International Review of Sociology

Revue Internationale de Sociologie

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cirs20

Responses to Covid-19 as a form of ‘biopower’

Costas S. Constantinou

To cite this article: Costas S. Constantinou (2022) Responses to Covid-19 as a form of ‘biopower’,
International Review of Sociology, 32:1, 29-39, DOI: 10.1080/03906701.2021.2000069

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2021.2000069

Published online: 16 Nov 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 669

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cirs20
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY—REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE SOCIOLOGIE
2022, VOL. 32, NO. 1, 29–39
https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2021.2000069

Responses to Covid-19 as a form of ‘biopower’

Costas S. Constantinou
University of Nicosia, Medical School, Nicosia, Cyprus

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The Covid-19 pandemic caused many countries to take strict Covid-19; SARS-CoV-2;
measures in order to control the spread of the virus. Their goal Foucault; biopower;
was to protect the vulnerable groups and the health care systems discourse; pandemics
from collapsing. This discussion article relies on opportunistic
observations from several countries and Foucault’s theory of
biopower to discuss that governments attempted to control
Covid-19 by monitoring large numbers of people, and that this
was achieved through the construction of discourse and
technologies of domination. The article further discusses that
people could be better empowered in order to participate more
effectively in any attempts to further manage Covid-19 and that
governments should self-evaluate their strategy for responding to
future pandemics.

Introduction
A new corona virus, named as SARS-CoV-2 resulting in Covid-19 disease, was identified
in China in November 2019 and ever since it spread all around the globe. At the time this
article was accepted for publication, about 250 million people had contracted the virus
and almost five million had died. At the beginning of 2020, a few countries which
faced the consequences of the virus first started taking measures which were later
implemented in many more countries affected by Covid-19, which in March 2020 was
declared a pandemic by WHO. The measures that most countries took were quite
quick and stringent and they involved bans, lockdowns, physical distancing, closure of
services, and others. The presented aim at a global level was to control the spread of
the virus, protect the vulnerable groups (i.e. the chronically ill and the elderly) and safe-
guard the healthcare systems from caring overloads. Governments recruited scientists,
such as epidemiologists, immunologists, virologists, biologists, and medical doctors to
consult and made decisions about how the spread of Covid-19 should be managed.
Thereafter, the global approach was to control Covid-19 by monitoring the population
based on expert opinion. Such approach captures the essence of Foucault’s approach to
‘making live’ and the concept of biopower (Foucault, 1978, 1979, 1994, 2007; Foucault &
Ewald, 2003). In other words, governmental approach was to save as many lives as poss-
ible and this was attempted through several biopower techniques. Before discussing how
this was done, it is important to clarify what this paper is not. This article does not

CONTACT Costas S. Constantinou constantinou.c@unic.ac.cy University of Nicosia, Medical School, Makedoni-

tissas 46 Ave., 1700, Nicosia, Cyprus
© 2021 University of Rome ‘La Sapienza‘
30 C. S. CONSTANTINOU

constitute a research paper or an evaluation of how countries have responded to

Covid-19. It is only about discussing how societies have responded to such a new health
challenge and how people could be involved more, considering Foucault’s theory of
biopower. The discussion and application of Foucauldian terms should not be under-
stood as accusatory or blaming governments or scientists for monitoring populations.
Terms used throughout the paper, such as power, control, monitoring, domination,
etc. are not used in negative connotation, nor as criticism. In addition, the paper does
not aim to present Foucauldian terms and theory in detail but use them only as a general
framework of understanding.
On this note, let me briefly present some basic Foucauldian terms, which are used in
this paper. Below is merely an outline and by no means do I claim that I am unpacking
these terms in a few sentences. According to Foucault, power is a way of influencing
others’ thought and actions. It is everywhere in the sense that everybody has power,
but it is changing all the time and different people may have different degrees of
power. Power can be ‘disciplinary’ or repressive, which means people are forced to do
things that they otherwise would not do. This form of power is more likely to be exercised
by the powerful groups in a society. ‘Discourse’ is a relevant term here in the sense that it
reflects and enhances power. Discourse refers to a systematic way of talking about some-
thing. Such talking produces knowledge about an object and such knowledge can enable
or activate power. Knowledge also informs ‘normalizing power’ which refers to ways of
making people want to do what must be done, believing that their thoughts about what
needs to be done are their own. Science plays a big role in this normalization of actions in
the sense that it enlightens how things should be done based on scientific understanding
of the world. Interestingly, ‘biopolitics’ refers to an approach of exercising political power
to monitor entire populations and this is achieved through ‘biopower’, which means the
‘endeavors to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and
comprehensive regulations’ (Foucault, 1978, p. 137). Based on biopower, the monitoring
of populations is done largely through talking about conditions and bodies or the con-
struction of discourses and through ‘technologies of domination’; technologies of con-
trolling the body. ‘Governmentality’ is an umbrella term used by Foucault and it refers
to a set of ways through which populations are governed, i.e. measured, organized,
and monitored. In addition to these basic Foucauldian theory and concepts, the work
of Rabinow and Rose (2006) and Hall (1992) on Foucault and power were used as comp-
lementary material.
Based on these basic Foucauldian terms, this paper draws from opportunistic
ethnography to discuss responses from several countries and the top-down approach
governments have adopted to control Covid-19. The conceptual and empirical frame-
work used is described below in more detail.

