Sunday 16 January 2022
Own freedom vs responsibility
Djokovic – a soldier in the storm of war
A comment by David Needy
It’s about so much more than tennis. A social debate is taking place on Novak Djokovic. Individual freedom on the one hand, collective responsibility on the other. The Australian fiasco shows that there is a war of cultures that must come to an end.
Novak Djokovic is one of the greatest tennis players of all time. He has an incredible 20th Grand Slam title under his belt. Just as many as the old masters Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Of all three professionals, the unvaccinated world number one Djokovic has the best cards to achieve the record number 21 title – and so the Serb traveled to Australia, where he had triumphed nine times, to claim the title of the most successful men’s player of all time substantiate The rest of the story is now well known. The 34-year-old is now the personification of a global controversy.
The topics that are currently preoccupying the societies of the pandemic are working through the Djokovic microsmos. The vast majority of those vaccinated against the vociferous minority of those opposed to vaccination. The supporters against the opponents of the corona restrictions. The split allows hardly any gray tones. hero or hate figure.
Djokovic is hyped up as Jesus by his family and followers. To Spartacus, the “leader of the free world”. Djokovic’s refusal to capitulate to an Australian government that wants to expel him from the country “in the public interest” because he is not vaccinated makes him a martyr in the eyes of some right-wing populists and opponents of vaccination. To the vast majority of Australians (and many observers worldwide) he is Satan. An irresponsible egoist who doesn’t care about rules, the health of others or the dangers of the pandemic.
Djokovic becomes the warrior of the unvaccinated
The Djokovic spectacle becomes a mirror of the extreme polarization worldwide. Two divided camps that hardly have a common base of facts, knowledge and values. They each see their views as existential and ignore the other side. The focus is on the question of individual freedom versus collective responsibility. The fronts are not only so hardened and brutal in the case of Djokovic that a kind of culture war has ensued. The vision of our society is fought for. Are self-interest and personal freedom in the foreground or the altruism of putting one’s own comfort aside and protecting others?
The world number one is these days – intentionally or unintentionally – the most important soldier in this war. Vaccination opponents demonstrate for Djokovic, Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic says that the tennis professional was “treated like a mass murderer”. In Serbia, where less than half of the country is vaccinated, Djokovic already enjoys cult status. In the final court case in Melbourne, the government lawyer used the argument that the Serbs influence “not only existing anti-vaccination groups”. As a role model to many, “his presence in Australia would make his anti-vaccination views even clearer to Australians”.
Djokovic becomes the warrior of the unvaccinated, a totem, and therefore has to leave Australia, a country with one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. The situation in Australia was so heated and charged that some raised serious safety concerns and expected violence at Djokovic’s games in Melbourne.
Individual Freedom vs. Collective Responsibility
The collective experience of the pandemic is forcing societies to reconsider the balance between individual freedom and collective responsibility. Djokovic and other opponents of vaccination refer to their personal freedom of choice over their bodies. For them, autonomy is inviolable. Why should I even act in a way that is contrary to my own personal interests, even if it will benefit or prevent harm to another person or group? I am responsible for myself first and foremost. This attitude is a product of their circumstances, we live in what is probably the most individualistic age ever. Self-interested populists are always successful on the political and economic stage. One of the most successful consumer products of our time has an “I” (English for me) at the beginning.
At the same time, the general focus on personal freedom and the individual leads to a reduction in the values that are indispensable for a society, such as empathy, compassion and care. Opponents of vaccination like Djokovic are accused by the other war front of taking their individualism too far, acting selfishly and thus risking other people’s lives. Social responsibility and cohesion, two pillars of a functioning society, should not be taken as important or even rejected. Both sides of the social debate condemn faster than usual in these charged times – as illustrated by Djokovic, who became Jesus or satan.
The controversy surrounding the tennis pro shows how much contention there is about what responsible citizenship means these days. In a democratic society, this is fundamental – and many vaccinated people around the world feel treated unfairly and irresponsibly by the unvaccinated. Because their behaviors endanger the health and well-being of others and, more importantly, the healthcare system. For them, it’s not just about their opponents’ disregard for health protocols, but – and Novak Djokovic also stands for this – the undermining of science, the spread of misinformation and a lack of consideration for others.
Post Pandemic Society
The War of Civilizations, fought these days at Totem Novak Djokovic, shows that people worldwide have to deal with a post-pandemic society and citizenship. The fronts need to be cooled down, public health issues need to be clarified, health skills need to be taught, individual responsibility needs to be installed as a virtue. There needs to be more compassion and listening, and less aggression and black-and-white thinking, from all sides. This is the only way to regain a common fact base.
The corona pandemic and the social debate in the form of the Djokovic microcosm teaches a lesson about humanity, responsibility and consequences in confused and heated times. Medicine and healthcare are very clear on this. They strive to maximize benefits for the greatest number of people while protecting the rights of individuals. Restrictions on the rights of the individual are justified for two reasons: for the benefit of the individual or for the benefit of the community.
.
