By Artchil B. Fernandez
Social distance is the buzz phrase of the day in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. To avoid spreading the virus everybody is enjoined to practice social distancing. Using the phrase in this time of crisis, however, is problematic and advising people to observe social distance (in its sociological sense) has dangerous implications.
The concept of social distance was conceived by American sociologist Emory Bogardos who also developed the Bogardos social distance scale. Social distance, according to Bogardos, centers its attention “on the feeling, reactions of persons toward other persons and groups of people.” For him, social distance is “a measure of how much or little sympathy the members of a group feel for another group.”
Empathy or lack of it, sense of familiarity (nearness and intimacy) or unfamiliarity (farness and difference) between a group/people and other social groups/people are indicators of social distance. It is a measure of the familiarity or unfamiliarity between groups who belong to a different class, race, occupation, religion or socioeconomic status in general.
In a diverse society with different social strata and varied social groups, social distance is a way of looking at the “processes of acceptance and estrangements” among and between these groups. Indifference or solidarity of a group to the plight and situation of another group is a manifestation of social distancing. The degree of closeness between social groups is also an indicator of social distance. Social distance is easy to spot in societies like the Philippines with a wide gap between the rich and the poor.
The dark side of social distance in the Philippines has become more pronounced, apparent and obvious as COVID-19 razes the country. The incompetent and incoherent response of the Du30 administration to the COVID-19 crisis is the most concrete example of social distance’s dark side. For the first time, this administration walks its talk and exhibit certain consistency.
After two months of foot-dragging and delayed action – out of fear of offending his master, China, the source of COVID-19 – Du30 is finally forced to do something when cases of infected Filipinos surfaced. His militarized approach (thinking that force and violence are always the answer) to the problem not only exposes him as an incompetent and lazy leader but one who is devoid of empathy. It also displays his gross insensitivity to the plight of the marginalized sectors of society. Du30’s middle and upper-class view of the problem and his prescription of an elitist solution reveal a wide social distance between him and the poorest section of Philippine society.
As the number of Filipinos with Covid-19 multiplies, he placed Metro Manila under community quarantine or lockdown and later expanded it to cover the entire Luzon. He told people to obey orders and stay in their homes. The order was implemented without guidelines resulting in chaos and confusion in checkpoints. The guidelines were issued later, a clear case of trial and error management.
The lack of foresight of Du30 particularly on the impact of his order to the poor reveals his indifference to their plight. He tried to make humor out of the dire situation of the poor by telling them to get goods from sari-sari stores and tianges on credit, promising to pay for the credit, even raising a hand on national television for dramatic effect. Du30 did not say how he will pay for the credit nor provided the mechanism for payment. He did not say if there is a budget for the credit. Du30 was evidently cracking another bad and sloppy joke. This is social distance at its worst, making fun and mocking the desperate situation of the poor who are likely to starve in a month-long lockdown. What a cruel thing for the self-proclaimed “father” of the nation to do in a national crisis.
The rich and the middle-class can ride out the lockdown in their gated communities. But the poor in their shanties, slums, and loob-loobans are hardist hit by the lockdown. COVID-19 again bares open the wide social divide in Philippines society and Du30 exacerbated this by flaunting the sinister side of social distance. The lockdown has minimal effect on the middle and upper classes (who are more worried about boredom than the virus) but deeply hurts the poor who live on daily-wage/income. Du30 has no provision for construction workers, drivers, vendors and those in the informal sectors.
Even the Php27-billion budget Du30’s officials unveiled to fight COVID-19 share the negative aspect of social distance. Over half (P14 billion) goes to tourism and there is no provision for subsidies to the poorest of the poor. Du30 has no sympathy for them.
COVID-19 also exposes that the dark side of social distance is deep-seated in Philippine society especially among the middle and upper classes. Fanatics in these sections of society slammed the poor for trying to eke out a living during the lockdown. A so-called social influencer blasted the poor for being hard-headed. Lea Salonga advised everyone to sit on their couch and watch Netflix. One celebrity even said COVID-19 is nature’s way of cleansing. These entities are the personifications of the dark side of social distance – lack of empathy, feeling entitled and privileged, insensitive to the plight of others (poor and marginalized), estrangement from fellowmen, etc. It is easy for people who live in their bubble world to condemn those not blessed with resources like them.
Viewed in its sociological context, advising people to observe social distance is not the best thing especially if they will only exhibit its ugly side. To avoid spreading COVID-19, people should practice physical distancing, not social distancing. The three feet apart that people are told to keep is a physical distance involving physical space. To prevent COVID-19, people should observe and maintain physical distance. I strongly urge our friends in the media both mainstream and social, to use the appropriate words – physical distance.
People can still do social distancing in this uncertain time but they should be mindful and aware of its dark and hideous side.
