Coronavirus Pandemic: the psychology of ‘social distancing’ & ‘productive engagement’ of children

Coronavirus Pandemic: the psychology of ‘social distancing’ & ‘productive engagement’ of children

- Amit Tamang

The whole humanity is now tackling the coronavirus pandemic. In this article, I will focus on two facets – ‘social distancing’ and ‘parenting of children’ – of it in relation to lockdown in the context of Nepal.

Context

Nepal is now under lockdown. The first week lockdown, effective from 24^th March has been extended for one more week. Until before it, all other activities including the operationalisation of the international airport were taking place uninterrupted. Nevertheless, some people in the cities went for stock-piling, and a sort of panic spread especially across the town-dwellers and they opted for stock-piling as they (including all the Nepalese) had faced severe shortage of food, fuel and medicine during the ‘blockade from India’ followed by disturbance in the domestic plains over the newly adopted Constitution in 2015. By the time my wife and I returned Kathmandu from the field of our research, there was already shortage of masks and sanitisers not only in Kathmandu, but across the nation.

The dynamics of ‘social distancing’

In addition to maintaining personal hygiene, the most popular advice to avoid contracting coronavirus became ‘social-distancing’. This might have gained much significance because i) the disease caused by it – COVID-19 – is contagious, and ii) China declared lockdown in Wuhan Province. The recommendation of ‘social-distancing’ was instantly aired especially from the WHO and Western World. Given that the virus is becoming more lethal, it is necessary to alert the people with right information, and promote social contact, inquiry, consolation and socialisation more than before amidst the pain and anxiety, while people are in the hospitals and self-isolation or in general, under lockdown. The logic of ‘social distancing’ is keeping individuals in isolation and avoiding any face-to-face interaction. In this regard, it is suggestive that ‘physical distancing’ is more appropriate to say than ‘social-distancing’.

Dealing with children during lockdown

Like A.L. Kroeber argued that space and time are the proper contexts within which one can understand the importance of cultural phenomena, it is important to contextualise current generation of youth and children who are for the last two decades more in the betwixt and between caused by the dilemma of ‘homely’ and ‘foreign’. The notion of modernity is not something new; Mark Leichty has in detail sketched the notion of modernity among the youth in Kathmandu in the decades of 1960s and 1970s.

However, with the introduction of education in English medium in the government-supported public schools, and migration of school-going children in the cities from the villages and highland, there has been a severe lacuna in their understanding of village ethos. Their dislike of home-made food, smell of soil and rural lifestyle associated with agriculture and livestock, and craze for internet and mobile phones are some signs that show that the gap, among the children of current generation, between the ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ weltanschauung is growing.  

Like Mary Douglas argues in Purity and Danger, symbols are means of social classification, which distinguish between various categories of objects, persons or actions, and keep them separate. Such symbols here include what one eats, what one consumes and where they live in, to name a few.

Discussion on it requires a separate blog. The significance of the condition of ‘betwixt and between’ in the context of lockdown is meaningful because children who have been to their ‘homes’ from urban cities are facing difficulties in adjusting themselves in the villages. On the other hand, the children in the cities are most of the time occupied with the Internet. It is extremely unpleasant to hear of the ‘experts’ or ‘psychologists’ giving non-comprehensive suggestions (for instance, ‘engage your children in creative activities’ ‘use best use of internet’ blah-blah), without any pragmatic ideas. Plus, it is equally discriminatory because it fails to offer any advice for the children who are in the village where there is no electricity and/or internet facility, and those returned to their homes from town.

One may argue that children can easily cope with the environment in the village since they visit their home more often. So, the argument that - children studying in the cities find difficulties in their own village when they stay long - is nonsense. It is true that all the children are not in the situation as I explained above. But the number of such children is definitely increasing, the field visits and observations show.

Conclusion

On the whole, in any case, we should avoid ‘social-distancing’ and instead increase our interactions but through phone calls, text messages and Internet. In the case of expanding contrast between and among children from regions (which differ in terms of ‘access’, ‘development’, ‘social-cultural lifestyles’, ‘ethos’ etc.), it is necessary to direct our attention in minimising ‘social-distancing’ in the long run as well.