Все
 
 
 


Assessment of Personal Freedom and Responsibility by Female Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Safety Culture
 
Код статьиS086954150017610-1-1
DOI10.31857/S086954150017610-1
Тип публикации Статья
Статус публикации Опубликовано
Авторы
Шипунова Татьяна Владимировна 
Аффилиация: St. Petersburg University
Адрес: Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg
Название журналаЭтнографическое обозрение
Выпуск№6
Страницы280-293
Аннотация

Drawing on the outcome of field research conducted among female students at the St. Petersburg University, the article examines the relationship between values of personal freedom and those of responsibility under the conditions of the pandemic. I argue that this relationship is tied to the formation of a safety culture and that these values are significant for young women, but their assessment and impact on the personal situation during the pandemic is experienced ambiguously. Almost a third of the young women interviewed experienced negative feelings caused by the restriction of freedom. I specifically address the main strategies that the interviewees referred to as helping them cope with the situation of restriction of freedom: compensation for the lack of inclusion in society; rapprochement with family; training and self-development; withdrawal from or denial of problems; increasing the comfort of life; etc. Most of the female students believe that their responsibility during the pandemic was somehow connected with the moral value of the rights of other people. At the same time, about a quarter of them indicated that the imposition and use of prohibitive norms by the state suppresses the moral responsibility of citizens rather than stimulates it. The existing favorable conditions for the development of a safety culture can be strengthened by establishing a balance between administrative and legal measures and respect for the moral components of freedom and responsibility.

Ключевые словаsecurity, safety culture, freedom, responsibility, pandemics, the dangers and risks, female students
Источник финансированияThis article is a translation of: Т.В. Шипунова. Оценка личной свободы и ответственности студентками в период пандемии COVID-19 и культура безопасности // Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie. 2021. No 6. P. 22–38. DOI: 10.31857/S086954150017930-3
Получено20.12.2021
Дата публикации23.12.2021
Кол-во символов46317
Цитировать     Скачать pdf
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной.

Оглавление

The role of freedom and responsibility in fostering the culture of safety: operational concept
Characteristics of participants; organisation and methods of the research
Freedom and responsibility at the pandemic period, as perceived by the girls: research results
1 Population health ranks among the first-priority issues in contemporary scientific research. A special view of this problem has developed in anthropology, ethnography and related disciplines (medical anthropology, sociology of medicine, etc.) – scientists pay attention to the relationship between the culture of an ethnos and the health of its representatives. Here we can mention the development of social history of medicine currently interested in patient’s problems, reconstruction of “popular ideas of disease, health, treatment, prevention, corporeality, etc.” (Mikhel 2009:304). One of the important subjects having different interpretation is the problem of influence of cultural and social processes on the formation of medical ideas and realisation of health-saving practices in different ethnic groups (the problem of medicalisation) (see: Foucault 2010; Avrusin et al. 2010; Svetlichnaya, Smirnova 2017). The subject of ethnicity and health is relatively new for Russia, but we can already state that it has aroused great interest of specialists, since it is connected with identification of most significant factors influencing treatment and prevention of diseases. These factors primarily include: genetic predisposition to diseases, geographical environment of ethnic groups, socio-economic conditions (availability and quality of medical aid, susceptibility to medical effect with regard for diseases, dieting, way of life, etc.) (Kolesnikova et al. 2013; Antipov, Antipova 2016).
2 The new challenges posed to the humanity by the COVID-19 pandemic and the uncertainty of the epidemiological situation prospects entailed increased interest in all issues relating to safety of the country’s population as a specific community of ethnic groups in the field of health protection. In any catastrophic situation, different communities and individuals, proceeding from cultural preferences, respond differently to hazards, choosing different survival strategies (Schepanskaya 2020). However, rational organisation of measures to protect the population requires not only consideration of different factors and well-thought-out policy in the area of treatment and prevention of diseases, but also development of safety culture that can ensure people’s involvement in handling the challenging tasks of maintaining the sufficient level of “resilience” to coronavirus spread. An important factor in building safety culture is people’s attitudes to measures that address the issues of personal freedom and responsibility. Despite the existing experience in studying the mentioned problems (see: Reshetnikov et al. 2016; Skabelkina 2017), it should be noted that this direction of research is not particularly well developed. Meanwhile, it is important for planning preventive measures and predicting the response of different social and ethnic groups to them. Of particular interest, from the authors’ point of view, is research to be undertaken among women, since they, on the one hand, are more susceptible to anxiety than men, and, on the other hand, are more oriented towards measures related to maintaining health (their own and of their loved ones’). In addition, they are traditionally involved in educational process, being translators of survival strategies for their (present or future) children in conditions of real threats, which should undoubtedly affect the (less-than-prompt) process of formation of safety culture in the society.
3

