The mask-wearing controversy should compel us to think more about our society, rather than politics
Social factors, including misguided fetish for masculinity in western societies, might deserve closer looks
(This piece was originally published on the Medium, and I have decided to post it here as well)
It has almost become a bizarre circus to the rest of the world, that mask-wearing can be such a controversial topic in the United States. In light of recent social developments, it is natural to attribute this controversy to domestic political upheavals and divide in the US. But as a Chinese living in Britain, I must point out that such detestation against masks is hardly a US-only phenomenon. Most of the Western societies had been discouraging the use of masks from national levels and rejecting wearing masks on personal levels. Hence, while the world gathers round to laugh at the current predicament faced by US citizens, I believe there are deeper reasons behind such initial universality observed in western societies. That said, I would like to focus on the case of the US first. Through exploring the political argument, and the uniqueness of the US political environment, I conclude that refusal to wear masks may have little to do with mere political affiliation. Then, I explore a few alternative explanations in attempts to understand the behaviour and its generality in western societies.
“Standing up to government authority/coercion”. Is this really a political problem?
Many of those who refuse to wear masks are quoted to defend their actions with the idea that the government has no business in regulating their private lives. I would attempt to understand this position by exploring the socio-political construction behind it and reveal that it is in fact, just a disguise. There are much deeper social reasons that we need to investigate. Note that one could also very well explore this position through discussion of liberty in the context of collective mandates with the help of Mill’s text, I choose to set that route aside in this essay for lack of philosophical wit and focus on a different line of investigation instead.
Examined closer, we see that this proclaimed ideology behind the backlash is not unique to our time. There is a perennial conflict at the core of the American society, that is the supposed struggle between ‘we the people’ and the government. Through most of history, one could argue this is a positive social mentality. It encourages greater scrutiny on those in government and acts as a check on their use of power. However, in recent decades, this ‘conflict’ is inflated.With rapid changes to social landscapes, the median voter has become an almost discrete unit on the political compass, with progressives and conservatives finding themselves pulling hard on the opposing sides.
Consequently, governments formed in this social climate are deeply rooted in either side of the spectrum, for there are very few benefits in capturing the median voter. This is apparent in Obama’s campaign slogan of “change”, Trump’s anti-establishment rhetoric and Sanders’ ultra-progressive socialist campaign. Consciously or not, the current Trump administration is also organized solidly on one side of the spectrum with little interaction of the other.
With diametrically opposing political parties gunning for the same office, majoritarian elements in America’s supposed consensual presidential democracy create added layers of complexity. A significant number of voters might not derive legitimacy in governments that they did not vote for, even if they have elected trustees to bargain for them in Congress. This is partly because the perceived importance of the election of executive powers in the US far exceeds that of the legislature, as evident in the fact that Midterm elections historically generate lower voter turnout than presidential elections[i]. As such, with the growing schism between the Democrats and the Republicans, there might be a greater tendency for people to mistrust the judgement of the government and even question its legitimacy (this was apparent in the “Not My President” movement).
Nevertheless, this innate and growing rejection of a perceptively illegitimate leviathan among the American people does not explain the mask-wearing phenomenon — why are those who choose not to wear masks mostly right-wingers, who most likely support the current government?
One explanation is that I believe, such a mentality can become highly trivialized in substance when exercised by the general public. It is now very easy for anyone to reject any position that does not reflect what he/she personally wants, regardless of party positions. In other words, such actions may have little to do with a political divide, but mostly a reflection of people’s own preferences. Hence, this refusal to put on masks is, on some level, a personal choice under the guise of a noble political statement.
