Remote Learning

Yesterday the chief inspector of schools, Amanda Spielman , was reported to have said that there would be a huge attainment gap between deprived pupils and those who are more wealthy. Any A1 sociology student could have told her that. But it is a real concern. The Guardian report on her observations can be found here:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/apr/27/schools-shutdown-likely-to-widen-attainment-gap-says-ofsted-chief

Sociologists have for a long time now talked about the concepts of material and cultural deprivation. These concepts stop children from more deprived backgrounds achieving as much as their more middle class peers. A pupil might not suffer from one but they might suffer from another. For example you could be poor but fully recognise the importance of education or you may have money but not see education as important. Or you could suffer from both.

Since schools and colleges closed parents, pupils and teachers have been remote learning / teaching. Pupils and students are working from home. Teachers are sending out lessons through cyberspace, using the latest technology to ensure students and pupils are not missing out in their education. The internet and social media are seen as a god send. Keep calm pupils we are carrying on. But we see reports that only a third of pupils and students are engaging with remote learning / home schooling. This number changes in whatever report you read. Now this can be sociologically explained by using material and cultural deprivation. But what are these concepts I'm freely bandying around? Let's look at them separately.


Firstly let's look at material deprivation. Bluntly this means a lack of money. Education can be expensive. Schools and colleges run trips and various events which need money, they also can require uniforms and essential equipment. This is before we look at what is expected at home. Poorer children often live in smaller homes with more siblings, a lack of space for working. These homes may be damp or not well heated. There may not be a garden at all or a small yard. sociologists such as Nell Keddie and Smith & Noble and many more have been talking about this for decades. Working class families in modern Britain may not have numerous devices in their homes, less books, slower Wi Fi if they have that at all.  Remote learning depends on pupils and students having a suitable space at home and access to devices which will display the various teaching formats being encouraged by schools. Just before the lock down we were hearing lots of reports about schools across the country having to compensate for poverty amongst their pupils. This involved providing meals, clothing and working spaces. In some cases it meant schools buying groceries for the families of pupils. Schools had become safe havens and were very involved in the lives of their most disadvantaged pupils. Now vulnerable pupils are in some cases still being home schooled but the closure of schools has limited or stopped such compensatory measures. But pupils in less extreme poverty are still disadvantaged by remote learning. What if there is one device - a laptop or tablet between several children, or there isn't a laptop at all, schools must adapt their lessons, use what their pupils can access.  But it's difficult - one task my six year old has to do is based on continents - to do this you need an atlas, a map or a globe. We have all three. If you don't have these then look it up on the internet. Again what if you don't have the internet? This might seem basic but it's happening in homes across the country. Middle class pupils will have their own room or a study to work in, they will have at least some of the technology needed. When not working they can have a break in the garden or walk in the suburbs or a semi or complete rural surrounding. No overcrowded park or estate for them, they can exercise and then get back to it. They will have books at home to explain stuff, they might have TV subscriptions to channels which will help explain the work being emailed to their parents. They may have printers, lots of devices.  it was ever thus.

Cultural deprivation is the lack of knowledge on how to succeed. A sociologist called Bordieu talked about cultural capital and he also said that schools were middle class institutions run by the middle classes for the middle classes. Now this is outdated in some ways as schools get inspected by the people who work for Amanda Spielman, pupil experience is an important criteria in the inspection process. However Bordieu's cultural capital/ deprivation plays a role in Remote Learning / home schooling. Middle class pupils and students may be more likely to have parents who went to university or have A Levels. These parents will be slightly or a lot more able to interpret the communication from schools. If they don't get what the teachers are saying they may have what sociologists call social capital - they might have a friend who is a teacher and can explain it to them or they will simply email the teacher and ask what is important and what is non essential. Middle class parents may also have the cultural capital to further educate their children on wider issues. On social media I have seem people sharing lessons that they are giving their kids on history, Stephen Lawrence and science tasks. Middle class parents also recognise the importance of exercise and may be more likely to live near woods, moors and large parks. If not tents are being erected in gardens across the land. All very conducive to the learning experience.

