https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331220938627
Space and Culture
2020, Vol. 23(3) 221 –225
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1206331220938627
journals.sagepub.com/home/sac
Article
Dancing in Quarantine:
The Spatial Refiguration
of Society and the
Interaction Orders
Martina Löw1 and Hubert Knoblauch1
Abstract
Brief position statements on the theme of quarantine
Keywords
space, quarantine, city, communication
In the current peak phase of the worldwide coronavirus pandemic, quarantine and (self-)isolation
have become the dominant forms of social life in numerous countries. We will use the term
“quarantine” to indicate the spatial separation of people from each other in order to protect them
from infection. Quarantine is thus a social spatial phenomenon in the most obvious sense. This
spatial form of separating people consists of medical, material, and social demarcation of mate-
rial spaces and legal, institutional or situational rules of what have come to be known as “social
distancing” (Valdez et al., 2018). Social distancing may be enforced, imposed or recommended
by legal regulations (Ding, 2014).
These regulations vary widely: on the one hand, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan took the
virus quite seriously from the start and kept public life going, but enforced selective quarantine
confinement by tracking the chains of contact of infected persons. Populist regimes on the other
hand, tended to ignore the risk as long as possible, pinning hopes on “herd immunity.” Many
liberal governments, too, imposed harsh regulations concerning the peoples’ liberty of move-
ment. A soft version of “recommended” quarantine is the ban on contact, first advised and later
imposed, in most federal states in Germany: Direct interaction was restricted to household mem-
bers only, but people were allowed to leave the house and use public space for jogging, cycling,
and taking a walk, apart from shopping for essentials and other activities related to (legally and
morally) legitimate movements in public space (e.g., commuting). In other countries curfews are
imposed, allowing access to public spaces only for the most urgent needs (such as buying food
and medicines, and seeing a doctor).
Despite these differences, it is obvious that the pandemic affects all aspect of social life,
touching upon its spatial and material sides in serious ways and across all scales. Linking the
biological and the social micro levels, containment measures center on human interactions and
1Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Martina Löw, Technical University of Berlin, Fraunhoferstr. 33, Berlin 10587, Germany.
Email: [email protected]
938627SACXXX10.1177/1206331220938627Space and CultureLöw and Knoblauch
research-article2020
222 Space and Culture 23(3)
embodied communication situations (in which the virus might unintentionally be passed).
Coronavirus has led to a radical transformation of urban and regional space, organizations, and
public places, national policies, and transnational relations.
In light of these enormous consequences, it seems legitimate and necessary to ask not only
what is happening to society during the corona crisis now but also what is going to happen after
it is over. How can we make sense of the crisis in terms of social science and what can we expect,
fear or hope to happen? Is the “state of quarantine” just a transient state, a kind of liminal anti-
structure (Turner, 1969), a political emergency order for societies in crisis, after which we will
return to the resilient social order and everyday life as we’ve known it? Or will it bring a version
of the “enclave society” that has existed before but was widely ignored in the light of what
seemed to be an unstoppable process of globalization, transnationalization, and spatial transgres-
sion, as Turner (2007) suggests?
Although we may assume that the “hammer” phase of confinement with the most severe bans
and restrictions will soon yield to open more and liberal forms of political control, that is, the
“dance”, as Pueyo (2020) puts it, we argue that the crisis reinforces a general spatial pattern we
have identified as the refiguration of space (Knoblauch & Löw, 2020).
Basically, refiguration results from the tension between two spatial logics. On the one
hand, we see territorial closure. Countries, residential areas, private homes, gated communi-
ties, and quarantine places (Turner, 2007) are seen as “containers” that have to be protected
against the virus or contain it. On the other hand, we see the uncontained, global spread of
the virus, the densification of digital networking processes and a massive opening up of
communication channels fulfilling new functions in the crisis. The same tension between
these two basic spatial logics is expressed in the figuration of the centralized territorial state
on the one hand and globalization across all borders on the other. It resides in the contrast
between sharp top-down hierarchies and logical-conceptual analyses versus flat network
formations, “rhizomes”, and ontological metaphors. Territorial spaces follow a logic of plac-
ing and arranging, according to which clear boundaries are drawn outwardly, and a restric-
tion of diversity is accepted within. They are generally perceived as static. In contrast,
network spaces follow the logic of the relationalization of heterogeneous elements. In net-
work spaces, distant elements are brought into relation with each other with difference
between elements being characteristic.
The tension between territorial and network logics, between hierarchy and heterarchy, limi-
tation and delimitation, and homogeneity and heterogeneity, is particularly acute in the corona
crisis. For one thing, we are dealing with a spatially unbounded pandemic, although it is
unclear how much difference there is (for most patients) to a common influenza infection. On
the other hand, the virus poses a deadly risk, not just for those who die a miserable death by
suffocation. It is this deadly scenario threatening to overwhelm the public health system that
frightens so many of us calling for radical government action (with the exception of a few
countries, such as Sweden).
