the new normal education essay 200 words

• High School

Write an informative essay about the New Normal Education. (200 words) ​

Arixse is waiting for your help., ai-generated answer.

• 321 answers
• 46.5K people helped

Explanation:

200 words is not very many. Just begin exploring one idea briefly and you should be at 200 words in no time.

Still have questions?

Get more answers for free, you might be interested in, new questions in english.

For the best Oliver Wyman website experience, please upgrade your browser to IE9 or later

• Global (English)
• India (English)
• Middle East (English)
• South Africa (English)
• Brazil (Português)
• Canada (English)
• Canada (Français)
• China (中文版)
• Japan (日本語)
• Southeast Asia (English)
• Belgium (English)
• France (Français)
• Germany (Deutsch)
• Italy (Italiano)
• Netherlands (English)
• Nordics (English)
• Portugal (Português)
• Spain (Español)
• Switzerland (Deutsch)
• UK And Ireland (English)

Education In The New Normal

This was first published on June 3, 2020

Covid-19 has created numerous and significant challenges to the education system, and education leadership must implement a holistic strategy to mitigate the impact of the pandemic and adapt to the new reality.

In April 2020 we published our first insights on Education Continuity During Covid-19 , which provided an overview of country responses to ensure education continuity and outlined a set of recommendations, targeted at education policymakers and delivery institutions, to build resilience into their education systems and ensure continuity during times of public crisis.

In this, the second installment, we dive deeper into the recommendations and look at core initiatives taken by education leadership in response to the pandemic and provide practical guidance and examples. 

Education Leadership Detailed Response Framework

OUR EXPERTISE  

Industries .

• Communications, Media, And Technology
• Energy And Natural Resources
• Financial Services
• Government And Public Institutions
• Health And Life Sciences
• Industrial Products
• Private Equity And Principal Investors
• Retail And Consumer Goods
• Transportation And Services
• Velocity Podcast

capabilities 

• Climate And Sustainability
• Oliver Wyman Engineers
• People And Organizational Performance
• Performance Transformation
• Pricing, Sales, And Marketing
• Risk Management
• Turnaround And Restructuring
• Oliver Wyman Quotient

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

PH education and the new normal

If last year’s enrollment figures are to be a basis, the Philippine education system will be expecting around 27 million students to enroll in the Basic Education System in the coming school year. With the early closure of the school year in March, the enhanced community quarantine in effect, and the still unclear future that the COVID-19 pandemic will bring, the Department of Education (DepEd) and our millions of learners are facing enormous challenges.

In a recent evaluation on ALS (Alternative Learning System) interventions done in the Mindanao region during the quarantine period, platforms such as ICT4ALS, FB Chat, Google Classroom, the Aral Muna app, and DepEd Commons emerged as the most common technological interventions used. Also popular are the use of radio-based intervention — partnerships with local radio stations to announce questions or lessons that can be replied to by phone. There are also the door-to-door delivery of worksheets, take-home learning activity sheets, and take-home portfolio completions. These modalities are being used and explored during the quarantine period and will serve as key learning points for implementation in the bigger education system.

While home school and online learning are among the proposed solutions, access to technology and the internet, especially in remote areas, remains a challenge. In the public education system, it is not uncommon for students to lack internet connection at home or be unable to afford to “load” their phones regularly. Some do not even have computers or phones at all. As this is a reality that many schools, students, and communities will face, the DepEd proposes a combination of different learning modalities and will be using the Blended Learning approach.

In-classroom study and individual study/online classroom work, or Blended Learning, will allow students to learn at their own pace under guided modules. The DepEd has launched an online study platform called DepEd Commons, accessible to both private and public schools, to help students continue their lessons. It has also developed an ALS platform in partnership with Unicef called ICT4ALS, a portal of learning resources, activity sheets, and online tutorials for ALS teachers and learners.

However, the challenge of technology access still remains for public school students. Other factors such as home environment (conduciveness to learning), learner attitudes toward home learning, and technology competence can affect learner outcomes and the effective use of Blended Learning. Learning at home also requires parent participation and support.

Education’s new normal will not just be about operating in an environment that secures the health of students; nor will it be about completely transitioning to online modalities. Instead, it should be about using technology to increase efficiency in areas with the capacity to do so, while empowering learners and communities to create positive learning environments in which the student can grow. It should not sacrifice quality but continue to provide equal opportunities, most especially to the marginalized and vulnerable sectors. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but one that is dependent on the needs of each learning community.

