Magical thinking and discursive contagion during the COVID-19 pandemic

This chapter explores magical thinking and its relation to secular rituals emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic. Historically, cleaning, washing, polishing, whitening, purifying and exploiting the magical powers of soap have been experiences deeply embedded in the imperial economy of domesticity and the colonial configuration of blackness as pollution and dirt. Focusing on UK government’s campaign ‘Hands, Face, Space’, I suggest that the popularisation of a science-based protection ceremony is an invitation to embrace not only scientific reason, but the magic of science too. The latter is approached through a psychoanalytic interrogation of magical thinking. I argue that instead of encouraging magical thinking in relation to scientific-based rituals, in the post-lockdown society we need to find ways of rekindling what the Hungarian anthropologist and psychoanalyst Géza Róheim calls the ‘magic principle’; a non-psychotic form of magic that does not rely on magical rituals but on the anticipation of being looked after from others. To the magical wish to ‘wash our hands to happy birthday’, I juxtapose a magical thinking that prompts us to place a demand for care on the external world. It is only through a decolonial approach to psychoanalysis that the psychosocial implications of care and the anticipation for a more caring society can be explored and pursued in the post-pandemic world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed remarkable stress on all aspects of society, from health care and the economy to the psychological well-being of communities. While the crisis is still playing out in the United States and around the world, it is nevertheless appropriate to begin to assess its impact. This article asks: What documentable public failures provide a deeper understanding of the U.S. government COVID-19 responses’ impact on supply chains? Case examples show that markets were adversely affected in ways that caused avoidable shortages of critical goods and supplies. Moreover, public procurement effectiveness was likely reduced by short-run efforts to obtain political advantage. The article begins with a brief review of disaster procurement, highlighting how public procurement professionals tried to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The next section delineates three politically led phenomena that adversely impacted procurement’s ability to acquire the needed goods and services, including a lack of cohesive strategy in acquiring essential personal protective equipment; preference for unproven drugs and magical thinking; and cozy relationships between the public and private sectors. The article concludes by discussing the centrality of public sector procurement professionals as a critical link for effective provision of government services, especially in times of crisis.

IntroductionThe uncertainty of contemporary social contexts fosters suspiciousness and anaclitic anxieties. In the context of interpersonal relationships this manifests in cognitive distortions and magical thinking, specially in the vulnerable populations.ObjectivesTo study the ability of understanding social causality and its relation to magical thinking and ambiguity intolerance in schizophrenia and controls.MethodsParticipants were 40 inpatients with paranoid schizophrenia and 40 controls. Understanding of social causality was measured by corresponding SCORS-S scale for Thematic Apperception Test, Magical thinking was measured by SPQ-74 and intolerance to ambiguity by the New Tolerance-Intolerance to ambiguity questionnaires.ResultsThe understanding of social causality was less developed in schizophrenia group (mean values 2.28 and 3.28, p<.001). They manifest omissions of psychological aspects, logical faults and inconsistencies in depicting social relationships. Magical thinking was higher in clinical group (4.32 and 2.33, p<0.001). Two measures were significantly (p<0.05) correlated in both groups. Regression analysis indicates that 37.7% of variance of dependent variable ‘understanding of social causality’ (R2=0,377) was predicted by ‘magical thinking’ (-0,398, p<0,001) and ‘tolerance to ambiguity’ (0,412, p<0,001). The overal level of tolerance of ambiguity was higher in control group (52.2 and 61.0, p<0.002).ConclusionsTolerance of ambiguity, being more characteristic for normal population, underlies the understanding of social causality. In contrast, the intolerance to interpersonal ambiguity is related to increment of anxiety, failures in cognitive elaboration of interpersonal relationships and leads to superstition and illogical beliefs. This relationship has a heuristic value for understanding what is happening to vulnerable individuals in the context of current COVID pandemic.

