Antidemocratic and Exclusionary Practices: COVID-19 and the Continuum of Violence

Abstract

The global coronavirus pandemic has reified divisions, inequity, and injustices rooted in systems of domination such as racism, sexism, neoliberal capitalism, and ableism. Feminist scholars have theorized these interlocking systems of domination as the “continuum of violence.” Building on this scholarship, we conceptualize the U.S. response to and the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic as reflective of the continuum of violence. We argue that crises like pandemics expose the antidemocratic and exclusionary practices inherent in this continuum, which is especially racialized and gendered. To support our argument, we provide empirical evidence of the continuum of violence in relation to COVID-19 vis-à-vis the interrelated issues of militarization and what feminists call “everyday security,” such as public health and gender-based violence. The continuum of violence contributes theoretically and practically to our understanding of how violence that the pandemic illuminates is embedded in broader systems of domination and exclusion.

What’s masculinity got to do with it? The COVID-19 pandemic, men and care

“…Moreover, the available data, with a few exceptions, refer to the western European, North American and Australian contexts, with the dynamics of other societies sorely under-researched. Additionally, aside from some brief discussions about the importance of class (Kreyenfeld and Zinn, 2021; White, 2020), age (White, 2020), and race (Forester and O’Brien, 2020; Harsin, 2020), discussions on men, masculinities and COVID-19 suffer from cisgender, White, heterosexual, middle-class, Western biases. Considering all of this, the next step is to conduct (qualitative) studies through an intersectional lens.…”

“…European Journal of Women's Studies 29(1S) actions can be seen as a flagship example of a failure "(…) to construct a caring masculinity (Elliott, 2015) that recognizes the horrors of this virus, sympathizes with those infected, respects all human life, and involves a meticulous national strategy for testing, tracing, and isolating as well as masking and maintaining physical distance" (Messerschmidt, 2020:4). Trump is usually compared to other leaders whose responses to the crisis have shifted from initial neglect to, after it became clear that the virus is deadly dangerous, war-like narratives (Ruxton and Burrell, 2020;Forester and O'Brien, 2020) where terms such as "enemy", '"battle" and "frontline" have been used. Among such leaders, Jair Bolsonaro, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson and Victor Orban are usually singled out (Alcadipani, 2020).…”

In the name of COVID-19: legitimizing the exclusion of community participation in Ecuador’s health policy

“…It could be argued that the ‘coproduction’ of services between government and community-based organizations ( Cheng et al , 2020 ) and the ‘cooperation’ of citizens in following measures ( Moon, 2020 ) in response to COVID-19 have been privileged over actual participation of civil society in decision-making. In more extreme contexts, lockdown was enforced with the aid of the military ( Kalkman, 2020 ); while in countries such as the United States the response effectively became militaristic, exclusionary and anti-democratic ( Forester and O’Brien, 2020 ). In Lebanon, shortly after protests, calls for military intervention in the COVID-19 response were announced ( Al-Ali, 2020 ).…”

Changing perceptions about COVID-19 risk and adherence to preventive strategies in Uganda: Evidence from an online mixed-methods survey.

“…The statement by this respondent also pointed to an important theme of the politics of pandemic response and how that affected how individuals think about the pandemic. In some countries, governments have used the pandemic as a toll for increased marginalisation of some sub-groups 24 . In Uganda, the pandemic response would not be separated from the politics of a very heated election season.…”