responses to the pandemic. For example, data show that rates of unemployment have been higher than in previous recessions for workers who are 65 and older. A more significant problem, however, is posed by the social isolation resulting from such measures as stay-at-home orders and social distancing rules. These measures have often prevented older people from engaging in social interactions that are central to their well-being, such as those with their relatives and family and those occurring at stores, among community groups, in places of worship, or during other day-to-day activities.
Fourth, and finally, the civility lens can help us to recognise the importance of science in the public justification of policy responses to COVID-19. A limited understanding of the virus within the scientific community, a dearth of research on the social and cultural dimensions of COVID-19, and the politicisation of science for personal or partisan gain, pose serious obstacles to justificatory civility during the pandemic. Justificatory civility demands that when policymakers appeal to scientific evidence to justify legislation, the evidence and the methods employed to produce it should be uncontroversial. Whether these criteria have been met in the scientific study of COVID-19 remains unclear.
The scientific community has invested significant time and energy in the study of COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic. But there has been ongoing disagreement among scientists regarding key aspects of the virus, including the effectiveness of wearing a mask in preventing its spread, the degree to which people who have had the virus become immune to it, and the question of how cases should be estimated and reported. The study of COVID-19 in everyday environments has left us with additional unanswered questions. Most of the scientific research on COVID-19 has focused on studying the virus in laboratory settings, away from the everyday environments in which the virus exists and spreads. This is problematic since a full understanding of how the virus can be transmitted requires having a grasp of how it interacts, for example, with everyday objects such as furniture, lifts, door handles.
Furthermore, beyond the kind of evidence and data that the natural sciences can provide, it is also important for policymakers to draw on evidence concerning the social and cultural dimensions of the pandemic. These include both the everyday environments within which the virus exists and spreads, and the potential social and cultural effects of the policies implemented to contain the virus — it would be unreasonable to apply the same policies indiscriminately across different cultures and contexts. Knowing, for example, that people in a certain society tend to eat at restaurants in large groups over long periods of time, whereas in another they tend to have quick meals on their own, may have implications for how policies to counter COVID-19 are designed, since those different social and cultural habits are likely to affect the spread of the virus in different ways. Likewise, knowing about the religious make-up of a society is important since some religious believers have opposed or failed to fully comply with lockdown policies that target places of worship. Where governments fail to rely on or promote this kind of research, their policies might be both ineffective and inconsistent with the demands of justificatory civility.
Not only can justificatory civility during COVID-19 be undermined when there is a lack of clear communication between policymakers and the scientific community, but also when policymakers politicise, subvert, or manipulate scientific evidence for their own purposes. More specifically, politicians might make false scientific claims, as when former president Donald Trump stated that “Taking hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 is safe and effective” — a claim he continued to make even after the scientific community challenged his assertion. In other cases, politicians may adopt a selective approach to scientific evidence, citing data that are sound but incomplete. For example, when in July 2020 Trump pointed to low rates of contagion and mortality among children to justify his support for reopening schools, he neglected important evidence about community transmission, especially to older people who are more vulnerable to the virus.
In addition to the flawed or selective use of scientific evidence, another obstacle to science’s contribution to justificatory civility arises from its politicisation. Sometimes politicians make overt attempts to undermine science when its findings prove politically inconvenient. For example, under pressure from various business sectors, Trump refused to implement the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) 17-page draft recommendation for reopening the United States, expressing his preference for pre-COVID-19 opening rules rather than abiding by the more cautious recommendations of the CDC.
Responding to the crisis
How can we respond to the social and political challenges that the pandemic has posed to the different dimensions of civility?
Both governments and citizens can play an important role in safeguarding politeness and its key contributions to social coexistence. To begin with, policymakers can remedy the lack of clarity surrounding norms of politeness by disseminating information, including scientific findings, to improve polite behaviour. This might include new signs and tools aimed at fostering awareness of how to behave politely in everyday spaces in ways that are consistent with public health goals. While many of these interventions must ultimately come from governments, businesses and citizens should also do their part and make a proactive effort to acquire (and help each other acquire) the knowledge necessary to be polite in this new social landscape. They might also need to rely on creativity to develop new politeness norms when required, as in the case of greetings.
These combined efforts can also help reduce the chance of politeness signals going awry. Introducing new guidelines for both offline and online polite interactions, for instance, can help ensure that those signals do not misfire. Finding alternatives to signalling tools that are no longer easily available can also help. These may include greater and more creative use of verbal communication and body language to compensate for reduced face visibility and expressions resulting from mandatory mask wearing.
There is also an urgent need to respond to the challenges the pandemic poses to moral and justificatory incivility. Governments and citizens can undertake this endeavour in a number of ways. With regard to moral civility, governments can take steps towards more inclusive policies that can reduce discrimination and improve conditions for marginalised segments of the population. This might involve multi-pronged strategies that include consistent messaging as well as translation, consultation, and policy co-design. Furthermore, policymakers can help counteract increases in racism and hate speech by identifying their causes, monitoring and collecting data, engaging with civil society actors, employing media and new technologies for programme delivery, and improving legal tools like hate speech laws.
Responding to the challenges posed by COVID-19 to justificatory civility also requires multiple forms of interventions. Sectarianism can be averted by means of institutional bulwarks against incivility, such as judicial mechanisms that can help to prevent religious beliefs from encroaching on political rules. Governments should also promote justificatory civility by advocating the values of cooperation, other-regardingness, and reciprocity through educational institutions, as well as through the use of consultative and deliberative bodies. Furthermore, the adoption of ethics frameworks could help governments and citizens to articulate more clearly the criteria for establishing when and how certain political values should be prioritised over others in the public justification of policies.
Additionally, in order to reduce the strains of commitment that some policies might impose upon certain groups, policymakers ought to acquire greater awareness of the social and political realities that characterise their society, especially structural inequalities that place additional burdens on certain groups. They should develop more tailored policies that prioritise marginalised groups, engage in greater dialogue with these communities, and devise interventions to mitigate the burdensome effects of policies on some groups when these cannot be avoided.
Governments also need to ensure that they do not implement policies that are grounded in flawed or incomplete scientific evidence. This will require promoting and funding more scientific research on COVID19 — including both medical research and research concerning the social and cultural dimensions of the virus — and ensuring that there are transparent and effective channels of communication between governments and the scientific community. Policymakers themselves will also need to acquire greater scientific literacy in order to avoid using scientific evidence in ways that are unsound and unfair, and which therefore threaten justificatory civility.
Matteo Bonotti is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Monash University. Steven Zech is a Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Monash University, and is Deputy Director for the Master of International Relations program. This piece is based on their book Recovering Civility during COVID-19, published Open Access with Palgrave Macmillan. Their research is part of the larger project, “Civic Virtue in Public Life: Understanding and Countering Incivility in Liberal Democracies”, funded as part of the Self, Virtue and Public Life Project, a three-year research initiative based at the Institute for the Study of Human Flourishing at the University of Oklahoma, funded with generous support from the Templeton Religion Trust.
You can hear Matteo Bonotti and Steven Zech discuss COVID-19 and the nature of civility with Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens on The Minefield.