Sociological Cultural Studies

Sociological Cultural Studies

Corona and the antisocial cultivation of social intelligence (An approach to the sociological field of the role of intelligence in interaction)

Document Type : .

Author
narges khoshkalam
PhD in Sociology, Shahid Chamran Ahvaz University, Ahvaz, Iran
10.30465/scs.2024.49651.2894
Abstract

Abstract
Corona, which was a deadly pandemic from a biological point of view, seems to have caused people to act more intelligently in their interactions with the requirement of social distancing from a sociological point of view. Intelligence, which has been the focus of many biological and psychological discussions, at the same time has remained far from the perspective of sociological analysis. Based on this, the current research is focused on the analysis of the role of intelligence in the interaction with the phenomenology of the lived experience of Borujerd Lak-speakers of pre/post-corona social interactions. 16 samples were selected purposefully and the data were collected through in-depth interviews and participatory observation. According to the results, "mass interaction" (pre-corona) was based on mass behavior, autocratic construction, and mass intelligence, and "social interaction" (post-corona) was based on social behavior, democratic construction, and social intelligence. . The findings of the present research showed that intelligence is a social component and has social functions and results that can be analyzed sociologically. In general, facing Corona has caused a transition from mass interaction to social interaction, and intelligence as a social category has played an important role in this transition.
Keywords: Corona, Post-Corona, Social Interaction, Mass Intelligence, Social Intelligence.