The role of freedom and responsibility in fostering the culture of safety: operational concept
4 With the introduction of coercive measures affecting habitual daily activities in the society, individuals become particularly sensitive to everything that in one way or another affects their fundamental moral values. One of such values is freedom; people’s aspiration for it appears to be an inalienable natural human need. It is no coincidence that in some countries (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Mexico) escaping from prison is considered as an “instinctive human right to strive for freedom” and does not entail, caeteris paribus, any additional penalty (see: Novikov 2019). In general, although one can find different points of view on the phenomenon of “freedom” in philosophy (from complete denial by supporters of behaviourism to justification of the urge to escape freedom in the conditions of modern civilisation crises (Fromm 2006), freedom is most commonly understood as the possibility to make a choice (Mikhel 1994; Frankl 1990). This definition inherently includes the problems of freedom of choice as well as choosing the extent of moral responsibility for one’s actions. This burden is inherent in every person throughout his/her life: “It depends on a person whether he will be able to set his own life path by adhering to clearly defined life guidelines or prefers not to accept and give up his freedom, shifting responsibility to other people” (Sabitova 2019: 110). J.-P. Sartre asserted that “man is freedom”, thus emphasising not only man’s instinctive aspirations, but also the fact that man “cannot help but choose” from what is offered to him by the society (Sartre 1990: 327). By choosing, man becomes responsible not only for his individuality; “he is responsible for all people” (Ibid: 324).

