Discourse and Social Cohesion in and After the Covid-19 Pandemic

Abstract

This conceptual article argues that class is a major factor in the social division and polarisation after the Covid-19 pandemic. Current discourse and communication analyses of phenomena such as compliance with measures and vaccine hesitancy seek explanations mainly in opposing ideological stances, ignoring existing structural inequalities and class relations and their effects on people’s decisions. I approach social cohesion in the Covid-19 pandemic through the theories of epidemic psychology, which sees language as fundamental in social conflicts during pandemics, and progressive neoliberalism, which critiques a post-industrial social class whose assumed moral superiority and talking down to working-class people is argued to be an explanation of many current social conflicts. I argue that these theories construct a valuable theoretical framework for explaining and analysing the social division and polarisation that has resulted from the pandemic. Reducing non-compliance with mitigating measures and vaccine hesitancy to an ideological issue implies that it can be countered by combatting misinformation and anti-vaccination thinking and shutting down particular discourses, which grossly simplifies the problem. The impact that class relations and inequality have on political and health issues, coupled with the characteristics of progressive neoliberalism, may partially explain the rise of populist and nativist movements. I conclude that if social cohesion is to be maintained through the ongoing climate emergency, understanding the impacts of progressive neoliberalism and the role of contempt in exclusionary discursive practices is of utmost importance.

Combating misinformation with internet culture: the case of Brazilian public health organizations and their COVID-19 vaccination campaigns

“…In both cases, the framing device “numbers and statistics,” including the use of infographics, has been identified as crucial. This finding seems contradictory but also demonstrates that misinformation research must consider the broader local political context and its complexities instead of only focusing on the content of social media communication (Bisiada, 2022).…”

Social Cohesion and Covid-19: an integrative review

“…Sixteen of the pieces of work involved an analysis of two or more nations [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] ; twelve were based in the United Kingdom 27,[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] ; seven in the United States of America [66][67][68][69][70][71][72] ; four each in Germany [73][74][75][76] , Australia [77][78][79][80] and Aotearoa-NZ [81][82][83][84] ; two each in Iran 85,86 and South Africa 87,…”

“…The remaining three works were not attached to a specific location [101][102][103] . Fifteen of the papers offered analytical commentaries alone 27, 39-46, 52, 53, 66, 81, 85, 89 and eight of the papers theoretical commentaries alone 54,72,84,88,96,[101][102][103] . Forty of the papers focused their reporting on the collection and/or analysis of empirical data.…”

The Impact of Social Media on Social Cohesion: A Double-Edged Sword

“…Social inequality is also at the heart of the argument in Bisiada's (2022) article, who argues that the public debate throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, which has largely been held on social media, has exposed fundamental structural inequalities and that class is a major factor in the social polarization witnessed since. This article serves as a reminder that scapegoating and moralizing, also on social media, may contribute to the further fragmentation of society.…”