What of teacher's expectations?  The college that I work in is asking teachers to be understanding about these issues. I would hope that is the case nationwide. I arrived home just before the lock down armed with microphones and laptops and pen drives. I was trained to the hilt in Zoom and digital learning tools such as Estream. All great stuff. The IT department of my college were terrific in training and problem solving. However within a week of Remote Learning I found that my students all had very different access to IT. I email now and that seems okay at the moment. My A1 students have been excellent but there are many issues to consider. Illness, fear, cultural differences as well as everything highlighted above.

https://www.boredteachers.com/inspiring/not-all-students-can-do-virtual-learning-and-we-need-to-cut-them-some-slack?fbclid=IwAR1ngAU0OfSXzLiRS-Wg207S32wotcFwlzn-LSpFRBDqI1V5lzrvMeudSxE

A2 students and Year 11s face a strange time, they have been schooled to sit exams. Those exams are not happening. Teachers have been given strict criteria on how to award the students. When Year 11 pupils go onto sixth form or further education they won't have been in a classroom for a very long time. I haven't even mentioned universities. There is a case for a new normal.

Shopping

We are what we buy. That's the cool post modernist way of thinking about identity in the 21st century. No longer do we troop down cobbled lanes with many others on our way to work. We rarely visit working men's clubs to sing around the piano or go on work outings to Blackpool or Whitby if we are middle class. The argument put forward by people such as Strinati is that we are more likely to shape our identity around what we consume. What we buy. Our class or our ethnicity or our gender no longer influences our identity. What we buy does. We must have the right labels on our clothes, we must have the right gadget. Our holidays and cars define who we are, not our job.

Since the virus shopping has become a much more restricted occupation. Online shopping for goods has been the norm for some time but it has taken on new meaning now. However in a lock down what are we buying? I buy music, LPs from independent stores still posting, books and magazines. I did think about new jeans the other day but feel that there is no need as the only times I venture out is for a food shop or exercise. The idea that post modernists pedal as symbolic consumption - we buy things to impress others - is temporarily redundant. Or is it? On social media design masks are flourishing, Instagram have been trying to sell me Beatles and Pink Floyd masks. There has been an increase in sports wear, people need to look good walking and running.  Social media is full of lock down deals on whatever you have been buying online. Ads pop up regularly on Instagram and Facebook. the consumer society has merely shifted into cyberspace.

In 1993 when I was studying post modernism as a module on my degree the tutor told us that one day we would do all of our Christmas shopping online. We practically burned him at the stake, surely this was witchcraft. However over the years online shopping has become the norm. So much so that town centres look very different now. Regeneration projects take place trying to bring people into towns, if they aren't shopping then they need to eat or attend cultural events. The worry for sociologists is that town and city centres are important for social interaction. If people stay closed away they may feel anomie and this may lead to a breakdown of society. Societies work best when people are interacting. By interacting we learn social norms which keep us healthy and tolerant. So deserted streets can lead to higher crime rates, isolation and social anomie.

This means that a lock down could maybe lead to the same issues. As I've mentioned before, virtual Zoom communities (I do a pop pub quiz) exist, people have people around for drinks and meals. I notice people even get dressed up to sit in front of a screen (maybe I should get the new jeans). This social instinct is still within us. We hear about community social distant bingo. A pub I frequent still has gigs, the aforementioned quiz and has started selling vouchers, buy now drink later. Independent shops are using the internet to create communities, share your memories, keeping the shop in your conscience. The college I work in has donated its unused carpark for testing of NHS workers. Schools and colleges have donated science equipment to the NHS. Adaptation and community mindedness is a way of trying to keep our communities going.

The essential shop is the food shop. Symbolic creativity seeps into food shopping too - where do you shop for your food can define your identity as much as what type of car you drive. If you follow the vague lock down rules you might be restricted to the nearest supermarket. Many people still get online shopping although you have to hang in there to get a delivery date.

The physical supermarket experience is much different now. Social distancing means queues and it's harder to impulse buy. If you live relatively near to a large spacious supermarket you can still look for fashions and luxury items. If not then you are limited to food. Security is more prominent and choice is better than at the start but still restricted in areas of soap or home baking. Food shop workers have become front line workers, they have always been essential but now that is obvious to their customers. The question is how often do we use them? I know people who shop daily in corner shops. Our local shop encourages only shopping for essentials as infrequently as possible. But what does that mean? Can I buy my daily newspaper? I decided I couldn't as that would be infrequent, but others do.