Всего подписок: 0, всего просмотров: 674

Оценка читателей: голосов 0 

1. Abels, G. 2016. Vorsicht Sicherheit! Legitimationsprobleme der Ordnung von Freiheit [Caution Security! Problems of Legitimation of the Order of Freedom]. In Vorsicht Sicherheit! Legitimationsprobleme der Ordnung von Freiheit: 26. wissenschaftlicher Kongress der Deutschen Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft [Caution Security! Problems of Legitimation of the Order of Freedom: 26th Scientific Congress of the German Association for Political Science], edited by G. Abels, 45–59. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
2. Avrusin, S.L., et al. 2010. Aktual’nye problemy etnosa v medicine [Actual Problems of Ethnos in Medicine]. Ekologiia cheloveka 12: 43–49.
3. Antipov, V.V., and S.I. Antipova. 2016. Etnicheskie aspekty i mezhdistsiplinarnye problemy mediciny. Ch. 1, Etnicheskie problemy zdorov’ia [Ethnic Aspects and Interdisciplinary Problems of Medicine. Pt. 1, Ethnic Health Problems]. Meditsinskie novosti 7 (262): 40–48.
4. Beck, U. 2000. Obshchestvo riska. Na puti k drugomu modernu [Risk Society: On the Way to Another Modernity]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia.
5. Belov, V.A., et al. 2017. Etnografiia i tanceval’nyi fol’klor narodov Srednego Povolzh’ia. Ch. I. Uchebnoe posobie [Ethnography and Dance Folklore of the Peoples of the Middle Volga Region. P. I]. Kazan’: Kazanskii gosudarstvennyi universitet kul’tury i iskusstv.
6. Daase, Ch. 2014. Unsicherheit und Politik: Eine Hinfürung [Uncertainty and Politics: An Introduction]. In: Politik und Unsicherheit: Strategien in einer sich wandelnden Sicherheitskultur [Politics and Uncertainty: Strategies in a Changing Safety Culture], edited by Ch. Daase, S. Engert and G. Kolliarakis, 19–29. Frankfur am Main: Campus Verlag GmbH.
7. Daase, Ch., S. Engert, and G. Kolliarakis. 2014. Einleitung: Politik und Unsicherheit [Introduction: Politics and Uncertainty]. In: Politik und Unsicherheit: Strategien in einer sich wandelnden Sicherheitskultur [Politics and Uncertainty: Strategies in a Changing Safety Culture], edited by Ch. Daase, S. Engert and G. Kolliarakis, 9–17. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag GmbH.
8. Debiel, T., and S. Werthes. 2013. Menschliche Sicherheit: Fallstricke eines wirkungsmächtigen Konzepts [Human Security: Pitfalls of a Powerful Concept]. In Verunsicherte Gesellschaft – überforderter Staat: Zum Wandel der Sicherheitskultur [Insecure Society – Overwhelmed State: On the Change in the Security Culture], edited by Ch. Daase, S. Engert and J. Junk, 319–336. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag GmbH.
9. Foucault, M. 2010. Rozhdenie biopolitiki. Kurs lekcii, prochitannyh v Kollezh de Frans v 1978–1979 uchebnom godu [The Birth of Biopolitics: A Course of Lectures Given at the College de France in the 1978–1979 Academic Year]. St. Petersburg: Nauka.
10. Frankl, V. 1990. Chelovek v poiskakh smysla [Man’s Search for Meaning]. Moscow: Progress.
11. Fromm, E. 2006. Begstvo ot svobody. Chelovek dlia sebia [Escape from Freedom: Man for Himself]. Moscow: ACT.
12. Giddens, A. 2011. Posledstviia sovremennosti [The Consequences of Modernity]. Moscow: Praksis.
13. Kolesnikova, L.I., et al. 2013. Problemy etnosa v meditsinskih issledovaniiah (obzor literatury) [Ethnic Issues in Medical Research (Literature Review)]. Acta Biomedica Scientifica 4 (92): 153–159.
14. Kuznetsov, V.N. 2007. Sotsiologiia bezopasnosti [Sociology of Security]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo MGU.
15. Lange, H.-J., and M. Wendekamm. 2014. Dimensionen der Sicherheitskultur – Eine Resümee [Dimensions of the Safety Culture – a Summary]. In Dimensionen der Sicherheitskultur [Dimensions of the Safety Culture], edited by H.-J. Lange, 381–387. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
16. Luhmann, N. 2001. Vlast‘ [The Power]. Moscow: Praksis.
17. Mikhel, D.V. 2009. Social’naia istoriia meditsiny: stanovlenie i problematika [Social History of Medicine: Formation and Problems]. Zhurnal issledovanii social’noi politiki 3: 295–312.
18. Mikhels, R. 1994. Printsipial’noe v probleme demokratii [Fundamental in the Problem of Democracy]. Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal 3: 89–93.
19. Nanaeva, B.B. 2010. Svoboda kak rodovaia harakteristika samosoznaniia etnosa i fenomen kul’tury [Freedom as a Generic Characteristic of the Self-Consciousness of an Ethnos and a Cultural Phenomenon]. Teoriia i praktika obshhestvennogo razvitiia 2: 257–265.
20. Quinn, R.A. 2014. “No soul to damn, no body to kick”: Fragen nach Verantwortung im Kontext der Herstellung von Sicherheit [“No soul to damn, no body to kick”: Questions about Responsibility in the Context of Creating Safety]. In Politik und Unsicherheit: Strategien in einer sich wandelnden Sicherheitskultur [Politics and Uncertainty: Strategies in a Changing Safety Culture], edited by Ch. Daase, S. Engert, G. Kolliarakis, 119–133. Frankfur am Main: Campus Verlag GmbH.
21. Reshetnikov, A.V., et al. 2016. Mediko-sociologicheskie issledovaniia problem zdorov’ia: zona social’noi otvetstvennosti [Medical and Sociological Research of Health Problems: The Area of Social Responsibility]. Sotsiologiia meditsiny 2: 68–72.
22. Sabitova, A.R. 2019. Rol’ svobodnogo vybora v zhizni cheloveka [The Role of Free Choice in Human Life]. Manuskript 4: 107–111.
23. Sartre, J.-P. 1990. Ekzistentsializm – eto gumanizm [Existentialism is Humanism]. In Sumerki bogov [Twilight of the Gods], edited by A.A. Yakovleva, 319–344. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury.
24. Shchepanskaia, T.B. 2020. Domik-v-derevne dlia begstva i vyzhivaniia: utopiia sel’skoi avtonomii v populiarnoi futurologii katastrof [House-in-the-Village for Escape and Survival: Utopia of Rural Autonomy in the Popular Futurology of Disasters]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 6: 70–87.
25. Skabelkina, T.N. 2017. Problema svobody v kontekste filosofii i meditsiny [The Problem of Freedom in the Context of Philosophy and Medicine]. Amurskii meditsinskii zhurnal 1 (17): 74–75.
26. Svetlichnaia, T.G., and E.A. Smirnova. 2017. Teoretiko-konceptual’nye podhody i rezul’taty empiricheskogo izucheniia fenomena medikalizatsii (obzor literatury) [Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches and Results of Empirical Study of the Phenomenon of Medicalization (Literature Review)]. Logos et Praxis 3: 145–160.
27. Uvarov, M.S. 2012. Peterburg kak kul’turnaia stolitsa i kak ob’ekt innovacionnoi pedagogiki [St. Petersburg as a Cultural Capital and as an Object of Innovative Pedagogy]. Universum: Vestnik Gercenovskogo universiteta 3: 152–158.

Система Orphus

Загрузка...
Вверх