This paper will be discussing three critical issues that human beings are likely to face as a consequence of social distancing and its emotional and psychological ramifications.
- Part 1 – will deal with the conflict the notion of social distancing creates for us.
- Part 2 – will cover coping with disruption and the creation of a microcosm within the home and the emergence of a different self.
- Part 3 – will detail the two coping behaviours that deal with the anxiety of the unknown and the emergence of a higher purpose and a new meaning system.
Social distancing and the conflict it creates
As a species man is socially and naturally conditioned to form emotional bonds and attachments to survive. This process is part of early conditioning that comes from the mother-child nurturance bond that ensures the infant’s safety and survival. As we grow, we thrive in situations where we have a continued sense of belonging, community and connection with each other. Bowlby the psychologist who authored the Attachment Theory(1958) and studied behaviour between infants and their mothers and care-givers defined attachment as a ‘lasting psychological connectedness between human beings.’
So, for a socially programmed human, what does social distance and isolation mean and what are its emotional and psychological ramifications?
If we look at social behaviour that is being played out on social media and combine it with experiential observations of how we are behaving and coping with the situation of a lock down of our normal world, our work spaces, our social interactions, we can see that there is a pattern and structure to human responses and coping mechanisms.
It is clear that no one will emerge from this extended period of social isolation unscathed by the emotional and psychological impact it will have or has had.
The fact that social isolation is not voluntary creates the first point of emotional conflict and stress. The human mind has to process the absence of freedom in making this choice vis a vis what the mind is conditioned to seek and demand as a way of being and living. The first response is to resist and question the logic and efficacy of this diktat. Will it really help to control the progression of the disease / threat, do we need such extreme measures? Can this be a success given the size of the nation, the size of the city, the community? What about essential services, healthcare, food supplies and support services? Can one live for a protracted period of time without them? Is hunkering down the only way to deal with this problem?
This is almost always followed by loud proclamations of doom and disaster pertaining to the economic and social fabric of the country, the dispossession of the poor from their means of livelihood and the fear that one will be rendered economically insecure and unproductive.
While these prostrations are not entirely untrue, they also reflect our inner turmoil; our fear of the uncertain and the liminal, our resistance to change and the fact that we derive comfort from the known and habitual way of being. Social isolation becomes a metaphor for a loss of meaning and being separated from a world that I know and feel secure within.
Like all anomic situations, the pattern of restoring “nomos” and order is to create a pattern of coping behaviours that help one transit through this situation with the least discomfort and loss of meaning.
Part 2 of 3 of this series, on coping with disruption and the creation of a microcosm within the home and the emergence of a different self, will be published next week, 25 May (ed.)
