The coronavirus will not destroy the performance society
Byung-Chul Han's summary
The Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han, now a naturalized German, is one of the most popular and influential philosophers in contemporary philosophy. He teaches philosophy and media theory at the Universität der Künste in Berlin. He graduated with a thesis on Martin Heidegger. In his philosophy we feel the suggestions of the thought of Michel Foucault, Walter Benjamin and other innovators of Western thought of the twentieth century.
There is also the contribution of oriental philosophy, the part of the globe from which it comes. Philosophy without God, i.e. Buddhism, is the subject of a book (just over 100 pages) in which the great pillars of Western conceptual thought, from Plato onwards, are compared to Zen Buddhism. From this comparison Han ascertains the impossibility of a mediation between the two systems of thought due to the irreducibility of Zen thought to Western thought and vice versa.
How to The religion of Buddhism, many of Byung-Chul Han's books are usually quite short, which is a choice that brings him much closer to the general public. His most important books are translated into many languages, including Italian, mostly by the publisher Nottetempo.
The performance company
Han's public profile is rather minimalistic: he is very private, gives few interviews and his extra-university speeches are quite rare, but they always get noticed. Very stimulating are the reflections on what the Korean philosopher calls the "performance society" pushed to the point of self-exploitation (a very disruptive concept). The "digital revolution" has perfectly grafted onto the "performance society" whose consequences, following Heidegger's footsteps, are very problematic and general according to the German-Korean philosopher.
The scariest thing is that the Internet and social media revolution has transformed relationships into connections and homologated thought and behavior to a model that proceeds in unison towards a disarming and controlled conformism. And here the problem of the pandemic falls.
Precisely the control of the pandemic with technology, justified by reasons of force majeure - that of public health - can become a dangerous weapon in the hands of the capitalism of self-exploitation which sees in biopolitics - a concept that Han borrows from Foucalut - a new ed effective system of survival and diffusion. Something much more extreme will happen than the psychopolitical control implemented through big data by the big Internet companies and authoritarian governments. Byung-Chul Han has dedicated an 80-page book of the same name to the theme of psychopolitics.
What if it was civilian technology instead?
But the pandemic can also be the opposite, that is, the opportunity that was missing to change the current structure of control of technology, as another fiercely critical voice of the surveillance society forcefully points out through the big data oligopoly. This is the voice of Jaron Lanier.
His "Foreign Affairs”, Lanier the pioneer of augmented reality, praising the technological model of pandemic containment implemented in Taiwan and Korea, asserts that the technology in the service of the fight against the pandemic can be removed from the social control of governments. Instead, a civic technology can transform itself, as happens precisely in Taiwan and South Korea where the culture of civic technology is being shaped.
This culture consists of "bottom-up information sharing, public-private partnerships, hacktivism, and participatory collective action." This type of technology can truly consolidate beyond emergence to become how technology interacts with society as a whole and with the builders of innovation.
A scenario that could appear utopian to Byung-Chul Han even if he doesn't fail to appreciate the way his country of origin has faced, and perhaps overcome, the crisis without stopping the system like the Europeans did. A way that highlights even more the unpreparedness of Europeans, even politically, and of Western culture to deal with events of that type.
In an extensive speech on "El País" Byung-Chul Han was able to express his point of view. Below we offer you, in its entirety, our translation of his speech entitled The viral emergence and the morning world. The article was published on March 22, 2020, therefore the data and information it reports must be related to that period. As well as the issues of public discourse are those of the month of March 2020.
Happy reading.
The difficulty of Europe
The coronavirus is putting our system under strain. Asia appears to be responding better to the pandemic than Europe. In Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore there are few infected. In Taiwan there were 108 cases and in Hong Kong 193.
In contrast, in Germany, where the virus arrived later, there are already 15.320 confirmed cases and in Spain 19.980 (data from March 20). South Korea has also passed the most critical phase, as has Japan.
Even China, the country of origin of the pandemic, appears to have it under control. But neither in Taiwan nor in Korea has a ban on leaving the house been imposed, nor have shops and restaurants been closed.
Meanwhile, an exodus of Asians leaving Europe has begun. Chinese and Koreans want to go back to their countries because they feel safer there. Flight prices have skyrocketed. Plane tickets to China or Korea are sipped.
