Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
Probably because of the fact that a priori the personal theme lies in that very area, which should not be disturbed under any circumstances, because it is, by its definition, not the subject to, and must not be controlled by any social laws. However, entering into interaction with another subject and, thus, with a part of society, we inevitably leave the personal field and enter the social field, where certain rules of the game must exist and be maintained. This primarily concerns the principles of non-violent dormitory - the basis of all liberal consensus.
During the coronavirus pandemic, all the problems that existed hitherto, exacerbated by a shaky pillowcase of comfort and routine, worsened. There is more and more news of domestic violence. As if from nowhere, messages suddenly come up about long-standing harassment. Not only current, but also previous grievances turned into a real traumatic experience become ballast, which must be relieved, especially in a critical situation.
I am fully aware that posting all kinds of personal stories can be based not only and not so much on the insult and need for satisfaction, as on the desire to crack down on a political opponent or commercial competitor. But as a rule, it consists of both parts. The era of greasy compliments is forgiven, but does not go away. Unfortunately. An overestimated libido, even in its European format, not only lost its former freshness, but also turned into a sort of suitcase without a handle, which is a pity to drop and drag is already uncomfortable. Moreover, it is inconvenient in every sense. First of all - shamefully. It is shameful to openly declare your animality, and even to believe that this should flatter someone - this is not just stupid, but rather already anti-aesthetic, unpleasant, with a transition to disgust.
The pathological Soviet existence, where sex was the only one of the few permitted entertainments, which was elevated to the rank of elite leisure, both up and down, has long ended. But the boorish sixties and their brutal younger followers continue to write and speak humility and vulgar compliments, waiting for a positive response. Remember! Nothing but disgust and disgust.
The very idea of a traditionalist family, rapidly degenerating already in the era of socialist dictatorship, has now come to its logical impasse. And the more dangerous it is to remain in it, being not only unprotected, but also with a complete lack of understanding of how to get out of it and where to move on. From the primitive stone to the multi-apartment concrete cave - in fact, we are dealing with the same tool of violence, veiled under domestic and sexual cooperation. From literal cannibalism to psychological cannibalism. Wives eat husbands, husbands wives, children - parents. The latter is very subtly described in Turgenev's “Fathers and Sons”, where at first glance it seems that all the characters are benevolent and no one wants evil.
The family becomes not only a unit of society, as the Communists wanted, but also a unit of control and primary violence. Of all the basic tools of forced socialization — schools, the army, prisons, the family is the worst, for the child is an absolutely disenfranchised being.
Surprisingly, the structure, which was meant as protection from an aggressive environment with wild animals and a harsh climate, itself degenerated into a socially approved institution of lawlessness.
According to media reports, the world is facing an outbreak of domestic violence against women after quarantine measures have been introduced in many countries in connection with the coronavirus epidemic. This is stated in a recent statement issued by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
“We know that isolation at home and quarantine are necessary to overcome the coronavirus,” said the head of the organization. “But as a result, women can be trapped with partners prone to abuse.” “In recent weeks, with increasing economic and social pressure and fear, we are witnessing a terrifying global outbreak of domestic violence ,” he said.
To my question on Facebook about whether your personal relationships changed during the pandemic, the majority replied that the relationship did not change or improved. Although even official statistics suggest otherwise. I attribute this primarily to the fact that the majority still assess interpersonal relations as a form of social presentation, still believing that marriage is an element of status and, thus, continuing to fear public censure.
Although there were exceptions. Here is what came to me in private messages, I quote without cuts: “ With a loved one, self-isolation is really “self ”, which is good, because even before that, our life and work had been built like a joint quarantine for several decades. Art underground. The cat is fine too. To the usual introversion, only additional paranoia was added with the disinfection of products from the store and the rejection of public transport. He used to go to his parents twice a week, now he walks once a week. Everything is calm there. But my retirees seem to have sharply disowned. Cold and condemnation of otherness won. Mother continues to work in the church and ride a taxi there, despite the fact that in her three-room apartment there are two televisions for two people and two whole home iconostases. “Father” is a military pensioner, at the very beginning of the epidemic once again called me “enemy of the people” in all seriousness. They significantly reduced material support (no food, instead of the notorious three thousand a month, put two in), but never was moral. These dear Orthodox people live two blocks away from me, but I began to go to them two times less often (instead of four times a month, only two times) and it was exclusively washed without direct contact, because in our shed there are no conditions for 17 squares . It is time to look for a closer soul. The neighbor who rents the outhouse helps out. Skirting board forever! Poverty solidarity in a crisis is more reliable than false family bonds. ”
I believe that the quarantine experience, which at first became quite a painful existential, moral and economic shock, will shake up the individual’s consciousness and force him to look at a lot in a new way. First of all, whether he needs relationships in the format in which society requires them. Isn’t it more convenient to exist alone? Of course, my passion for individualism and my orientation to it cannot and should not be the rule and the way out for everyone. I accept the fact that many living together is more convenient and comfortable. But I know that this rule does not work for everyone.