Conceptual and empirical framework

This is a discussion and theoretical paper which has been inspired by Foucault’s theory
and opportunistic observations. More specifically, the following Foucauldian concepts
were used as conceptual contexts: disciplinary power, normalizing power, biopower, bio-
politics, governmentality, discourse, language, knowledge, technologies of domination,
objects and objectification, subjects and subjectification, control, and so forth. These
 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY—REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE SOCIOLOGIE 31

words were used for deductively organizing (Green & Thorogood, 2018; Bowling, 2014;
Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006) social observations with regard to Covid-19 between
February and October 2020 when the pandemic was at its peak, strict measures were
adopted by most countries, some counties started experiencing a reduction in the
daily incidents when the pandemic was relatively under control, but rates increased
again during the summer and early autumn. The social observations were made based
on Bird’s (2003) ‘opportunistic ethnography’ which refers to the observation and record-
ing of spontaneous moments or cases which relate to the aim of the project. Opportunis-
tic observations have been acknowledged as an acceptable context of understanding and
discussing social phenomena (Gerard, 2010; Luders, 2004; Munhall, 2012). Observations
were made online by taking notes of statements and explanations given by experts and
politicians in various countries, such as China, Taiwan, South Korea, the United States,
the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Sweden, Israel, and
south Europe (Greece, Italy, Spain, Malta, and Cyprus).
In order to successfully relate social observations with Foucauldian terms, the key
terms from Foucault’s theory were identified as early as possible and before gathering
information from opportunistic ethnography. Foucauldian terms were only used as gen-
eral frameworks of understanding how some countries have responded to Covid-19 and
the social observations were organized accordingly. Because the paper has not relied on
systematic data collection and analysis, the aim was not to code or organize social obser-
vations per county or compare responses between countries but to discuss some over-
arching power responses to Covid-19. From the general social observations, power
responses could be classified into three main areas, namely ‘Power through discourse’,
‘Power through technologies of domination’, and ‘Technologies of domination as dis-
courses’. These areas are discussed below as sections.

Responses to Covid-19 as a form of biopower

Power through discourse
Echoing Foucault’s theory, Covid-19 has been talked within the context of a discourse,
which consisted of sets of language that has created the Covid-19 object in the sense
that Covid-19 acquired specific meanings for people to conceptualize. This has happened
through scientific language which was not used in daily life. To elaborate, the following
phrases, words, or statements have been used extensively and repeatedly: Covid-19 speci-
men, host cells, contacts tracking, social distancing, viral load, Rt, spread indicator, clus-
ters, chains of spread, asymptomatic carriers, negative room pressure, new normality,
flattening the curve, bell-shaped curve, invisible enemy, peak of the curve, need to
fight the virus and flatten the curve, and so forth. What is important to highlight here,
reflecting on Foucault’s concept of power, is that these words do not have power on
their own. The power they carry derives from the social position of those who con-
structed these words and from the social and historical context where these words are
used. In the case of Covid-19, this happened in various ways as described below.
First, these words have been used by scientists who possess knowledge that lay people
do not. Put differently, these words have been used by the carriers of legitimate knowl-
edge. An example is the decision on mask mandates. At the initial stages of the pandemic
32 C. S. CONSTANTINOU