Europe is not reacting well. The number of infected increases exponentially. Europe does not seem able to control the pandemic. In Italy, hundreds of people die every day. Respirators that are removed from elderly patients to help young people. But there are also unnecessarily excessive actions.
Closing borders is clearly a desperate expression of sovereignty.
Back to the past
Europe feels unprepared for the era of sovereignty. The sovereign is the one who decides on the state of emergency. Whoever closes the borders is sovereign. But this is an empty and useless display of sovereignty. Cooperating intensively within the Eurozone would be much more beneficial than brutally closing the borders.
Meanwhile, Europe has also decreed a ban on the entry of foreigners: a completely absurd act in light of the fact that Europe is precisely the place where nobody wants to come. At best, it would be wiser to issue a ban on Europeans leaving Europe, to protect the world from Europe. After all, Europe is the epicenter of the pandemic right now.
The benefits of Asians
Compared to Europe, what advantages does the Asian model of fighting the pandemic offer? Asian states such as Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan or Singapore have an authoritarian mentality, which derives from their cultural tradition (Confucianism).
People are less rebellious and more obedient than in Europe. They also have more trust in the state. And not only in China, but also in Korea or Japan. Daily life is organized in a much more rigid and controlled way than in Europe. To deal with the virus, Asians have relied on digital surveillance.
They believe big data may have enormous potential to defend against the pandemic. It could be said that epidemics in Asia are not only fought by virologists and epidemiologists, but above all by computer scientists and big data specialists. A paradigm shift that Europe has not yet assimilated. Apologists for digital surveillance claim that big data saves lives.
Digital Surveillance in China
Criticism of digital surveillance is virtually non-existent in Asia. There is little talk of data protection, even in democratic states like Japan and Korea. Nobody is particularly upset by the authorities' frenzy to collect data.
Meanwhile, China has introduced a system of social control unimaginable for Europeans, which allows comprehensive monitoring of citizens' behavior. Each citizen can thus be evaluated on the basis of his or her social behaviour.
In China there is no moment of daily life that is not subject to scrutiny. Every click, every purchase, every contact, every activity on social networks is monitored. Those who cross with red lights, those who blame the regime or those who publish posts critical of the government on social networks have points deducted from the social rating. At this point their life takes risks.
Conversely, those who buy healthy food online or read regime-related newspapers increase in social evaluation. Anyone with enough points gets a visa for a trip or shopping vouchers. Conversely, anyone who falls below a certain number of points could, for example, lose their job.
The means of social control
In China, this social surveillance is possible because there is unlimited data exchange between the Internet, mobile phone providers and the authorities. There is practically no data protection. The term "private sphere" does not exist in the Chinese vocabulary.
There are 200 million surveillance cameras in China, many of which are equipped with a very efficient facial recognition technique. They even detect wrinkles on the face. It is not possible to escape from surveillance cameras. These cameras, equipped with artificial intelligence, can observe and evaluate every citizen in public spaces, shops, streets, stations and airports.
The entire digital surveillance infrastructure has now proved extremely effective in containing the epidemic. When someone leaves Beijing Station, they are automatically filmed by a camera that measures body temperature. If the temperature is not standard, everyone around him gets a notification on their mobiles.
Unsurprisingly, the system knows who sits on the train. On social networks we read that drones are being used to control quarantines. If one breaks the quarantine clandestinely, a drone comes to meet him and orders him to go home immediately. He could also print the fine. A situation that for Europeans is dystopian, but to which, it seems, there is no opposition in China.
As I said, neither in China nor in other Asian states such as South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan or Japan is there a conscious critique of digital surveillance or big data. Digitization makes them completely dependent on its means. This is also due to a cultural reason. Collectivism reigns in Asia. There is no extreme individualism. Individualism is not the same as selfishness, which of course is also very common in Asia.
From psychopolitics to biopolitics
Big data appears to be more effective in fighting the virus than the absurd border closures taking place in Europe. However, due to data protection, it is not possible to fight a digital virus in Europe in a way comparable to Asia.
Chinese mobile phone and internet providers share sensitive customer data with security services and health ministries. The State therefore knows where I am, who I am with, what I do, what I look for, what I think, what I eat, what I buy and where I go.
It is possible that in the future the state could also control body temperature, weight, blood sugar level, etc. A digital biopolitics that accompanies the digital psychopolitics of active control over people.