Talking to children about illness and death of a loved one during the COVID-19 pandemic

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Psychiatry & PsychotherapyFull AccessPsychotherapy in the Time of COVIDHindi Mermelstein, M.D.Hindi MermelsteinSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:12 May 2020https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2020.5b23AbstractA crisis, defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a “time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger,” can disrupt normal defense mechanisms, threatening our ability to return to our “before” functioning. The COVID-19 crisis exacerbates the stress for those with and without preexisting conditions, while impeding the means and methods used to assess and treat psychiatric illness. What role can psychotherapy play in managing this increased level of distress?The COVID-19 world is one of parallel vulnerabilities—the “fear of contagion” versus the “contagion of fear.” At its core, fear creates anxiety and hinders our reasoning ability. The explosion of need, limited resources, and conflicting information lead to mistrust, which adds to the feelings of uncertainty. Furthermore, stay-at-home orders and the closing of schools, businesses, and so on have greatly altered the general structure of our lives. At a time when we feel most overwhelmed, we cannot “borrow” from our everyday routines for stability. Social connections are still possible but at a distance or through a video screen, which creates a sense of separation from the outside world. Absent our normal outlets, amid the extraordinary medical and psychological stress inherent in the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of people in need of psychiatric services has grown exponentially.For our chronically ill patients, the need is even greater. The loss of regular treatment can destabilize symptoms that were previously under control. Patients with depression are more vulnerable to the losses that have occurred. Patients who already struggle with posttraumatic disorders are at greater risk, as are those who rely on a social “herd effect.” A socially anxious patient excitedly stated, “Social distancing—I am an expert! I could teach social distancing!” More recently, however, he became clinically depressed because he had relied on the social structures around him to feel connected. Now he feels neither the attachment to nor encouragement from others. The unpredictable chaos of the pandemic has worsened anxiety for patients who struggle to defend against the chance of the always possible versus the likelihood of the probable. As a result, overwhelming anxiety has mushroomed, magical thinking has prevailed, and panic may ensue.During times of crisis, psychotherapy is generally supportive, using varying approaches that incorporate support, education, symptom relief, and “level setting.” Although this treatment tends to be time limited with short-term goals, in today’s continually shifting landscape and its uncertain time frame, end dates cannot be predetermined. Cognitive-behavioral therapy may be particularly useful in helping reset distorted schema while interpersonal therapy can focus on the role of confusion and diffusion, which are unavoidable at this time. Group therapy allows for the sharing and normalization of experience while recreating social networks that have been lost.The core process of psychotherapy is essentially unchanged regardless of approach. The primary element is the establishment of a therapeutic alliance allowing the story to unfold and the process to go forward. Telepsychiatry provides access to care that would otherwise not be available, with numerous studies reporting outcomes equal to face-to face encounters. For telepsychiatry, there are specific ways to optimize reaching psychiatric treatment goals:Create the frame: It is critical that the “frame” established in person (for example, professional workspaces, documentation of sessions, and office policies) be established equivalently in telepsychiatry. Despite current modifications to standard telemedicine, such as not having a staff member present at the exam, mimicking the in-person structure supports the psychiatrist-patient relationship, provides reassurance through consistency, and protects against the risk of informality that can distort how treatment is conducted.Establish the treatment relationship: In telemedicine, the first conversation for both new and established patients demands the quick establishment or re-establishment of a relationship, obtaining important information such as an emergency contact, explaining the treatment, and inviting questions. Discomfort in the transition from in-office visits may result in initially devaluing telepsychiatry and inappropriately justifying a pause in treatment. Creating or recreating the therapeutic environment can restore the trust in psychotherapy.Listen with the third (or fourth) ear: The nonverbal cues that inform us about the person we are treating, sometimes more profoundly than verbal cues, are vital for successful treatment. Ideally, telehealth should be practiced with videoconferencing, but during this crisis, many patients engage, by choice, telephonically. However, even without video access, asking patients to describe their setting and environment and acknowledging periods of silence can inform the nonverbal elements. The loss of the visual cues demands a much higher level of focus, but the anonymity can help foster the psychotherapeutic process.Telepsychotherapy has unique advantages that enhance treatment for people coming into our virtual offices. The screens allow for a protective distance potentially encouraging patients to speak more freely about difficult subjects they feel too ashamed about to share in person. Moreover, each person chooses the place, which can help empower individuals who feel more stigmatized in the traditional office hierarchy.The ferocity of the COVID-19 crisis, the rapidly evolving knowledge base, and ever-shifting treatment paradigms make it harder to assess risk while the unexpected change from normal health care arrangements hampers the ability to plan. Through implementation of the basic elements of good psychiatric practice while simultaneously embracing the unique elements of telemedicine, we have the ability and opportunity to provide the care that our patients—new and established—so desperately need.On a final note, from one practitioner to another, take care and be mindful of an important air travel rule: In the event of disaster, put on your oxygen mask first before helping others put on theirs. Be aware of your “mask”; if you are having trouble managing in any way, seek help. You are essential, and your personal “mask” and need for “oxygen,” whatever forms they take, are paramount. ■Hindi Mermelstein, M.D., is a board-certified psychiatrist with qualifications in both geriatric and consultation-liaison psychiatry. She has been involved in telepsychiatry for nearly 30 years. ISSUES NewArchived