wearing a mask was not compulsory and scientists in various countries were explaining
that a mask would be useful only if a person who had contracted Covid-19 used it. Inter-
estingly, many people were wearing masks already because it made sense to them that it
would protect them since they could potentially contract the virus from infected droplets
in the air. However, it was not until scientists confirmed the usefulness of wearing masks
by all that such practice was legitimated. This example of legitimation is further reflected
on what Foucault said that scientific knowledge is power because it can shape the mean-
ing ascribed to objects.
Second, repetition of these words by politicians and scientists and through the media
(including what-to-do videos) led to the institutionalization of meaning around Covid-
19 to the extent that lay people started using them too. Repetition made it salient that
such knowledge about Covid-19 existed independently and it had been discovered by
science. As a result, lay people should listen, learn, adopt the same language, and comply
with the measures that could help strop spreading the virus.
Third, Covid-19 language resembles that of a war. The virus itself has been described
as ‘invisible enemy’ which attacks everybody with no mercy, and it had to be fought with
all possible weapons. It has also been presented as attacking initially and then the attacks
escalate until it drops again, it comes in waves and, as result, people should be prepared
for such multiple attacks. Such descriptions further instill the boundaries around Covid-
19 to define its reality as external to individuals which has and is being discovered by
science. This strategy makes the entity have its own reality and rules which could be man-
aged and tamed by science. As part of this externalization is what has been termed ‘pan-
demic fatigue’ (WHO, 2020) which refers to burnt-out feelings people have after trying to
manage Covid-19 for so long. However, pandemic fatigue is presented as a reasonable
outcome of the longevity of the pandemic which also must be handled. It is then that gov-
ernments turn to their people with advice about how to cope with pandemic fatigue even-
tually exercising more power.
Fourth, these words are presented as contexts of conceptualizing Covid-19 even when
people have difficulties to understand how these concepts directly relate to them. For
example, Rt, as the indicator of spreading the virus, is used very often to inform decisions.
When Rt is, for example, 2.0 that means that every person who has Covid-19 spreads the
virus to another two persons. However, this is only a statistical calculation based on the
number of tests in relation to the number of positive cases, which makes little social sense
because someone with Covid-19 can potentially give it many people. Another example is
that of ‘social distancing’ which does not make sociological sense as the right term should
be ‘physical distancing’. People could be social even from a distance of two meters or
through online applications. So, this term is a construction and governments are symbo-
lically urging people to stop being as social as before to prevent the spread of the virus.
Fifth, although these are essentially the words that have formulated part of the Covid-
19 discourse, what has not been said is equally important. Despite expert opinions about
the problems caused by lockdowns, such information never prevailed in the media and
was never part of a dialogue between scientists, governments, and lay people. Cases of
death due to delayed screening and early diagnosis, drug overdose and suicide ideation
during lockdowns, unemployment and mental illness, domestic violence and divorces
have never really mediated the communication between scientists/media and lay people.
Emphasis was placed on announcing deaths instead of highlighting the number of people
 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY—REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE SOCIOLOGIE 33

who recovered or those who did not have symptoms. We saw people who lost a loved one
talking to the media but not people who had minor symptoms or were asymptomatic and
fully recovered. Also, no substantial reflection on possible mistakes was observed by gov-
ernments, even though scientists very often clarified the limits of their knowledge and
experience largely due to unprecedent situation and the poorly known nature of the
virus. This further reinforces Foucault’s theory of discourse that a discourse is con-
structed and exercised as a form of power so to guide people’s way of thinking and better
monitor entire populations.
Summarizing this section, through a discourse Covid-19 became an object of knowl-
edge and understanding which guided people’s way of thinking and actions. Construct-
ing a specific way to talk about the pandemic is important because it provides people a
framework of understanding what is happening. This is not to imply that the discourse
was consistent across all countries, but its social functions were the same. In the case of
this pandemic, the discourse alone would not be sufficient to monitor such large numbers
of people. More means were necessary, as discussed below.

Power through technologies of domination

In addition to discourse and the use of language, ‘technologies of power or domination’
as Foucault used the term, have been utilized. Technologies of domination refer to the
mechanisms used for monitoring large numbers of people. In the case of Covid-19, tech-
nologies of domination take three forms: (a) Tools of biopower, (b) Construction of
agents, and (c) Enforcement. Let me discuss each of these technologies.