While the DepEd carries most of the burden for this challenge, the role of local government units is crucial. An alignment of resources and education goals within each community is needed to support the education ecosystem of students, teachers, and parents and assist the adjustment to the new normal — home schooling, parent-as-teachers training, community internet centers, a Citizen Watch for education, establishing LGU leaders as education champions.

While the future remains unknown, by working together to support and empower the education ecosystems in our communities, we can help establish the structures that our students will need to receive the quality education they deserve, and bring stability in a time of uncertainty.

Ching Jorge ( [email protected] ) is the executive director of the Bato Balani Foundation and an Asia21 Fellow of the Asia Society.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

For more news about the novel coronavirus click here. What you need to know about Coronavirus. For more information on COVID-19, call the DOH Hotline: (02) 86517800 local 1149/1150.

The Inquirer Foundation supports our healthcare frontliners and is still accepting cash donations to be deposited at Banco de Oro (BDO) current account #007960018860 or donate through PayMaya using this link .

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.

Students' Learning Experiences in The New Normal Education

• 3(5):221-233

• Cotabato Foundation College of Science and Technology
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Cotabato State University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Vu Thi Lan Anh
• Nguyen Thi Thu Hang
• Renie A Kabagel

• Emelia B Santander
• Noraima A Tiago

• Meilrose B Peralta

• Jayakumar Padmanabhan

• J. Josephin Veronica

• Jerusha Angelene

• P. Jayakumar

• G.G. Lakshmi Priya

• Sumit Kumar
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

What Students Are Teaching the Rest of Us about the New Normal

With the COVID-19 pandemic taking a toll on students, personally and academically, many of them are modeling how to respond to the new normal.

So many of us in higher education, and across the world, are exhausted, frustrated, and anxious. Two years ago, everything started to shut down—initially for only two weeks, maybe three—so that we could "bend the curve" to get the COVID-19 pandemic under control and return to normal life.

In those first weeks, which became months, we learned that technology could enable virtual learning in many remarkable ways. But even with all this technology, students still struggled to make real connections with their professors and with each other. And everywhere, all the time, was the risk that the coronavirus was out there, ready to get you if you were not careful or if you were just unlucky. Now, even with vaccines, COVID-19 surges continue as we enter year three.

On another level, however, something interesting is happening in higher education. With the COVID-19 pandemic also taking a toll on students, personally and academically, many of them are modeling, for the rest of us, how to respond to the new normal. In the last week of my class in December 2021, I asked 110 undergraduates:

"How would you say the COVID-19 pandemic has changed you as a student and as a person?"

Mixed Responses

Students stated a variety of ways in which they had matured during the pandemic. Many offered some version of "I've learned how to manage stress and independence." They reported becoming much better at learning independently and developing important life skills. They noted that they are now more aware of the impact of their actions on other people and that they have new appreciation for friends, family, school, and being in nature.

Other students were much less positive. Academically, they reported: "Online learning is really hard—and I am not good at it." They're delighted to be on campus and in person, but they also had to adjust to going back to the classroom. Some students replied more personally: "I'm anxious and sad." "I'm pessimistic and cynical." "I'm burned out." "I'm stressed out." "I have new and worse mental health issues."

Still other students offered a mixed response. Several said something like: "I am a better person but a worse student." Although they considered themselves to be sophisticated social media users, they know that they spend too much time with it. One insightful student reflected that the impact of the pandemic on students was "huge and may not be fully understood for years."

How are students managing all this? Overall, students are coping with their exhaustion, frustration, and anxiety in some healthy ways: through self-care, openness, and empathy.

Students are making a deliberate choice for self-care. For many students, "self-care" may have been considered an indulgent luxury before the pandemic. They heard people telling them: "You should be in school full-time and doing an internship and working at a job and conducting research and volunteering and and and. . . . If you are resting, if you are not interested, don't worry, there is always someone else, ready to work harder, work faster, get ahead. They will win and you will lose—so you better keep going."

But students seem to have made a conscious decision that go-go-go is no longer the only route. Students are saying "no" to things—things that are not essential or not rewarding, things that might advance their careers but not their lives. Students are focusing on healthier relationships, nutrition and exercise, and positive attitudes. Some of my students, for example, began taking—or teaching—Zoom yoga classes. Others incorporated long walks in green spaces into their busy schedules.

