The social impacts of ‘social distancing’ on sociality in the context of COVID-19: Applying Simmel’s concept of social geometry

Abstract

One of the recommended interventions against the spread of COVID-19 is ‘social distancing’. This means maintaining a recommended physical distance between people and reducing the number of times people come into close contact with each other. At the same time, the public is being advised to maintain or even increase social contact. Influenced by Georg Simmel’s concept of social geometry, the objective of this paper is to demonstrate that ‘social distancing’ has adverse impacts on sociality. Human beings are inherently social beings and spatial proximity enhances the intensity and quality of their interaction. By creating physical separation, ‘social distancing’ is leading to social isolation and attendant psychosocial problems. This was a desk study based on a review of the literature, media reports and personal observations. The paper presents evidence of the adverse impacts of ‘social distancing’ on human sociality from Botswana and Zimbabwe. The paper concludes that while ‘social distancing’ is a practical way of containing the spread of the COVID-19 virus, it has significant adverse impacts on sociality, resulting in the loss of community. We recommend the promotion of offline and online social media platforms to enable people to interact without co-presence.

Keywords

Social distancing social geometry COVID-19 sociality community

Introduction

One of the measures recommended by epidemiologists in attempts to contain the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) is what they have labelled as ‘social distancing’, which simply means minimising close contact, in particular face-to-face contact. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2019) recommends ‘social distancing’ through limiting face-to-face interaction as the best way to reduce the spread of the virus. Governments all over the world have therefore been implementing measures to limit face-to-face contact which include lockdowns, quarantines and strict limitations on the numbers of people who can gather in one place at any given time.

During the first phases of the lockdowns, schools, drinking places, places of worship and workplaces were completely closed. When the lockdown regulations were eased, the numbers of people allowed to attend gatherings such as church meetings, weddings, funerals and parties were severely limited. Those attending such gatherings were mandated to observe strict health protocols including wearing cloth masks, washing or sanitising hands and keeping specified distances between them.

Statement of the problem

A substantial amount of literature on the epidemiological impacts of ‘social distancing’ has been generated. Most of this literature confirms that ‘social distancing’ has been effective in preventing the spread of the virus (Daghiriri and Ozman, 2021; Kim et al., 2022; Nyabadza et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022). Most of the literature on the non-epidemiological impacts of ‘social distancing’ has focused on its psychological impacts (Dellazzana-Zanon et al., 2020; Melo and and Soares, 2020; Peterson et al., 2021). Fear, anxiety, depression, loneliness and mental health are some of the psychological impacts of ‘social distancing’ that have been identified. A few studies have been carried out on the impacts of ‘social distancing’ on sociality, which is a basic human need, including its impacts on existing traditional values and norms (Sikali, 2020). The unintended social consequences of ‘social distancing’ are yet to be fully understood. The study on which this paper is based sought to answer the following questions: How did ‘social distancing’ affect the way people related to each other during the lockdowns? How is social distancing likely to affect sociality in future? How were the traditionally communally observed events such as births, deaths and marriages and communally performed religious rituals affected by ‘social distancing’ and what is the likely long-term impacts of these effects? This paper presents evidence from Botswana and Zimbabwe of how the practice of ‘social distancing’ is affecting sociality with a potential to create serious future problems for society.

This was a desk study which reviewed the existing literature on the impacts of social distancing to identify what is missing in existing research. The literature review was conducted in line with the objectives of the research. This led to the identification of themes emerging from the literature, including the etymology of the concept of ‘social distancing’. The literature shows the effects of ‘social distancing’ on everyday interactions of people in Botswana and Zimbabwe. The ‘Discussion’ section provides an analysis of these themes, leading to an interpretation of the findings on the impact of COVID 19 on sociality. The ‘Conclusion’ section summarises the main issues raised throughout the paper in exploring the impact of this unprecedented epidemic on human sociality.

Materials and methods

The study on which this paper is based was a desk study and its method of data collection was literature review, a systematic way of gathering and synthesising previous research. As observed by Snyder (2019), literature review, as a research method, has the ability to create a firm foundation for creating knowledge and developing theory. He further argues:

By integrating findings and perspectives from many empirical findings, a literature review can address research questions with a power that no single study has. (p. 333)

Data were collected through purposively selected literature on sociality in general and with a focus on Botswana and Zimbabwe. The literature on the social impacts of COVID-19 was also reviewed. Literature was obtained from libraries as well as online sources using Google Scholar as the search engine. Out of the many articles yielded by Google Scholar, the most relevant were selected by first reading the abstracts and then selecting those deemed most relevant for the topic.

The paper therefore presents a descriptive summary as well as a critical evaluation of the literature relevant to the subject of COVID-19 and its social impacts with a focus on Botswana and Zimbabwe. It explores how social distancing may have impacted on sociality and makes inferences about the future.

