Now, why should anthropology or the larger social sciences, like ours, be particularly interested in this pandemic? Digitally? The problem is, as we have experienced during this epidemic, daily academic texts, newspapers, webinars, home-based work, and so on. If we are based on the digital approach to ethnography, perhaps we can ask what has it brought to us. Are we within ourselves, or in the digital tool? Maybe we can put it simply, Are we more individualistic or more social? Are we in communication, which is totally abstract, or in a connection that is more practical, reciprocal, and contributing? As we know, we are limited in our thinking and actions, yet we can bring this discussion in detail. What the authors have collected from the fieldwork of the Bioprospecting project with the Rakhain community in Bangladesh may be helpful to other sections of the global readership. To an extent, policymakers can think of connectivity, reciprocity, and practical contributions if we are social animals.
TopIf Digital Ethnography Is A Concept, Then…
Has our ability to hold attention or our cognitive ability changed because of tweets, Facebook, discussion, Whatsapp, etc.? Are we within ourselves, or in the digital tool? Maybe we can put it simply, are we more individualistic, or more social? Are we in communication, which is abstract, or in a connection that is more practical, reciprocal, and contributing?
[This Digital Ethnography is a method and]
A concept is a brick. It can be used to build the courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window. What is the subject of the brick? The arm that throws it? The body connected to the arm? The brain encased in the body? The situation that brought brain and body to such a juncture? All and none of the above. What is its object? The window? The edifice? The laws the edifice shelters? (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987).
And here we will speak out, we will speak as loud as we can. “Silence is a means... omission and dismissal are the functions and repercussions of omission. It undermines attempts to improve social science” (Alatas, 2018, p.30).
Centrally the whole discussion calls for oneness, obliterating all dissections, and we decorated it with a few sections. At the outset, we should demonstrate and be agreed, that this coronavirus’s facets as known and well-pointed; it has been touching almost every sphere of human life and society. Roughly and indeed realistically, we have categorized 16 broader aspects of human life. Reviewing 4000 articles, book chapters, and seminar papers, we shortlisted a few to show how it happens. It is the facet of this deadly pandemic. We then showed there is divided scholarship as dissections before the pandemic: right-left as usual dissections. Some may argue that these diversifications are the academic beauty, well enough—when lives are at an extreme stake, does this debate mean worth? All may agree with our assertion—it is not the time of academic diversification—saving lives is the call. The scholars’ gossip and other theoretical messages will now be a source of laughter. In a starving stomach, theory and religion do not carry any meaning. The hungry stomach seeks food as desperate people want oxygen. This is the ultimate reality. Working with the indigenous people of Bangladesh and Malaysia’s poor migrant workers, we have come to understand this shameless truth of life. This chapter’s central argument shows two major regimentations: One argues about a re-arrangement of the capitalist/neoliberal system, and the other stands for Marxism/socialism as the solution. However, we know it is not a time of discussion, but action, socially and collectively. These dissections are, again, in a sense, fomenting the existing fractions of human society.
We then moved to see the interfaces between locality and international treaties and the facet’s reality. There is a deep concern about rising nationalism, as warned by the United Nations Secretary-general. The 2020 pandemic is quite much in line with all this destructive potential and risk for human civilization, and consequences to humanity, including SDGs, have evolved unparalleled. It has also been confirmed that a series of safety and increased tragedies had indeed cropped up. It is still threatening ideologies to be resolved and the rigid framework whereby a significant political economy occurs. So, what is rest after? Nationalism provisions claim that national entities referred to as nation-states are essential in the development of human beings.
Consequently, any country should be given a measure of independence with its activities, and they are maybe right. This notion provides the basis for global political self-determination.
we do faith this discussion will be for humanity instead of for humankind. The reason is that we ‘want’ to see the maximum effect and benefit on society, instead of what we ‘can’ or ‘to’ address the pandemic, in essence, to the broken humanity. It is, perhaps, the time to ask, “who guards the guardians?” (Wronka, 1998). This chapter is thus for us, not an opinion piece ‘to’ society but rather an urge ‘for’ human beings.
Besides this, we consider a couple of issues. We perceive ontologically that this pandemic is