In the midst of this pandemic, some might wish to turn to philosophy to cope with what, for the vast majority, amounts to a radical change of life, great uncertainty, fear, and anxiety.  One, could, for example, remind oneself of a few Stoic or Epicurean  principles: distinguish between those things that are in your power and those that aren’t; act on those that are in your power, and remain indifferent to those that aren’t; derive your own happiness from the satisfaction of needs that are useful and necessary.  But one could just as well, and successfully, turn to other schools of thought, depending one one’s inclinations.

Yet one might also wish to turn to philosophy to try and understand what is currently happening, and adopt towards this unique situation a thoughtful, critical approach.  This is what I offer to do here by, first, reflecting on the notion and vocabulary of crisis; second, providing a brief history and working definition of that notion; third, asking about the sort of crisis we are currently facing.        

No one is disputing the fact that we are facing a crisis.  Yet this crisis comes on top of a pile of pre-existing crises.  Even before Covid-19, not a day went by that we did not hear of a crisis, declared or looming: the environmental crisis, the national health service crisis, the mental health crisis, the housing crisis, the prison crisis, the refugee crisis, the education crisis, the constitutional crisis.  Crisis is ubiquitous, and has become global. It has also become ordinary, almost normal.  But how could crisis become normal without contradicting itself?  If everything is declared a crisis, how can we distinguish between orders of gravity and priority?

At a political level, the talk of crisis, especially if it is constant, can lead to two opposed traps, that of inaction, and that of extreme action.  If everything is a crisis, or in crisis, it becomes difficult to distinguish between what is urgent and what isn’t, what to act now, and what to act on later.  In other words, crisis can easily lead to paralysis.  Many choose that option in order not to make the wrong, or unpopular decision.  On the other hand, the diagnosis of crisis can lead to the declaration of the state of exception and the suspension of the rule of law, and, in theory at least, be prolonged indefinitely.  In Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies (1948), the American historian and political theorist of the state of exception, Clinton L. Rossiter, predicted that, in an increasingly dangerous world – the Atomic Age at the time, the Age of Terrorism, bio-threats and mass migration today – the state of exception might very well become the norm and open the way to a permanent state of exception: “The instruments of government depicted here as temporary ‘crises’ arrangements have in some countries, and may eventually in all countries, become lasting peacetime institutions.”