Literature review

Sociality, culture and social order

The primary concern of sociologists has always been to explain how social order is possible or how society is possible (Turner, 2013). The answer to this quest is found in human sociality – the unique way in which human beings interact (Enfield and Levinson, 2006; Goodwin, 2006; Levinson, 2006; Schegloff, 2006 [1996]) which makes social life possible. This is what sets human beings apart from other primates. For Enfield and Levinson (2006):

At the heart of the uniquely human way of life is our peculiarly intense, mentally mediated, and highly structured way of interacting with one another. (p. 1)

Interaction is what Schegloff (2006 [1996]) describes as the ‘fundamental or primordial scene of social life’ (p. 54). Human sociality is best expressed in face-to-face interaction where ‘multiple participants are carrying out courses of action together, frequently through language’ (Goodwin, 2006: 97). Levinson (2006) observes that human face-to-face interaction is actually endowed with special qualities.

Despite their differences, various sociological perspectives emphasise the primacy of interaction in the achievement of social order or the creation of society. For the Functionalists, social order is possible because of value consensus which is achieved through socialising institutions such as the family, education and religion. Interaction does not only make it possible for people to have shared norms and values (collective conscience), but it is also crucial for the intergenerational transfer of those norms and values (socialisation). For Durkheim, in coming together and participating in shared rituals, human beings experience collective effervescence which creates the potential for both social conformity and group-based agency. Any deficiency in social interaction leads to anomie, which is basically a state of social disintegration.

The conflict perspective explains social order as an outcome of competition between individuals and groups for scarce resources. Probably the most eloquent depiction of social conflict is Karl Marx’s concept of class struggle involving the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, characteristic of a capitalist society. Class conflict, however, presupposes a certain level of interaction among members of a particular class, which enables them to act in solidarity against the other classes. It also presupposes a certain level of interaction between the antagonistic classes if the production process in which these classes are dialectically related is to be possible. In a capitalist society, order is not achieved only through coercion but also through ideology, which is transmitted in various forms through the institutions of social reproduction such as the family, education and religion. This also presupposes a certain level of interaction.

From a symbolic interactionist perspective, social order is ‘achieved’ through interaction which involves interpreting and giving meanings to symbols. Social order is therefore achieved when there are shared meanings of the various symbols used in the interaction process and this is best achieved in face-to-face interaction. In summarising the tenets of symbolic interactionism, Ritzer (1996) states that symbolic interactionists believe that human beings are different from lower animals because they are endowed with the capacity for thought and that capacity is shaped by interaction.

The Symbolic Interactionist perspective, being a micro-sociological perspective, also explains how daily individual acts with symbolic meanings also help humans construct their daily realities. These symbolic individual acts with shared meanings, when repeated over time by a specific group of people, come to be accepted and known as the way of life of that specific group of people, and hence become social facts or a culture, and form the basis of the identity of that specific group (Giddens, 1996; Haralambos and Heald, 1980). When this sociality is not acted out or performed, it may cease to exist as a way of living and be replaced by the new norm of individualism. ‘Social distancing’ may become the way of life as people adapt to it over time.

Any group’s culture contains mechanisms of how it adapts to the ever-changing environment (Kottak, 1996; Lavenda and Schultz, 2010). This implies that human beings develop culture as a means to satisfy their psychological and biological needs in order to adapt to, and hence survive in an ever-changing environment. Human beings in Botswana and Zimbabwe have over time developed these systems of interacting as an expression of their inherent sociality and ways of organising and giving meaning to daily experiences and adapting to changes in their environment, including changes brought about by epidemics such as COVID-19.

The concept of ‘social distance’ in sociology

The concept of ‘social distance’ is the brainchild of German Sociologist Georg Simmel (1950).

Ethington (1997) asserts that while many concepts in social theory have many intellectual parents, ‘social distance’ owes its existence exclusively to Georg Simmel. In his many works, Simmel’s major focus was on ‘association’ or social interaction among conscious actors (Ritzer, 1996). The interaction takes various forms including subordination, superordination, exchange, conflict and sociability. In fact, for Simmel, interaction was so important for human beings that he equated it with society (Frisby, 1990 [1984]; Ritzer, 1996).

Human beings associate or interact with various motives (Frisby, 1990 [1984]). While in most instances, they associate with ulterior motives, ‘there is in all of them a residue of pure sociability or association for the sake of it’ (Simmel and Hughes, 1949). With his notion of social geometry, Simmel demonstrated the effect of numbers and distance on the intensity and quality of interaction among group members. He argued that the intensity and quality of interaction is influenced by both physical or spatial (geometric) and social or symbolic (metaphorical) distance between those interacting.

The influence of numbers or the size of the group on the intensity and quality of interaction is illustrated by Simmel’s comparison between dyadic and triadic groups. He argued that increasing the size of a dyad into a triad complicates the relations among the group members, which adversely influences the intensity and quality of interaction among group members.

Since the value of something is influenced by its distance from the actor, distance should influence the value of social relations. According to Simmel therefore, physical distance and social distance are linked in the sense that physical distance influences the intensity and quality of interaction between actors which is social distance. Simmel’s disciples, Robert Park and Emory Bogardus, deemphasised spatial distance in their discussion of social distance. Park (1924) described social distance as ‘the grades and degrees of understanding and intimacy which characterize personal and social relations generally’ (p. 339) among individuals and groups. In this sense, social distance refers to the extent to which people experience a sense of closeness between themselves and members of other groups (Hodgetts and Stolte, 2014).