Flowing from self-care, students are now being more open with their instructors. They'll say: "I didn't have time to do the assignment"—offering no excuses or apologies (or drama) and willing to accept any consequences. They speak candidly about their own health. "I didn't come to class with my cough. I didn't want to put anyone at risk." Or: "I got tested. It's strep, not Covid." In response, instructors don't need doctors' notes: we are more trusting, with bonds forged from our common threats and from our students' trust in us.

Students are increasingly open about their mental health as well. Sometimes this goes back to self-care: "I just needed a day off." Other times students offer unapologetic candor about specific mental health diagnoses—information that instructors don't need and that students might once have thought carried real stigma. "I am being treated for anxiety"—or depression or ADHD or bipolar disorder. "I'm a recovering alcoholic and drug addict." "My therapist said . . ."

Students are also more open about other parts of their lives: "My dad lost his job." "I came out to my Mom." "My boyfriend dumped me," "I'm failing chemistry." Expecting no judgment or special treatment, they simply think it's now normal to share.

Finally, students are responding to the new normal with empathy. Instead of scrutinizing the decisions of others—especially on social media—they accept each other's decisions more generously and with support. Students know that there is a lot they don't know about each other: lives, backgrounds, struggles. Students may not understand Alex's priorities or Sasha's choices, and that's okay. Let Alex be Alex and let Sasha be Sasha.

We can't know whether these lessons will last beyond the pandemic. The next cadre of college and university students—struggling today through their own middle and high school journeys—will have been through pandemic-era online learning at a much younger age. But for now, all of us working in higher education can learn from how students are responding to the new normal with self-care, openness, and empathy.

Jim Quirk teaches in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC.

© 2022 Jim Quirk. The text of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.

• Secondary School

200 word essay about "The new normal"​

Another day, another week, but who really understands time anymore? The number of cases are steadily rising, but so is the frustration and anxiety from being locked up at home for such an extended time – even if it’s for our own good.

But we’ve got to sit tight – many of us even after the national lockdown comes to an end and when certain pockets and locations see a relaxation of the rules. After all, the end of the lockdown will hardly mean the threat of coronavirus has been put to bed once and for all.

As we continue to trudge on, and keep our social distancing vows, our ‘new normal’ continues to warp and morph and change to the demands of an ever changing uncertain world.

New questions in English

A Year After Coronavirus: An Inclusive ‘New Normal’

Six months into a new decade, 2020 has already been earmarked as ‘the worst’ year in the 21st century. The novel coronavirus has given rise to a global pandemic that has destabilized most institutional settings. While we live in times when humankind possesses the most advanced science and technology, a virus invisible to the naked eye has massively disrupted economies, healthcare, and education systems worldwide. This should serve as a reminder that as we keep making progress in science and research, humanity will continue to face challenges in the future, and it is upon us to prioritize those issues that are most relevant in the 21st century.

Even amidst the pandemic, Space X, an American aerospace manufacturer, managed to become the first private company to send humans to space. While this is a tremendous achievement and prepares humanity for a sustainable future, I feel there is a need to introspect the challenges that we are already facing. On the one hand, we seem to be preparing beyond the 21st century. On the other hand, heightened nationalism, increasing violence against marginalized communities and multidimensional inequalities across all sectors continue to act as barriers to growth for most individuals across the globe. COVID-19 has reinforced these multifaceted economic, social and cultural inequalities wherein those in situations of vulnerability have found it increasingly difficult to get quality medical attention, access to quality education, and have witnessed increased domestic violence while being confined to their homes. 

Given the coronavirus’s current situation, some households have also had time to introspect on gender roles and stereotypes. For instance, women are expected to carry out unpaid care work like cooking, cleaning, and looking after the family. There is no valid reason to believe that women ought to carry out these activities, and men have no role in contributing to household chores. With men having shared household chores during the lockdown period, it gives hope that they will realize the burden that women have been bearing for past decades and will continue sharing responsibilities. However, it would be naïve to believe that gender discrimination could be tackled so easily, and men would give up on their decades' old habits within a couple of months. Thus, during and after the pandemic, there is an urgent need to sensitize households on the importance of gender equality and social cohesion.

Moving forward, developing quality healthcare systems that are affordable and accessible to all should be the primary objective for all governments. This can be done by increasing expenditure towards health and education and simultaneously reducing expenditure on defence equipment where the latter mainly gives rise to an idea that countries need to be prepared for violence. There is substantial evidence that increased investment in health and education is beneficial in the long-term and can potentially build the basic foundation of a country. 

