On order and disorder during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Abstract

In this paper, we analyse the conditions under which the COVID‐19 pandemic will lead either to social order (adherence to measures put in place by authorities to control the pandemic) or to social disorder (resistance to such measures and the emergence of open conflict). Using examples from different countries (principally the United Kingdom, the United States, and France), we first isolate three factors which determine whether people accept or reject control measures. These are the historical context of state‐public relations, the nature of leadership during the pandemic and procedural justice in the development and operation of these measures. Second, we analyse the way the crisis is policed and how forms of policing determine whether dissent will escalate into open conflict. We conclude by considering the prospects for order/disorder as the pandemic unfolds.

Bridging the Gap Between UK Government Strategic Narratives and Public Opinion/Behavior: Lessons From COVID-19

“…Correspondingly, the resignation of key scientific figures for violating lockdown rules (i.e., prominent government adviser; Hodgson, 2020; and Scotland's Chief Medical Officer, Beattie, 2020) potentially weakened the perceived credibility of scientific guidance. This is consistent with Reicher and Stott (2020), who observed that when significant figures fail to follow collective practices authority is weakened and togetherness undermined.…”

“…A frequently cited example is the "Blitz spirit" demonstrated by the British people during World War II. Whether true or a socially persisting myth, the notion that state and society join as one to battle national adversity is an important theme that encourages co-operation and collaboration (Reicher and Stott, 2020).…”

“…Key to this process is leadership, which during the COVID-19 outbreak was undermined by a series of controversies (e.g., lockdown introduced too late and failure to provide frontline workers with protective equipment) (Reicher and Stott, 2020). Incidents such as these reduce shared social identity via the creation of "us" and "them" (Haslam et al, 2011), Additionally, structural factors (e.g., employer demands that employees attend work and reliance on public transport to achieve this) in some instances prevented individuals from adhering to Government advice.…”

Recalibrating pandemic risk leadership: Thirteen crisis ready strategies for COVID-19

“…Research indicates that a sense of 'common fate' can act as a natural spur to shared social identities that foster a sense of solidarity (Drury et al 2019). Public leaders can work with these identities by such means as emphasising the 'we' in tackling problems together to emerging group norms that valuing inclusivity help support (Drury, Reicher, and Stott 2020;Reicher and Stott 2020). This may in turn prompt people into acting with compassion and to provide help and support to others where it is needed (Van Bavel et al 2020).…”

“…This may in turn prompt people into acting with compassion and to provide help and support to others where it is needed (Van Bavel et al 2020). However, punitive measures that position people problematically as potential rule breakers can have the opposite effect by essentially setting authorities against citizens rather than with them (Reicher and Stott 2020).…”