Bogardus (1925) took the concept further by developing the Social Distance Scale (SDS), which measures the social values and norms that limit the interaction of people belonging to groups that are different from their own. The scale has influenced many studies intended to measure differences between groups based on class, race, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender and religion.

Ethington (1997) observes that as the concept of ‘social distance’ evolved, the influence of spatial distance on social distance was deemphasised. For Levine (1997), this is not unique to the concept of ‘social distance’ as many concepts made famous in classic works are often cited in ways that deviate from their original meaning. While Ethington (1997) laments what he calls the stripping of Simmel’s geometric sense of social distance by Park and Bogardus the current use of the term moves it even further from the Simmelian sense. The following section discusses the sense in which ‘social distancing’ is currently being used.

Current usage of ‘social distancing’

As observed by Dungdung (2020), language that is used in policies is sometimes not carefully selected. This might lead to confusion and unintended consequences as language affects behaviour. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, health experts have hailed ‘social distancing’ as the most effective way to slow down the spread of the virus.

However, as pointed out by Das Gupta and Wong (2020), ‘social distancing’ as it is currently used is a misnomer. This is because what is referred to as ‘social distancing’ is in fact physical or spatial distancing. The World Health Organization (WHO) (2020) states that one can reduce the chances of being infected or spreading COVID-19 by, among other precautions, maintaining at least 1 m (3 ft) distance between oneself and others and avoiding crowded places. The CDC (2019) also advises that limiting face-to-face contact with others is the best way to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. It also advises on:

Keeping space between oneself and other people;

Staying at least 6 ft (about 2 arms’ length) from other people.

Although these measures are referred to as ‘social distancing’, they are actually physical and not social distancing. Realising that the concept of ‘social distancing’ was not being used in the sense that was intended by sociologists, WHO (2020) announced that it was shifting from ‘social distancing’ to ‘physical distancing’. The shift in terminology, from ‘social distancing’ to ‘physical distancing’ was motivated by the realisation that the use of ‘social distancing’ may have unintended effects, including causing a sense of disconnection from others, at a time when there is need for people to stay socially connected. It was therefore intended to encourage people to remain social connected. WHO (2020) believes that keeping people socially connected does not necessarily require co-presence. This is because technology has advanced to the extent that people can keep connected in many ways without actually physically being in the same room or physically being in the same space with people.

This reasoning is consistent with that of Karakayali (2009), who also argues that technology can enable people to experience proximity without co-presence. Social interaction, however, is more than just an exchange of information but involves an exchange of, among other things, touch, gestures and various types of non-verbal language, which tend to decrease as distance between the actors increases. From Simmel’s point of view, distance has a definite negative impact on the intensity and quality of interaction.

Ever since the outbreak of COVID-19, epidemiologists and government authorities have been encouraging the practice of ‘social distancing’ as a way of preventing the spread of the virus. ‘Social distancing’ has therefore become entrenched in the terminology associated with the virus alongside terms such as ‘sanitising’, ‘quarantine’ and ‘self-isolation’. For Das Gupta and Wong (2020), ‘social distancing’ has become a ‘moniker’ of what is required to fight the pandemic. Changing the terminology from ‘social distancing’ to ‘physical distancing’ will add further confusion to what is already a confusing situation. The following section presents evidence on the impacts of ‘social distancing’ in Botswana and Zimbabwe.

‘Social distancing’, the African experience

‘Social distancing’ is not new in Africa. As Ehigie et al. (2021) point out, ‘social distancing’ has traditionally been applied in Africa to deal with conditions such as mental illness, epilepsy, infertility, ageing and victims of sexual violence. The outbreak of the Ebola virus is some countries in Africa necessitated ‘social distancing’, which interrupted and reconfigured social relations leading to new ways of relating (Brown and Saez, 2020). As stated above, most of the studies on the impact of ‘social distancing’, including studies in Africa, have focused on epidemiological and psychological impacts.

A study by Verani et al. (2020) in 22 Anglophone countries of sub-Saharan Africa found that ‘social distancing’ reduced the incidence and mortality of COVID-19 in the countries studied. The study did not make reference to the unintended social impacts of ‘social distancing’. Chirisa et al. (2021) in their study on Zimbabwe found that ‘social distancing’ affected the norms and values of society. They found that the effects of ‘social distancing’ on communally celebrated events such as births, deaths and marriages had become privatised or individualised. While Chirisa et al. (2021) focus on one country, Zimbabwe, this study focused on two countries, Botswana and Zimbabwe. Although not a comparative study, this presents a broader understanding of the social impacts of ‘social distancing’ which might be affected by particular cultural values and norms. Arisukwu (2021), found that in Nigeria, the emergence of COVID-19 disrupted social norms, values and cultural ways of social interaction among people in society. He asserts that ‘social distancing’ has changed people’s social lives and livelihoods to the extent that behaviours such as theft, cyberbullying, domestic abuse, marital rape and hate speech have increased. Arisukwu, however, tends to concentrate of the criminal impacts or deviant behaviour and not on the communal aspects of society.