If it can be established that usage of nuclear weapons, violence and war are not solutions to any problem, governments (like, for example, Costa Rica) could move towards disarmament of weapons and do their part in building a more peaceful planet that is sustainable for the future. This would further promote global citizenship wherein nationality, race, gender, caste, and other categories, are just mere variables and they do not become identities of individuals that restrict their thought process. The aim should be to build responsible citizens who play an active role in their society and work collectively in helping develop a planet that is well-governed, inclusive, and environmentally sustainable.

 ‘A year after Coronavirus’ is still an unknown, so I think that our immediate focus should be to tackle the complex problems that have emerged from the pandemic so that we make the year after coronavirus one which highlights recovery and acts as a pathway to fresh beginnings. While there is little to gain from such a fatal cause, it is vital that we also use it to make the ‘new normal’ in favour of the environment and ensure that no one is left behind.   

Related items

• Country page: India
• UNESCO Office in New Delhi
• SDG: SDG 3 - Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

This article is related to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals .

More on this subject

Other recent articles

Article Terms of Reference: Development of O3 & ESA Commitment Live Indicator Dashboard 29 August 2024

Teaching and Learning in the New Normal: Responding to Students’ and Academics’ Multifaceted Needs

• Conference paper
• First Online: 09 July 2023
• Cite this conference paper

• Andriani Piki   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0376-1713 9 &
• Magdalena Brzezinska   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4213-8636 10  

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14026))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

695 Accesses

2 Citations

Alongside the prolonged social and economic instability and the escalating demands for upskilling, Covid-19 pandemic had a detrimental impact on students’ and academics’ mental health and wellbeing. Social isolation and the emergency transition to remote education caused high levels of psychological distress, hindering students’ self-efficacy and academic performance. The pandemic also induced sudden changes affecting academics’ personal and professional lives, leading to mental disorders and risk of burnout. While recent research focuses on addressing the effects of the pandemic on either students or academics, this paper presents a collective analysis. The key themes that emerged by examining the experiences of both students and academics in higher education are framed in a multi-layered support system embracing qualities such as: self-efficacy, wellbeing, equality, diversity, and inclusion, social interactions, human-centred technologies, and authentic pedagogical methods. The findings are discussed with the aim to extract informed recommendations for enhancing teaching and learning experiences in the post-pandemic era.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abu Elnasr, E.S., Hasanein, A.M., Abu Elnasr, A.E.: Responses to COVID-19 in higher education: Social media usage for sustaining formal academic communication in developing countries. Sustainability 12 (16), 6520 (2020)

Google Scholar  

Al Miskry, A.S.A., Hamid, A.A.M., Darweesh, A.H.M.: The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on University Faculty, Staff, and Students and Coping Strategies Used During the Lockdown in the United Arab Emirates. Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021)

Al-Taweel, D., et al.: Multidisciplinary academic perspectives during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Int. J. Health Planning Manag. 35 (6), 1295–1301 (2020)

Aucejo, E.M., French, J., Araya, M.P.U., Zafar, B.: The impact of Covid-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey. Journal of public economics, 191 (2020)

Bates, A.W.: Teaching in a Digital Age, 2nd edn. Tony Bates Associates Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. (2019)

Berger, T.: How to Maslow Before Bloom, All Day Long. Edutopia (2020). https://www.edutopia.org/article/how-maslow-bloom-all-day-long/

Bożykowski, M., Izdebski, A., Jasiński, M., Konieczna-Sałamatin, J.: Nauczanie w dobie pandemii i perspektywa powrotu do normalności, Pracownia Ewaluacji Jakości Kształcenia Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego (University of Warsaw) (2021)

Brzezinska, M., Cromarty, E.: Emergency Remote Teaching in the University Context: Responding to Social and Emotional Needs During a Sudden Transition Online. In: Meiselwitz, G. (eds) Social Computing and Social Media: Applications in Education and Commerce. HCII 2022. LNCS, vol. 13316. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05064-0_3

Brzezinska, M.: Global skills in the global pandemic: how to create an effective bichronous learning experience during an emergency shift to remote instruction. In: Auer, M.E., Pester, A., May, D. (eds.) Learning with Technologies and Technologies in Learning. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 456. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04286-7_32

Cassibba, R., Ferrarello, D., Mammana, M.F., Musso, P., Pennisi, M., Taranto, E.: Teaching mathematics at distance: a challenge for universities. Educ. Sci. 11 (1), 1 (2020)

