Coronavirus: why are we afraid?

Since December 2019, the coronavirus has infected more than 110,000 people for 3,800 deaths. In France, 21 people succumbed to the virus and 1,209 infected. A global virus that changes our relationships and our behavior. Sylvain Delouvée, psychosociologist and co-author of the book Collective Fears (Eres edition, 2013), explains why and how this type of phenomenon transforms our way of thinking.

Have we ever experienced an epidemic episode like the coronavirus?

In recent times, there have been several epidemics, from the appearance of Ebola to AIDS, H5N1 or Sras. All of these epidemics or pandemics were initially unknown. If we take the example of the coronavirus, a few weeks ago no one had heard of it. Some also think that the name has just been invented when it has existed for a long time.

How do we react to this kind of phenomenon?

Faced with any form of epidemic that threatens our health and the lives of individuals, ideas of magic recipe, of superstition are put in place. When the coronavirus was confined to China, there was a form of disinterest and stigmatization of the Chinese. When the epidemic arrived in Europe, the stigma diminished and turned into a stigmatization of infected people. When someone coughs, everyone turns around. These behaviors are protective behaviors that fall under magical thinking which is linked to superstition. In times of uncertainty, we refer to superstition. At first we do not have enough information and we set up a series of behaviors which comes under the magic recipe. Some put a special cream on their skin, others say to themselves that such and such a person should be avoided, etc. The same thing was observed with the Zika virus where some said that one could walk around in the evening without being bitten by the mosquito carrying the virus or that dressing in white protected us. These behaviors reassure and help manage uncertainty in the face of uncertain and unmanageable elements.

Why do we need, in this kind of circumstance, to have a scapegoat?

We are social beings. We need to make sense of our environment and understand it. When something happens to me, I want to understand why. Natural disasters or epidemics, I don’t know how to explain them. We can turn to science but even it does not explain everything. For the coronavirus, we can go back to the market in Wuhan and the bat, but that does not tell us why but how the virus arrived. We can also turn to God by saying that it is a divine illness, or go away to conspiratorial beliefs, with the government acting in secret. We need an explanation, an answer. This is how we come to need a scapegoat. The best example is that we have, these are stereotypes about groups of people and this uncertainty brings back our prejudices. When we categorize, with an “us” and a “them”, biases are activated. I will think that my group is better than the others, that the others are all the same and that we are all different. These prejudices will act as an explanation, a justification. It’s the same thing to create cohesion in a group, we often look for a scapegoat or someone against whom to oppose.

What does this epidemic say about our relationship to fear?

For the past few days, many have been saying that the coronavirus is like the flu. However, it has nothing to do since it is a lung disease. In fact, we don’t know much, so we’re going to develop secular knowledge from our interactions, our representation of the world, from what we can read. It is this secular knowledge that will induce collective fear. We have an opinion on everything while we do not have sufficient knowledge on all subjects. When we are confronted with an unknown object, we create a representation with a double process of objectification and anchoring (a phenomenon developed by Serge Moscovici in Psychoanalysis, it’s image and it’s public, published in 1961, editor’s note). The first concept refers to the fact that to talk about a subject, we will only select certain elements according to our own prejudices. Anchoring is how we incorporate what we have selected into our thought system, how it is consistent with the rest of our ideas. I will possibly distort, exaggerate or delete certain information so that it fits into my own reading grid.
To reach this conclusion, Serge Moscovici questioned, in the 1950s, two categories of the population on their vision of psychoanalysis: Catholics and Communists, both being very influential at that time. Each of these two groups rejected psychoanalysis for different reasons. The first consider that it increases the libido, promotes sexual liberation and rejects any belief in destiny. The Communists have rejected it on the grounds that it distracts workers from collective struggle by saying that our problems are personal. Faced with the same object, the two groups have recovered elements of the theory that interest them to deform them and use them in their discourse.

Will these behaviors change if the government triggers stage 3 of the epidemic?

My prediction is that beliefs that seem irrational, such as conspiracy theories, fake news or others, will multiply. They already exist but when stage 3 is triggered, there will be many more. The reason is that in stage 3, it will no longer be a question of confining the disease to prevent it from developing but it will be, because we have not succeeded in containing the disease, placing all the resources in hospitals and emergency services. For Mr and Mrs everyone, this means that it is very serious because it is the last stage of the epidemic. The measures currently taken to try to stem the spread of the virus will be dropped and all the bulk of the efforts will be placed in hospitals. People will see less of the government’s effort on a daily basis, and that’s where conspiracy theories will come in.