Findings

Examples from Botswana

Staying away from others definitely affects sociality because it goes against the very essence of society and human sociability, especially in the context of African culture’s – ubuntu, hunhu or botho. For example, a funeral is never a private matter but a very public event. It involves relatives, community members, friends, co-workers and acquaintances. In Botswana, following an occurrence of a death in a particular family, family elders have to inform community leaders, usually the chief, about the death. On the second and every other day preceding the burial, which takes about 7 days, community members gather for approximately 30-minute memorial services (mirapelo) in the evenings.

Werbner (2018) observes that during these services, the congregation ‘speaks and sings the words that console the living. . . ’ (p. 317). Religious leaders comfort the bereaved and help them to come to terms with their loss. During these services, members of the community are also updated on the ongoing funeral arrangements and the actual day of the burial. Some close relatives such as uncles and aunts of the deceased actually relocate to the bereaved family’s homestead for the whole period preceding the burial. This enables them to offer moral support at close proximity as well as to participate in the day-to-day decision making regarding the conduct of the funeral and preparations thereof (Durham and Klaits, 2002).

Community members who are not engaged in formal employment may visit the bereaved household to assist in cleaning the yard as well as to cook for the elders. Community members also assist in the digging of the grave as well as cooking food for people who would attend the funeral. Just a day before the burial, the deceased’s body is taken home from the mortuary for a night vigil. On that day, more relatives and friends living in different localities arrive and spend the night together.

In the morning of the burial, more community members join to pay their last respects through, among other things, body viewing (pono ya moswi) and listening to eulogies about the deceased from various speakers (dibui), including family members, neighbours, friends and workmates. According to Werbner (2018), the accounts of the dibui often portray the deceased person positively.

These communal activities have advantages. First, they offer a comforting experience to the bereaved and lessen the psychological stress associated with the loss of a loved one. A large number of people who attend the funeral leave with a feeling that the deceased has been sent off well. Second, they contribute to social solidarity in that they cement relations between family members, friends and the community. They present the community with an opportunity to reconnect. Nowadays, relatives rarely meet due to work demands, mostly in urban areas, and in other localities far from home. After the eulogies, the whole congregation joins a procession for the burial after which a meal is served.

All these activities require co-presence and close proximity not consistent with ‘social distancing’. The advent of COVID-19 and its associated health protocols, including ‘social distancing’, has led to abrupt disruptions in funeral arrangements in Botswana with negative psychological impacts on the bereaved. In order to curb the spread of COVID-19 the government promulgated regulations on the conduct of funerals as well as the number of people who could attend. According to the Republic of Botswana Extraordinary Government Gazette dated 30 April 2020, the public was mandated to maintain a maximum of 50 people in attendance and a distance of at least 1–2 m during funeral proceedings.

Furthermore, funeral services were supposed to last not more than 2 hours and no food was to be served to the public except family members staying at the home of the deceased. Limiting the number of people in attendance meant that not all those connected to the deceased, including friends and relatives, could attend a funeral. Limiting the time meant that the funerals were rushed in such a way that people were not given an opportunity to interact and reconnect. During the total lockdown that was imposed in Botswana from April to May 2020, some people could not bury their loved ones, including parents and relatives, as movement was restricted to essential service workers only.

According to the local newspaper, The Sunday Standard dated 15 June 2020, the disruption of the traditional funeral and mourning rites as a result of restrictions on movement and gatherings was disorienting to many people. Some people who were interviewed by the newspaper on their experiences of losing loved ones during the pandemic felt devastated at the physical absence of relatives and close associates at the funerals. Instead of the usual comfort that the mourners usually receive, they felt very lonely. If continued, this has the potential of severing and distancing social relations. It is likely to leave family members with the question of how they could maintain social relationships from a distance.

As a way of bridging the social distancing gap brought about by COVID-19 restrictions, some members of the community, particularly those in urban areas and from middle-class backgrounds, resorted to live broadcasts of the funerals of their loved ones to cater for those who were unable to attend physically. Examples include a live broadcast of the funeral of the mother of a Chief Executive Officer of a management training institute in Gaborone, the capital city of Botswana and the funeral of a member of Parliament in Francistown, the second largest city in Botswana. Speaking to a local newspaper, The Patriot of 6 May, 2020, a representative of the Chief Executive Officer’s family revealed that the live broadcast of the funeral helped to cater to large numbers of extended family members, friends and colleagues who had wished to attend physically to mourn the deceased but could not do so due to COVID-19 restrictions (The Patriot, 2020).

Creating an opportunity for participating in the proceedings online was meant to give them a sense of being present, even though they were physically absent. How this platform was experienced by the absent family members who participated online needs further research. However, it remains to be seen whether this would ultimately be embraced as the ‘new normal’ in the way funerals are conducted among Batswana. It also remains to be seen how the poor who do not have the means to purchase smartphones respond to such social change.