When you do a massive 7-10 day shop it's hard to symbolically consume, you have a mound of produce to pack yourself (they can't help and they ask us to go alone to avoid congestion) and no one is looking. It would be interesting to see if people buy what they need and want rather than what they think looks good and says about their identity. In other words are organic foods suffering and biscuits increasing. We do know that alcohol sales are up.

Love and Anger

As the lock down continues and social distancing becomes the new norm there is a definite national mood swing taking place. This mood swings from anger to love and genial behaviour. This is all natural. We have our totems and the sacred and we look to them to bind us together. But we also feel let down, frustrated, angry.
 
The media is the main focus for all of our moods. There is anger at the government's handling of the crisis from some quarters and deep love for our Prime Minister from others. As I stated  in the Media blog 'new media' has some theories of its own and this was joined by a vague non condemning comment on This Morning by the mainstream media presenter Eamonn Holmes. 5G transmitters again came under attack.

First let's look at the anger on display in our society. This is largely, but not totally, to do with ideology. Everyone has an ideology. This is a set of beliefs which we all hold dear to our social make up. In other words we all have a meta narrative which helps us explain the world. This primarily can be religion, but this is coupled by political beliefs. At the start of This I decided to be non partisan. I'm what is called 'soft left' I have voted Labour since I was able to. I am a remainer in terms of the EU. However I decided that no matter what my views are on Boris Johnson and his government I'd will them to succeed. I'd do as they say. from the start people were openly critical of the government's handling of the affair, did they call a lock down too late? Why was Ireland closing down whilst we were still being told to wash our hands? I've mentioned before that for such a neo liberal government as this telling people what to do is really difficult as your ideology is about libertarianism, they'd just won an election on the pretext of freedom and individualism. However they did act eventually and told us to stay at home. The first big announcements were fiscal, trying to shore up the economy. Again a chief neo liberal concern. State intervention was suddenly trendy again after decades of decrying it. Facebook and Twitter were alight by left wingers claiming victory. An outgoing Jeremy Corbyn suggested on the BBC that he had been right all along.

However as time has gone on we see huge discrepancies in who is dying, social class and ethnicity seem to be now underlying health issues. The Left become incensed. another however which unites people in anger is the NHS, how badly resourced they are. Nurses pinning masks with paperclips, not enough aprons, ventilators. We hear stories that the government didn't reply to companies offering to provide ventilators, refusing to sit on EU meetings about how to fight This. This could be excused as still ideological but then ministers begin to say things in the daily briefing which upsets the non ideological. The Health Minister doesn't know how many NHS workers have died and in another briefing he seems to castigate NHS workers for using PPE too much. Anger becomes resentment.

Sociologically we find this interesting. Meta narratives are important, we all need things to get us through the night. Beliefs are important. But when our elected officials begin to be the focus of anger in times of crisis things can become dangerous. Weber believed we needed charismatic leaders to rally around. The charisma of a leader can move us away from traditional behaviour. In short we will follow a charismatic leader through difficult and new times. In Boris Johnson we had a charismatic leader whether you agree with him or not. He seemed the ideal man to get us through such a situation. Johnson was waiting for his Churchill moment. But then he fell ill. He got the virus and then left us with his ministers. Non of whom would inspire. Weber believed that in a modern society the charismatic leader could be replaced by rational legal authority - this is found in laws which back up rational behavior. in other words bureaucracy. But we are currently in a bureaucratic flux. We have left the EU without much of a plan on what we do next. The virus stopped the implementation of what we were going to do next.  Foucault believed that power lies in the hands of specialists. So The WHO and the NHS and health advisers are the power now. But they feel powerless as they are under resourced. So anger comes from the unknown. We don't have a proper framework to deal with this. The Labour leader wants parliament to be recalled, he is backed up by all opposition parties and senior conservatives. Weber would agree with this. Britain can defeat the virus by rational and legal authority. In other words strangle it with laws and procedures. People feel anomie, the Prime Minister is ill, his ministers are making gaffs. People need something they recognise. Another reason the Queen was used the other week.

