“The New Normal” Isn’t Normal At All
We need to rethink our counter-pandemic measures
Since the coronavirus broke out, up from mainstream media and politicians to ordinary people have been talking about the term “new normal” and how we can and should adapt to it. The new normal is characterized by, for example, travel bans, remote working, lockdowns, social distancing, online classes, etc. — in essence, the decrease in human face-to-face interactions.
The abnormalities of “the new normal”
However, if one seriously interrogates their mind and examines whether this situation is normal at all, they will find “the new normal” to be completely abnormal. The term “new normal”, instead of describing a factual reality, functions more like a psychological defense mechanism to help people digest the anxieties and distress brought about by the pandemic. By calling this surrealist reality “the new normal”, panicking people can regain the comfort to keep calm and carry on.
While psychological comfort is indeed important to human survival, on the other hand, it is also worth reminding that the new normal isn’t normal at all — or more precisely speaking, isn’t sustainable at all. Many of my Taiwanese friends who have enrolled in U.S. universities (thus a 12-hour time difference) have reported that they have been suffering from extreme loneliness and melancholy when, surrounded by darkness, facing the computer screens and listening to the monotonous lecturing alone at night. Another friend who would be in New York right now had the coronavirus not broken out also said that he lost a sense of purpose because the supposedly progressing life has paused in Taiwan. Similar situations also occurred in other areas where the necessity to embrace “the new normal” is stressed. Remote working, for example, has been said to worsen employees’ both mental and physical health. The percentage of people suffering from depression also skyrocketed in countries such as the US, the UK, and Japan. Lockdowns have also stricken down countries’ economies, especially those which rely on tourism, and in some cases even igniting people’s preexisting dissent against the government to become massive protests. Can this “new normal” of stress, pain, and economic downturn really be regarded as “normal”? Even if this is normal, is it sustainable in the long run, especially when the effectiveness of a theoretically working vaccine is still in question?
The side effects of these counter-covid measures are too detrimental, sometimes even comparable to that of the coronavirus itself, to say they are feasible—or, normal at all. I do not intend to urge people to resume back to the old normal because the good old days simply cannot be reenacted, but it is imperative to stop the escapism of “the new normal” rhetorics and acknowledge that the current counter-pandemic measures are too crude, and we need more sophisticated measures that can counter the coronavirus itself but at the same time alleviating the negative impacts of these measures.
How an university can make “the new normal” less abnormal
Here, I will give an example of how universities can formulate more sophisticated measures of which side effects are less severe. I will speak from the viewpoint of a Japanese university student, but these measures are also applicable to universities around the world and, further, to others aspects in the society that are aslo affected by the pandemic. Right now, my university has closed the campus and denied everyone from entering any parts of the campus, including the sports venues. It seems reasonable, at first glance, for the university to take such measures, and mainstream media have also advocated for this policy. A closer look at students’ lives, however, will reveal several flaws of this kind of total-shutdown policies. For example,
- These policies have neglected the psychological and physical harms of online learning on students to an extent that some students actually prefer getting the coronavirus over being left in their rooms alone with drained eyes and a soring lower back.
- These policies also neglected the fact that even if the universities close the campus, students are still under the risk of infection in their dorms or where they live. In fact, most infection cases take place in off-campus activities that are still active as usual, such as parties. Japanese students generally have a more sober lifestyle compared to American ones, but infections still broke out in dorms, and some international students have also got the coronavirus in their home countries.
From the point of view of a student, these total-shutdown policies seem nothing but universities’ irresponsibility. By shutting down the campus, not only is the spread of the coronavirus unable to be curbed, but students are also left to cope with the negative side effects of online learning alone and told to “endure” and “embrace the new normal”.
I would thus suggest the universities to reopen the campuses, but, of course, not resuming back to the close interaction of the good old days. Non-essential face-to-face interactions, such as lectures, should be conducted online, while discussion sessions and laboratory activities could be in-person with proper mask wearing, disinfection, and hand washing. Studies have also shown that the spread of coronavirus is not unmanageable if we introduce fresh air constantly and control the temperature and humidity. The presence of the coronavirus does not mean we have to completely relinquish face-to-face interactions. Rather, face-to-face interactions can be preserved if we are careful enough.
It is perhaps more important, though, to form counter-coronavirus policies in a way that is less top-down and more democratic. It goes without saying that counter-coronavirus policies are useless if students do not adhere to them; therefore, students’ cooperation and self-awareness are indispensable. Rather than the bureaucracy of the university dictating what the students should do, a student-university platform should be established in order to present the students the science of the coronavirus and have them decide for themselves what counter-pandemic approaches should the university pursue. Non academic-related activities, such as parties and fraternities, should also be thoroughly discussed as they are also essential to the value of the university. (University officials are keen to portray the university as a place solely for the pursuit of knowledge, but let’s face the music here.) If the students weigh face-to-face interactions, whether academic-related or not, heavier than the risk of getting the coronavirus, then it is possible to adopt a more flexible counter-pandemic approach.
We need more creative, innovative, and sophisticated measures to cope with the inevitable social changes brought about by the pandemic. On the other hand, however, it appears just impossible for colleges to carry out these measures on a practical level. The reasons are simple — these measures are costly, demanding, and sometimes even risky. For universities, it is much easier to simply shut down the campus, ignoring the intangable negative effects that are slowly corroding students’ health and pretending that they have adapted to the pandemic with “the new normal” rhetorics.
Are we doing enough to combat the virus while maintaining human well-being?
This is not only true for colleges, but also true for companies and government officials around the world. Indeed we might have successfully prevented the spread of the coronavirus, but the costs are deteriorated mental and physical health and livelihoods, and sometimes the latter is not less desperate than the former. This is especially evident in East Asian countries, where the combat against the virus is generally successful, and people tend to adhere to rules and norms (see the Japanese jishuku keisatsu, or virus vigilantes), but on the other hand stress has been mounting.
Different from the pandemic itself, mental health, physical health, and livelidoods are harder to immediately translate into frightening statistics and graphs, but they are undeniably profound. We cannot simply compare depression with coronavirus mortality rate, GDP growth rate with coronavirus infection rate (because the pandemic actually hit the economy unequally), or remote workers’ back pain and eyesight with coronavirus’ after-effects — these items are simply incomparable.
Therefore it is necessary not to be satisfied with measures that simply transform everything that we used to perform offline into Zoom meetings, emails, and social media text messages, but realize that there is possibility to inhibit the spread of the pandemic but at the same time preserving people’s happiness and overall well-being.
The pandemic is not all of our lives. We need not sacrifice everything to combat it.
