Biopolitics of othering during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic, while novel as a disease, triggered familiar xenophobic and racist reactions and processes of othering. Historically, marginalized groups have been scapegoated for disease outbreaks. This study aims to (1) situate the pandemic within the biopolitics of othering; (2) map where discourses on othering emerged and who generated them; and (3) discuss the implications of this biopolitics in the pandemic context. The methodology involves analyzing research articles published on ResearchGate during the pandemic, mapping social worlds/arenas using situational analysis, and interpreting results through the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse.

The literature review examines existing scholarship on othering, pandemics, and biopolitics. Othering is presented as a complex social practice involved in creating social boundaries and identity formation. The concept is analyzed through the lens of postcolonial studies, highlighting how knowledge about ‘others’ is constructed through discourse. The role of marginalized groups in defining the ‘normal’ is discussed, referencing Foucault's work on microphysics of power/knowledge. Pandemics are framed not just as medical but also as social phenomena, exacerbating existing inequalities and leading to stigmatization of various out-groups. Historical examples, such as the blaming of Jews for the Black Death and Irish immigrants for cholera, illustrate this pattern. Biopolitics, as coined by Foucault, refers to state practices and technologies aimed at protecting citizens' lives. However, the paper notes that decisions about which groups are exposed to risks are often political rather than purely medical.

This research employed a semi-systematic literature review, drawing upon articles from ResearchGate's COVID-19 research community. Articles were selected based on keywords ('COVID-19,' 'Other,' 'Otherness'), language (English), and publication date (2020-2021). Content analysis and situational analysis were used to code and process the data. Situational analysis facilitated the creation of a ‘social worlds/arenas map’ illustrating the collective actors, elements, and arenas involved in the discourses. The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD) framework was used to interpret the data, analyzing how meaning structures are constructed, objectified, communicated, and legitimized within institutional settings. The software NVivo 12+ was used for data categorization, coding, and analysis. The code list included categories such as biopolitics, borders, discrimination, fear, othering, public health policy, racial discourses, and specific groups often targeted (e.g., migrant workers, ethnic minorities).

The analysis identified three crucial social worlds/arenas for understanding the emergence of othering discourses: social, political, and mediatized worlds. Social actors responded to the pandemic through anchoring and objectification—making sense of unfamiliar events through familiar experiences and giving abstract concepts (like the virus) concreteness. Mechanisms of actorialization, generalization, and axiologization were also identified in the construction of collective actors (e.g., healthcare workers as heroes, specific groups as villains). Media played a significant role, often employing simplistic dichotomies (us vs. them) and contributing to xenophobia and racism. Politicians, as key actors, engaged in two primary discursive strategies: (1) blaming and scapegoating specific groups and (2) employing specific naming strategies to associate the pandemic with those groups. The ‘politics of naming,’ exemplified by terms like “Chinese virus,” is highlighted as a strategy to associate disease with specific foreign entities or groups. Biopolitical measures, while ostensibly aimed at health protection, were often accompanied by rhetoric that fueled the fear of foreign others, potentially exacerbating existing vulnerabilities within specific populations. Examples from Canada, Brazil, and Mexico illustrate how othering discourses may legitimize restrictive biopolitical actions.

The findings indicate that othering processes were widespread during the pandemic, often legitimizing biopolitical measures and contributing to anti-social behaviors. The study revealed diverse ‘others’ depending on the social and cultural context. While some research acknowledges the link between othering and the pandemic, this study contributes by specifically exploring the discursive legitimization of biopolitical measures. The examples of Canada, Brazil, and Mexico demonstrate how othering discourses enabled decision-makers to implement—and justify—sometimes unpopular biopolitical measures that disproportionately affected certain groups.

This research demonstrates the pervasiveness of othering during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the connection—though not always explicitly causal—between othering discourses and biopolitical measures. Future research should further explore this relationship, leveraging lessons from past pandemics (e.g., the Ebola outbreak and HIV stigma) to inform virus-focused responses and mitigate the harmful effects of othering.

The study's reliance on a semi-systematic literature review and a specific sample from ResearchGate limits the generalizability of findings. The subjective nature of discourse analysis also introduces a potential bias in interpretation. Further research is needed to quantitatively assess the causal relationship between othering and the implementation of specific biopolitical measures across a broader range of contexts.