新冠肺炎例外论:解释韩国的应对

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES
C. K. Chekar, Hyomin Kim
{"title":"新冠肺炎例外论:解释韩国的应对","authors":"C. K. Chekar, Hyomin Kim","doi":"10.1080/18752160.2021.2004355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract COVID-19 has presented challenges across the globe that led to a number of shared lessons to be learnt. Yet, we are inundated with comparative accounts that characterize national pandemic responses as inherent and unique to certain nation states, which, we argue, led to COVID-exceptionalism. This article challenges “cultural” explanations of South Korea’s “successful” responses to COVID-19 crisis. The popular narrative has been that Korea’s cluster-based mitigation strategy was sustained by rigorous contact tracing and mass testing systems, and this was made possible by three distinctive elements of pandemic preparedness: 1) Korean “culture” of normalizing face-covering, 2) Korean citizens’ consensus of prioritizing public health to privacy, and 3) Korea’s IT infrastructure enabling efficient digital contact tracing. By debunking the three myths, we demonstrate why neither the Asian “authoritarian advantages” thesis nor the counter-argument of “Asian civility” adequately captures the reality of Korea’s reaction to the COVID pandemic. The ways in which risks are conceptualized as manageable objects produce particular modes of allocating responsibilities for risk mitigation, when dealing with a relatively unknown virus. COVID-exceptionalism may cause not only the issue of reinforcing “(East) Asian”/“Western” stereotypes, but also other problems such as implicitly granting political impunity to those responsible for coordinating COVID-19 responses.","PeriodicalId":45255,"journal":{"name":"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"7 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COVID-19 Exceptionalism: Explaining South Korean Responses\",\"authors\":\"C. K. Chekar, Hyomin Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/18752160.2021.2004355\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract COVID-19 has presented challenges across the globe that led to a number of shared lessons to be learnt. Yet, we are inundated with comparative accounts that characterize national pandemic responses as inherent and unique to certain nation states, which, we argue, led to COVID-exceptionalism. This article challenges “cultural” explanations of South Korea’s “successful” responses to COVID-19 crisis. The popular narrative has been that Korea’s cluster-based mitigation strategy was sustained by rigorous contact tracing and mass testing systems, and this was made possible by three distinctive elements of pandemic preparedness: 1) Korean “culture” of normalizing face-covering, 2) Korean citizens’ consensus of prioritizing public health to privacy, and 3) Korea’s IT infrastructure enabling efficient digital contact tracing. By debunking the three myths, we demonstrate why neither the Asian “authoritarian advantages” thesis nor the counter-argument of “Asian civility” adequately captures the reality of Korea’s reaction to the COVID pandemic. The ways in which risks are conceptualized as manageable objects produce particular modes of allocating responsibilities for risk mitigation, when dealing with a relatively unknown virus. COVID-exceptionalism may cause not only the issue of reinforcing “(East) Asian”/“Western” stereotypes, but also other problems such as implicitly granting political impunity to those responsible for coordinating COVID-19 responses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"7 - 29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/18752160.2021.2004355\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18752160.2021.2004355","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2019冠状病毒病在全球范围内提出了挑战,导致了一些共同的经验教训。然而,我们充斥着将国家大流行应对描述为某些民族国家固有和独特的比较说法,我们认为,这导致了COVID-exceptionalism。本文对韩国“成功”应对新冠疫情的“文化”解释提出了质疑。流行的说法是,韩国以集群为基础的缓解战略是通过严格的接触者追踪和大规模检测系统来维持的,这是由于大流行防范的三个不同要素:1)韩国“文化”将遮盖面部正常化,2)韩国公民将公共卫生优先于隐私的共识,以及3)韩国的IT基础设施能够实现高效的数字接触者追踪。通过揭穿这三个神话,我们证明了为什么亚洲“威权优势”的论点和“亚洲文明”的相反论点都不能充分反映韩国应对新冠疫情的现实。在处理一种相对未知的病毒时,将风险概念化为可管理对象的方式产生了分配减轻风险责任的特定模式。COVID-19例外论不仅可能导致强化“(东亚)亚洲”/“西方”陈规定型观念的问题,还可能导致其他问题,例如暗中给予负责协调COVID-19应对工作的人政治上的有罪不罚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
COVID-19 Exceptionalism: Explaining South Korean Responses
Abstract COVID-19 has presented challenges across the globe that led to a number of shared lessons to be learnt. Yet, we are inundated with comparative accounts that characterize national pandemic responses as inherent and unique to certain nation states, which, we argue, led to COVID-exceptionalism. This article challenges “cultural” explanations of South Korea’s “successful” responses to COVID-19 crisis. The popular narrative has been that Korea’s cluster-based mitigation strategy was sustained by rigorous contact tracing and mass testing systems, and this was made possible by three distinctive elements of pandemic preparedness: 1) Korean “culture” of normalizing face-covering, 2) Korean citizens’ consensus of prioritizing public health to privacy, and 3) Korea’s IT infrastructure enabling efficient digital contact tracing. By debunking the three myths, we demonstrate why neither the Asian “authoritarian advantages” thesis nor the counter-argument of “Asian civility” adequately captures the reality of Korea’s reaction to the COVID pandemic. The ways in which risks are conceptualized as manageable objects produce particular modes of allocating responsibilities for risk mitigation, when dealing with a relatively unknown virus. COVID-exceptionalism may cause not only the issue of reinforcing “(East) Asian”/“Western” stereotypes, but also other problems such as implicitly granting political impunity to those responsible for coordinating COVID-19 responses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
×
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