This volume is the outcome of a study project with the title of “Corona Phenomenon: Philosophical and Political Questions” that I, as a faculty member of the Academic-Research Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (ihcs), presented and led. In the face of the current crisis caused by the global outbreak of covid-19, the lack of coherent and synergistic academic reaction, especially in the fields of philosophy and political science was clear. Of course, this does not mean that there is no cooperation and dialogue between philosophers and political scientists. Certainly, academics of the two disciplines have and will have discussions at conferences. What is at stake is that, in general, academics in both two fields have not cooperated sufficiently and especially in a synergistic way at the international level, in the face of pandemic catastrophe, either separately or interdisciplinarily. We need to present large-scale collective projects that have the capacity to invite many more scholars from around the world to think together and answer purposeful academic questions. In this way, we will be able to effectively compensate for the lack of knowledge in the humanities and social sciences in the face of such disasters.
Although in other fields such as vaccine development and health economics, it is often obvious that competition, even sometimes destructive, has replaced cooperation and synergy, in the humanities and social sciences, especially at the international level, there is far less effective collaboration. While these fields of knowledge are in a crucial position to guide actions and policies in various domains, to deal properly with this damaging phenomenon.
Looking at reactions to previous disasters, such as the terrible flu of 1918–1920, mistakenly known as the “Spanish flu”, one can see the lack of global academic initiatives. There is a decisive need for a model that in such situations can provide the basis for a rapid, deep, and multifaceted response to the intellectual needs of society and decision-making institutions. It is the duty of academics, especially in the field of philosophy and politics, to try to overcome the confusion in such situations as much as possible by presenting useful ideas. The most important base for doing this is to practice asking the proper and directive questions. If we have broad, profound, and guiding questions, we can quickly and consistently re-ask them about the new critical situations in any disaster and respond more appropriately. Also, with such a practical model, more academics from around the world can collaborate to pose more questions. And this may help to collect a vast supply of valuable questions and ideas, and finally leads to the accumulation of knowledge in confronting the major global troubles.
The least filter was applied for the invitation of scholars. No special points were considered in terms of geography, ranking of universities, age and gender of professors, and their official position in the academic hierarchy. To invite the scholars, only their specialization and their research interests were considered. The only criterion applied was that all participants in the project be faculty members of the departments of philosophy and political science at universities. The reason for applying this criterion was that this project was basically implemented to encourage the cooperation of academics in the field of humanities. In addition, applying this criterion could help to make the project more feasible and prevented the scope of inviting scholars from being too wide. But maintaining this criterion does not in any way mean that there are no political and philosophical experts among the scholars of other faculties, or among thinkers outside the academic space. Of course, I invited some scholars from other faculties who are experts in philosophy or political science and have written several valuable books and articles in these two fields to join us, but they were not able to contribute for their personal reasons.
In submitting the invitation to scholars, no privilege or priority was considered in terms of their school of thought or their views on political and philosophical issues. It was very important to observe the principle of plurality and diversity of attitudes. Certainly, the greater the diversity of attitudes, the more aspects of global problems such as the current pandemic are explored and more productive results will be achieved.