This manifesto is motivated by the daunting psychosocial issues that were so strikingly revealed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Of particular interest is the collective denial of facts, which resulted in public health policy mistakes and fostered distrust. In hindsight, this could have been prevented. Boccara shows how the core psychosocial response to the pandemic observed in most countries turned out to be wishing for it to either magically go away, as if it had never happened or be dealt with in an effortless way. Magical thinking and, as a consequence denying reality, often prevailed. As such, the psychosocial dynamics deepened the denial even further as several countries ended-up deciding to “live with the virus”. Yet, deliberately choosing endemicity of the coronavirus may lead to insurmountable challenges. Humanity is, therefore, truly finding itself at a turning point. Boccara argues that successfully facing systemic challenges ahead will require societies to systematically take into account ways in which psychosocial dynamics -particularly those operating at the societal unconscious level- impact public policy and societal level dialogue. By this, we mean understanding how mental representations and fantasies, shared anxieties, and social defenses mobilized against those anxieties impact the society; in other words how nations function as social systems. There has probably never been a more critical time than now for societies worldwide to approach critical decisions from a psychosocial perspective. Failing to do so could lead to psychosocial tipping points whereas the world as whole would increasingly mobilized regressed defenses that would make it impossible for societies to manage such challenges. There comes a time when ideas potentially capable of profoundly changing the world must be brought to the centers of decision making. That time is now upon us.

Collateral consequences of COVID-19 epidemic in Greater Paris

This manifesto is motivated by the daunting psychosocial issues that were so strikingly revealed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Of particular interest is the collective denial of facts, which resulted in public health policy mistakes and fostered distrust. In hindsight, this could have been prevented. Boccara shows how the core psychosocial response to the pandemic observed in most countries turned out to be wishing for it to either magically go away, as if it had never happened or be dealt with in an effortless way. Magical thinking and, as a consequence denying reality, often prevailed. As such, the psychosocial dynamics deepened the denial even further as several countries ended-up deciding to “live with the virus”. Yet, deliberately choosing endemicity of the coronavirus may lead to insurmountable challenges. Humanity is, therefore, truly finding itself at a turning point. Boccara argues that successfully facing systemic challenges ahead will require societies to systematically take into account ways in which psychosocial dynamics -particularly those operating at the societal unconscious level- impact public policy and societal level dialogue. By this, we mean understanding how mental representations and fantasies, shared anxieties, and social defenses mobilized against those anxieties impact the society; in other words how nations function as social systems. There has probably never been a more critical time than now for societies worldwide to approach critical decisions from a psychosocial perspective. Failing to do so could lead to psychosocial tipping points whereas the world as whole would increasingly mobilized regressed defenses that would make it impossible for societies to manage such challenges. There comes a time when ideas potentially capable of profoundly changing the world must be brought to the centers of decision making. That time is now upon us.