Czaja, K., et al.: Zdalne kształcenie na Wydziale Humanistycznym Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach. Report (March-April 2020). (A Report. Remote Education at the Department of Humanities of the University of Silesia in Katowice), Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach 2020, https://us.edu.pl/wydzial/wh/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/Nieprzypisane/ZDALNE-KSZTAŁCENIE-NA-WYDZIALE-HUMANISTYCZNYM-RAPORT.pdf

Darby, F., Lang, J.M.: Small Teaching Online: Applying Learning Science in Online Classes (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass (2019)

Dewey, J.: How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. DC Heath (1933)

Dinu, L.M., et al.: A case study investigating mental wellbeing of university academics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Sci. 11 (11), 702 (2021)

Article   Google Scholar  

Engelbrecht, J., Borba, M. C., Llinares, S., Kaiser, G.: Will 2020 be remembered as the year in which education was changed? ZDM – Math. Educ. 52 (5), 821–824 (2020)

Flaherty, C.: Faculty pandemic stress is now chronic. Inside Higher Ed, 19 (2020)

France, P.E.: Reclaiming Personalized Learning: A Pedagogy for Restoring Equity and Humanity in Our Classrooms (First). Corwin (2020)

France, P.E.: Humanizing Distance Learning: Centering Equity and Humanity in Times of Crisis (First). Corwin (2021)

Gewin, V.: Pandemic Burnout Is Rampant in Academia. Nature Publishing Group (2021). https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-021-00663-2/d41586-021-00663-2.pdf

Gierdowski, D.C.: ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology (Research report). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, October 2019 (2019). http://www.educause.edu/ecar

Halabieh, H., et al.: The future of higher education: identifying current educational problems and proposed solutions. Educ. Sci. 12 (12), 888 (2022)

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., Bond, A.: The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Rev. 2020 , 3 (2020)

Hughes, G.J., Byrom, N.C.: Managing student mental health: the challenges faced by academics on professional healthcare courses. J. Adv. Nurs. 75 (7), 1539–1548 (2019)

Joosten, T., Weber, N., Baker, M., Schletzbaum, A.: Planning for a Blended Future: A Research-Driven Guide for Educators (2021). Available online: https://eduq.info/xmlui/handle/11515/38291

Kara, M.: Revisiting online learner engagement: exploring the role of learner characteristics in an emergency period. J. Res. Technol. Educ., 1–17 (2021)

Killen, C., Langer-Crame, M., Penrice, S.: Teaching Staff Digital Experience Insights Survey 2020: UK Higher Education Findings (2021). https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/teaching-staff-digital-experience-insights-survey-2020-uk-higher-education

Kita, Y., Yasuda, S., Gherghel, C.: Online education and the mental health of faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Sci. Rep. 12 (1), 1–9 (2022)

Kukulska-Hulme, A., et al.: Innovating Pedagogy 2022: Open University Innovation Report 10. Milton Keynes: The Open University (2022)

Kumar, S., Martin, F., Budhrani, K., Ritzhaupt, A.: Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Elements of award-winning courses. Online Learning 23(4) (2019)

Leone, V., Brzezinska, M.: Transatlantic Educators Dialogue (TED) Program for Global Citizenship. Idee in Form@Zione, 99–115 (2021)

Leong, K., Sung, A., Au, D., Blanchard, C.: A review of the trend of microlearning. J. Work-Appl. Manage. 13 (1), 88–102 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-10-2020-004

Ma, X., Liu, J., Liang, J., Fan, C.: An empirical study on the effect of group awareness in CSCL environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–16 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1758730

Marinoni, G., van’t Land, H.: The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Higher Education. International Higher Education. Special Issue 102, pp. 7–9 (2020)

McGaughey, F., et al.: This can’t be the new norm’: academics’ perspectives on the COVID-19 crisis for the Australian university sector. Higher education research & development, 1–16 (2021)

McKee, C., Ntokos, K.: Online microlearning and student engagement in computer games higher education. Res. Learn. Technol. 30 (2022). https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v30.2680

McKenzie, L.: Bridging the Digital Divide: Lessons From Covid-19. Inside Higher Ed (2021). https://www.insidehighered.com/content/bridging-digital-divide-lessons-covid-19

Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Eteokleous, N., Stylianou-Georgiou, A.: Emergency remote learning in higher education in Cyprus during COVID-19 lockdown: a zoom-out view of challenges and opportunities for quality online learning. Educ. Sci. 12 (7), 477 (2022)

