Reflections Concerning the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

At this early stage of the coronavirus pandemic, we have a sense of what is involved from a medical and social/political perspective, but less of an idea about its psychological and psychohistorical aspects. Because of an increase in empathy for the elderly, nursing care insurance was implemented years ago. This is an example of an increase in empathy, which may be connected to Germany’s comparatively solid economic and social security. It also resulted in a state of good health of the population as a whole that in turn brought about an increase in life expectancy of about 20 years during the course of the last century.

The fact that the virus threat is now met with great attention and engagement everywhere in the world is a novel occurrence—a new phenomenon. There is also a large concern regarding the coronavirus’s environmental and climatic impact. But even before the spread of this virus, the reality of our significant economic prosperity appears to have induced angst, a situation that has occasionally resulted in war in the past There have been and are signs indicating this potential development. A threatening and conflicting situation without an obvious solution can lead to the search for external offenders. The “solution” then lies in fighting off the enemy or scapegoat, that is, a creative transformation is called for. To quote Einstein: “You cannot solve a problem with the same mindset that created the problem.”

Page 105

Instead of war, now there is a shift toward worldwide unifying solidarity in the fight against the new coronavirus as a common enemy or scapegoat. On this note, French President Emmanuel Macron postulated that, “We are at war” (English translation), and the prime ministers of Romania and other countries have found similar expressions. This, too, would be a form of psychohistorical progress: instead of entering a real war, virtual war is being fought in solidarity with other nations.

This could be a step in the direction of solidarity on an international and global scale. Economic globalization may have been a first step, but it was concerned with egotistic economic advantages. The amazing international solidarity in the “fight” against the coronavirus, however, is a more positive form of globalization.

One contrary impulse is the archaic feelings around sacrifice. As mentioned above, wars are often preceded by periods of prosperity. These prosperous periods lead to guilty feelings that are managed either through sacrifices or acted out on a scapegoat or a common enemy. The novelty in the case of the coronavirus is that we don’t sacrifice our children—as we did in previous wars—but substitute our leisure and economic advantages. These, too, are sacrifices, but on a social and political level.

An interpretation is also that, due to society’s increased level of empathy, we are now capable of facing the tragedy of flu epidemics with their significant disease and mortality rates, which, until now, had been overlooked or denied. Against the backdrop of shared alarm about the consequences of the virus, this could lead to an increase in social solidarity and willingness to sacrifice personal advantages.

Page 106