Throughout history, society has dealt with several devastating pandemics. Our objective is to analyze society's coping mechanisms to deal with pandemic-related stress in history congruent with the values of the time. For that purpose, we have carefully selected some of the most significant pandemics based on their impact and the available psychosocial literature. After a brief introduction, society's coping tools are reviewed and analyzed for the Antonine Plague, the second bubonic plague, the third cholera pandemic, the Spanish flu, the HIV pandemic, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite occurring at different times in history, parallels can be established in the study of society's psychological reactions among different pandemics. Magical thinking, political skepticism, fake accusations, and discrimination of minorities are recurrent reactions in society among different pandemics in history.

This article looks at the contemporary phenomenon of adolescents and children spending increasing amounts of their time on screens. Some of this was accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland is a way to conceptualize what happens when someone goes down a rabbit hole, becoming lost online. Usually, it is more of a nightmare than just a bad dream. The psychological effects can include a pull toward magical thinking and transactional relating. Both can flatten cognitive and emotional depth. Jung’s use of Lévy-Bruhl’s term participation mystique is reviewed as a way to understand a trend toward individual and collective fantasies of being merged with the online world through our screens. Artificial intelligence (AI) introduces a completely newer aspect of this trend. The author reviews his previous ideas about seeking relief from emotional distress by using screens as alternate psychic containers. All of these uses of screens are problematic because they can lead to overexcitement, inner depletion, devaluation of self-capacities, and reliance on nonhuman contacts. Suggestions for addressing the mental health issues that arise from overdependence on screens are proposed.