Naturally, this conclusion begs the question of ‘why?’ — why would people personally reject the idea of wearing masks if it is not really a political choice. I posit two factors for consideration and provide my takes on them:
1. part of a broader reaction to rapid social changes symbolized by liberals
David Abrams, a professor of social and behavioural sciences at NYU School of Global Public Health, points out that humans tend to long for a sense of belonging in uncertain times — and that applies to people on both sides of the political spectrum. People who don’t wear masks may see it as a sign of solidarity as if they are together making a stand against authority, while those who do wear masks likely see it “as an act of altruism and a way of helping each other out,”
I would argue that instead of being a mere sign of solidarity with fellow rebels against authority — an idea which we have established as at best a collective delusion or excuse — it is a strong act of unity against liberal ideologies and social changes. With liberal agendas dominating mainstream media, and conservatives being socially persecuted in some areas, it has been difficult for right-wingers to rally around specific campaigns/ideas. If we understand the struggle between the right and the left primarily as a constant contradiction, then, the mask-wearing debacle could be interpreted as an attempt by the right to rally around an idea that the ‘liberal media’ is trying very hard to push for.
However, this explanation is not universal. In almost all other countries, mask-wearing is not a “left” or “right” issue. Initial reluctance and ambiguity on mask policies from the Trump administration are largely to blame for the politicization of the problem in the US. On this note, refusal to wear a mask for some could also be seen as a sign of support and solidarity with their president, who has been unfairly persecuted by the mainstream media in their opinion.
2. “I will not live in fear” — performance mentality in societies that expects toxic masculinity
I believe a more pertinent and universal explanation is that there is deep-rooted male chauvinism and misguided fetish for masculinity in the American psyche. To construct this point, I begin by breaking down the logic behind “I will not live in fear” argument.
“I will not live in fear” is a sentence that many use to justify not wearing a mask, but it is an illogical one. The mentality of your current living condition is not determined by the presence or absence of a piece of fabric on your face, but by your own perception of how you are living alone. In other words, “living in fear” and “wearing a mask” are not contradictory events. To draw a parallel, wearing clothing defends people against cold, but no one would claim that wearing a jacket has put them in a condition of fear.
Thus, for those who genuinely believe in this argument as a defence for not wearing masks, it would only make sense to reinterpret it as a social expression, that “I do not want to be seen/perceived as living in fear”. Only now, this argument would start to make some sense, in that they do not wish to be seen as “being in fear of dying” by others.
But why? There is no law or moral restraint that mandates us to always present ourselves in a state of fearlessness in front of others. I think to fully understand why there is such fear in the social dimension, we ought to turn to the social fabric itself.
I attribute this fear of being perceived as fearful to the fetish of masculinity, ‘toughness’, and universal rejection of weak showings in the American society, and more generally, in Western culture. It does not take an expert to see the ways through which masculine heroes are promoted as models in western culture — almost all superheroes are strong and masculine, all “handsome” movie roles are well-shaped, and successful professionals are often portrayed as dominant and intellectually aggressive in popular culture. Intentional or not, these portrayals do find their way into the upbringing of some in western society. Restricting this mentality to the male gender first, we discover that mass shootings and white nationalist terrorism in New Zealand, the US, the UK, Europe and Scandinavia have been committed in the overwhelming majority by men. It could be proposed that toxic masculinity is possibly the main cause behind such horrific, seemingly unconnected acts[ii]. Of course, such a mentality does not only get adopted by men. It is possible for other genders to pick up such understanding of masculinity and social expectations during their upbringing.
In societies that subconsciously expect and awards behaviours that are “traditionally masculine”, showing signs of fear is not a welcomed expression. Those who have internalized such implicit societal expectations would thus refuse to wear masks in fear of being rejected by the masculine society.
This problem is aggravated by the fact that the US leadership repeatedly associate the virus with China. For some gun-loving proud Americans who believe the US is the greatest nation to ever walk this earth, the idea of being defeated by a “Chinese-born” virus and having to retreat behind a mask is unthinkable. This is true in many other western nations as well, where Chinese minorities are superficially stereotyped as dirty and uncivilized[iii], or as the propagators of the virus.
There are plenty of other potential reasons that might explain the mask-wearing controversy, including heightened individuality in western societies and difference in risk calculus across cultures. I am afraid I cannot expand them all in one essay in the interest of space and focus. The argument on masculinity is meant to establish a hypothesis, which I believe deserves deeper academic research.
[i]“Demand for Democracy”. The Pew Center on the States. Archived from the original on 2010–06–18. Retrieved 2011–10–13.
[ii] de Boise, S. (2019). Editorial: is masculinity toxic? NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 4(3), 147–151.