(a) Tools of biopower

Tools refer to strategies with a potentially specific outcome. These are strategies people
can see or touch and they may lead to a concrete result. These tools of biopower are orga-
nized in four groups which one depends and reflects on the other. These are visibility
tool, preventing Covid-19 tool, normality tool, and the tool of hope and trust.

Visibility tool
The visibility tool involves numbers and statistics. Numbers and statistics have been very
powerful tools for policy-making in general and introducing interventions and they had
the same effect in the case of Covid-19. Numbers help people visualize Covid-19 in terms
of the magnitude of the spread, who has it, where it is in the community, and how it
spreads. Comparison between regions and countries also set the parameters of discourse
development and makes numbers even more powerful in the sense that it can show
which countries are more successful than others. In fact, it shows where science and gov-
ernments are more successful. This was greatly utilized by some small nations in Europe,
such as Malta and Greece, which praised themselves for having managed Covid-19 much
better than countries with great experience in public health, such as the UK and countries
in central Europe.
Numbers are published daily by individual countries and are also available at a world-
meter website as a form of regional and global monitoring. These numbers include the
following statistics: total cases, daily new cases, new deaths, total deaths, hospitalizations,
34 C. S. CONSTANTINOU

cases in intensive care units, spread indicator, per county or area, age, and period. All
these numbers make Covid-19 an entity which can be seen and measured. Therefore,
it can potentially be controlled.

Preventing Covid-19 tool

In addition to publishing the numbers daily and making Covid-19 visible, more means
have been employed in order to justify what needed to be done, and this relates to ways of
preventing the spread of Covid-19. The preventing tool relates to disinfection pro-
cedures, antiseptic gels, thermometers, face masks, distance signs, and physical isolation.
These mechanisms were employed in many countries, and they aimed to minimize the
spread of Covid-19 but more importantly they constituted practices resulting from num-
bers and perspectives presented by scientists. All these preventing mechanisms symboli-
cally indicated how dangerous the virus was and that it was omnipresent. Disinfection
procedures with people wearing special uniforms covering their whole body, placing
antiseptic gels in every closed place, thermometers, masks mandates, distance signs in
every shop and outside areas such as schools or bus and train stations, and a system
of physical isolation for those who had Covid-19 or had to self-isolate signified how
big the problem was which needed to be tackled only with scientifically guided
mechanisms.

Normality tool
Having measured and unpacked Covid-19 with numbers and having identified the mech-
anisms to prevent its spread, governments utilized another tool, which aimed to con-
struct a new normality for people. This normality tool involved communication apps,
arrangements to work from home, distance learning platforms, and online shopping
and transactions. Scientists and governments which made the decisions for lockdowns
and preventive measures proceeded with further guiding people’s way of thinking and
actions by highlighting the emergence of a new normality which could potentially
allow people to continue their life like it never changed. Various communication appli-
cations and programs such as Skype, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and social media, work,
and learning platforms for schools and universities were greatly promoted as ways of
continuing people’s previous normal life and engaging with a new normality. So, sociality
was set to continue but in a different form, that with online parameters. This new online
sociality was presented in a similar way as the pre-Covid-19 sociality which would help
prevent the spread of the virus.

The tool of hope and trust

The tool of hope was very interesting as it related to governments’ certainty that a vaccine
would come out soon and would work effectively. The message was that this new Covid-
19 way of life would last until a vaccine was ready. Such strategy raised peoples’ hopes
and expectations but more importantly placed the grounds for trusting science and
caused people to visualize the end of the Covid-19 era. This was achieved with the tem-
poralization of the vaccine process. At the beginning of the pandemic scientists were
 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY—REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE SOCIOLOGIE 35

referring to 12–14 months or two years. Temporalization was important because it gave
people a concrete timeline and chronological context of hope. In early autumn 2020,
scientists were talking about starting vaccination early 2021, which did not only provide
reassurance but also reconfirmed that science has already made it and that it is a matter of
time to complete the process. This strategy of talking about the upcoming vaccine not
only gave rise to hope but also to trust in any previous attempts and measures by govern-
ments to control Covid-19.
Interestingly, the four tools presented above show how biopower has been exercised in
a way to monitor human bodies but also human actions. In other words, people have
become ‘objects’ of knowledge as their behaviors have been measured and, at the same
time, ‘subjects’ because their behaviors are guided by generated knowledge. Through
this strategy of measuring and monitoring bodies, governments have constructed
Covid-19 norms which human thought and behavior are compared against, and the
necessary disciplinary actions are taken.

