Dear Colleagues,

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has had a considerable impact on humanity, the full extent of might not be evident for a long time to come. It is therefore imperative to continue multidisciplinary efforts that generate knowledge based on scientific methods to document and explain some of the consequences and impacts of this pandemic on the social relations and perceptions of societies and communities around the world.

Since the declaration by the World Health Organization that the disease COVID-19 is deemed a pandemic due to its high levels of contagion and severity in March 2020, we have managed to overcome the first moments of uncertainty, disbelief, collective fear, stress, and resignation. We have had to reconsider most things we took for granted in our personal, family, and national lives. We have become accustomed to social distancing, to wearing face coverings, to relying on home deliveries of groceries, and to pursuing our routines through video cameras and microphones. If none of this were so real and every day, it might well serve as the context for a fictional story.

The pandemic has undoubtedly exposed the many faces of historical inequalities and shaped new inequalities. The gaps between rich and poor have become more evident. Peoples and nations with fewer resources became more vulnerable. The pandemic also served as a reminder of the presence of chronic diseases and diseases associated with poor nutrition or malnutrition. This was compounded by employment instability, lack of social security, lack of access to health care, lack of housing services and even water scarcity, as frequent hand washing in some cases was used as a containment measure for the spread of the virus. At the same time, there were those who watched the pandemic unfold in the knowledge that their jobs were safe, their houses comfortable, and had the flexibility to carry out their work at home.

From the above, and from what we have yet to learn, it is possible to posit that the pandemic can be examined by means of an intersectional approach. Ethnicity, social class, skin color, gender, age group, religion, membership of the LGBT+ community, among many others, are social markers that influence the transmission, development, and treatment of the disease, as well as mortality. In Brazil, for example, the mortality rate of the African descent population is higher than that of the European descent population, where vaccination started on the prior assumption that African descendants do not reach the age of 70. It has been common in many parts of the world that the poor are racialized, trapped in marginalization and struggling to resist the pandemic. 

Since vaccines were declared safe for use, the real and symbolic borders of nation-states entered a new dynamic. On the one hand, vaccines emerged with their national labels: the Astra Zeneca vaccine from Oxford, the multinationals based in the United States, the Johnson-Johnson, the Pfizer, the Chinese Cansino and the Russian Sputnik. Cuba and Mexico are working towards a new vaccine already named: the Patria. The nation-states lacking the means to produce vaccines purchased various batches from different pharmaceutical companies and their distribution was selective. For example, in Mexico, the distribution of Chinese and Russian vaccines prioritized teachers from basic to higher education. However, in European countries, Chinese and Russian vaccines were not approved. Many other countries have had limited access to vaccines; still others have resorted to denialism, like Brazil’s President Bolsonaro. Just as there have been currents of pandemic denialism, there have been popular expressions rejecting the "sanitary dictatorship" of making vaccination a compulsory measure as well as the carrying of vaccination certificates when entering public places.

In many cases around the world there has been an intersection of the management of the pandemic with migration status. Nurses and social care workers had one of the highest mortality rates in the first year of the pandemic: many were migrants on insecure or unsatisfactory employment contracts and were placed in front-line roles. Government vaccination policies have faced criticism about the planning of vaccine delivery across age groups, starting with the older population and leaving youth and children seemingly vulnerable.

The situation in Africa or Latin America merits investigation as there is a common popular perception that the contagion comes from Europe and is introduced by local elites who are usually in physical contact with the Western world. A very different perception from the rest of the world is that its spread originates in China. In some cases of those continents there has been strong opposition and resistance to vaccination from various groups with ideas that vaccination is for laboratory experimentation or that it causes infertility in those who have been immunized.

These experiences, be they unfounded rumors or realities, have fueled nationalism, racism, chauvinism, xenophobia, Sinophobia and antisemitism. Given that the first outbreak was recorded in the city of Wuhan, Hubei province, the People's Republic of China became the global scapegoat, triggering violent anti-Chinese behavior around the world. Disinformation and fake news about the pandemic spread around the world. Conspiracy theories and online hate speech, emerging in Europe in particular, exacerbated anti-Semitism in urban areas.  Disinformation has had an impact on the lack of global recognition of the Russian vaccine Sputnik, despite its high scientific reputation. So, the vaccination facing humanity has not been neutral – politically, ethnically, nationally or in relation to different age groups.

These examples provide the context for the following proposition: we have moved beyond uncertainty and speculation; it is possible to observe now how different social groups a) have experienced and b) have coped with the pandemic. Thus, we invite investigations using multidisciplinary perspectives into the effects of the pandemic on different economic, ethnic, religious, and other social categories and groups living in different social and political circumstances.

This special issue invites scholarly articles on the social, cultural and political responses to the Covid 19 pandemic around the world. Has the pandemic stimulated and revived national unity and solidarity, and especially intergenerational bonds and obligations, or has it created or reinforced social divisions and inequalities within and between nations? How has access to health care been affected by economic, ethnic, religious, and other social variables? How have migratory flows been affected by the pandemic, as states have sought to protect their populations from the spread of disease by closing their borders? Has the pandemic inspired national introspection and a rediscovery and re-evaluation of national values, relations, and landscapes? Has it also revitalized family values and relations, or has it challenged and even damaged them?

In the handling of the pandemic, has structural racism been a variable in explaining the differences in how this health crisis has affected people? What have been the experiences of ethnic or racial minorities in the different facets of the pandemic? Has the collection of statistics about ethnic/racial minorities been satisfactory?

Given the fact that the pandemic has penetrated, in myriad ways, into all spheres of our lives, it has necessitated responses from a wide range of individual and institutional actors and social groups. These responses need to be studied in their patterns and variations. This Special Issue welcomes research papers using different methodologies and angles. The scope of this Special Issue is, by the nature of its focus on the pandemic, wide. Themes may include families, health, healing, vulnerable communities, nations, narratives about experiences of this phenomenon at local and national levels, as well as narratives documenting attitudes gratitude to health workers, e.g., the expression of public gratitude through banners, ceremonies, graffiti, audio-visuals, or suspicion, rejection, and aggression, as happened in some Mexican cities.

The objectives of this special issue are three-fold. First, to take a global look at the development of different national and international policies for the protection of national and global constituencies from the pandemic, including national and international policies regarding vaccine development and distribution. Second, to explore how international relations were affected by the pandemic. And third to examine the effect of the pandemic on social relations within nations, including patterns of social inclusion or exclusion, based on ethnic, ‘racial’, religious, gender, generational, and other social criteria.   

The special issue aims to collect at least ten articles that can be printed in book form. The articles may or may not have an intersectional focus; there is no geographical or cultural restriction, and various topics on the treatment, management, and control of the pandemic in relation to the pandemic can be addressed.

Original research articles and reviews are welcome. Research areas may include (but not limited to) the following:

• Nationalisms
• Racisms
• Chauvinisms
• Exclusivism
• Negativism / Denialism
• Racial hatreds
• Xenophobia
• Sinophobia
• Antisemitism
• Discriminations
• Authoritarianism
• Families
• Ethnic groups
• Nations
• Liberty
• Democracy
• National responsibility of democratic government
• National self-reliance
• Personal responsibility
• National solidarity/unity
• Intergenerational bonds

I/We look forward to receiving your contributions.

Dr. Athena Leoussi
Prof. Dr. Natividad Gutiérrez Chong
Dr. Joanna Beata Michlic
Prof. Dr. Peter J. Aspinall
Prof. Swati Chawla
Dr. Peter C. Mentzel
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Genealogy is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• pandemia
• inequalities
• nationalism
• racism
• ethnic groups
• families
• nation-states
• authoritarianism
• violence