I anticipate that one of the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will be the emergence of a new philosophical movement. Like existentialism in the 1950s or transcendentalism in the early nineteenth century, this movement will be sparked by the thoughts of philosophers and intellectuals, but the ideas will soon extend out into broader public discussion, with the potential to direct political discourse and impact public policy for a generation.
The movement might take the name neo-essentialism. There has been a previous debate in philosophy called essentialism, which is the belief that all things have an essential set of characteristics that define them. Neo-essentialism will not focus on the essential quality of things, but rather on the consideration of what is essential, what qualities of life will we deem indispensable and necessary, and what will be identified as gratuitous and superfluous. The main questions asked by neo-essentialists will be: who or what is truly essential? How is the essential determined? How do we value what is essential and how is this value expressed?
The movement will very likely begin with labor activists, who will argue that those workers who were deemed “essential” during the pandemic should continue to be treated as such after the pandemic. That these workers deserve higher pay and benefits, and an elevated status in our society. If their labor was essential during the pandemic, then it should remain essential after the pandemic. This will lead to a further questioning of whose labor is truly essential, and whether some labor is “inessential.”
Some management thinkers will be tempted to ask “Who is essential?” in their enterprises. If it is true that there is a surfeit of “bullshit jobs,” then perhaps these should be pared away, allowing only the essential jobs to remain. What then is the status of the so-called “inessential worker,” and how is this status determined?
Life under quarantine has forced many to wonder: what is actually essential in my life? Do I really need to frequent restaurants and bars and coffee shops? Do I need to attend football games? Why? Or, perhaps, it is time with friends that I value most, or simply watching Netflix at home. Once the euphoria of our return to some semblance of “normalcy” wears off, individuals may start asking themselves what economic activities (in the form of consumption) is essential and what activities are unneeded. It is possible that a wide portion of the population will find that “living” (rather than “laboring”) is the most essential, with “living” defined as raising a family or assisting the homeless or writing poetry. Neo-essentialist intellectuals might therefore advocate for a universal basic income, not just as a stopgap measure born of the pandemic, but as an essential right for all citizens. These neo-essentialists will claim that machines (automation) should do the productive work, which frees us to enjoy leisure, which is the real essential human activity.
Without necessarily realizing they are engaged in a philosophical discussion, families and those who share domestic spaces will increasingly ask “Do we really need this?” or “Is that something we actually need to purchase?” Even before the pandemic, some Millennials were drawn to the FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early) and “tiny house” movements, signaling that those under 40, at least, have already been defining what is most vital and important, identifying that which is most essential in their lives, and jettisoning that which is defined as superfluous, whether that means unnecessary material possessions, meaningless occupations, or toxic relationships.
Philosophers of education will ask the question “Is schooling essential?” What is most essential about schooling? During the lockdowns, many parents lamented the closing of schools because it meant that their children’s education was relocated into a home environment. Do we believe schools are essential because they house our children for us? That is, during the pandemic, did we discover that we valued schools only as daycare centers? Or was schooling over Zoom deemed ineffective because we have reaffirmed that a personal relationship with a mentor—not just the transmission and acquisition of information—is most essential to schooling. Neo-essentialist educational philosophers will ask the question “Why school?”
Other questions will be explored by neo-essentialist intellectuals. Who will be permitted to define what is essential? How will this be determined? By the marketplace? By government fiat? How is neo-essentialism to be enforced? How can neo-essentialism be resisted? What is the status of the inessential in society? That is, how do we treat that and those deemed inessential? There will no doubt emerge a counter movement whose manifesto will be that “there are no inessential humans.”
Neo-essentialist debates will not be confined to academic conferences, think tank discussion panels and university seminar rooms. Neo-essentialist questions will be asked in public fora, on Rachel Maddow, Fareed Zakaria and other public affairs programs, as well as in locations where power is wielded. Neo-essentialist-themed novels and movies will become popular with audiences. Marie Kondo-like books will proliferate; Greg McKeown’s book Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less (while not an academic text), becomes like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae, or Thomas Piketty’s Capital: books that reach a popular (or, at least, a reading) audience, and that thoughtfully ruminate on important, fundamental philosophical questions.
Philosophers, intellectuals and futurists—those who contemplate the concept of essentialism—will also wonder if their musings are themselves essential…
David Staley is an associate professor of history at The Ohio State University. He is host of the “Voices of Excellence” podcast and president of Columbus Futurists.