Just like a funeral, a marriage in Botswana is a public activity that involves consenting couples, their families, relatives, friends and the community. There are three types of marriages in Botswana: traditional, civil and religious (Mathafeni and Dogan, 2019). The traditional marriage is conducted under the customary law of a particular tribe. A civil marriage is conducted under the Marriage Act where the presiding officers are the District Commissioner or any marriage officer appointed by the government of Botswana.

A religious marriage follows the guidelines of a particular religion such as Christianity, Hinduism or Islam. The dominant types of marriages in Botswana are the traditional and civil marriages. In most cases the couple that intends to get married combines both civil and traditional marriages. This is meant to obtain parental blessings (traditional marriage) and legitimation of the marriage under common law. Once negotiations of marriage between parents are concluded the man pays the bride price mostly in the form of cattle and celebrations commence (Solway, 2016).

Both these celebrations attract large numbers of people who come to witness the wedding in public as well as to provide free marital counselling. According to Solway (2016), in most cases huge tents are erected to accommodate large crowds and to display one’s wealth. The ceremonies cost more than what is spent on the payment of bride price or bogadi as it is referred to in Setswana. The marriage celebrations and associated processes bind members of the community together and thus promote social cohesion. The couple also receives free counselling on the challenges of marriage so that they are prepared to handle them when they arise.

As marriage ceremonies attract large numbers of people, which creates a conducive environment for the spread of COVID-19, the number of people that could attend the weddings was curtailed. According to the Government of Botswana Extraordinary Gazette of 30 April 2020, only a maximum of 10 people were allowed to attend a wedding ceremony. In compliance with this requirement, District Commissioners could only accommodate the couple that intended to marry and only two witnesses during the solemnisation of civil marriages. The parents and friends were denied entry. This limited interactions among people. The number of people in the networks associated with a marriage event was reduced. Just like in funerals, most family members and friends attended marriage ceremonies virtually. Ceremonies of this nature have more meaning when people gather together physically than when they are conducted virtually.

Examples from Zimbabwe

In Zimbabwe, there is evidence that social distancing measures such as limiting the number of people in public gatherings and the promotion of self-quarantining have accelerated cultural change. Culture is dynamic and has been changing as a result of influences such as Christianity, colonialism and related global processes (Cheater, 1986; Saidi, 2017). However, there is some evidence of COVID-19-induced cultural changes.

Scholars such as Gelfand (1963), Bourdillon (1987 [1976]) and Cheater (1986, 1990) have shown how life-marking events such as births, marriages and deaths have always demonstrated the importance of the collectivist culture among all groups of people classified as the Shona in Zimbabwe. The collectivist culture, whose key value is the sharing of everything, including labour, goes as far back as when the Shona people were hunters and gatherers (Bourdillon, 1987 [1976]; Cheater, 1986). Communalism was, and still is to a large extent, also part of their traditional religious ethos as it is characterised in a lot of their traditional proverbs and folklore, as well as local everyday idioms on Shona wisdom. Cultural practices such as the sharing of food and utensils were perceived to be functional in bringing people together and enabling them to learn to share all experiences. Traditionally, members of the same family, particularly siblings and couples had their meals put on the same plate and they ate together with their hands to symbolise unity.

It is not just food and the labour process which are communally shared among the Shona. Even grieving and celebrations are perceived as communal acts. Johnson (2010) and Saidi (2017) argue that death rites comprise a large part of the Shona cultural rites in a year and all of them require people to gather as families, friends and workmates. There are more than five rites performed from the time a death is announced until the burial. There are also a number of activities that take place during this time, including conducting night vigils where the mourners gather and sing every evening from the day the death occurs until the day of the burial. Traditionally, 2 weeks after the burial, the hwahwa hwehonye (burial) ritual is performed, then another ritual of sharing the belongings of the deceased by relatives called kugova mbatya (sharing belongings) is performed. After about a year the kurova guva (striking the grave) ritual to bring back the spirit of the dead into their home is performed (Bourdillon, 1979).

During the numerous gatherings, the surviving relatives get into contact not only with each other, but also with the clothes and other personal belongings of the deceased. Among the Shona, expressing condolences is referred as kubata maoko, which literally means holding or shaking hands. This is because condolences are considered incomplete until one has held the hand of the bereaved firmly and uttered some words of comfort. The shaking of hands is not confined to the bereaved individual or family members but is extended to everyone present at the funeral (Saidi, 2017). In the olden days, before a burial there was a widespread practice called gata, which was performed by family members to ascertain the cause of death. During the lockdowns in Zimbabwe, all that was taken over by medical and military personnel. A post-mortem carried out by modern medical personnel was the only acceptable procedure for establishing the cause of death. In order to ensure that burials were conducted in compliance with the COVID-19 protocols, burials were arranged and supervised by military personnel.