Another point is that, in line with the purpose of the project, scholars were not asked to write necessarily formal and uniform articles, as they usually do for scholarly journals and pure academic books. Facing an unusual phenomenon – with unknown dimensions that quickly disrupts everyone’s normal life and engages all people with complex issues – requires freer and creative writing and ideation. It is not a predetermined subject and it does not have the long-standing scientific literature that we would like to edit a book about it
Also, the manner of inviting the scholars was not the same. In fact, as the work progressed, I learned from experience how it would make the project more interesting and increases the willingness of colleagues to take part. It was necessary to consider the cultural differences between scholars in different countries, also, differences in academic culture and customs in different continents and countries, differences in the official position of professors, and even their individual differences and expectations of how to conduct an international study influenced the way of invitation and its continuous change. An important factor in choosing the manner of inviting professors was to consider their works in terms of focus and broadness of their studies. For scholars who focus on one area of study or even a specific topic, invitations contained fewer questions, or even just one question. But it was more difficult for scholars with broader research interests. In such cases, the invitation contained more questions, and it is clear that it was not easy to select questions that correspond exactly to the topics they were studying. This difficulty becomes even more clear if we consider the language diversity of the resumes of scholars in different countries. Some universities do not even have an English version or a language other than their native language on their websites. I personally reviewed the resumes and lists of books and articles of scholars in English, German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Russian, French, Portuguese, etc, and out of all sixty questions, I selected questions that fit their study topics. It was gratifying that the scholars often found most of the questions I chose for them as proper. Some of them even expressed their interest in answering all the questions. It may seem that it was simply possible to submit all questions to the scholars and leave the selection to them. Although all questions were submitted to
Despite the many difficulties I faced in carrying out this project, the encouragement of many colleagues at universities in different countries made me more resolute to bring it to an end. Due to the time constraints and multiplicity of commitments, although, most of them could not participate, their comments about the importance of such an initiation strengthened my impetus to advance the project. Professor Anthony Giddens and Professor Quentin Skinner kindly praised the project and congratulated me on it. Professor Skinner expressed his interest to take part but could not contribute due to the deadline for a book. Professor Jane Bennett from Johns Hopkins University and Professor Philip Pettit from the Australian National University described the questions as serious, important, and excellent. Professor Christian List from lse, Christof Mauch, Professor of History at Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität of München and director of Rachel Carson Center for Environment and society, Prof. Antonio Hermosa Andújar from the University of Seville, and the professors from the University of Maastricht, University of Innsbruck and several other universities described the project as innovative, important, and remarkable. Some scholars, such as Professor James Tully from Victoria University and Professor Douglas Moggach, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Ottawa, kindly acknowledged the importance of the project and introduce other scholars to participate. I would also like to thank Professor Valentine Moghadam from Northeastern University, who kindly participated in the project but since she did not find enough time to prepare her article for this book, I published her responses to the questions in a journal.
Since the identity and distinguishing feature of this project is questioning and sixty philosophical and political questions in relation to the pandemic that I have posed, and given that all contributors have written their essays in response to one or more of these questions, the end of the preface seems to be a good place to list them all. In the introduction, it will be mentioned which question(s) each scholar has tried to answer; Although, in most articles, the title reflects the author’s preferred question. Also, it seems that the title of my article needs to be clarified very briefly here. The idea and content of the article needed a title that could cover both post reactionary-criticism and post-reactionary criticism, which, perhaps needless to say, are not the same. So, it is constructed in the form of post-reactionary-criticism.
I hope that more scholars will enter into dialogue with the contributors of this book to make the list of questions more comprehensive.
- 1How would the Corona Phenomenon affect the question of the meaning of life?
- 2May the Corona Phenomenon lead to a decisive change in the way of Being of the human? And in general, what characteristics should pervasive phenomena have to lead to such a change?
- 3Considering the Corona Phenomenon’s capacity to shed new lights on Being-towards-Death (Sein-zum-Tode), and on awareness of death (Todesbewusstsein), what changes may occur in human life in the short and long term?
- 4Given the fact that ambiguity and uncertainty have become very serious in people’s daily lives, as well as in the decision-making of the institutions responsible for dealing with the covid-19, what would be, from a philosophical point of view, the possible consequences of this ambiguity and living in a vague situation? And what may be the effect of this situation on philosophizing itself?
- 5If the covid-19 would be considered as a cause of increasing importance of the body and situatedness in ontology, what may be the philosophical implications of such importance?
- 6How have existential differences with pre-modern life changed the confrontation with the covid-19, compared to facing phenomena such as the Black Death in the late middle ages?
- 7According to the horizon of human wisdom today, what is the difference between the discussion of good and evil regarding the covid-19 and the same discussion at the occurrence of similar phenomena in pre-modern and early modern times?
