Unmasking: A study in free will
The Californian drawl of “You do you” and the more polished “To everyone their own”, are adages that people use on a daily basis. As a society, we have all carefully cultivated a strong line between infringement of others’ freedoms and the achievement of our own. Truly, no one can be absolutely free from mortal limitations, shackles that life places on us and things that we willingly want to abide by. Even the most gruesome serial killers abide by a code of honor, a set of groundrules or a basic sense of what they would do and not do. But how far does the argument go? When would one’s freedom obstruct another’s in a way that can be considered substantial? And how does this translate to wearing masks and heading out to shop for groceries? The gentle but boring answer to this question would be that it depends. Everyone has their own line to tread, and it’s drawn at different points for different people based on their affable idiosyncrasies, their approach to life and their experiences. But collectively, we visualize societies and people at different times to have varying degrees of balance, and acceptance towards this belief. But the long answer to it remains buried out here if you care to read ahead.
To analyze why and how much free will is violated, we would first need to consider the factors that have infringed free will in the past. One obvious factor would be human greed and a sense of achievement which has led to the delectable ruin of civilizations across history. Competitiveness, and winning at life are huge factors especially when winning has objective measures and value to it, even with human nature for fickle memories and half-hearted memorials. Akin to the cycle that creates Sith Lords, fear can be a motivator and a detriment as it leads to protectiveness, which is sweet when done right and revolting when forced upon incorrigibly. There’s also a perception of bias and hatred for new and different types of people based on a multitude factors, but to objectivize our evaluation, we can isolate these from consideration. But where does all of this fit in the mask-wearing newly normal world of today? Protectiveness, fear, human greed for experiences and normal life, and winning at living the life of our dreams are among the major reasons cited by mask wearers as well as self-righteous protestors. But there is enough reason why this has transcended from a a personal choice to a public policy decision, and it’s not just the gravity of it.
Funnily enough, the idea of self-actualization and the fear of not living one’s ideal life out, can scare the most fearless people into stuttering wimps. Survival of the fittest (, or at least the fit) has been a universal paradigm which always rears its necessary but unpleasant head in this day and age. But, the best part of the curious case of mask wearers and opposers is that this is a wonderful problem to have, and solve. Across time, wealth or quality of life has been measured in gold or currency, human achievement and longevity. Naturally, this comes from the fact that wealth was seen as a gateway for a higher range of experiences and security which might be unaffordable to the lower economic classes. But with globalization, the free market and the cost of goods and services, time and a certain penchant for life became the gateway to these experiences. With the emergence of the middle class, ‘carpe diem’ became the birthright that resonated across the rich and the poor and everyone in between. And with the imposition of mask wearing, people felt their ability at leading a full life was impaired, which is on-paper infringement of free will since it impedes their ability to make decisions. To the common man, the period to which this imposition is levied can change things, since it can be the difference between making sacrifices for the fellow citizen and feeling forcefully protected. And this becomes a sentiment that is decided by one’s tolerance for the pain of repressing ideal life, and editing their plans for life. This is why the simple question of should I have to wear a mask becomes a more ethical and emotional question, than it seems on paper.
While I am just the average sheep parading as an intellectual here, I do not have any opinions (on record) on why one should wear a mask. But, as a person that understands basic statistics and the clique effect, I do know us wearing or not wearing a mask can send a stronger message than we think. Naturally, this would be because for a mask wearer, seeing people without one would give the impression of them not taking chances for the bigger good of society, and selfishly for themselves to remain healthy. And for the objector, a stigma on mask wearing could mean that they feel victimized for caring enough to ensure their mental health is protected, and they lead life in a normal way, which would be for themselves to remain unaffected in a different way. While people need to take appealing choices on a personal level based on their beliefs, this does raise a question if institutional emphasis on community planning can create harmonious spaces for social distancing. I would think this makes sense, as sating the human need for harmonious and non-intrusive interaction and individually limiting one’s guilt of not seizing life could be outcomes from it. Increased planning on simple things like schedules could ensure more private space, and the right and healthy amount of socializing with immediate community. Ideally, though we have our own preferences for ideal pandemic behavior, communicating decisions and planning on a local level can be a part of the new normal as here, we collectively ensure free will of every last person. The caveats of this would be natural in that it might not be easy to work out, or it is not a well thought out idea in the first place. But unless you can think of a different way we can win-win-win at this, I rest my case.