Magic, metaphysics, and methods

This issue of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science includes three articles from a panel organized by this journal on “The Nuts and Bolts of Transformation: Science Fiction's Imagined Technologies and the Civic Imagination,” which was held at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) in San Diego on November 24, 2019. The panel's goal was to explore how science fiction both cultivates and intervenes in the ways that we imagine technology's role in society, both present and future. Through a variety of narrative and representative means, works of science fiction can both model potential versions of our sociotechnical future and provide the thinking ground for critical reflection on the role of various technologies in the present. Emanuelle Burton, co-organizer of the panel, introduces the thematic section and the larger setting of the panel (which featured six speakers). Michelle Marvin's article studies the phenomenon of memory-altering technologies in Westworld and shows that unreconciled altered traumatic memory may lead to a dystopian breakdown of society; she emphasizes connections between memory altering technologies and humanity's responsibility to remember rightly. Nathan Schradle's article assesses current attitudes toward artificial intelligence and quantum computing from works that do not self-represent as a science fiction but that offer near-future imaginaries; he argues that they represent a modern-day form of magical thinking. Finally, Zhange Ni's article turns attention to imaginary worlds around the magical practice of Chinese alchemy fused with science and technology, in a new fantasy subgenre that emerged in contemporary China, xiuzhen xiaoshuo (immortality cultivation fiction); she shows how this subgenre reconceptualizes Western transhumanism. The book symposium on Josh Reeves's recent book Against Methodology in Science and Religion: Recent Debates on Rationality and Theology (2019) addresses a central question in the field of science and religion, as it has developed over the last few decades: the compatibility (or not) of theology and science according to theories of scientific methodology or rationality. Reeves argues against the methodological compatibility strategy. This book symposium was organized by Paul Allen, who chaired an author-meets-critics session at the annual meeting of the AAR in San Diego on November 23, 2019. In his own contribution to the book symposium, Paul Allen maintains that the philosophical perspective of critical realism combines the objective truth reached through inference and especially cognitive acts of judgment as well as the various, contingent historical contexts that also define where science is practiced; he thus argues against the approach by Reeves to take a primarily historical perspective. James Stump agrees with Reeves that there is no essence to activities labeled “science” that allows them to be objectively identified and demarcated from “nonscience,” which means what qualifies as science is determined by communities; however, he claims that Reeves has relied too much on analytic traditions and neglected continental philosophers, and he suggests a need to articulate a theory of consensus. Pete Jordan addresses the issue of legitimacy and the field of science and religion. He looks at the role of “distance” (from “objects” such as science and religion) and its effects on judgments of legitimacy, surveying the factors that affect those judgments up close and from afar, and posing questions that anyone designing a strategy to increase the perceived legitimacy of an object might ask. Jaime Wright welcomes Reeves's proposal for an anti-essentialist future for the field of science and religion; he suggests in particular a need to study popular culture and its artifacts such as literature, which portray a comingling of religion and science at the level of day-to-day experiences and practices of characters. Victoria Lorrimar sets the “credibility strategy” (the recruitment of scientific methods by theologians to lend credibility to their theological claims) addressed by Reeves in historical context with an exploration of some of the science and religion field's original commitments and goals. She suggests that true dialogue between scientific and theological ideas might be better fostered if it were to be expanded beyond the formal field of science and religion and engaged specific scientific proposals. Reeves offers a response to each of these critiques consecutively, under the following four headings: “Realism,” “Truth and Community,” “Legitimacy,” and “Expanding the Conversation in Science and Religion.” In this issue's Comment and Response section, Christoffer Skogholt comments on Mikael Leidenhag's (2019) article in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, and Leidenhag responds. The issue under debate is whether arguments for theistic evolution that rely on “natural divine causation” can really be distinguished from arguments for intelligent design. Skogholt argues that Leidenhag has actually identified a crucial difference between theistic evolution and religious naturalism, instead of showing that the arguments that he considers for theistic evolution make God redundant. In Leidenhag's response, he reasserts that natural divine causation cannot be used as a demarcation line between theistic evolution and intelligent design, and he emphasizes a more viable form of theistic evolution through “partial causation.” We have five articles to open this issue. Ziba Norman and Michael Reiss deal with topical issue of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on religious practice (particularly through the approach taken by societies to deal with such risk); they argue that if in the longer term, Christian practice were to become separated from its sacramental roots, it would radically alter Christianity. Yuanlin Guo and Hans Radder contribute an article on science policy and philosophy of science, where they investigate Chinese practice-oriented views of science and their political grounds. They argue that a stronger focus on basic science is called for and that this can be supported by critical reflection on the downsides or limits of the Chinese technoscientific approach, drawing also on moral, spiritual or religious values. John Evans, in his empirical sociological study of a “mediating organization” between theologians and the public, compares the structure of the debate about human enhancement among theologians with the debate on this topic among the laity; he finds that the basic divides among the theologians are largely replicated, which allows for reflections on their influence. Shoaib Malik and Elvira Kulieva challenge contemporary Muslim theologian Nuh Ha Mim Keller's claim that belief in human evolution would entail “kufr” (disbelief); a critical review of his argumentation (involving the science of evolution, naturalism, and creation in Islamic scripture) reveals that Keller has overlooked other possibilities, and that believing in evolution does not necessarily or definitively entail kufr. Emily Qureshi-Hurst and Anna Pearson, in the final article, examine the recently studied quantum mechanical phenomenon of “Indefinite Causal Order”; they offer a penetrating analysis of quantum mechanics, time, and theology, and identify a new approach to salvation through interpreting the Indefinite Causal Order phenomenon. Two book reviews complete the issue: Varadaraja Raman reviews Alok Kumar's Ancient Hindu Science: Its Transmission and Impact on World Cultures, and Jonathan Chappell reviews Raymond Tallis's The Mystery of How We Make Sense of the World. In conjunction with the retirement on October 1, 2020 of our long-standing Assistant Editor, Deb Van der Molen, we are undertaking a reorganization of the Editorial Office, with a smaller office (financially supported by CASIRAS-held funds earmarked for Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science) remaining at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago and all manuscript-related communications shifting to Wiley's Managing Editor services. Dave Glover will remain in the Chicago Office as Editorial Assistant (with a reduced number of hours) for all nonmanuscript-related editorial office tasks, including offering administrative support for the nonprofit corporation behind the journal. I would like to thank both Deb and Dave here for their incredible dedication to the journal, which has been a significant contributor to its success over the past few decades.