The concept of refiguration helps to explain the simultaneity of tensions in the corona crisis,
which is in fact a global risk. It is remarkable, therefore, that the global spread has not been met
with a global response. In Europe, national states have overruled transnational cooperation and
made unilateral decisions to close borders (even in areas and regions within national territories).
Borders, for decades neither controlled nor fortified, were shut down without prior notice or
consultation (for instance between France and Germany). Not only have national territories been
sealed off but also stranded national citizens outside the country were rushed home in unprece-
dented “repatriation” actions.
However, we are not dealing here with the discourse of alt-right conservatives addressing
the people (Das Volk). Apart from preventing contraction, neither ethnic origin nor other dis-
criminating factors seemed important. The focus is clearly on the “population” in Foucault’s
Löw and Knoblauch 223
(2009) sense of the term. Population is the reference point for a modern version of power that
has emerged with the modern nation state, a power Foucault (2009) called “governmentality”.
In contrast to monarchic power, government (as apparatus and set of social practices) centers
on the knowledge-based regulation of the people that are controlled in historically unique
ways. Using figures and statistics, the government pledges to take care of the security and
safety of a country’s “population”. Security technologies and control strategies that regulate
institutions such as law enforcement agencies (the police) lead to the formation of security
dispositifs and “security societies” (Foucault, 2009). Populations are characterized by internal
circulation processes involving people and goods, yet basically they are generated by the fact
that space is (de-)limited to create various forms of territory—states, provinces, and cities.
These implications of the notion of population, usually backgrounded when we reflect on the
public sphere and its specialized institutions with highly differentiated functions, are currently
re-surfacing. This was especially visible in the ban of “physical contacts” in public spaces dur-
ing lockdowns, a form of direct contact that takes place between human bodies in co-presence
of one another. Precisely this material aspect, the shared presence of human bodies in public
space, has now become a security problem. The majority of modern society’s functional sys-
tems have abruptly been stalled and have switched to emergency state mode, in which only
“systemically critical”, essential functions such as providing food, medical goods and health
services, and, naturally, the proper functioning of police forces are maintained (with people
providing and securing these services receiving special attention and honors these days—see
“clap for our carers” and related events). The material aspect of public life, that is, co-present
human beings in direct interaction with each other, is meanwhile limited to the smallest of
social units—individuals, couples, and nuclear families sharing a household.
The closure of territorial space corresponds to the opposite principle of opening mediated
spaces through teleworking. Unable to meet face to face, people go on Skype or Zoom. If we
can’t work in the office, we are working from home. And if restaurants and cafes are shut
down, we order food via digital services, praying that the delivery is as germ-free as surfing
on the internet. In the current emergency order, hyper-compressed in terms of space, shared
public presence is compensated by digital communication in the virtual space, where people
meet, exercise, play music and so on. Other social functions are also transferred to the digital
realm: university seminars are converted to online teaching and public administration goes
online. Working from home allows the majority of organizations to operate on digital com-
munication technologies. Internet, email, and video conferences keep us connected to inter-
national circles, allow us to start collective initiatives, remain in our bubbles, or develop new
rituals from a distance.
With many aspects of society going “digital,” thereby transgressing bounded territories just
like the virus, the nation state becomes “governmental” in Foucault’s sense of the term, in that it
is directed at the population—not conceived as “mass,” but as a multitude of small, individual
units. The focus of governmental action is thus not on “the people” claiming rights, nor on a
democratic civil or open society; it lies on the population, which must be protected, informed,
treated medically, and policed.
“Policing” takes a specific form in the current corona crisis. In order to capture the particu-
larity of this crisis, a fresh look at Ulrich Beck’s concept of “risk society” seems worthwhile.
The corona epidemic is a risk that, in obvious ways, requires scientific expertise to be able to
contain the virus, but also to properly define the disease. Distinguishing COVID-19 (SARS-
CoV-2) from an “ordinary” flu takes, as we’ve become painfully aware, a great deal of technical
and scientific effort. Also, the hazardous nature of the virus is itself largely defined by scientific
aspects and methods. Empirical surveys are carried out to measure the spread of coronavirus
and the law of exponential growth serves as model in defining the spread rate, tallies, numbers,
and figures rule.