(b) Construction of agents

The second technology of domination in the case of Covid-19 is the construction of
agents, namely heroes, victims, and enemies, resembling the discourse of ‘war’ presented
earlier in this paper. ‘Heroes’ are the scientists, and politicians who made decisions on
how to handle the spread of the virus and have been praised multiple times when the epi-
demiological profile of their country was below an acceptable threshold. Politicians and
scientists were presented as the agents who protected the whole country and, as a result,
dominated talks about the pandemic. The other group of heroes were clinicians, such as
doctors and nurses who treated patients with Covid-19. Although these professionals, as
well as the politicians and scientists, indeed exceeded their duties and worked hard they
were not the only people who helped the community during such difficult times. Other
professionals from food industry, automobile services, couriers, computer technologies,
etc. worked long hours to service their community but their work was not described in
heroic terms. Interestingly, heroes were interconnected with ‘victims’. Victims were the
people who already had Covid-19 and the vulnerable groups, such as people with chronic
medical conditions, and the elderly. The Covid-19 discourse placed emphasis on taking
all necessary actions for not having more victims whose life was in danger and heroes
were working basically for them. That was a way to further instill the power position
of heroes and have their actions praised by the community. However, such a power pos-
ition would not be as powerful without the construction of ‘enemies’ which would poten-
tially enhance the relationship between heroes and victims and cause them to focus more
on common actions and goal; to battle Covid-19. Enemies were the virus itself, which was
presented as invisible, the people who did not comply with the measures, and socialising.
Although it was known where the virus was in the human body, it was presented as invis-
ible and as an agent with no discriminatory action in the sense that it could be contracted
by anybody. This enemy had allies and the allies were the people who did not take pre-
ventive measures, and socialising. In other words, people who did not clean their hands
with antiseptic gel, did not wear a mask, and did not keep the designated distance essen-
tially helped the virus spread. In addition, people who had not reduced their sociality or
socialization with other people helped Covid-19. So, non-compliance with the measures
and socialising made an invisible enemy visible and therefore more dangerous.
36 C. S. CONSTANTINOU

Here we have a triangle of agents who both cooperate (heroes and victims) and are in
conflict (heroes/victims and enemies). In order to make sure that the enemies would be
under control, enforcement was necessary in this context of exercising biopower, as
described below.

(c) Enforcement
Enforcement resembles Foucault’s repressive or disciplinary power whereby people are
forced to do things they do not really want to do. It is the third technology of domination
in the case of Covid-19 and aims to legalize the measures but also to promote a new
mindset of health and safety. It took several forms, such as lockdowns, bans, punishment,
and talks about the cause of surged cases. Lockdowns were enforced in many countries
and their duration ranged widely. Lockdowns in spring 2020 had to do with closing many
services and controlling people’s mobility. Even when lockdowns were lifted, bans of var-
ious activities remained or were reintroduced based on updated epidemiological data.
For example, Covid-19 test requirements for traveling, closure of clubs and restaurants
after a certain time, limiting the number of social groups per household, and so forth.
People who deviated from the rules were punished usually with a fine and in some
cases imprisonment. Interestingly, people’s behavior was also further monitored through
the possibility of introducing more stringent measures in case the epidemiological profile
of their country deteriorated. However, more importantly, there has been a lot of talking
about the cause of surged cases when the Covid-19 epidemiological profile of a country
worsened and the cause related to risky actions that people took, such as not wearing a
mask or overcrowding. Enforcement was justified through the technique of presenting
the statistics, the actual measures, non-compliance, and the spread of the virus as true
and scientific knowledge. This was reminiscent of a positivist approach to acceptable
knowledge which reflected the basis of the sciences involved in understanding and mana-
ging Covid-19.