- 8With the increasing importance of the natural sciences, especially medical science, in confrontation with the covid-19, what change may occur in the status of philosophical knowledge?
- 9With the emergence of the Corona Phenomenon, what aspects of the idea of modern Subject have become more apparent to be problematic?
- 10Given the ambivalent role of technology in the Corona Phenomenon – as the main cause in some approaches, and as an important factor in overcoming the disease, in some others – what development may be imagined in the philosophy of technology?
- 11How the differences between the ideas of continuity and discontinuity/ rupture in the philosophy of history may impact the study on the Corona Phenomenon and its consequences?
- 12
Which major problems of moral philosophy have become more prominent in confronting the covid-19? What is the response of moral philosophy to the [inevitable?] process of inclusion and exclusion – preferring some patients to continue treatment? - 13What effect may the confrontation with the Corona Phenomenon have on our philosophical understanding of the relation of the Rational and the Emotional in the social life of human beings?
- 14If we consider Corona Phenomenon and the consequential crisis, with its pervasive and global dimensions, as an opportunity to evaluate the epistemic systems, what effects may the relativist attitudes – that assert equivalence of epistemic systems – have on the confrontation with the phenomenon and crisis management?
- 15How may the event of contagion and the necessity of social distancing on the one hand, and feeling the need to be-with and need to other’s help against the disease in the days of the pandemic, on the other hand, improve our philosophical insights about other?
- 16How would the current crisis provide the requisite concrete ground for re-discussing the relation of theory and practice?
- 17What may be the results of the idea of unrepeatability of phenomena for philosophical reflection on the Corona Phenomenon and anticipation of the world after that?
- 18What different effects may confrontation with the Corona Phenomenon have on rethinking the concept of Nature?
- 19What impact may the taking priority of survival strategy in confrontation with the covid-19 have on the goal-oriented/ instrumental rationality (Zweckrationalität) on the one hand and critical thinking – especially critique of contemporary overvaluation to survival – on the other hand?
- 20What effect may the necessity of fighting against the pathogenic microorganism (Coronavirus), that is a part of nature, have on the revision and re-evaluate of the ideas of early modern thinkers, for instance, Francis Bacon who considered the domination over nature as a divine mission in the service of humanity?
- 21What would be the implications of confronting the covid-19, especially implementing the preventive policies such as quarantine and social distancing and isolation, for contemplation about the relation of Right and Good?
- 22What shortcomings or dysfunctions of academic philosophical education and research have been highlighted in reaction to covid-19?
- 23
What effect may the general direction of artistic activities during the confrontation with Corona Phenomenon, as was seen in the hard days of totally quarantine around the world, have on the evaluations of different theories in philosophy of art such as representational theory, expression theory, formalist theory, aesthetic experience theory, and the topic of committed art? - 24How can philosophical hermeneutics help to understand the Corona Phenomenon and can also impact the process of dealing with it?
- 25Considering the consequences of experiencing a pervasive global crisis such as covid-19 and increasing the importance of the role of non-divine factors and the natural sciences, what would be the response of philosophy of religion to the question of the function of Religion and the Divine in this age?
- 26How have the long-term dualities of linguistic-philosophical traditions emerged in the theoretical approaches and practical reactions to the Corona Phenomenon, and what consequences may those dualities actually have?
- 27Some philosophers of language suppose all philosophical problems only as linguistic misunderstandings; how might the problems arising from confrontation with the covid-19 be explained by such an attitude?
- 28Given the experience of the procedure of identifying truths about different aspects of the Corona Phenomenon, what significance would intersubjectivity take on in the social epistemology affected by this phenomenon?
- 29Considering the intertwining of natural and social-cultural aspects of covid-19, what is the relation of causality and agency in this phenomenon, and what methodological consequences may this relation have for the philosophical approach?
- 30What are the philosophical implications of hope in the situation of global confrontation with the covid-19 – considering the possible consequences of this situation?
