Galkin KA, Parfenova OA. Building [dis]trust in COVID discourses. Ekologiya cheloveka (Human Ecology). 2023;30(4):301–311. DOI: https: ...

Текст статьи на сайте журнала URL: https://hum-ecol.ru/1728-0869/article/view/322845 (дата обращения 29.08.2023)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented measures implemented by authorities worldwide, which in turn have contributed to a lack of trust among citizens and the proliferation of conspiracy theories. Currently, there exists a limited body of research dedicated to the examination of radical COVID-19 dissidents and the broader concept of COVID-19 dissidence. Insufficient attention has been given to the discourse generated by regular users of social media platforms regarding the pandemic. We believe that studying the comments made by ordinary social media users is crucial in identifying and analyzing the prevailing discourses surrounding the biopolitical measures implemented by authorities. AIM: To examine the construction of trust and distrust in the measures implemented by authorities during the ongoing pandemic. The primary research question that guides this investigation is: How do users of social networks form trust or distrust in biopolitics during the pandemic? METHODS: The data used for this analysis consisted of publications from a one-year period, focusing on different antiCOVID measures such as vaccination, mask mandates, distance learning, and other restrictions. These publications were sourced from an official public website belonging to the authorities of St. Petersburg. The AntConc software was used for the analysis. By applying the concept of biopolitics, we examined the responses of social media users and their interactions with the governing bodies. RESULTS: We identified three distinct discourses: disagreement, resistance, and agreement. Among these, disagreement and resistance were the most prevalent. These discourses stem from a deep-rooted sense of distrust, doubt, and unwillingness among users to comply with the proposed measures. It was within the realms of these two discourses that users engaged in the most active communication with various authorities. However, this communication followed a predictable pattern, where authorities responded to inquiries by providing standard references to regulations governing specific restrictions and vaccination. This approach failed to foster trust and only served to amplify user discontent. On the other hand, the discourse of agreement revolved around expressing solidarity with the implemented measures. Some users effectively communicated the benefits of vaccination, maintaining social distance, and wearing masks to convince others. CONCLUSION: [Dis]trust in matters related to physicality and health influences an individual's decision-making process. People contemplate whether to wear a mask, get vaccinated, or even devise strategies to evade measures they perceive as ineffective or potentially harmful. The prevailing lack of commitment towards vaccination, widespread disregard for mask mandates, and the resistance against QR codes suggest that this disagreement and resistance extend beyond mere discourse and manifest in actual practices. To further explore this phenomenon, a comparison of these discursive practices with realworld actions is warranted.