Introduction
In its history, Iran has had experiences in the field of outbreaks of epidemic diseases such as cholera and plague, which have led to cultural and social changes. Corona was also an epidemic disease whose frightening speed of spread disrupted social interactions first of all. At the beginning of facing Corona, some domestic researchers warned that the continuation of this process will cause irreparable damage to social solidarity, especially in "ethnic contexts" because such contexts have intertwined interactions. Although the corona has been contained today, it seems that there have been changes in ethnic interactions. A part of the population of the Lak tribe that lives in Borujerd city, although it had previously experienced some cultural changes due to exposure to Borujerdi culture, and more importantly with modernity, ethnic interactions are still important for members of the tribe. There was a lot that it seems that in the face of Corona, these interactions have undergone changes and indicate that people are acting more intelligently. Corona, which was a deadly pandemic from a biological point of view, seems to have caused people to intelligently review their interactions with the requirement of social distancing from a sociological point of view. Intelligence, which has been the focus of many biological and psychological discussions, at the same time has remained far from the perspective of sociological analysis. Now we are faced with questions from a sociological point of view: What changes has the corona threat brought about in interactions? What was the role of intelligence in pre/post corona interaction? And more importantly, is intelligence a social component?
Materials & Methods
In the current research, the phenomenological method with the Moustakas technique is used, which is based on the phenomenological philosophy of Edmund Husserl. The society studied in the current research included Lak-speakers of Borujerd city. The sampling method was purposeful, which means that the researcher deliberately went to those who had the lived experience of the phenomenon under study. Due to the fact that facing the danger of Corona has been a universal phenomenon, as a result, all the members of the tribe had enough life experience, but in order to obtain richer information, samples from among People over 20 years old have been selected. The process of sampling and data collection continued until theoretical saturation; That is, until no more new data was obtained, and finally 16 samples were studied. The method of data collection was in-depth interview and participatory observation. An in-depth interview means that the participant was free to provide answers and the researcher only directed the discussion to the topic under study and there were no predetermined answers. In order to interview each participant, three separate steps were taken: 1) field of lived experience, 2) lived experience, and 3) meaning of lived experience. Due to the fact that the researcher is a native speaker, the interviews were collected in the native language and translated into colloquial Farsi with faithfulness in the translation. The resulting data were analyzed using the Moustakas technique.
Discussion & Result
The findings from qualitative data coding include two conceptual constructs. The general structure of "mass interaction" (Pishacrona) is based on two main clusters of mass behavior and autocratic construction, which includes 6 sub-clusters: 1) blindly (imitating the majority), 2) spontaneous group The axis is 3) mass intelligence, 4) irrational intelligence, 5) mass-oriented (individual/mass), and 6) collective action. On the other hand, the general structure of "social interaction" (post-corona) is based on two main clusters of social behavior and democratic construction, which includes 9 sub-clusters: 1) Rethinking (imitation of a reasonable model), 2) Conscious Individuality-centered, 3) social intelligence, 4) reasonable intelligence, 5) systematic emotions, 6) antisocial resocialization, 7) selective reproduction, 8) community-centered (I-we), and 9) social action.
Conclusion
The spread of Corona made keeping distance a part of life so that a more effective individual and social confrontation with it can take place. This social distancing brought about changes in social interactions, especially in ethnic contexts. Mass intelligence, which is the basis of interaction in pre-corona interaction, is a minimal level of intelligence that receives only behavioral signs from the external environment or epistemic data from folk knowledge and is the basis of action. to give In fact, the action resulting from using mass intelligence is a mass action, a pure imitation of the majority, of the mass. While social intelligence, which is the basis of interaction in the post-corona interaction and is similar to what Durkheim called the rational dimension of intelligence, with the difference that it receives both sensory signs and rational-logical reasoning is linked to it. Life is a higher level of intelligence. The action (action) resulting from using social intelligence is a social action in the real sense, because as a result of it, a person adopts those types of interactions and interactive actions that at the same time show his individuality and value. It brought him collective benefits. Therefore, depending on which type of intelligence the actor uses, his type of action will be different.
Keywords
Corona
Post-corona
Social Interaction
Crowd Intelligence
Social Intelligence
اسپیگلبرگ، هربرت؛ شومان، کارل. (1391). جنبش پدیدارشناسی: درآمدی تاریخی. ترجمه: مسعود علیا. تهران: مینوی خرد.
اِسکات، جان. (1393). جامعه­شناسان بزرگ عصر تکوین. ترجمه: شهناز مسمی­پرست و ستاره قانونی. تهران: گل­آذین.
اوث­ویت، ویلیام؛ باتامور، تام. (1396). فرهنگ­نامه اندیشه اجتماعی مدرن. ترجمه: اکبر معصوم­بیگی. تهران: نگاه.
آسابرگر، آرتور. (1393). دورکیم مرده است. ترجمه: شهناز مسمی­پرست و شهرزاد قانونی. تهران: آگه.