Technologies of domination as discourses

The technologies of domination above largely aimed to monitor large numbers of people
and protect entire populations. Furthermore, these technologies of domination were part
of the discourse presented in the first section of this paper. This is because all these tech-
nologies have been talked about and, as a result, have contributed to constructing Covid-
19 as an object of knowledge.
The meaning of all these technologies is different within the context of Covid-19 dis-
course. More specifically, disinfection is no more for just cleaning a room but more
importantly for protecting the next group that will enter it. Face masks and antiseptic
gels are not only for protecting the person who uses them but for keeping the enemy
away and protecting society. Social distancing is not for keeping seasonal viruses away
but for fighting against an invisible virus and saving vulnerable groups. Leaflets, videos,
and guidelines are not just for people’s information, but they are weapons of knowledge
about how to battle an enemy. Enforcement of the measures is not just for obeying the
law and respecting others but for ensuring that Covid-19’s allies are restricted.
As a result, systematic statements and descriptions, the tools of power, the construc-
tion of agents and enforcement all together constitute the ecosystem of understanding
 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY—REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE SOCIOLOGIE 37

and acting upon Covid-19. Such an ecosystem of understanding and praxis further
guides people’s mindset and actions regarding Covid-19 and societal and self-protection.

Discussion
In this paper I have discussed how responses to Covid-19 are an example of Foucault’s
theory of biopower. The paper is not about criticizing governments’ response to
Covid-19, but it has discussed which mechanisms governments employed to help people
better understand Covid-19, provide advice, and protect the entire population, eventually
‘making live’. Governments relied on science to guide and monitor people and con-
structed a context of action. Based on Foucault’s theory, exercising power or biopower
is not necessarily a bad thing in the sense that it helps both the governments and people
understand a phenomenon, exercise caution, and protect themselves and the whole
society. Governments achieved this by talking about Covid-19 through a specific dis-
course, which resulted in a ‘discursive formation’ of the Covid-19 object (Hall, 1992),
and by several technologies of domination through which people’s way of thinking
and actions were guided and monitored. Interestingly, in countries where biopower
was applied more strictly, such as Taiwan and New Zealand, the spread of Covid-19
was better managed.
Such application of biopower by governments reflects Rabinow and Rose’s (2006,
p. 197) approach that biopower needs to have at least three components. That is, ‘one
or more truth discourses’, ‘strategies of interventions’, and ‘modes of subjectification’
through which people can utilize themselves under the gaze of authority. The language
around Covid-19 and the practices constructed by governments were aimed to eventually
be adopted by people as individual tools for tackling the pandemic. However, such modes
of subjectification were generated during the pandemic, but people were not prepared in
advance in terms of how they should be reacting when crisis struck. On this note, it
would be advisable for governments to reflect on their biopower strategy and enrich
their techniques and approach for future responses to pandemics. More specifically,
one Foucauldian tool that was not central in governmental responses to Covid-19 was
that of ‘normalizing power’, which means that people want to do what needs to be
done anyway. Foucault highlighted that people cannot be absolutely free because they
are an integral part of society, and they function in society in accordance with its
rules. However, Foucault also believed that when people engage with normalizing
power they may feel freer and more valued as autonomous individuals. Normalizing
power could be achieved when people are trained in how to react during pandemics
well before they happen and are well informed to understand the importance of science
in both controlling a virus and treating a disease. According to Foucault, knowledge is
power, and this is about empowering people well in advance. This would possibly mini-
mize resistance and protests, as they occurred in some countries, because, as Foucault
(1978, p. 95) said, ‘where there is power, there is resistance’ and it seems that where
there is more power there is more resistance. So empowering people early on would bal-
ance perceived power relationships between people and governments, resulting in a more
fruitful collaboration between the two parties. In other words, through normalizing
power people would be more involved, reflecting an approach towards the promotion
38 C. S. CONSTANTINOU

of active citizenship for the development and protection of the society (see also Constan-
tinou, 2021).
Furthermore, controlling the pandemic through lockdowns and strict measures to
monitoring sociality may have resulted in controlling the spread in some countries
and during specific periods but such strategies might have caused other problems.
More specially, studies of the effects of Covid-19 lockdowns on suicidal thought and
mental illness (O’Connor et al., 2021), unemployment (Bauer & Weber, 2021), and dom-
estic violence (Usher et al., 2020) have already been published in academic journals. In
addition, governmental responses to Covid-19 have not considered social inequalities
for successful implementation of the measures (Constantinou, 2021; Rieländer, 2020;
Rollston & Galea, 2020). So, a thorough evaluation of governmental strategies and gov-
ernmental self-reflection need to take place for enhancing responses to future pandemics
to add to the equation potential negative implications of political decisions and the social
characteristics of the populations expected to implement such decisions. Such self-evalu-
ation would be enhanced by understanding which techniques of monitoring worked well
for people and which ones did not.

