'Stay Home, Stay Safe': Proximity as Vitality and Vulnerability Under Lockdown

Leo Hopkinson, Lydia House
{"title":"'Stay Home, Stay Safe': Proximity as Vitality and Vulnerability Under Lockdown","authors":"Leo Hopkinson, Lydia House","doi":"10.17157/mat.8.3.5143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From March to May 2020 in the UK, measures that became known across the world as ‘lockdown’ curtailed personal freedoms in order to curb the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus. While initial criticisms of lockdown focused on the adverse impacts of social isolation on wellbeing, this research article explores how lockdown creates new and altered proximities and intimacies as well as distances. During the initial UK lockdown, the ‘household’ and ‘home’ were deployed in public rhetoric as default spaces of care and security in the face of widespread isolation and uncertainty. However, emergent proximities created by bringing people together in the assumed safety of home also deepened existing inequalities and vulnerabilities. Using anthropological theory, third sector evidence, and ethnographic interview data we explore this process. We argue that understanding proximity and intimacy as fundamentally ambivalent, not normatively affirming, is central to recognising how pandemic responses such as lockdown reinforce and reproduce existing forms of inequality and violence.","PeriodicalId":74160,"journal":{"name":"Medicine anthropology theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine anthropology theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17157/mat.8.3.5143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

From March to May 2020 in the UK, measures that became known across the world as ‘lockdown’ curtailed personal freedoms in order to curb the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus. While initial criticisms of lockdown focused on the adverse impacts of social isolation on wellbeing, this research article explores how lockdown creates new and altered proximities and intimacies as well as distances. During the initial UK lockdown, the ‘household’ and ‘home’ were deployed in public rhetoric as default spaces of care and security in the face of widespread isolation and uncertainty. However, emergent proximities created by bringing people together in the assumed safety of home also deepened existing inequalities and vulnerabilities. Using anthropological theory, third sector evidence, and ethnographic interview data we explore this process. We argue that understanding proximity and intimacy as fundamentally ambivalent, not normatively affirming, is central to recognising how pandemic responses such as lockdown reinforce and reproduce existing forms of inequality and violence.
“待在家里,保持安全”:封闭状态下的活力和脆弱性
从2020年3月到5月,在英国,为了遏制SARS-CoV-2冠状病毒的传播,在世界各地被称为“封锁”的措施限制了个人自由。虽然最初对封锁的批评集中在社会隔离对福祉的不利影响上,但这篇研究文章探讨了封锁如何创造新的和改变的接近性、亲密性以及距离。在英国最初的封锁期间,面对广泛的隔离和不确定性,“家庭”和“家”在公开场合被用作默认的关怀和安全空间。然而,通过将人们聚集在假定安全的家中而产生的新出现的邻近性也加深了现有的不平等和脆弱性。利用人类学理论、第三部门证据和民族志访谈数据,我们探索了这一过程。我们认为,理解亲近和亲密从根本上说是矛盾的,而不是规范的肯定,对于认识到封锁等流行病应对措施如何强化和再现现有形式的不平等和暴力至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
72 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信