The Marxist Mills would place the anger directed at the government as anger directed at our elite. The elite are those in our society who believe they hold all of the power and influence. The elite not only consists of the government but the military, the church and so on. In a more modern capitalist society this also includes the financial sector. From a Marxist perspective the elite have been dismantling our welfare state in order to protect banks since 2010 (perhaps earlier). This then has placed the NHS is a poor position. But not just them, also care workers. I heard a story from a relation about clients and masks being counted up. more clients than masks.

Anger exists among the exercising. Runners and walkers get on each other's nerves. This is because many people are regularly exercising outdoors for the first time so there are more people outside on our pavements, parks and countryside. I have a regular walk which covers two to four miles which I have been doing every day since our second daughter was born nearly four years ago . This covers roads, out of the way paths and fields. Normally you'd meet a few people, now it is heavily populated by all of the aforementioned. Social distancing means this has become impossible. those of us who have learned the rules of exercise are now sharing with novices.  The rules of what our daily exercise is seems confused. Cyclists meet with friends and tour the countryside, I see this daily. Runners do epic journeys across moors. Is this what the government permits? A friend had a notice put on his car because he drove his sons to a largely empty rural space not far from his home. they could have walked it but that would have meant coming into contact with numerous people. The reservoir near my home is policed, cars are turned away sometimes, walkers permitted. The anger and confusion can be linked back to Weber's theory of power. People need rational and legal authority - they need set rules. Without these people make their own interpretations of the rules as they are quite vacuous. The government leaflet sent to homes is vague, after telling us to stay at home it then gives exceptions - exercise and shopping but there are more exceptions to that as well. The police issued a statement today about 'rules' which are chaotic and contradictory - my friend wouldn't get a sticker now as long as he can prove his walk with his boys lasted longer than the drive to the open area of exercise.

 Weber would recognise this as as lack of charisma AND authority. Mills would say it was the arrogance of the elite expecting the entire populace to live the way that they do. This creates a huge divide. death is doing this too. Black and ethnic minorities are three times more likely to get the virus and more likely to die. This is because of their living spaces and culture. The elite don't live like this so they have made no allowances. The elite live in large spaces. Many BAME families are multi generational. The lock down happened after this had already started to spread, families living together with many generations in the one household spread it around. Why wasn't this thought of? Mill would say because the elite hadn't thought of it. Our politicians seem out of touch and to have lost control. This could be because this virus is striking communities they don't understand. Unless you have a certain cultural capital you don't know how to survive. Middle classes either obey the rules or know how far to push them. They sit in their gardens or go for walks/runs in the wide semi rural areas they live in. Or if they are city dwellers they have fairly spacious accommodation, self isolating is easy in such an environment. Sociologists have long stated that working class under achievement in GCSEs is often down to the living environment of the pupil. Small housing with lots of people living in it. hardly conducive to learning. Also not ideal for self isolation.

In supermarkets we see people heavily masked up, avoiding those who aren't. This is fear rather than anger. But the fear comes from the same place as the anger. The masks are something I'd like to address in another piece.

Of course there is love out there in This as well. people cheered again tonight for the NHS. We let the children stay up. people clapped, banged saucepans and fireworks and horns were let off. There is huge love for the NHS. Today the BBC music radio stations combined to get the British public to sing for delivery workers. Social media is full of fund raising and games and challenges. This could also be put at the place of a lack of leadership and authority. Pulling together despite the lack of these things. Rallying around totems which help us make sense of This.

We now enter at least another three weeks. Perhaps more. Sociologists are watching us and making sense of This.

Observation - at Morrison's last week a security guard asked a man to respect the social distance in the queue to get into the supermarket. He said he didn't have the virus. The security guard said that he didn't know that for sure. He replied "they are only getting it in London."

The Media

In sociology the many different perspectives all have different views on our media and the ownership of it, the effects it has on us, how it represents us and its various forms. Post modernists believe that we live in a media saturated society, everywhere we turn there is information and images. We can all be sat with our family in a room and all be using different types of media. No longer do we have the cosy image of a family sat together around a wireless or a TV. Various tablets, phones and other screens provide us with instant access to media. Social media takes up hours of our time now. The printed media is in decline but the titles of newspapers flourish online either free or hidden behind a paywall. There used to be a live saturday evening TV program called Noel's House Party where there would be a device hidden in the TV of a largely unsuspecting family (at least one member would be in on it to give access), at some point during the show they would jump to the family watching them watch Noel's House Party. The fun would be in seeing the family react, usually a dad laid on a sofa shouts out in alarm and recognition. people might flee a room, the audience would howl.  this couldn't really work now as the family may be in the same room but they will be looking at different screens. And do people watch live TV as much?