‘Social distancing’ also replaced the role of the sahwira in Shona burials. A sahwira is a close friend who is expected to wash the body of the deceased and provide comic distractions at the funeral. Some of the sahwira functions, including the washing of the body, were taken over by medical and military personnel.

Religious gatherings, especially church services were not spared the effects of ‘social distancing’. A local newspaper, The Chronicle (2020), revealed that some churches had stopped having meetings while some hardly had any members at all. Some had to ban affectionate behaviour such as hugs and shaking of hands. During the 2020 Easter holidays, many churches made announcements on various media platforms informing their members of the cancellation of gatherings, travels and camping associated with these holidays. Many churches resorted to live media streaming of church services or to posting messages on social media. This might be the way such events will be conducted in future unless a cure is found. According to another newspaper, Newsday of 19 April 2020, the police in Zimbabwe warned that there would be no travel, particularly by public transport during the Easter holidays which involve communal prayer days.

Discussion

WHO justified its shift from ‘social distancing’ to ‘physical distancing’ because of the fear that ‘social distancing’ might imply a sense of disconnection at a time when it is critical for people to stay socially connected. It was therefore important to emphasise that physical separation should not imply social disconnectedness. WHO argued that advances in communication technology can enable people to be physically separate but still be socially connected. It argued that it was possible for people to replicate face-to-face gatherings and interactions through the use of various communication technologies. There is no doubt that technology has significantly transformed the nature of social interaction. Zhao and Elesh (2008) state that modern communication technology is making it possible for anyone to contact anyone else anywhere, at any time.

The impact of this development on sociality is, however, still being debated. Karakayali (2009) asserts that research has shown that through technology people can still experience closeness without co-presence. According to Chayko (2014), the Internet and digital technology have led to the emergence of ‘techno-social life’. Abdel-Aziz et al. (2016) argue that through digital social networking, people have become more socially connected and that in fact the trend is that people favour virtual interaction over the face-to-face interaction that takes in physical spaces.

For Drago (2015), however, technology has a negative impact on both the quality and quantity of face-to-face communication. This is because, as Levinson (2006) asserts, human sociality is best expressed in face-to-face interaction. Levinson further argues that co-present interaction is crucial for the establishment of a common worldview among the participants. This is in accord with Simmel’s thinking, in which space affects both the intensity and quality of interaction. For Skoric et al. (2013), since Simmel believed that social action takes place in space, space is therefore the conditio sine qua non of social relationships. In this light, Castells (2014) sounds paradoxical. On one hand he states that one of the major consequences of the digital revolution is the emergence of a ‘me-centred society’ characterised by an increase in focus on individual growth and a decline in community. On the other hand, he argues that the same technological revolution increases sociability, civic engagement and the intensity of family and friendship relationships in all cultures.

There are two problems with the impression that the use of communication technology will enhance sociality. One is that it overlooks the issue of accessibility. Castells admits that while humankind is almost entirely connected through various communication technologies, there are still great levels of inequality in bandwidth, in efficiency and in price. There are still people, especially in the Global South who do not have access to such technologies. Research by various scholars such as Chirisa et al. (2021) has found that there may be limitations for most people to have access to communication technology in Zimbabwe, where more than 60% of the population stays in rural areas where poverty and network challenges make the use of communication technology unsustainable. The COVID-19 virus does not discriminate, anyone can be infected. Evidence, however, indicates that the poor have been the worst affected (Dungdung, 2020). This is because of their lack of access to medical facilities, clean water and dependence on livelihoods that require them to be outdoors and, in most cases, crowded places most of the time. At the same time, these are the people who have limited or no access to communication technologies.

The second problem with the impression that the use of communication technology will enhance sociality is that it does not take into account the different cultural value contexts in which these new communication technologies are introduced. As observed by Castells (2014), the digital revolution creates a ‘me-centred society’ characterised by an increase in focus on individual growth and a decline in community. This is against the values characteristic of collectivist cultures which espouse principles such as ubuntu, hunhu or botho as described in the examples above relating to Botswana and Zimbabwe.

Conclusion

The long-term effects of COVID-19 will not only be health related but also political, economic and socio-cultural. In particular ‘social distancing’ has long-term or permanent adverse effects on sociality. This is because ‘social distancing’ is about self-care. It does not address the need to care for others. How do people practice ‘social distancing’ and still care for the sick, bury the dead and celebrate marriages in an African way? ‘Social distancing’ is creating new social norms now commonly referred to as the ‘new normal’, which are likely to remain beyond COVID-19. Despite advancements in communication technologies, that keep people connected during COVID-19 restrictions, ‘social distancing’ is affecting both the intensity and quality of interaction, which in turn is leading to social disconnectedness, which results from the need for self-preservation. The findings of this paper have implications for future interventions for dealing with pandemics such as COVID-19. While ‘social distancing’ might help prevent the spread of a pandemic, it has long-term adverse social impacts, especially on human sociality. This, in turn is likely to lead to numerous psychosocial problems. To mitigate these psychosocial impacts, there is need for collaboration between epidemiologists and social scientists when interventions against pandemics are developed. Although they cannot replicate face-to-face interaction, both online and offline social media platforms for communication will reduce the impacts of social distancing on sociality as people can still keep in touch without co-presence.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

France Maphosa

Latang Sechele

Author biographies

France Maphosa is a Professor of Sociology and former Co-ordinator of Graduate Studies at the University of Botswana. He has also worked for the National University of Lesotho and the University of Zimbabwe where he was Head of the Department of Sociology for six years. He also worked for the Biomedical Research and Training Institute (BRTI), Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Young Men’s Christian Association as a Research Consultant and Executive Director respectively.

