An observation that some societies are “loose” in that they’re more tolerant of rule breaking - or as we can also put it, deviation from the norm - than “tight” societies. This matters in a pandemic when strict rules about what may be done unto others through personal behaviours do actually make a difference.
It turns out Covid’s deadliness depends on something simpler and more profound: cultural differences in our willingness to follow rules.
All cultures have social norms, or unwritten rules for social behaviour. We adhere to standards of dress, discipline our kids, and don’t elbow our way through crowded subways not because these are legislative codes but because they help our society function. Psychologists have shown that some cultures abide by social norms quite strictly; they’re tight. Others are loose – with a more relaxed attitude toward rule-breakers.
As is observed this is not one sided:
The virus has been especially effective at turning some societies’ propensity for rule breaking against them. Americans exemplify this spirit. It’s why the United States boasts a great deal of creativity and innovation. It’s also a major liability during times of threat. Such maverick behaviour is supposed to subside in emergencies. Yet countless US citizens continue holding parties, shopping maskless and generally scoffing at the virus. When the fear reflex is triggered, it’s often in a perverse way: fearing lockdowns and mask mandates more than the virus itself.
Given that the majority of the time we are not in an extraordinary crisis - that “extra-” there being the proof that we’re not in ordinary times - we can go on to point out that the extra creativity and innovation derived from the greater cultural freedoms are worth it.
At least, worth it from the point of view of us inhabitants of a looser culture which values that liberty toward rule breaking which fosters that innovation and creativity.
But by far the most interesting part of this we think is the insistence that this is a cultural phenomenon. Another way of putting this is that it is a bottom up attitude, not one imposed from the top down. Which does rather lead to the supposition that attempting to organise a loose society by the strict measures doesn’t work. On the grounds that even if they exist, those measures, few will stand by them.
Just to pluck an example from the current headlines ruling methods from the mentioned China, or Austria (and we’d include Germany and France there), aren’t going to work when applied to looser societies such as the UK or Italy. Which does rather pose a problem for that unified European state idea if the method and standard of governance just won’t work across different cultures.
Or perhaps Polly Toynbee’s perennial “We must be more like Sweden!” But if we’re not Swedes and don’t have Swedish culture then it’s not going to work, is it?
This is not to go all Flanders and Swann on the point but if inbuilt culture determines what form of governance works then forms of governance are not - not entirely so - replicable across cultures, are they?