Post Modernist Baudrillard saw this media saturation as dangerous as it provided clean, often untrue, messages as people clung onto what made sense to them. For example during the first Gulf war in 1990, people believed that this was a clean war as they accepted certain images but rejected others. Baudrillard called this hyperreality. This has grown since 1990.

Pluralist sociologists believe that the media gives audiences what they want, it provides information and entertainment. If an audience wanes the media looks to give another message which they may like. This usually means that the media looks for stories which will catch the interest of as large an audience as they can. So since the virus and the partial lock down the media has reported what they feel people want to hear. No one really wants to hear about illness and death on large scale so the media creates problems and heroes. These may well be justified in the case of not enough testing (problem) and NHS workers. The media encouraged us to clap and cheer on Thursday nights at 8pm. This gives an image of the brave Tommy fighting an enemy. In this case the Tommy is not in military garb but in NHS ware - using safety pins to attach ill fitting masks. On Twitter a friend who is a nurse posted a picture of her colleagues waiting outside their chemo wards, socially distanced apart clutching water bottles and lunchboxes. I cried like a child. Their smiles hiding a bravery I'm not sure I have. When the Prime Minister was hospitalised and then admitted to intensive care, the Sun newspaper asked (or told) its readers to clap and pray for his recovery. This only happened in some areas and was not as popular as the NHS tributes on Thursday nights, silence on our road compared to cheers and horns and fireworks this evening (Thursday). This is perhaps because the newspaper's cynicism about politicians and its shifting political support means the readers are jaded towards a politician and their sympathies lie with the NHS. In some cases because that's what the media has highlighted that they should do.

Another function of the media according to pluralists is to inform us. The traditional media is carrying this out in various ways, from sensationalism in the popular newspapers to factual analysis from the BBC. We are told what is happening, given quantitative data and analysis from experts and commentators. My favourite information point is BBC Radio 4's PM program hosted by Evan Dando. We get the government's briefing then a Q&A followed by Evan speaking to experts and giving the audience the key points. This is done calmly and factually. The program ends with a Covid Diary, a listener sharing their experiences and then a fitting piece of music nominated by a listener. I cried as I listened to this this week, a mother describing how she is bonding with her three sons followed by the theme tune to BBC sitcom The Detectorists. It's been a tearful week for me. The media also is supposed to keep governments in check. To question their actions and criticise. The traditional  media has been doing this as well, especially on the subject of mass testing. Wondering why the government has been so slow in reacting, unlike Germany. 

As I've mentioned elsewhere access to the media is widespread, I mention newspapers and Radio 4. For some people this is analogue, old fashioned. Others find their media on Apps and social media and YouTube. this means that regulation is less tight. People post without consulting lawyers and sometimes not looking for factual evidence. David Icke appeared on a regional BBC news program and made statements about 5G transmitters and called a mandatory vaccine 'fascist'. There are other conspiracy theories out there. Before this interview some 5G transmitters were set alight. Ofcom who regulate the media are investigating Icke's interview and YouTube are removing videos. But it is difficult to regulate something as widespread as new media. It has many nooks and cranies to hide in. It is also becoming the mainstream as this is how people receive their information.

Marxists believe the media maintains and reproduces capitalism and is uncritical of it. Althusser called it an ideological state apparatus. If we look at the media and the virus from a Marxist perspective we can find evidence of this. The economy is mentioned as often as lives. The virus is often cited as a great leveler, something that we all can get. The Prime Minister is ill from it as was the Prince of Wales. However if we look at reports we see that the poorer you are the more you suffer from the actions of the government and the virus. People without gardens, living in urban areas haven't the space which is needed in a partial lockdown, they are more likely to be in poor mental and physical health. It also crosses ethnic boundaries. In New York black Americans are disproportionately dying. Poverty is killing people. Marxists would point this out. Yet everything I've just said I know from mainstream media, in particular the BBC. BBC's Newsnight Presenter Emily Maitlis went viral last night as her introduction to the program said all this.