Dr. Latang Sechele is a Sociologist. He holds a PhD in Sociology from the University of Essex (2011). He is currently a Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Botswana (UB). Dr Sechele has over 25 years of experience working as a researcher and academic.

Eve Kundai Chandaengerwa is a Cultural Anthropologist with more than 15 years of experience teaching and supervising research, as well as facilitating workshops, public lectures and conferences in various universities, both within Zimbabwe and South Africa. Currently, she is the Coordinator for the Sociology Programme at the Harare School of Social Work, Midlands State University, she also teaches there.

References

Abdel-Aziz

Abdel-Salam

El-Sayad

(2016) The role ICTs in creating the new social public space of the digital era. Alexandria Engineering Journal 55(1): 487–493.

Arisukwu

(2021) Socio-cultural consequences of COVID-19 lockdowns and social distancing: the Nigerian experience. Sociology and Criminology. Available at: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/sociocultural-consequences-of-covid-19-lockdown-and-social-distancing-the-nigerian-experience-64495.html

Bogardus

(1925) Social distance and its origins. Journal of Applied Sociology 9: 216–226.

Bourdillon

MFC

(1987 [1976]) The Shona Peoples. 3rd ed. Gweru, Zimbabwe: Mambo Press.

Bourdillon

MFC

(1979) Religion and authority in a Korekore community. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 49(2): 172–181.

Brown

Saez

(2020) Ebola separations: trust, crisis and social distancing in West Africa. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 27: 9–29.

Castells

(2014) The impact of the internet on society: A global perspective. MITT Technology Review. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/09/08/171458/the-impact-of-the-internet-on-society-a-global-perspective/

Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2019) Social distancing: keep your distance and slow the spread. Available at: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/90522

Chayko

(2014) Techno-social life: The internet digital technology and social connectedness. Sociology Compass 8(7): 976–991.

10.

Cheater

(1986) Social Anthropology: An Alternative Introduction. Gweru, Zimbabwe: Mambo Press.

11.

Cheater

(1990) The ideology of ‘communal’ land tenure in Zimbabwe: mythogenesis enacted? Africa 60(2): 188–206.

12.

Chirisa

Mavima

Nyevera

, et al. (2021) The impact and implications of COVID-19: refldctions of the Zimbabwean society. Social Sciences and Humanities Open 4: 100183.

13.

Daghiriri

Ozman

(2021) Quantifying the effects od social distancing in the spread of COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(11): 5566.

14.

Das Gupta

Wong

DWS

(2020) No more ‘social distancing’ but practice physical separation. Canadian Journal of Public Health 111: 488–489.

15.

Dellazzana-Zanon

Leite

JPC

de Jesus

MJC

, et al. (2020) Psychological effects of social distance caused by COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic over the life cycle. Estudos de Psicologia 25(2): 188–198.

16.

Drago

(2015) The effect of technology on face-to-face communication. The Elom Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications 6(1): 13–19.

17.

Dungdung

(2020) Doing sociology. Available at: https://doingsociology2020.blogspot.com

18.

Durham

Klaits

(2002) Funerals and the public space of sentiment in Botswana. Journal of Southern African Studies 28(4): 777–795.

19.

Ehigie

Sholarin

, et al. (2021) African perspective of social distancing in pandemics: adoption challenges. Psychological Studies 66: 259–269.

20.

Enfield

Levinson

(2006) Introduction human sociality as a new interdisciplinary field. In: Enfield

Levinson

(eds) Roots of Human Society: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Oxford: Berg, pp.1–35.

21.

Ethington

(1997) The intellectual construction of ‘social distance’: towards a recovery of Georg Simmel’s social geometry. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography. Available at: http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/227 (accessed 20 July 2020).

22.

Frisby

(1990 [1984]) Simmel and the study of modernity. In: Kaern

Phillips

Cohen

(eds) Georg Simmel and Contemporary Sociology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.57–74.

23.

Gelfand

(1963) Shona Ritual. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta.

24.

Giddens

(1996) Introduction to Sociology. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

25.

Goodwin

(2006) Human sociality as mutual orientation in a rich interactive environment Multimodal utterances and pointing in Aphasia. In: Enfield

Levinson

(eds) Roots of Human Society: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Oxford: Berg, pp.97–125.

26.

Government of Botswana (2020) Government gazette extraordinary, LVIII(42). Available at: https://archive.gazettes.africa/archive/bw/2020/bw-government-gazette-dated-2020-04-30-no-42.pdf

27.