Political Questions
- 1In what sense is the Corona Phenomenon political? And what effect may this being political have on similar future phenomena to become political or more political?
- 2In confronting the covid-19, which political systems and cultures have been more efficient so far, and would probably be able to manage the
consequences better? What strengths and weaknesses of democratic systems and cultures have appeared in practice? - 3How has the confrontation with the covid-19 impacted the recognition of the importance of political leaders and/or political structures in different political systems?
- 4Does covid-19 show the necessity of hardening the borders and maintaining the nation state-based political structures, or the need for reduction of borders and constitution of new political structures for easier interaction?
- 5Given the procedure of crisis management in different countries with different power structures, would covid-19 push the states toward more centralism or decentralization?
- 6How will the covid-19 in the short and long term impact the three rival political-economic theories (neoliberal theory, welfare state, and social democracy) and governance based on them?
- 7What mutual influence there is between the political conflicts – in different countries – and the management of the pandemic?
- 8What may be the effect of subjective and objective consequences of the covid-19 on the process of democratization in different political systems?
- 9How would the pandemic change the importance of ideology and efficiency in the political philosophy of states and in the political culture of countries?
- 10How may the discussion on the problem of equality and social-political and global justice develop in the face of the covid-19?
- 11What change would we see in the limits of freedom, given the [need for] greater intervention of governments in confronting the covid-19? And what would be the duty of academics, especially political philosophers?
- 12How have the links between knowledge, power, and truth become more apparent in the confrontation with the covid-19?
- 13What role have political psychological factors played or can play in the confrontation of political institutions and actors with the covid-19?
- 14How would the clash of citizenship rights with the necessities of public health, in dealing with the covid-19, impact political theory and practice? And what controls and restrictions – and for how long – governments are legitimate to impose on citizens?
- 15How has the level of political development actually affected – or may affect – the three phases of prevention, overcoming the crisis, and managing the consequences, in the confrontation of governments with the covid-19?
- 16
How may the severity of the crisis, and the confrontation of political institutions with it in different countries, affect the revision of the constitutions of each country or the process of and criteria for passing new laws? - 17How does covid-19 impact the relations between government and civil society in different political systems?
- 18What would be the most important causes of possible protests or rebellions after covid-19, and what differences – in comparison with the past – would/ should be in the governments’ responses to them?
- 19How may change the place of political ethics in politics and political relations after the covid-19?
- 20To what extent is the impact of covid-19 on global political relations, comparable to the impact of the long-standing problems of human society, such as the problems of the environment, immigration, terrorism, and so on?
- 21What changes have the actions of seeking help and aid in the covid-19 outbreak made – and can make – in the foreign relations of the states?
- 22With which phenomenon we may compare the covid-19 from the point of view of political history?
- 23How may the encounter with Coronavirus affect the definition of the enemy in political sciences?
- 24May the encounter with Coronavirus be considered War? What effect will a positive or negative answer to this question have on the definition of war, on the one hand, and perhaps on the governments’ responses to similar phenomena in the future?
- 25Given the political implications of the covid-19, what opportunities have emerged or will emerge for social-political movements such as peace movements and environmentalism?
- 26Considering the multiple social-political-psychological aspects of the “Corona Phenomenon”, to encounter more effectively with the current crisis what changes are needed in information policy? Which option would be preferable: more transparency or more governmental control/ censorship? How may the pandemic impact media in long term?
- 27What is the mutual effect of political jurisprudence and political theology with the procedure of confrontation with the Corona Phenomenon and its consequences?
- 28What impacts would the Corona Phenomenon have on the health and cultural policy? Given the shortcomings and dysfunctions in the process of encountering the covid-19, what changes do we need in attitude and policies in relation to such global problems?
- 29
With a critical look at the measures taken by governments to confront the pandemic, what changes seem to be needed in domestic and foreign science policy? - 30What shortcomings or dysfunctions of academic political education and research have been highlighted by the covid-19?
Pegah Mossleh
Autumn 2021