In Wuhan, thousands of investigative teams have been put to work looking for potential infected people based solely on digital data. With big data analytics, they find out who is potentially infected, who needs to be put under observation and finally quarantined. Even with regard to the pandemic, the future lies in digitization.
Sovereignty is defined by the ownership of the data
Due to the epidemic, we should perhaps also redefine the concept of sovereignty. Who owns the data is sovereign. When Europe declares a state of alarm or closes its borders, it continues to cling to the old models of sovereignty.
Not only in China, but also in other Asian countries, digital surveillance is being used extensively to contain the epidemic. In Taiwan, the state automatically and simultaneously sends a text message to all citizens who have had contact with infected people or to report places and buildings where there have been infected.
Already at a very early stage, Taiwan used a data procedure to identify possible infected people based on the trips they had made. In Korea, anyone approaching a building where there has been an infection receives an alert through the "Corona-app" app. All places where infections have occurred are registered in the application.
Data protection and privacy are not taken into consideration much. In Korea, surveillance cameras are installed in every building on every floor, in every office and in every shop. It is practically impossible to move in public spaces without being filmed by a video camera. With the data taken from the mobile phone and with the material filmed by the cameras, it is possible to create a profile of the movements of an infected person.
The movements of all infected are then made available. It may also happen that affairs or dealings are discovered.
Protective masks in Asia
A notable difference between Asia and Europe is above all the use of protective masks. In Korea, there is hardly anyone walking around without respirator masks to filter the air of germs. These are not surgical masks, but special protective masks with filters that can also be worn by doctors and paramedics.
In recent weeks, the priority issue in Korea has been the availability of masks for the population. Huge queues formed in front of the pharmacies. Politicians were judged on how quickly the masks were supplied. New plants for the production of masks were hastily built.
There is currently good availability. There is also an application that communicates the nearest pharmacy with availability of masks. I believe that protective masks, distributed to the entire population, have been essential in containing the epidemic in Asia.
Koreans also wear virus masks in their workplaces. Even politicians make their public appearances in masks. The Korean president also wears it, to set an example, during press conferences. In Korea they show you green mice if you don't wear a mask.
Protective masks in Europe
On the contrary, in Europe they are often said to be of little use, which is nonsense. Why then do doctors wear protective masks? It is necessary to change the mask quite often, because when they get wet they lose their filtering function.
However, the Koreans have already developed a "coronavirus mask" made up of nanofilters that can be washed. It is said to protect people from the virus for at least a month. It's actually a great solution while waiting for vaccines or drugs.
In Europe, on the contrary, even doctors have to have them sent from Russia to wear them. Macron has ordered the confiscation of all masks to distribute them to health personnel.
But what they actually received were ordinary masks without a filter with the caveat that they would be enough to protect themselves from the coronavirus. Which is a lie.
Europe is on the verge of bankruptcy. What is the use of closing shops and restaurants if people continue to travel on the subway or bus during rush hour? How is it possible to maintain a safe distance in those environments? Even in the supermarket it is almost impossible. In situations of this type, protective masks
A society divided into two classes is developing. For example, anyone who owns a car is exposed to less risk. Even normal masks would be of great use if worn by test positive people.
The "cultural" issue behind protective masks
In European countries many do not wear a mask. There are some who wear it, but they are Asian. My compatriots living in Europe complain that they get strange looks when they wear it. There is also a cultural difference here.
In Europe there is a culture of the individual with an uncovered face. The only ones with a mask are the criminals. But now, seeing images of Korea, I've gotten so used to seeing people in masks that the uncovered faces of my fellow Europeans are an almost obscene sight to me. I'd like to wear a protective mask myself, but I'm hesitant.
In the past, the production of masks, like that of many other similar products, has been outsourced to China. There are no more factories for the production of masks in Europe.
Asian states are providing the entire population with protective masks. In China, when shortages there too, the Chinese converted some factories to produce them. In Europe, not even healthcare personnel receive them. As long as people continue to travel by bus or subway to work without masks, the ban on leaving the house won't help much. How is it possible to keep a safe distance on buses or subways during peak hours?
One lesson we should learn from the pandemic is the urgency of bringing the production of some products such as protective masks or medicines and drugs back to Europe.
The ideological paradigm of the reaction to the pandemic
Despite all the risk, not to be minimized, the panic unleashed by the pandemic is disproportionate. Not even the much deadlier “Spanish flu” had such a devastating effect on the economy.
