«We must be smarter as a species»

 

The crisis and state of emergency we are living in due to the spread and the impact of COVID-19 has shaken us to the core, as individuals and as a society. We analyse the situation with philosopher, writer and UOC Faculty of Arts and Humanities course instructor Miquel Seguró Mendlewicz. In this interview Seguró reflects on the vulnerability that we personify as a condition of the human experience and that surfaces particularly in circumstances such as these. In regard to coping with confinement, he says we must be aware that we are experiencing the impact of coronavirus in first-world societies and asks that we understand how as beings we need one another. He also asks that we be smarter as a species, focusing on what unites us rather than what separates us, given the uncertainties of life, to which we are all exposed. 

 

 

The crisis and state of emergency we are living in due to the spread and the impact of COVID-19 has shaken us to the core, as individuals and as a society. We analyse the situation with philosopher, writer and UOC Faculty of Arts and Humanities course instructor Miquel Seguró Mendlewicz. In this interview Seguró reflects on the vulnerability that we personify as a condition of the human experience and that surfaces particularly in circumstances such as these. In regard to coping with confinement, he says we must be aware that we are experiencing the impact of coronavirus in first-world societies and asks that we understand how as beings we need one another. He also asks that we be smarter as a species, focusing on what unites us rather than what separates us, given the uncertainties of life, to which we are all exposed. 

 

One of our fundamental beliefs as a society is the feeling of control. This is the first thing that comes to light, at least partially. When in philosophy we talk about vulnerability as a condition of our existence, we mean what conditions our relationship with the world, which is precisely this reality of finitude and contingency. To be less conditioned by it, what we need to do is be aware of it, of its reality, its dynamics and the fact that it is a condition of our being in the world, which affects everyone without exception.

Another important element being revealed right now is the idea of the individual and self-reference. Sometimes we live our lives based on the belief that we are islands and that we can wall ourselves off, but from many angles we can see that this is not true. One of the inalienable dimensions of life is therefore communal, for good or for ill. In the present circumstances, for example, social contact helps spread the virus, while at the same time only collective action, with all of us pulling together, can stop it. 

We are involved in biological, social and cultural dynamics that form part of our identity as individuals, and we need to be aware of that. The individual we so often prioritize over the collective cannot find its way through life or fully develop without this collective.

Dialogical philosophy insists that human beings are not an island, rather they are part of an archipelago, and this, in turn, is in a chain of archipelagos. Epistemic and political individualism therefore remains an illusion, if we make it the core of experience. For philosophers and thinkers like Martin Buber and Emmanuel Lévinas, we are relational beings and without the relational notion we would be unable to explain ourselves.

What the current situation highlights is precisely this notion of biological relationship, that is, that we are biologically related and interrelated beings, not only to other human beings, but also to other species and microorganisms. The coronavirus crisis therefore does away with any illusion of individual retreat, even as a species with regard to others, and of distancing in any sphere.

What is important in this context is that the answer to this reality is solidarity, co-responsibility, empathy, and therefore understanding that we operate as a whole. We need to understand that any given problem, even though at first it may not seem to affect us or our environment directly, is a problem for society and therefore can potentially affect everyone. That's the case with any crisis: we're all liable to be affected at some point, however unlikely it may seem.  

We should also pay attention to illnesses, natural disasters and other biological situations because they are also part of the reality of life. That's why, when we are warned so often about climate change and this is greeted by some with scorn, irresponsibly in my opinion, we're not doing ourselves any favours.

Amongst other things, humans are biological beings and we are in the middle of a dynamic vital chain that we only know – and therefore control – up to a point and so in many ways is quite beyond us. Our situation in the world means taking this into account, because there's another aspect that enables us to relate to it: the fact that we can be aware of it and face it thoughtfully. In other words, viruses affect us, but we're aware that viruses affect us. And so we can ask ourselves not only what is the matter with us, but also what we can do, first, to counteract it, and then to try to anticipate what lies in the immediate future. Max Scheler, in his book The Human Place in the Cosmos, highlights this trait as capital.

It's hard if we think it's hard. One of our human traits is that we are adaptive; we can adapt to most things. But if what we do is underline the idea that being at home is a problem, then it will be, when it's really about us having to break a number of habits, and forcing ourselves to learn new ways of coexisting in circumstances that have come upon us out of the blue.

In many cases, though, we have devices that let us stay in touch, not feel so cut off. We also have a welfare state that gives us access to a public health service, which is one of our greatest treasures and we must protect it and support it. We also have access to information, education, entertainment, food and a whole series of resources that other states and societies don't have. All too often we don't appreciate what we have until we lose it, like our health. Many things can and should be improved, but we must be aware of the global reality and that we live in first-world societies.

I prefer to exercise Aristotelian prudence, which basically says it depends. Technology, like everything else in life, can be used in one way or another. We are witnessing how it can be used for communication and to pass on relevant information, but it can also be used to create toxic environments. Yes, it's true that the fact that we live online and through technology is making a lot of things easier right now.  For example, the health authorities have made questionnaires available on COVID-19 symptoms and in education you can still learn online, and the UOC is the benchmark in this respect. Then there is teleworking, which is an important factor, and I think it will continue to be in the immediate future. As always, we'll see great and good use of technology and we'll see reprehensible uses of social media and technology.

We're too used to thinking about and demanding freedoms. In fact, in any system there is no freedom without co-responsibility, and therefore there is no freedom without obligation, amongst other things because freedom always develops in a given space and time, in other words, in a context. Furthermore, it is incarnate and therefore conditioned. John Stuart Mill popularized the concept that our freedom ends where other people's begins, to which we should add another of his ideas: that the more happiness there is in the world, the happier we will all be.  If things are well with everyone, and there is no discrimination or injustice, then each of us is more likely to develop our own happiness project. It's good for all of us. We need to drive home the notion of rights and duties, and from now on foster and extend the reality of recognition and the relationship as basic ingredients for living. We form part, inexorably, of community dynamics, and our lives depend on its quality.

We are capable of many things, the best and the worst, and in the course of this crisis we've seen behaviours worthy of admiration and others that are absolutely shocking. Given the current situation, I think there are three things we can do. The first, obviously, is to follow the instructions of the authorities and forget "opinology". The second is to insist on interdependence. We wouldn't be where we are without someone to take care of us; this calls for co-responsibility, towards everyone, and more so with those who are particularly vulnerable or who have gone before us and paved the way. And the third is to think on the fact that reality and society are not there for our benefit, it doesn't all boil down to our ego. Immanuel Kant contrasted egoism with pluralism, in the sense of considering himself just another citizen of a dynamic, interrelated cosmos. And that goes for everyone. Or is vulnerability not the same for all of us?

To finish: I've never understood why, as a species, we sabotage each other so cruelly. Seeing as we all need each other, I sometimes think that if we were just a bit smarter as a species, we'd see that we're all better off when we have each other's backs. We've got enough on our plate responding to the vicissitudes of biological dynamics, as we are unfortunately doing now.