Muñoz-Carril, P.C., Hernández-Sellés, N., Fuentes-Abeledo, E.J., González-Sanmamed, M.: Factors influencing students’ perceived impact of learning and satisfaction in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Comput. Educ. 174 , 104310 (2021)

Peters, D., Calvo, R.A., Ryan, R.M.: Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Front. Psychol. 9 , 797 (2018)

Piki, A.: An exploration of student experiences with social media and mobile technologies during emergency transition to remote education. In: The Proceedings of the 19th World Conference on Mobile, Blended and Seamless Learning (mLearn 2020), November 2–4, 2020, Cairo, Egypt (2020)

Piki, A.: Re-imagining the distributed nature of learner engagement in computer-supported collaborative learning contexts in the post-pandemic era. In: Meiselwitz, G. (eds.) Social Computing and Social Media: Applications in Education and Commerce. HCII 2022 (June 26-July 1, 2022). LNCS, vol. 13316. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05064-0_13

Piki, A., Andreou, L., Markou, M.: Students’ perspectives on the emergency transition to online education – a case study in mathematics education. In: 16th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED2022), March 7–2, 2022 (2022)

Raygoza, M., Leon, R. Norris, A.: Humanizing Online Teaching (2020). https://digitalcommons.stmarys-ca.edu/school-education-faculty-works/1805

Rifkin, J.: The Empathetic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World of Crisis. Penguin, New York, NY (2009)

Shaw, A.: Authentic Assessment in the Online Classroom. Center for Teaching and Learning. Wiley Education Services (2020)

Stefan, I.A., Gheorghe, A.F., Stefan, A., Piki, A., Tsalapata, H., Heidmann, O.: Constructing seamless learning through game-based learning experiences. Int. J. Mob. Blended Learn. (IJMBL) 14 (4), 1–12 (2022)

UUK (Universities UK) (2021). Stepchange Mentally Healthy Universities. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policyand-research/publications/stepchange-mentally-healthy-universities

Urbina-Garcia, A.: What do we know about university academics’ mental health? a systematic literature review. Stress. Health 36 (5), 563–585 (2020)

Veluvali, P., Surisetti, J.: Learning management system for greater learner engagement in higher education—a review. High. Educ. Future 9 (1), 107–121 (2022)

Vijayan, R.: Teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a topic modeling study. Educ. Sci. 11 , 347 (2021)

Vlachopoulos, D.: COVID-19: threat or opportunity for online education? High. Learn. Res. Commun. 10 (1), 16–19 (2020)

Wang, Y., Cao, Y., Gong, S., Wang, Z., Li, N., Ai, L.: Interaction and learning engagement in online learning: the mediating roles of online learning self-efficacy and academic emotions. Learn. Individ. Differ. 94 , 102128 (2022)

Watchorn, D., Heckendorf, E., Smith, C.: Locked down, burned out: Publishing in a pandemic: The impact of Covid on academic authors. De Gruyter, Germany (2020)

Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C., Goodall, J.: COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. High. Educ. 81 (3), 623–641 (2021)

Whitman, G., Kelleher, I.: Your Checklist for Virtual Project-Based Learning. Edutopia (2020). https://www.edutopia.org/article/your-checklist-virtual-project-based-learning

WHO/UNESCO (2021). Making every school a health-promoting school: implementation guidance. Geneva: World Health Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2021). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240025073

Wray, S., Kinman, G.: Supporting Staff Wellbeing in Higher Education (ISBN 978-1-7399860-1-8). Education Support, London (2021)

Yiapanas, G., Constantinou, M., Marcoulli, E.: The readiness of higher education academic staff in cyprus for shifting the instructional delivery mode from face-to-face to emergency remote teaching. In: Handbook of Research on Digital Innovation and Networking in Post-COVID-19 Organizations, pp. 301–323. IGI Global (2022)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Central Lancashire – Cyprus, Larnaca, Cyprus

Andriani Piki

WSB University, Poznan, Poland

Magdalena Brzezinska

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magdalena Brzezinska .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

Adela Coman

University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

Simona Vasilache

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Piki, A., Brzezinska, M. (2023). Teaching and Learning in the New Normal: Responding to Students’ and Academics’ Multifaceted Needs. In: Coman, A., Vasilache, S. (eds) Social Computing and Social Media. HCII 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14026. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35927-9_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35927-9_9

Published : 09 July 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-35926-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-35927-9

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The “new normal” in education

José augusto pacheco.

