What Sociology Says About Social Distancing

Sociology, therefore, is about understanding the nature of the social, that is, the interaction, co-operation and association among human beings, and how social factors play a role in the development of communities, societies and civilisations. For example, it is through sociology that we could evaluate the claim about Idris being the product of an adulterous relationship.

Rajaratnam and Ronald Reagan on Ibn Khaldun

It is interesting that the late Mr S. Rajaratnam (1915-2006), foreign minister of Singapore (1965-1980) and deputy prime minister (1980-1985), used Ibn Khaldun’s ideas to reflect on the future of Singapore in the 21^st century.

In a speech that he gave at a seminar organised by the Singapore Association for the Advancement of Science on 20 December 1979, he dealt with the question of how a society could acquire and harness virtu, that is, virtuous qualities such as pride, bravery, skill, forcefulness, and ruthlessness, that enabled one to master a situation³. Drawing on Machiavelli’s notion of virtu, Rajaratnam said that it was needed by a society in order to deal with the economic, social, cultural, political and technological forces that were plunging society into the future. The failure to act in the face of these forces would result in the decline of that society. Rajaratnam was formulating his views during the days of the Iranian revolution of 1979, which also made him think of the question of the rise and decline of Islamic civilisation. This led him, on the advice of Professor Syed Hussein Alatas, the then head of the Department of Malay Studies at the University of Singapore, to read Ibn Khaldun’s Al-Muqaddima, a three volume introduction to his historical work on the history of the Arabs and Berbers, and other nations.

Rajaratnam noted that Ibn Khaldun’s key concept, ‘asabiyya, the feeling of group solidarity, primarily among tribes, villages and pioneer settlements, was the stuff that made nomadic society more resilient, tougher, braver and self-reliant in comparison with people who lived in cities. It was the binding ties of ‘asabiyya that enabled these nomads to conquer cities and form new dynasties. Rajaratnam’s insight led him to suggest that Ibn Khaldun’s ‘asabiyya was Machiavelli’s virtu.

About two years after Rajaratnam’s speech, in a well-known quote that was cited by, among others, former US President Ronald Reagan, Ibn Khaldun says, “It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments. The reason for this is that when the dynasty follows the ways (sunan) of the religion, it imposes only such taxes as are stipulated by the religious law, such as charity taxes, the land tax, and the poll tax.” ⁴

President Reagan, in his news conference in October 1981, cited Ibn Khaldun as an early exponent of supply-side economic theory, the doctrine on which his administration based many of its policies⁵. According to supply-side economics, a cut in tax rates would stimulate the economy, resulting in the generation of greater tax revenues.

Reagan believed that the principles of supply-side economics could be traced back as far as Ibn Khaldun. Citing Ibn Khaldun, Reagan said, “We’re trying to get down to the small assessments and the great revenues.” ⁶

Ibn Khaldun discussed how the pursuit of luxury within the ruling class would result in the higher rates of taxation. Over some generations they become immersed in a life of luxury. To maintain such a lifestyle there is an increase in assessments in order to augment the tax revenue. These finally reach levels that function to decrease productive activities and tax revenues. The cycle of increased tax rates and declining revenues not only causes a downturn in the economy of the dynasty, but eventually its demise. The demand for luxuries carries within it the germs of decay and collapse⁷. This problem concerned Rajaratnam. He believed that as Singapore entered the 21st century and had to “steer safely through fortuna - the capricious play of world forces”, what was needed was Machiavelli’s virtu or Ibn Khaldun’s ‘asabiyya⁸.

Durkheim and The Study of Suicide

Centuries after Ibn Khaldun, the French scholar, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), wanted to show how sociology provided a perspective that differed from those of other disciplines. He said that sociology had its own subject matter, that is, social facts. Social facts should be studied as things, that is, as realities external to the individual⁹. To illustrate this, Durkheim took the example of the study of suicide.

For Durkheim the differences in suicide rates are not due to biological or psychological factors, but the differences in social facts. The particular social facts he used to explain different rates of suicide among different peoples are the degree of integration and the degree of regulation in a society or group. Due to the differences in the degree of integration and regulation, there are four types of suicide that occur in society, that is, egoistic suicide, altruistic suicide, anomic suicide and fatalistic suicide.

Let us consider the example of one of these types of suicide. Altruistic suicide occurs when social integration is too strong. A famous example is the mass suicide of the followers of the Reverend Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana in 1978. The followers of the reverend willingly drank poison and gave it to their children as well, all for the sake of the cult leader, Jones. They were persuaded or forced into committing suicide by virtue of being part of the tightly integrated society of followers. They committed suicide because it was their duty to do so¹⁰.

As we have seen, sociology is about the social, that is, the interaction, co-operation and association among human beings, and how social factors play a role in their development. What does this tell us about social distancing?

Is it Really Social Distancing?

We started to hear the term, social distancing, during the current coronavirus pandemic. According to the World Health Organization, to practice distancing means to “[m]aintain at least 1 metre (3 feet) distance between yourself and others”¹¹. The reason for this is that when someone coughs, sneezes, or speaks, small droplets from their nose or mouth which may contain the virus may spread to you. Many have referred to this practice as social distancing.

Social distancing refers to the practice of maintaining physical space between people outside of the home, not gathering in crowds, and avoiding mass gatherings. What is meant by social distancing is actually physical distancing. This gives the wrong impression that the social and physical are somehow referring to the same thing.

Sociology is the study of the social. It looks at social factors to understand human societies and the myriad of problems they face, and changes they go through. Changes and problems in society can also be studied with different approaches by, say, psychologists and economists. But, for sociologists there is the primacy of the social. What does that tell us about social distancing?

Social distance is a very important concept in sociology. As a term in public health, it is relatively new and seems to have been in use since the 21^st century¹². It certainly does not mean the same thing as physical or spatial distance. Of course, this does not mean that both social and physical distance may not coincide.

Two people may be both physically and socially distant from each other. The physical distance may in some circumstances cause the social distance. In other cases, however, social distance may be unaffected by physical distance, and even decrease as a result of physical distance.

Social distance refers to the lack of social contact, regardless of physical distance or proximity. In other words, social distance may mean that, for example, two people are mentally distant from each other, even though they may be physically proximate¹³. Social contact itself may be primary, characterised by frequent and more intimate associations, which may or may not involve face-to-face, unmediated visual and auditory engagements with people in our primary group such as family, colleagues and friends. Or, social contact may be secondary, involving less frequent and less intimate associations with people who are not in our group¹⁴. In any case, social contact is about social proximity and social relations between individuals, regardless of the degree of physical proximity.

Two people may be physically distant but socially proximate or intimate, that is, having social contact. When a couple, separated by national borders due to the travel restrictions imposed to halt the spread of the coronavirus, meet each other via social media they are not practising social distancing. They have intimate social contact, despite the physical distance.

On the other hand, it is possible to be physically close without having social contact. In this case, physical proximity coexists with social distance. Take, for example, two people crossing the road at a zebra crossing. They are strangers to each other even though they may be physically close. Their actions or behaviour are not oriented towards each other and there is no social contact between them. Another example would be purchasing an item in the grocery store. There is physical proximity but the social contact is limited to a short period of monetary transaction.

In this pandemic period, we need to encourage and enforce physical, not social distancing. It is the physical distancing that is needed to limit the spread of the coronavirus. It is precisely because of the physical distancing and the lack of possibilities for physically proximate socialising that we need to encourage other forms of social contact, not social distancing.