ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 pandemic constitutes a global crisis that has necessitated many nations to adopt and enforce various strategies to reduce the spread of the virus, protect citizens, and alleviate pressures on healthcare systems. Central to such reactions are ‘lockdown’ regulations that limit travel, require restricted movement by citizens, and enforce stay-at-home rules. However, while evidence suggests general (but not unanimous) support for the principles of such lockdowns, reports also indicate that individuals are far from universally compliant. In this regard, lockdown rule breaking may be viewed as a form of misbehavior. The aim of this study is to explore and explicate if, and if so, how and why citizens deviate from espoused lockdown rules and neutralize or justify their guilt. In order to do so, we utilize the theory of neutralization as our conceptual lens of analysis. Using in-depth interviews of individuals experiencing lockdown conditions, we analyze neutralization techniques to lockdown infringements. Our analysis suggests that the guilt of rule transgressions is neutralized in two main ways; via the denial of deviance and the negation of the espouse lockdown norm. Insights are generated in specific forms of neutralization and wider implications discussed.

摘要

Covid-19 大流行构成了一场全球危机，许多国家不得不采取并执行各种策略来减少病毒的传播、保护公民并减轻医疗系统的压力。这种反应的核心是限制旅行的“封锁”规定，要求公民限制行动，并执行居家规定。然而，虽然有证据表明普遍（但并非一致）支持此类封锁的原则，但报告也表明个人远未普遍遵守。在这方面，违反锁定规则可能被视为一种不当行为。本研究的目的是探索和解释是否以及如果是，公民如何以及为什么偏离所拥护的封锁规则并消除或证明他们的罪行。为了做到这一点，我们利用中和理论作为我们的分析概念镜头。通过对经历锁定条件的个人的深入访谈，我们分析了锁定侵权的中和技术。我们的分析表明，违反规则的罪行主要通过两种方式被中和；通过否认偏差和对拥护锁定规范的否定。洞察力以特定形式的中和和讨论的更广泛影响产生。