224 Space and Culture 23(3)
Coronavirus can be understood as a risk production in Beck’s sense of the term. But while
Beck sees “danger” as a distinct phenomenon, accessible to the senses and mostly (territorially)
delimited, coronavirus represents a ubiquitous, invisible, and omnipresent risk. This risk is, how-
ever, not directly caused by human action in the sense that it is the result or consequence of
industrialization or rationalization processes. China, where it originated, is not part of the global
periphery but a major center. Despite being a global challenge, coronavirus will not lead us to
what Beck (1999) called a “world risk society,” where all of us suffer the consequences of mod-
ernization. These consequences are, of course, highly problematic (epitomized in the climate
change), yet the corona pandemic is not just a product of the first modernity. It is also a conse-
quence of the second modernity characteristic of China and its compressed modernization devel-
opment (Chang, 2010), including the high degree of digitalization, global mass tourism, and
economies networked via global supply chains. The key institution controlling the neoliberal,
late-modern era is no longer economy; it is state politics with the government firmly holding the
reins. If anything, it is this what the corona crisis clearly shows.
Although many states have imposed various forms of confinement and quarantine by locking
down the public sphere, these spatial restrictions and separations will for the most part remain a
transient feature of the rather “liminal” order in a state of official crisis. Nevertheless, it is strik-
ing to see the extraordinary powers national states and their subdivisions have seized in order to
manage the global challenge, a power-grabbing authorized by the legislative and people alike—
as long as the measures seem (are made to seem) legitimate and proportional. Even more striking
is the fact that political decisions are currently overruling the interests of capitalist economies
dominant in “late” modernity. These are just a few indicators for the refiguration of space. Thus,
although international trade relations will continue, the recent announcement of the German
government to repatriate “systemic relevant” industries outsourced to other countries in the past,
permits the prediction of an increase in “economic nationalism” in the near future, even among
the ranks of globalist, (neo)liberal and transnational European actors.
Refiguration will certainly not result in one-sided deglobalization developments. It will,
however, most probably imply the re-affirmation of “the nation” and national interests, and
the economic contingencies of the current crisis may accelerate the relocation and reshifting
of global economic and political centers, sub-centers, and peripheries in favor of those coun-
tries who were better able to tackle the pandemic, and therefore have a better start in the
aftermath of the crisis. Although the liminal phase of quarantine will soon be followed by a
step-by-step reopening of shared public space, characterized by co-presence, embodied inter-
action, and collective events, it can be assumed that the explosive progress of digitalization
will not be reversed. The norms of social distancing may be eased in the long run, yet the
longer the virus presents a hazardous risk, the more likely we will also witness a refiguration
of the established “interaction order” (Goffman, 1981), particularly in the western world,
introducing new politeness rituals, new forms of “face management”, the (re-)formalization
of social relations, the production of new technologies of the self, body techniques, and more
digital surveillance.
In the present state of disorientation, the concept of refiguration helps, we believe, to look
at the potential paths societies may take in the future, by analyzing tendencies we can perceive
in social space. We would like to stress, however, that deploying the concept of refiguration is
not a deterministic approach. Since spatial refiguration is grounded in human action, it offers
the opportunity to reflect and act in various ways, and anticipate, oppose or thwart tendencies
that prevent us from joint action and reflection, or threaten what we call open societies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Löw and Knoblauch 225
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Martina Löw https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8123-4356
References
Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Polity Press.
Chang, K-S. (2010): East Asia’s condensed transition to modernity. Soziale Welt, 61(3), 319–328.
Ding, H. (2014). Transnational quarantine rhetoric: Public mobilization in SARS and in H1N1 flu. Journal
of Medical Humanities, 35, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-014-9282-8
Foucault, M. (2009). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the College de France, 1977–78. Palgrave
MacMillan.
Goffman, E. (1981). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17.
Hall, E. T. (1982). The hidden dimension. Anchor Books.
Knoblauch, H., & Löw, M. (2020) The re-figuration of spaces and refigured modernity—concept and diag-
nosis. Historical Social Research, 45(2), 263–292. doi: 10.12759/hsr.45.2020.2.263-292.
Pueyo, T. (2020). Coronavirus: The hammer and the dance. What the next 18 months can look like, if
leaders buy us time. Medium. https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-
dance-be9337092b56
Turner, B. S. (2007). The enclave society: Towards a sociology of immobility. European Journal of Social
Theory, 10(2), 287–304.
Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Aldine Transaction.
Valdez, L. D., Buono, C., Macri, P. A., & Braunstein, L. A. (2018): Social distancing strategies against
disease spreading. WSPC Proceedings 19/8, September 26, 1–28.
Author Biographies
Martina Löw is professor of sociology at the Technische Universität Berlin, Germany. Currently Martina
Löw and Hubert Knoblauch are the heads of the Collaborative Research Centre “Re-Figuration of Spaces”
(DFG).
Hubert Knoblauch is professor of sociology at the Technische Universität Berlin, Germany. Currently
Hubert Knoblauch and Martina Löw are the heads of the Collaborative Research Centre “Re-Figuration of
Spaces” (DFG).