Research Centre on Education (CIEd), Institute of Education, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal

Effects rippling from the Covid 19 emergency include changes in the personal, social, and economic spheres. Are there continuities as well? Based on a literature review (primarily of UNESCO and OECD publications and their critics), the following question is posed: How can one resist the slide into passive technologization and seize the possibility of achieving a responsive, ethical, humane, and international-transformational approach to education? Technologization, while an ongoing and evidently ever-intensifying tendency, is not without its critics, especially those associated with the humanistic tradition in education. This is more apparent now that curriculum is being conceived as a complicated conversation. In a complex and unequal world, the well-being of students requires diverse and even conflicting visions of the world, its problems, and the forms of knowledge we study to address them.

From the past, we might find our way to a future unforeclosed by the present (Pinar 2019 , p. 12)

Texts regarding this pandemic’s consequences are appearing at an accelerating pace, with constant coverage by news outlets, as well as philosophical, historical, and sociological reflections by public intellectuals worldwide. Ripples from the current emergency have spread into the personal, social, and economic spheres. But are there continuities as well? Is the pandemic creating a “new normal” in education or simply accenting what has already become normal—an accelerating tendency toward technologization? This tendency presents an important challenge for education, requiring a critical vision of post-Covid-19 curriculum. One must pose an additional question: How can one resist the slide into passive technologization and seize the possibility of achieving a responsive, ethical, humane, and international-transformational approach to education?

The ongoing present

Unpredicted except through science fiction, movie scripts, and novels, the Covid-19 pandemic has changed everyday life, caused wide-scale illness and death, and provoked preventive measures like social distancing, confinement, and school closures. It has struck disproportionately at those who provide essential services and those unable to work remotely; in an already precarious marketplace, unemployment is having terrible consequences. The pandemic is now the chief sign of both globalization and deglobalization, as nations close borders and airports sit empty. There are no departures, no delays. Everything has changed, and no one was prepared. The pandemic has disrupted the flow of time and unraveled what was normal. It is the emergence of an event (think of Badiou 2009 ) that restarts time, creates radical ruptures and imbalances, and brings about a contingency that becomes a new necessity (Žižek 2020 ). Such events question the ongoing present.

The pandemic has reshuffled our needs, which are now based on a new order. Whether of short or medium duration, will it end in a return to the “normal” or move us into an unknown future? Žižek contends that “there is no return to normal, the new ‘normal’ will have to be constructed on the ruins of our old lives, or we will find ourselves in a new barbarism whose signs are already clearly discernible” (Žižek 2020 , p. 3).

Despite public health measures, Gil ( 2020 ) observes that the pandemic has so far generated no physical or spiritual upheaval and no universal awareness of the need to change how we live. Techno-capitalism continues to work, though perhaps not as before. Online sales increase and professionals work from home, thereby creating new digital subjectivities and economies. We will not escape the pull of self-preservation, self-regeneration, and the metamorphosis of capitalism, which will continue its permanent revolution (Wells 2020 ). In adapting subjectivities to the recent demands of digital capitalism, the pandemic can catapult us into an even more thoroughly digitalized space, a trend that artificial intelligence will accelerate. These new subjectivities will exhibit increased capacities for voluntary obedience and programmable functioning abilities, leading to a “new normal” benefiting those who are savvy in software-structured social relationships.

The Covid-19 pandemic has submerged us all in the tsunami-like economies of the Cloud. There is an intensification of the allegro rhythm of adaptation to the Internet of Things (Davies, Beauchamp, Davies, and Price 2019 ). For Latour ( 2020 ), the pandemic has become internalized as an ongoing state of emergency preparing us for the next crisis—climate change—for which we will see just how (un)prepared we are. Along with inequality, climate is one of the most pressing issues of our time (OECD 2019a , 2019b ) and therefore its representation in the curriculum is of public, not just private, interest.

Education both reflects what is now and anticipates what is next, recoding private and public responses to crises. Žižek ( 2020 , p. 117) suggests in this regard that “values and beliefs should not be simply ignored: they play an important role and should be treated as a specific mode of assemblage”. As such, education is (post)human and has its (over)determination by beliefs and values, themselves encoded in technology.