Haralambos

Heald

(1980) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. Slough: University Tutorial Press.

28.

Hodgetts

Stolte

(2014) Social distance. In: Teo

(ed.) Encyclopaedia of Critical Psychology. New York: Springer, pp.1776–1778.

29.

Johnson

(2010) The Shona people and their health practices. Imhotep Journal. African Healing Traditions 24(7): 28.

30.

Karakayali

(2009) Socila distance and affective orientations. Sociological Forum 24(3): 538–562.

31.

Kim

Lee

, et al. (2022) Impacts of social distancing policy ands vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Korea. Asian Development Bank Economics, Working Paper Series, 658. Mandaluyong, Philippines: Asian Development Bank Economics.

32.

Kottak

(1996) Mirror for Humanity: A Concise Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. New York; Sydney, NSW, Australia; Toronto, ON, Canada: McGraw Hill Education.

33.

Lavenda

Schultz

(2010) Core Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. Boston, MA; New York; Madrid; Mexico City, Mexico; Santiago, Chile; Bangkok, Thailand; Singapore; Sydney, NSW, Australia; Toronto, ON, Canada: McGraw Hill Education.

34.

Levine

(1997) Simmel at a distance: on the history and systematics of the sociology of the stranger. Sociological Focus 10(1): 15–29.

35.

Levinson

(2006) On the human ‘interaction engine’. In: Enfield

Levinson

(eds) Roots of Human Society: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Oxford: Berg, pp.39–69.

36.

Mathafeni

Dogan

(2019) An empirical study on the transformation of marriage in Botswana: a case study of Francistown. Yıldız Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergis 3: 20–32.

37.

Melo

MCA

Soares

(2020) Impact of social distancing on mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: an urgent discussion. International Journal of Psychiatry 66(6): 625–626.

38.

Newsday (2020) Residents raise covid-19 fears as Chitungwiza Markets Open. Newsday, 9 April. Available at: https://newsday.co.zw (accessed 9 April 2020).

39.

Nyabadza

Chirove

Chukwu

, et al. (2020) Modelling the potential impact of social distancing on the COVID-219 epidemic in South Africa. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine 2020: 5379278.

40.

Park

(1924) The concept of social distance applied to the study of racial attitudes and racial relations. Journal of Applied Sociology 8: 339–344.

41.

Peterson

Chesbro

Larson

, et al. (2021) Short-term analysis (8 wees) of social distancing and isolation on mental health and physical activity baheviour during COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 6520806.

42.

Ritzer

(1996) Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

43.

Saidi

(2017) Agonya Neiko Mupfana Uyu? Of Death and Funerals- A Semiotic exploration of Shona Funeral ritual in Zimbabwe. African Identities 15: 1–15.

44.

Schegloff

(2006 [1996]) Interaction: the infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language and the arena in which culture is enacted. In: Enfield

Levinson

(eds) Roots of Human Society: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Oxford: Berg, pp.70–96.

45.

Sikali

(2020) The dangers of social distancing: how COVID-19 can reshape our social experience. Journal of Community Psychology 48(8): 2435–2438.

46.

Simmel

(1950) The metropolitan and mental life. In Wolff

(ed.) The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.

47.

Simmel

Hughes

(1949) The sociology of sociability. American Journal of Sociology 55(3): 254–261.

48.

Skoric

Kisiuhas

Skoric

(2013) “Excursus on the stranger”. Context of Simmel’s Sociology of Space 45(6): 589–602.

49.

Solway

(2016) ‘Slow marriage’, fast bogadi’: change and continuity in marriage in Botswana. Anthropology Southern Africa 39(4): 309–322.

50.

Snyder

(2019) Literature review asa methodology: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–339.

51.

Sun

Lau

TSM

Yeoh

, et al. (2022) The effectiveness of different types and levels of social distancing measures: a scoping review of global evidence from earlier stage of COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open 12: e053938.

52.

The Chronicle (2020) Churches act on Covid-19. The Chronicle, March. Available at: https://www.chronicle.co.zw (accessed 9 April 2020).

53.

The Patriot (2020) Malikongwas pioneer virtual funerals. The Patriot, 18 November. Available at: https://thepatriot.co.bw/malikongwas-pioneer-virtual-funerals/

54.

The Sunday Standard (2020) Botswana learns virtual grieving. Available at: https://www.sundaystandard.info/botswana-learns-virtual-grieving/

55.

Turner

(2013) Theoretical Sociology: 1830 to Present. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

56.

Verani

Clodfelter

Menon

, et al. (2020) Social distancing policies in 22 African countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: a desk review. The Pan African Medical Journal 37(1): 46.

57.

Werbner

(2018) Botswana’s ecumenical funerals in the making. Journal of Southern African Studies 44(2): 315–329.

58.

World Health Organization (WHO) (2020) WHO audio emergencies coronavirus press conference. Available at: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-full-20mar2020.pdf?sfvrsn=1eafbff_0

59.

Zhao

Elesh

(2008) Copresence as “being with”. Information, Communication and Society 22(4): 565–583.