However, there is one statistic that was pointed out to me by an old school friend on Facebook, malaria kills 1-3 million people (mostly children) every year. These children are not from European countries. The Marxists would nod towards this. Is this widely reported? If it is, why don't we care?

Classic sociological studies of the media look to folk devils and moral panics. When I was still teaching students face to face in a classroom they asked me if This was a moral panic, something the media becomes obsessed with, then influencing government, causing a widespread panic and changes in the law. The numbers suggest that this isn't a moral panic. But with moral panics came folk devils, people to blame. Do we have these? The media has pounced on people flouting the government restrictions on social gatherings, printing pictures of crowded parks. Some websites blame capitalism, 5G, the Chinese. But at the moment there isn't a single group to blame. This is healthy as blame will lead to true panic.

Hyperreality is present in this. Baudrillard stated that we create simulcra (signs, simple explanations) to understand the confusion of so much media - what do we believe? We all find our own truth through media. That might be blaming something sinister, clapping for the NHS, volunteering to help in some capacity. Writing blogs. All these things are people finding a way to understand This. This has happened in a media saturated society so it is difficult to regulate behaviour. The only way to do so would be a media clampdown such as we see in China. This would be seen as dangerous by functionalists and pluralists. This is not giving the audience what they want. This is not informing them. Who would keep them in check? The reliance here is on a common good. To get out of This. To return to normality. But what if  people have different ideas of what normality is?

The Queen

Emile Durkheim wrote extensively about totemism in his book The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. The concept of the totem was based upon his interest in Australian aborigine's and their use of a central object, in some cases a rock which was decorated with drawings, paint and scratches. These totems were pivotal to these clans. They depicted their shared history, their beliefs. Durkheim distinguished between the sacred and the profane. Societies needed something sacred to group together behind, something special, untouchable. The aborigines had their totem as Native Americans had. In western societies we had churches, flags and monarchs. Durkheim was particularly interested in religion, something he believed was a social glue. However he realised that with the advent of scientific research (he himself wanted sociology to be seen as a science) people were becoming more rational, religion was losing its social significance.

A hundred years on and more modern sociologists are claiming that we live in a secular society where religion and its institutions are losing their social significance. So what is our totem now? what does our society hold as sacred? Post modernists would say consumerism and Marxists may have some sympathy with that. But as the partial lock down enters its third week people are meeting in parks, ignoring the government. The Prime Minister is in intensive care, his foreign secretary announcing during a daily briefing that he hadn't spoken to him since Saturday (this was on Monday).  So who or what can be brought forward as a sacred totem. On Sunday evening the Queen addressed her subjects via TV. She spoke for less than five minutes but stressed solidarity and community, recalled British wartime experiences. The Queen addresses the public rarely - at Christmas yes but only several times outside her regular festive bulletin. The hope of the establishment is that this sacred totem in the shape of our monarch would convince the British people to stay at home. But it is more than that. The Queen would reassure those at home, make them feel that they are not alone. This is a shared experience which is faced by us all. She didn't mention her elderly son Prince Charles but the public would be aware that he had symptoms of the virus himself, so This touches all lives. The Queen's sacredness lies in other areas too. I am 48, I've lived through ten Prime Ministers but only one Queen. She is a constant in the lives of all of the people living in the UK. She has always been there. Even non monarchists such as myself have an interest in her. Netflix's big success The Crown is watched not only by die hard monarchists. She embodies our shared experiences, our national story. She is a totem. I'll refrain from saying 'our rock' but others may see her as this.  The Queen is on our money, our stamps and in our subconsciousness.

So the hope is that her message will inspire and comfort the British people in this in a way that the different religions can't, their reach is only for the converted. the problem is that there are other totems. The post modernists talk about agency, choice, the freedom to construct your own identity through consumption, you are what you buy. The police have reported quite simply that some people don't want to stay in, they refuse to social distance themselves from others. The referendum in 2016  which was placed before the public gave the idea that we can govern ourselves and the current government played on that. Sadly now that it needs people to listen it is finding it difficult to get them to do so.