Conclusion
This paper works as a theoretical discussion of governmental responses to the manage-
ment of Covid-19 based on Foucault’s theory of biopower, drawing information from
opportunistic observations from several countries. The paper discussed that governments
employed a series of power techniques to monitor large numbers of people and even-
tually ‘make live’. These techniques included the construction of language and several
technologies of domination, through which people’s way of thinking and actions were
monitored so to achieve the goal of controlling the spread of the virus and protecting
society. Governments should revisit their approach and consider ways to empower
people and construct a trusting relationship with citizens, providing people with more
technologies of the self for them to feel more autonomous and exercise power themselves.
Such an endeavor needs to consider the background and conditions of each group and
community as, according to Foucault, what works for one group may not work for
another.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Dr Costas S. Constantinou is an Associate Professor of Medical Sociology and Associate Dean for
Students at the University of Nicosia Medical School, Cyprus. Dr Constantinou’s research interests
are illness experience, illness narratives, organ donation and transplantation, cultural competence,
medical education, teaching medical sociology, social theory, and qualitative research
methodology.
 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY—REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE SOCIOLOGIE 39

References
Bauer, A., & Weber, E. (2021). COVID-19: How much unemployment was caused by the shut-
down in Germany? Applied Economics Letters, 28(12), 1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13504851.2020.1789544
Bird, S. E. (2003). The audience in everyday life. Routledge.
Bowling, A. (2014). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services. McGraw-
hill education.
Constantinou, C. S. (2021). People have to comply with the measures”: covid-19 in “risk society”.
Journal of Applied Social Science, 15(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1936724420980374
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal
of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, vol. 1: The will to knowledge. Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Allen Lane.
Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things. Random House Inc.
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977-78.
Springer.
Foucault, M., & Ewald, F. (2003). Society must Be defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-
1976 (Vol. 1). Macmillan.
Gerard, F. M. (2010). Ethnography as participant listening. Ethnography, 11(4), 558–572. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1466138110372587
Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2018). Qualitative methods for health research. SAGE.
Hall, S. A. (1992). The west and the rest: Discourse and power. Polity Press/The Open University.
Luders, C. (2004). Observation and ethnography. In U. Flick, E. Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A
comparison to qualitative research (pp. 222–230). SAGE.
Munhall, P. (2012). Nursing research. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
O’Connor, R. C., Wetherall, K., Cleare, S., McClelland, H., Melson, A. J., Niedzwiedz, C. L.,
O’Carroll, R. E., O’Connor, D. B., Platt, S., Scowcroft, E., & Watson, B. (2021). Mental health
and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal analyses of adults in the UK
COVID-19 Mental Health & wellbeing study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 218(6), 326–
333. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2020.212
Rabinow, P., & Rose, N. (2006). Biopower today. BioSocieties, 1(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S1745855206040014
Rieländer, J. (2020, April 21). The fast changing geography of COVID-19: The poorest countries
will be next and the world needs a tried and tested response protocol now. Development Matters,
https://oecd-development-matters.org/2020/04/21/the-fast-changing-geography-of-covid-19-
the-poorest-countries-will-be-next-and-the-world-needs-a-tried-and-tested-response-
protocol-now/.
Rollston, R., & Galea, S. (2020, May 5). The coronavirus does discriminate: how social conditions are
shaping the covid-19 pandemic. Harvard Medical School Primary Care Review. Available at:
http://info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/blog/social-conditions-shape-covid.
Usher, K., Bhullar, N., Durkin, J., Gyamfi, N., & Jackson, D. (2020). Family violence and COVID-
19: Increased vulnerability and reduced options for support. International Journal of Mental
Health Nursing, 29(4), 549–552. https://doi:10.1111/inm.12735. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.
12735
WHO. (2020. October 7). WHO/Europe discusses how to deal with pandemic fatigue. Available at:
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-europe-discusses-how-to-deal-
with-pandemic-fatigue.
Worldmeter. COVID 19 coronavirus pandemic. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/.