آگبرن، ویلیام فیلدینگ؛ نیمکوف، مایر فرانسیس. (1357). زمینه جامعه­شناسی. ترجمه و اقتباس: امیرحسین آریان­پور. تهران: بی­جا.
برکت، محیا؛ چلنگر، زهراسادات؛ محبی، نجیبه. (1400). «بررسی پدیدارشناسانه زیست رسانه­ای سالمندان در دوران کرونا (مورد مطالعه: نسل رسانه­های آنالوگ دارای موبایل هوشمند». تحقیقات فرهنگی ایران. دوره چهاردهم. شماره 2.
بِک، اولریش. (1400). جامعه خطر. ترجمه: رضا فاضل و مهدی فرهمندنژاد. تهران: ثالث.
بودلایی، حسن. (1400). روش تحقیق پدیدارشناسی. تهران: جامعه­شناسان.
بوزان، تونی. (1397). قدرت هوش اجتماعی: 10 راه برای رسیدن به نبوغ اجتماعی. ترجمه: حسین مطیع. تهران: بوکتاب.
بهمنی، سجاد؛ عربی، علی؛ بوداقی، علی. (1402). «مردم­نگاری چندمیدانه اثرگذاری گسترش کرونا بر مناسک عزا (میدان مطالعه: ساکنین زاگرس جنوبی)». جامعه­شناسی فرهنگ و هنر. دوره پنجم. شماره 1. 76-61.
پوگام، سِرژ. (1397). جامعه­شناسی رابطه اجتماعی. ترجمه: عبدالحسین نیک­گهر. تهران: هرمس.
تافلر، آلوین. (1374). شوک آینده. ترجمه: حشمت­الله کامرانی. تهران: سیمرغ.
تامپسون، کنت. (1401). نقل­قول­های کلیدی در جامعه­شناسی. ترجمه: نیره توکلی. تهران: ثالث.
جمادی، سیاوش. (1400). زمینه و زمانه پدیدارشناسی. تهران: ققنوس.
خلجی­نیا، زهره؛ و دیگران. (1400). «تبیین درک مردم از زندگی در شرایط شیوع بیماری کرونا در شهر قم». مجله دانشگاه علوم پزشکی قم. دوره پانزدهم. شماره 7. 473-464.
ریتزر، جورج. (1400). نظریه جامعه شناسی در دوران معاصر. ترجمه: محسن ثلاثی. تهران: علمی.
زیمل، گئورگ. (1395). گزیده مقالات. ترجمه: شاپور بهیان. تهران: دنیای اقتصاد.
زیمل، گئورگ. (1399الف). درباره فردیت و فرم­های اجتماعی. ترجمه: شهناز مسمی­پرست. تهران: ثالث.
زیمل، گئورگ. (1399ب). فلسفه پول. ترجمه: شهناز مسمی­پرست. تهران: پارسه.
زیمل، گئورگ. (1399ج). شوپنهاور و نیچه. ترجمه: شهناز مسمی­پرست. تهران: علم.
صدیق­اورعی، غلامرضا؛ و دیگران. (1398). مبانی جامعه­شناسی (مفاهیم و گزاره­های پایه). قم: پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه.
عسگری، محمد؛ چوبداری، عسگر؛ اسکندری، حسین. (1400). «واکاوی تجارب­زیسته افراد مبتلا به بیماری کرونا در روابط فردی، خانوادگی و اجتماعی و راهکارهای پیشگیری و کنترل آسیب‌های روانی ناشی از آن». فرهنگ مشاوره و روان­درمانی. دوره دوازدهم. شماره 45. 52-33.
فروم، اریک. (1360). جامعه سالم. ترجمه: اکبر تبریزی. تهران: بهجت.
فریزبی، دیوید. (1399). گئورگ زیمل. ترجمه: جواد گنجی. تهران: گام نو.
فلمن، فردیناند. (1401). بازنگری در فلسفه اجتماعی گئورگ زیمل. ترجمه: محمد نجاری. تهران: شورآفرین.
کانتی، الیاس. (1402). توده و قدرت. ترجمه: ابراهیم ملک­اسماعیلی. تهران: نگاه.
کندال، دیانا. (1400). جامعه­شناسی معاصر. ترجمه: فریده همتی. تهران: جامعه­شناسان.
کولیوند، پیرحسین؛ کاظمی، هادی. (1400). «تأثیر کووید19 بر سلامت روان، مباحث اقتصادی-اجتماعی و روابط اجتماعی در تهران: یک مطالعه پایلوت». شفای خاتم. دوره نهم. شماره 2. 110-100.
گرسون، آندره. (1343). اگوست کنت. ترجمه: کاظم عمادی. تهران: بنگاه مطبوعاتی صفی­علی­شاه.
گیدنز، آنتونی. (1382). تجدد و تشخص. ترجمه: ناصر موفقیان. تهران: نی.
لِمان، جنیفر. (1390). ساخت­شکنی دورکیم. ترجمه: شهناز مسمی­پرست. تهران: مهر ویستا.
لوبون، گوستاو. (1371). روانشناسی توده­ها. ترجمه: کیومرث خواجوی­ها. تهران: روشنگران.
مک­لوهان، مارشال؛ و دیگران. (1399). ارتباطات اجتماعی. ترجمه: عباس محمدی­اصل. تهران: اندیشه احسان.
منفرد، الیاس؛ واحدی، محسن؛ حقگو، حجت­الله. (1400). «کووید۱۹ تهدیدی برای سلامت جامعه با ایجاد اختلال در یکپارچگی اجتماعی، یکپارچگی در منزل و فعالیت‌های مولد». مجله توانبخشی. دوره بیست و دوم. شماره 3. 361-342.
میرزایی، حسین. (1399الف). جستارهایی در آموزش عالی، علم و بحران کرونا. تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
میرزایی، خلیل. (1399ب). «علت­ها و پیامدهای همه­گیری و عالم­گیری ویروس کرونا». ارزیابی تأثیرات اجتماعی. دوره اول. شماره 2. 42-13.
میری، سیدجواد. (1401). نظم نوین جهانی در عصر پسا-جدید: تفسیری اگزیستانسیال از رخداد کرونا. تهران: نقد فرهنگ.
وبر، ماکس. (1399). اقتصاد و جامعه. ترجمه: عباس منوچهری، مهرداد ترابی­نژاد و مصطفی عمادزاده. تهران: سمت.
Bonetto, E.; et al. (2021). “Basic human values during the COVID-19 outbreak, perceived threat and their relationships with compliance with movement restrictions and social distancing”. PLoS One.16(6):1-15.
Calbi, M.; et al. (2021). “The consequences of COVID-19 on social interactions: an online study on face covering”. Scientific Reports. 11(1).
Hinde, R.A. (1976). “Interactions, Relationships and Social Structure”. Man. 11(1):1-17.
Jerusalem, W. (1905). Der Kritische Idealismus Und Die Reine Logik. Germany: Berandmuller. (German)
Kim, H.; Florack, A. (2021). “When Social Interaction Backfires: Frequent Social Interaction During the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Associated With Decreased Well-Being and Higher Panic Buying”. Frontiers in Psychology.Vol 12.
Long, E.; et al. (2021). “COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on social relationships and health”. Epidemiol Community Health. 76(2):1–5.
Motamed-Jahromi, M.; Kaveh, M.H. (2021). “The Social Consequences of the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak in Iran: Is Social Capital at Risk? A Qualitative Study”. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Infectious Diseases. Vol 2021:1-8.
Naser, A.Y.; et al. (2020). “The effect of the 2019 coronavirus disease outbreak on social relationships: A cross-sectional study in Jordan”. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 67(6): 613-819.
Okabe-Miyamoto, K.; et al. (2021). “Changes in social connection during COVID-19 social distancing: It’s not (household) size that matters, it’s who you’re with”. PLoS One. 16 (1).
Patra, S. (2021). “The COVID-19 Pandemic and A New Sociology of Social Distancing”. Economic & Political Weekly. 56(23):1-11.
Quay, S.; Muller, R. (2021). “Origins Forum Wrap Up: The Science Points to a Lab Leak”. Jun 29. Online at:https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/release/origins-forum-wrap-up-the-science-points-to-a-lab-leak.
Reisman, D.; Glazer, N.; Denny, R. (1961). The Lonely Crowd: A study of the changing American character. New Haven: Yale University Press. 
Sociological Cultural Studies
Volume 16, Issue 4 - Serial Number 58
Winter 2026
Winter 2026
Pages 59-100

  • Receive Date 05 August 2024
  • Revise Date 10 November 2024
  • Accept Date 11 November 2024
  • Publish Date 20 February 2026