Linguistic rebordering: Constructing COVID-19 as an external threat (Eva Nossem, Saarland University) DE Sprachliches Rebordering: Die Konstruktion von COVID-19 als Bedrohung von außen (Eva Nossem, Universität des Saarlandes) FR Rebordering linguistique : la construction du COVID-19 en tant que menace extérieure (Eva Nossem, Université de la Sarre) Last week (March 25, 2020), the G7 countries’ failure to issue a joint statement because of Washington’s insistence on using the label ‘Wuhan virus’ (Hudson and Mekhennet 2020) hit the headlines, and the U.S. administration has been working hard over the last weeks to enforce ‘Chinese virus’ as the official label for the coronavirus during their press conferences. This move of rebranding the virus by using a specific ‘placemark’ is just one of the many strategies of apportioning the blame for the (spread of the) virus to a specific place/country and to construct the disease as a foreign-grown threat to the nation. In this vein, Washington’s attempts have been happily taken up in nationalist politics in other parts of the world: Jair Bolsonaro’s son aggressively attacked China by blaming it for the pandemics (Phillips 2020). The oftentimes criticized Italian TV reached a new all-time low when the former minister of internal affairs and right-wing politician Matteo Salvini and presenter Barbara D’Urso recited a prayer for all the Italian death cases of the pandemics (Rubino 2020), and, in the same show, Alessandra Mussolini, notorious supporter of her grandfather’s fascist politics, silenced the invited virologists and experts by insisting the ‘Wuhan virus’ were created in a secret lab by the Chinese (Drogo 2020). Countless other examples could be put forward, and the list is getting longer every day. Naming as linguistic (re-)bordering If we understand ‘borders’ as “symboli[zing] a social practice of spatial differentiation,” (van Houtum & van Naerssen 2001: 126), ‘bordering’ as “processes which include modifications of the socio-spatial, dynamic, and political organization and order on different scales” (Nienaber “(De-/Re-)Bordering” 2020, forthcoming; my translation), and ‘rebordering’ as the “strengthening of existing borders and also the emergence of new types and functions of borders” (ibid.; my translation), then the practice of naming in this specific case can be understood as a linguistic practice of (re-)bordering, as ‘linguistic (re-)bordering’ processes: The disease is assigned to a specific location outside of one’s own borders and thus created as something foreign, which is then seen as a threat to the nation from the outside. It is easily understandable that this divisionary naming tactics does not offer any solution to the problem or any help in the fight against the pandemic. Quite on the contrary: Along with the scapegoating of China, discrimination and racist attacks against Asian people have been on the rise in the West; with the Italians (and in our local region also our French neighbors from Grand Est) being the next in line to come under attack (see e.g. the assertion by the British physician and TV star Christian Jessen that the Italians used Corona to have a “long siesta” (Harrison 2020)). A short history of stigmatizing naming of diseases All the noise about the naming of the virus can be best confronted by critically putting the tactics of naming, particularly of diseases, in a broader context. This specific virus might be new, but scapegoating through naming surely isn’t. In 2015, the WHO already issued guidelines for the naming of diseases “to minimize unnecessary negative effects on nations, economies and people,” (WHO 2015) in which it criticized stigmatizing naming practices and clarified that the authority of naming lies with them: “The final name of any new human disease is assigned by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which is managed by WHO” (ibid.). The Spanish flu The history of naming diseases after geographic locations and particularly nations mainly seems to go hand in hand with the development of ‘the nation,’ dating back to the 19th century. One of the most famous pandemics so far, the Influenza pandemic of 1918-20, still today is commonly known in English as the ‘Spanish Influenza.’ When the disease hit Spain, the “Spaniards called the highly contagious disease ‘The Soldier of Naples’ after a catchy song popular at the time[,]” explains Shafer in his article in the Washington Post on March 23, 2020, in which he fans out the different naming practices of the disease. When the disease spread all over the world, it was rebranded as ‘Spanish Influenza,’ not because of its origins, which probably were in the U.S., but because of the severity with which it hit Spain. The OED states: Fig. 1: Oxford English Dictionary: “Spanish influenza.” (OED) In an article published by CNN’s Harmeet Kaur, the hypothesis is proposed that maybe Spain was not hit worse than other European states but that it simply had a more open and honest handling of the disease and was more honest than other states during the instable situation of crisis at that time. Shafer also offers a broader view and outlines the naming practices for the 1920s influenza in other countries and languages: “[N]ations were pointing fingers at one another. Spain also called the virus the ‘French flu,’ claiming French visitors to Madrid had brought it. ‘Germans called it the Russian Pest,’ wrote Kenneth C. Davis in his book, ‘More Deadly Than War.’ In a precursor to today’s crisis, ‘The Russians called it the Chinese Flu.’” (Shafer 2020) An American Disease? In drawing a parallel to the current naming discussions, Shafer smirkingly suggests that COVID-19 should be referred to as the ‘American Disease,’ weren’t it for the fact that the label had already been taken in earlier times, namely in the 17th century as a name for syphilis, as he quotes from Blount’s dictionary (1656). As the definition by Blount shows, the ‘American Disease’ also ran under different names, blaming at the same time the Indies, Spain, Naples, and France: “American Disease. The great Pox, brought first from the Indies by the Spanyards into Christendom, and at the Siege of 𝘕𝘢𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴, they bestowed it on the French their enemies in the yeer 1528.” (Shafer 2020) Names and hypothetic origins of syphilis As already briefly hinted at in the quote above, syphilis is considered one of the first diseases which spread globally. Even though met with doubt and branded ‘the Columbian theory for syphilis,’ there is much to suggest that Columbus brought it to Europe together with potatoes, corn, and tobacco, and in exchange for over 30 disease he and his crew introduced to the Americas such as measles, smallpox, influenza, decimating immense numbers of the Indigenous population. A major breakout took place during the Renaissance among the French army when they invaded Naples, where it was commonly referred to as il mal francese, Latinized as morbus Gallicus, relying on geographical naming. The common name in use still today dates back to the epic poem “Syphilis sive morbus gallicus” published in 1530, which unfolds an explanatory story on the origin of the disease as a punishment by the gods (Pou 2013). More pandemics, more stigmatizing naming Also the earliest influenza pandemic for which detailed records are available is commonly named after its assumed origin, namely the ‘Russian flu,’ which hit the world in 1889-90 (MSN Encarta 2009). At the end of the 1950s, an influenza pandemic spread from China all over the world, which became known as the ‘Asian flu,’ followed a decade later by the next influenza pandemic, then called ‘Hong Kong flu’ in the West (ibid.). Cross-border efforts instead of (linguistic) rebordering All summed up, the outbreak of major influenza pandemics seems as predictable as the subsequent practices of scapegoating and stigmatizing naming. As the above examples demonstrate, not only has the practice of assigning a specific geographical marker always been rather disputable in terms of its truth content but it also has been useless in fighting pandemics. To this day, there hasn’t been a single case of infection that has been prevented by being labeled as French, Italian, American, Russian, or Chinese. Quite on the contrary: The presumptuous othering practice of allocating diseases to something ‘foreign’ contributes to giving the own population a false sense of security and consequently an oftentimes careless attitude which might prove particularly dangerous at a later time. This practice of disease- based othering, which might be termed ‘linguistic rebordering,’ also entails that every state and community has to learn from their own experiences. It also impedes them from learning from each other – a fatal error, as we can see now. What we need more than ever, instead of divisive rebordering, are joint forces and common efforts, particularly across borders. Stay safe everyone out there! Eva Nossem, UniGR-Center for Border Studies, Saarland University This blog entry is part of the UniGR-CBS working paper n°8 “The pandemic of nationalism and the nationalism of pandemics,” published by Eva Nossem in April 2020. References Drogo, Giovanni: “Alessandra Mussolini si scopre virologa e ci spiega il complotto del laboratorio di Wuhan da Barbara D’Urso.” Next quotidiano, March 30, 2020; last accessed 04/01/2020. Harrison, Ellie: “Coronavirus: Dr Christian Jessen says Italians are using pandemic as an excuse for ‘long siesta’.” The Independent, March 13, 2020; last accessed 04/02/2020. Hudson, John and Souad Mekhennet: “G-7 failed to agree on statement after U.S. insisted on calling coronavirus outbreak ‘Wuhan virus’.” The Washington Post, March 25, 2020; last accessed 04/01/2020. Kaur, Harmeet: “Yes, we long have referred to disease outbreaks by geographic places. Here’s why we shouldn’t anymore.” CNN, March 28, 2020. MSN Encarta: “Influenza.” 29 October 2009; last accessed 04/01/2020. Nienaber, Birte (2020): “(De-, Re-) Bordering. UniGR-CBS Glossary Border Studies. [Forthcoming]. OED: “Spanish influenza.”; last accessed 04/01/2020. Phillips, Tom: “Bolsonaro’s son enrages Beijing by blaming China for coronavirus crisis.” The Guardian, March 19, 2020; last accessed 04/01/2020. Pou, Rebecca: “Syphilis, or the French Disease.” The New York Academy of Medicine; last accessed 04/08/2020. Rubino, Monica: “Tv del dolore, Salvini e D'Urso sommersi di critiche sui social per l'Eterno riposo recitato in diretta.” La Repubblica, March 30, 2020; last accessed 04/01/2020. Shafer, Ronald G.: “Spain hated being linked to the deadly 1918 flu pandemic. Trump’s ‘Chinese virus’ label echoes that.” The Washington Post, March 23, 2020; last accessed 04/01/2020. Van Houtum, Henk and Ton van Naerssen (2002): “Bordering, Ordering and Othering.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol. 93, No. 2, pp. 125–136. WHO: “WHO issues best practices for naming new human infectious diseases.” May 08, 2015; last accessed 04/01/2020.