A
dead swan was recently found about a mile from our house in a nearby
lake. The poor creature had the misfortune, first, of dying and,
second, of dying at the same time as another swan in Fife, in Scotland,
several hundred miles away. The swan in Fife died of bird flu. So,
suddenly, the swan down the road from our house found itself the
posthumous centre of attention as tests ensued. The situation, however,
proved an anticlimax when the swan was found to have died of natural
causes. This was cold comfort to the swan and, no doubt, bad news
for media people, who were getting excited about the furore. Needless
to say, it was a relief for people across the island of Ireland.
But
what was interesting about this incident was its ability to conjure
up fear in an instant. If I am honest, I was also alarmed at my
own rather selfish and out-of-proportion reaction. Firstly, I had
concerns about whether our child would be safe if we went for a
walk down by the river. Secondly, I envisaged another foot-and-mouth-style
slaughter of all local birds and felt for the poor creatures, which
would, surely, meet their end if bird flu was confirmed. And, finally,
I found some space to spare a thought for the poultry farmers and
the potential impact on their livelihood. Sadly, I think my reaction
is not too dissimilar to many. It seems as if each new global fear
is immediately internalised and individualised. In short, can I
get it? Am I and my family safe? Immediately after the discovery
of the dead swan in Fife, I heard people saying that they would
no longer eat poultry, despite the media making it unequivocally
clear that you cannot get bird flu this way, not to mention the
fact that swan is hardly a staple food. This points to a paradox.
There is increasing information from the media about issues such
as bird flu, yet, at the same time, individuals continue to have
unfounded fears. Why is this the case? One way to look at this is
from the perspective of the information that is imparted. To be
fair to the media in the UK and Ireland, both have attempted to
run with the dont panic story about bird flu.
Tony Blair and various scientists have been liberally quoted as
saying the disease is not a threat to humans. Yet, at the same time,
the media cannot resist highlighting the 100 human fatalities across
the globe with as much of sensationalism as possible. They also
take any opportunity to show photos of crowded chicken coops in
Asian and African markets. Such images shown in a largely Western
society invariably evoke stereotypical perceptions of foreigners
as somehow dirty and primitive, feeding fears of the other
as the source of infectious disease. Another way to look at unrealistic
fears like contracting bird flu in leafy suburbia, which you are
as unlikely as getting as winning the lottery twice in one weekend,
is that such fears are the luxury of those who are comfortable and
do not have that much to worry about. Clearly, the starving villagers
from Jos, in Nigeria, who were recently arrested for exhuming flu-infected
and culled birds to eat had a very different hierarchy of concern.
In
the final instance, the whole bird-flu issue probably teaches us
more about ourselves than about risk. We cannot resist seeing the
world from our own tiny vantage point. Those who are safest in the
world continue to thrive on myths of external threats, such as criminals,
foreigners, terrorists, strangers and disease, while the poor rifle
through a pile of dead poultry looking for food, infected or not.
So, why did the chicken cross the road? Hopefully, to help us open
our eyes.
Brandon
Hamber writes the column "Look South": an analysis
of trends in global political, social and cultural life and its
relevance to South Africa on Polity, see http://www.polity.co.za/pol/opinion/brandon/.
To get "Look South" by email each week click
here.
"Look South" published by

|