The real sociological interest now is what is the most powerful totem. That of collective solidarity embodied by the state and the Queen; or that of the libertarian, the individual, the consumer? let's see.

Capitalism

Marxist sociologists are fairly preoccupied with the role of capitalism in every aspect of life. They expand almost out of recognition from the original writings of Karl Marx who famously once said "One thing I'm not is a Marxist". Capitalism is the route of all evil, it exploits the working classes and deludes them into thinking that they have a fair life. Marxists believe that it is the structures of society that does this - the family, education, religion, the media, the government (they call this lot the superstructure). The pursuit of profit leads to enforced poverty, poor wages and working conditions. The dog eat dog nature of capitalism leads to crime. Gordon, a Marxist criminologist termed this as 'criminogenic'. Companies flout health and safety laws, avoid taxes etc. Gordon also believed that this extended to more low level but still very serious crime such as abuse, violence and burglary. The lack of power in a capitalist society needing to be gained somewhere else. In a consumer society, through the Marxist view, we are compelled to buy our way to happiness, for the wealthy it is a status thing, for the poor it is a form of  escape (Marxists refer to this as false consciousness).

More modern Marxists capitalism survives because it is the thing that we all see as normal. From day one we are schooled into competition and money making. Parents tell us we need good jobs, schools provide us with skills needed according to social class and the media bombards us with adverts and programs such as The Apprentice and Dragon's Den . capitalism is the norm or as Gramsci put it, hegemony.

So how is capitalism doing in all of This? The economy is something that was an immediate concern of the government, stimulus packages have been announced and the state is pledging to help support small businesses and the self employed. Once ignored (or pay frozen) workers are now key workers, applauded as heroes  by politicians, the media and the public. Thatcherites are backtracking ideologically adopting leftist economic policies in order that we have an economy when This is over. It could be argued that the hegemony is changing. The public are accepting that perhaps bankers etc aren't as important as NHS workers and shelf stackers. During the second world war this happened and the NHS sprang out of that shift in hegemony.

Gordon would have looked at the food hoarders as an example of capitalism causing crime. If not actually a crime depriving others of things such as soap and toilet paper certainly could be seen as deviant. Globalisation is capitalism on a worldwide scale and the inter connectedness of our world has helped spread the disease.  Cruise ships are large capitalist vessels, the holiday makers trapped. We ordered a lotus yoga mat from China, I eye it suspiciously now. Racism has broken out in Hull where Chinese people are being blamed for This. Domestic abuse cases are on the rise as people stay at home. The profiling of a domestic abuser doesn't wholly fit with Gordon's image of the powerless but qualitative research suggests that power is a large part of the cause. Scammers are taking advantage, visiting the vulnerable, taking their money for essential goods which won't be bought. Closed pubs are being broken into.

For capitalism to exist we need to buy things. We can do this online making the postal worker a frontline worker. Or we can queue up at the supermarket. I did this this morning. I did a large shop for us and for vulnerable neighbours. The shop was well stocked apart from pasta, toilet roll and tinned goods. I wondered if people were getting their consumer needs from the media. These are the things that we are told people are buying so we stockpile them. Our Costcutter has lots of toilet roll but people have been accusing them of hiking their prices up. They haven't toilet roll has always been more expensive in there compared to Morrison's. It's just that the search for toilet roll has meant people are buying it elsewhere. It could be argued that the dog eat dog  meritocracy of capitalism makes people look out for themselves. This explains the wasted food found in bins last week. People are buying more stuff than they actually need. The government is telling them not to do this. But they didn't say not to do this so that others may have a chance to get toilet paper themselves, they said not to do this as it may limit supplies, they talked in terms of commodity. Marx would recognise this. His criticism of capitalism was that it talked about surplus and commodities and not people.

Easter is a capitalist money spinner like Christmas. I looked at the long displays of chocolate eggs looking unloved. I thought that the shops will be taking a hit this year but then I looked at the large trolleys full of food. It reminded me of Christmas.

The couple who I was shopping for had wanted toilet roll. there was none. on the way home I debated whether I should offer some of ours. The neo liberal capitalist in me thought - no! I need it for my family! when I delivered their food I asked them if they needed any toilet paper. We are all in this together.