What is it really about? Why does the world react with such panic to a virus? Emmanuel Macron even speaks of war and an invisible enemy to be defeated. Are we facing a return of the enemy? The "Spanish flu" spread during World War I. At that time the enemy was really at the door. No one was going to associate the epidemic with war or the enemy. But today we live in a completely different society.
There are no more enemies for a long time. The Cold War has been over for a long time. Even Islamic terrorism seemed to have moved to distant countries. Exactly ten years ago, in my essay The Society of Tiredness, I supported the thesis that we live in an era in which the immunological paradigm, based on the negativity of the enemy, has lost its validity.
As in the times of the Cold War, the immunologically organized society is characterized by a life surrounded by borders and fences, which prevent the rapid circulation of goods and capital. Globalization eliminates all these immune thresholds to give free rein to capital.
Even the widespread promiscuity and permissiveness, now extended to all areas of society, remove the negativity of the unknown or the enemy. The dangers today come not from the enemy's negativity, but from an excess of positivity, which is expressed in excess performance, excess production and excess communication.
The negativity of the enemy has no place in our limitless and permissive society. Repression by others gives way to depression, exploitation by others gives way to willful self-exploitation and self-optimization. In the society of the show, one fights above all against oneself.
The fall of the immunological thresholds
Well, in the midst of this society so immunologically weakened by global capitalism, the virus suddenly bursts in. Panicked, we once again build immunological thresholds and seal the borders. The enemy is back. We no longer fight against ourselves, but against the invisible enemy that comes from outside.
Excessive panic about the virus is a social, and even global, immune reaction to the new enemy. The immune reaction is so violent because we have lived for a long time in a society without enemies, in a society of positivity. Now the virus is perceived as permanent terror.
But there is another reason for the huge panic. Again it has to do with cyberspace. The latter removes reality. Reality is experienced by virtue of the resistance it offers and which can also be painful.
The digital space, the whole culture of likes, suppresses the negativity of resistance. And in the post-truth era of false and biased news, an apathy towards reality arises. Now it happens that we have a real virus, and not a virtual virus, which causes a shock. Reality, resistance, returns to show itself in the form of an enemy virus.
The panic reaction of financial markets to the epidemic also expresses the panic that is already part of this activity. The enormous turmoil in the world economy makes it extremely vulnerable. Despite the constantly rising curve of the equity index, the monetary policy of central banks has produced, in recent years, a latent panic that exploded with the epidemic.
Prelude to a more serious "accident"?
The virus is probably just the straw that broke the camel's back. What the financial market panic reflects is not so much fear of the virus as fear of itself. The accident could have occurred even without the virus. Maybe the virus is just the prelude to a much bigger incident.
Žižek says the virus has dealt a fatal blow to capitalism and evokes an obscurantist communism. He even believes the virus could bring down the Chinese regime. Žižek is wrong. None of this will happen.
China will now be able to sell its digital police state as a successful model against the pandemic. China will boast of the superiority of its system even more forcefully. And after the pandemic, capitalism will continue to flourish even more vigorously. And tourists will continue to trample the planet.
The virus cannot replace reason. It is possible that the Chinese-style digital police state will also come to the West. As Naomi Klein has already said, confusion is the most propitious time to establish a new system of government. The emergence of neoliberalism has often been preceded by crises that have caused shocks. That's what happened in Korea or Greece.
The virus will not destroy capitalism, so what?
It is hoped that after the shock caused by this virus, a digital policing regime on the Chinese model will not spread to Europe. If this were to happen, as Giorgio Agamben fears, the state of exception would become the normal situation. In that case, the virus would have achieved a goal that not even Islamic terrorism has quite managed to achieve.
The virus will not destroy capitalism. There will be no viral revolution. No virus is capable of making the revolution. The virus isolates us and identifies us. It does not generate any strong collective feeling. Everyone cares only about their own survival.
The solidarity that consists in keeping mutual distances is not a solidarity that allows us to dream of a different, more peaceful and more just society. We cannot leave the revolution in the hands of the virus. Let's hope that after the virus there really will be a revolution of people.
It is we, people with reason, who must decisively rethink and limit destructive capitalism, and also our unlimited and destructive mobility, to save ourselves, the climate and our beautiful planet.
Source: “El País”, La emergencia viral y el mundo de mañana, 22 March 2020.
