The idea of "Covid Hawk" as an idpol category helps to make sense of the evolution of a category of upper-class evangelical progressives -- represented most directly in my own life by my mother. As a boomer raised in evangelical culture, she finds most of these new identity-based communities are off-putting. Jumping into a forum of LGBT Gen-Z types talking about their gender fluidity, or a group of 4th gen feminists tweeting their abortions, say, would be a bridge too far. She can't easily reconcile her cultural roots with showing up at a rally where everyone is wearing pussy hats and holding "F*** Trump" signs.
A temporary solution was the idea of allyship, where a class of disadvantaged people (immigrants, or urban blacks) would become the object of extensive white-knighting by the prog evangelical community. But that wasn't an identity in itself, just a sort of affiliate status. These identities are too well gatekept to ever be fully inclusive.
Covid finally solved that problem. Everyone was now a victim of Trump, but especially the elderly and the immunocompromised. A certain type of (mostly female) personality tends to routinely overestimate vulnerability to infectious disease, to the point where "immunocompromised" or "Covid vulnerable" can be claimed as highly ecumenical identities to the point of universality. Instead of being at the bottom of the woke totem pole (the stereotypical rich white female Karen), you're suddenly in the front lines of a war against "Covidiots", a literal zombie class threatening to infect you. It made intersectionality egalitarian and ecumenical. In a funny way it's the woke-religion equivalent of Paul's ministry to the gentiles, allowing identity politics to become universally accessible to everyone regardless of race, station, or privilege.
Over the last couple years, my mother's awkwardly pro-gay and pro-trans posts (which were often walked back apologetically within 24 hours after scolding from her Bible-college friends) have been completely replaced with full-throated enthusiasm for whatever narrative is being backed by the CDC in any given week. It's a forcefully progressive identity that aging trad-lifestyle Boomers can fully embrace without the risk of "How do you do, fellow kids" cringe.
One point on identity and masking: it's become fairly widely known that liberals tend to overestimate covid hazards. The polls indicate a believed fatality rate of 30% or more. Since many younger people still don't know anyone who's died from the virus, why do they keep making themselves miserable by following the lockdown mantras?
I figure that unless you believe there's a high chance you'll get killed by the virus, you will not put up with everything that's been forced on you. And in a way, it is more comfortable, now, to stay in your neurotic cocoon than to question the authorities and realize that they've been peddling snake oil. So you keep wearing masks and obeying the signs, you still regard other people as hazards, and maybe you blame all your miserableness on the people who just won't do as they're told and do their part to end this.
My meager mind isn't able to reconcile the concepts of this and the previous post about engagement though.
For example, even though it seems the church is positioned to engage rudderless folks, if they do this by using facts as the previous post recommends (as one option), then we have (often) poorly informed pastors getting out-technocratted by the rudderless (maybe they should stick with sports now that I think about it from a different perspective). I don't think (or at least haven't experienced yet) a rudderless person changes their minds through discussion. Yes, facts one hears is part of the identification process, but I take it more like the process described in the Bible, where a fool is enticed by a desire and then it ends up giving birth to sin eventually.
For the ones looking for reasons to disagree with David, this commenter is not saying wearing a mask is a sin (it could be though). Hah, a non-intentional example of what I am saying. If a person is reading, but has something itching to disagree with this post, then it's probably a fruit of a heart process already underway.
The idea of "Covid Hawk" as an idpol category helps to make sense of the evolution of a category of upper-class evangelical progressives -- represented most directly in my own life by my mother. As a boomer raised in evangelical culture, she finds most of these new identity-based communities are off-putting. Jumping into a forum of LGBT Gen-Z types talking about their gender fluidity, or a group of 4th gen feminists tweeting their abortions, say, would be a bridge too far. She can't easily reconcile her cultural roots with showing up at a rally where everyone is wearing pussy hats and holding "F*** Trump" signs.
A temporary solution was the idea of allyship, where a class of disadvantaged people (immigrants, or urban blacks) would become the object of extensive white-knighting by the prog evangelical community. But that wasn't an identity in itself, just a sort of affiliate status. These identities are too well gatekept to ever be fully inclusive.
Covid finally solved that problem. Everyone was now a victim of Trump, but especially the elderly and the immunocompromised. A certain type of (mostly female) personality tends to routinely overestimate vulnerability to infectious disease, to the point where "immunocompromised" or "Covid vulnerable" can be claimed as highly ecumenical identities to the point of universality. Instead of being at the bottom of the woke totem pole (the stereotypical rich white female Karen), you're suddenly in the front lines of a war against "Covidiots", a literal zombie class threatening to infect you. It made intersectionality egalitarian and ecumenical. In a funny way it's the woke-religion equivalent of Paul's ministry to the gentiles, allowing identity politics to become universally accessible to everyone regardless of race, station, or privilege.
Over the last couple years, my mother's awkwardly pro-gay and pro-trans posts (which were often walked back apologetically within 24 hours after scolding from her Bible-college friends) have been completely replaced with full-throated enthusiasm for whatever narrative is being backed by the CDC in any given week. It's a forcefully progressive identity that aging trad-lifestyle Boomers can fully embrace without the risk of "How do you do, fellow kids" cringe.
One point on identity and masking: it's become fairly widely known that liberals tend to overestimate covid hazards. The polls indicate a believed fatality rate of 30% or more. Since many younger people still don't know anyone who's died from the virus, why do they keep making themselves miserable by following the lockdown mantras?
I figure that unless you believe there's a high chance you'll get killed by the virus, you will not put up with everything that's been forced on you. And in a way, it is more comfortable, now, to stay in your neurotic cocoon than to question the authorities and realize that they've been peddling snake oil. So you keep wearing masks and obeying the signs, you still regard other people as hazards, and maybe you blame all your miserableness on the people who just won't do as they're told and do their part to end this.
Great post.
My meager mind isn't able to reconcile the concepts of this and the previous post about engagement though.
For example, even though it seems the church is positioned to engage rudderless folks, if they do this by using facts as the previous post recommends (as one option), then we have (often) poorly informed pastors getting out-technocratted by the rudderless (maybe they should stick with sports now that I think about it from a different perspective). I don't think (or at least haven't experienced yet) a rudderless person changes their minds through discussion. Yes, facts one hears is part of the identification process, but I take it more like the process described in the Bible, where a fool is enticed by a desire and then it ends up giving birth to sin eventually.
For the ones looking for reasons to disagree with David, this commenter is not saying wearing a mask is a sin (it could be though). Hah, a non-intentional example of what I am saying. If a person is reading, but has something itching to disagree with this post, then it's probably a fruit of a heart process already underway.