Social Distancing

Social action theorists spend a lot of their energy in explaining society through interactions. They look at how people's behaviour is influenced by others, this could be a teacher, a friend, a police officer. They also look at how we interpret signs. these signs could be facial, body language or actual signs. They are bottom up theorists who believe that people influence social change. Weber believed capitalism was caused by how Lutherans interpreted the Word of God. Their belief in a puritanical lifestyle, not spending money on luxuries, led to vast wealth which was invested in work. I see some truth in this as the now rare trip to the shops shows me how much we actually spend on wine, biscuits and various other items.

So how then is the idea of social distancing going to affect us? How do we live within this framework. How do we interpret the fact that people are giving us a wide berth? this week there was talk of 'green shoots' , a plateau in confirmed cases. This was followed by a hike in deaths which was always going to be the case. Away from the arguments over testing and the timing of these we will look at the basic message from the government and the NHS - social distancing saves lives. The basic quantitative data makes sense, if you stay at home you are unlikely to be infected or infect someone else. If you continue to come into contact with lots of people you may be infected, then if you infect two others and they then go onto infect two others and so on. It makes sense. Stay at home. Some people do not have that choice as we have seen.

But what is the interpretation of this simple message? On my daily walks at 6am I rarely see anyone. Before This I saw regular dog walkers and runners and one very angry man marching as if to war. I don't see them now. So the message (even to the angry man) has been interpreted as 'stay in'. Yesterday we needed some essentials. I put on a rucksack and went to our Costcutter. On the way I saw several people all out exercising (mostly walking but a few runners and lone cyclists. I  crossed the road several times to give people space and at one point two women who were talking to a man across the road moved for me. But I did see some young lads on bikes and a car of young men smoking. Again the interpretations are different. I've heard of some people being shouted at in woodland walks to 'stay clear' but I've not experienced this. I did go onto the road at one point as a young dad and his child in a large pram approached, he thanked me. I smiled back. I decided this would be my approach, thank people thus showing that social distance is not through fear on anxiety but as a courtesy, an act of solidarity. Social distancing was soon put to a test in the shop. Our local Costcutter has been heroic these last two weeks, stocking its shelves, delivering to the vulnerable. Essential service as many local shops have been across the nation. They have chalked out distances and allow only three people at a time. I failed totally here. I panicked, forgot things on my list, backtracked and at one point lost my basket. The young women stacking shelves suffered me kindly, found flour and icing sugar for me and sent me on my way.

Social distancing happens in case someone coughs on you. Droplets as a microbiologist says in today's Guardian newspaper. that's how we can pass This on. The microbiologist is interesting, she washes her apples in soap. She deals with microbes and virus in her working life, she studies it. Her interpretation is much stricter than most.

It is inevitable that people will interpret social distancing based on their own experiences. Some will respect it, understand it. Some will fear it and some will ignore it. helicopters flew over my house last night as I washed up. Our house looks over Halifax, the helicopters were flying around the valley. They reminded me of Northern Ireland where I grew up. It occurred to me that  my obedience to social distancing may come from my upbringing. As a boy and teenager I was used to strict movement both official and sectarian. Soldiers walked the streets, you were searched in Woolworths. Road blocks prevented you leaving town without documentation. My interpretation of social distancing is based on that. Others may be sceptical of government and science, seeking their knowledge and experience from the internet or books. Or they may see their sense of liberty being over curbed. i remember the anger over healthy eating in schools in the 2000s. Mothers passing pizza and chips through school railings.  Others will interpret it through their own anxiety , shouting at people who are too close. These people will be afraid. Social distancing will be a literal thing.

Some people will be lonely. Human beings are social animals, we like to socialise. Social media is a way on doing this but does it replace the actual human contact. A student contacted me and said they were lonely, they missed the actual classroom, other people helped them to learn. Older people may be on their own without contact. Women in their 70s and 80s are most likely to live alone. Social distancing may be a very negative thing for them to experience. This is perhaps why the rainbows in windows and clapping NHS workers is an important sense of community. It may not be enough but it is something. The radio, the television is important. Churches giving out CDs of services a way of helping. Experience tells some of us that this is yet another 'thing' something that we will remember like 9/11. We will interpret social distancing in that way. Others will see it as a much more fearful thing. We should all interpret it as a necessary evil so that we can return to social action soon.