Will the pandemic detoxify our addiction to technology, or will it cement that addiction? Pinar ( 2019 , pp. 14–15) suggests that “this idea—that technological advance can overcome cultural, economic, educational crises—has faded into the background. It is our assumption. Our faith prompts the purchase of new technology and assures we can cure climate change”. While waiting for technology to rescue us, we might also remember to look at ourselves. In this way, the pandemic could be a starting point for a more sustainable environment. An intelligent response to climate change, reactivating the humanistic tradition in education, would reaffirm the right to such an education as a global common good (UNESCO 2015a , p. 10):

This approach emphasizes the inclusion of people who are often subject to discrimination – women and girls, indigenous people, persons with disabilities, migrants, the elderly and people living in countries affected by conflict. It requires an open and flexible approach to learning that is both lifelong and life-wide: an approach that provides the opportunity for all to realize their potential for a sustainable future and a life of dignity”.

Pinar ( 2004 , 2009 , 2019 ) concevies of curriculum as a complicated conversation. Central to that complicated conversation is climate change, which drives the need for education for sustainable development and the grooming of new global citizens with sustainable lifestyles and exemplary environmental custodianship (Marope 2017 ).

The new normal

The pandemic ushers in a “new” normal, in which digitization enforces ways of working and learning. It forces education further into technologization, a development already well underway, fueled by commercialism and the reigning market ideology. Daniel ( 2020 , p. 1) notes that “many institutions had plans to make greater use of technology in teaching, but the outbreak of Covid-19 has meant that changes intended to occur over months or years had to be implemented in a few days”.

Is this “new normal” really new or is it a reiteration of the old?

Digital technologies are the visible face of the immediate changes taking place in society—the commercial society—and schools. The immediate solution to the closure of schools is distance learning, with platforms proliferating and knowledge demoted to information to be exchanged (Koopman 2019 ), like a product, a phenomenon predicted decades ago by Lyotard ( 1984 , pp. 4-5):

Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valued in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange. Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its use-value.

Digital technologies and economic rationality based on performance are significant determinants of the commercialization of learning. Moving from physical face-to-face presence to virtual contact (synchronous and asynchronous), the learning space becomes disembodied, virtual not actual, impacting both student learning and the organization of schools, which are no longer buildings but websites. Such change is not only coterminous with the pandemic, as the Education 2030 Agenda (UNESCO 2015b ) testified; preceding that was the Delors Report (Delors 1996 ), which recoded education as lifelong learning that included learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, and learning to live together.

Transnational organizations have specified competences for the 21st century and, in the process, have defined disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge that encourages global citizenship, through “the supra curriculum at the global, regional, or international comparative level” (Marope 2017 , p. 10). According to UNESCO ( 2017 ):

While the world may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability. Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response to these challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies.

These transnational initiatives have not only acknowledged traditional school subjects but have also shifted the curriculum toward timely topics dedicated to understanding the emergencies of the day (Spiller 2017 ). However, for the OECD ( 2019a ), the “new normal” accentuates two ideas: competence-based education, which includes the knowledges identified in the Delors Report , and a new learning framework structured by digital technologies. The Covid-19 pandemic does not change this logic. Indeed, the interdisciplinary skills framework, content and standardized testing associated with the Programme for International Student Assessment of the OECD has become the most powerful tool for prescribing the curriculum. Educationally, “the universal homogenous ‘state’ exists already. Globalization of standardized testing—the most prominent instance of threatening to restructure schools into technological sites of political socialization, conditioning children for compliance to a universal homogeneous state of mind” (Pinar 2019 , p. 2).

In addition to cognitive and practical skills, this “homogenous state of mind” rests on so-called social and emotional skills in the service of learning to live together, affirming global citizenship, and presumably returning agency to students and teachers (OECD 2019a ). According to Marope ( 2017 , p. 22), “this calls for higher flexibility in curriculum development, and for the need to leave space for curricula interpretation, contextualization, and creativity at the micro level of teachers and classrooms”. Heterogeneity is thus enlisted in the service of both economic homogeneity and disciplinary knowledge. Disciplinary knowledge is presented as universal and endowed with social, moral, and cognitive authority. Operational and effective knowledge becomes central, due to the influence of financial lobbies, thereby ensuring that the logic of the market is brought into the practices of schools. As Pestre ( 2013 , p. 21) observed, “the nature of this knowledge is new: what matters is that it makes hic et nunc the action, its effect and not its understanding”. Its functionality follows (presumably) data and evidence-based management.

A new language is thus imposed on education and the curriculum. Such enforced installation of performative language and Big Data lead to effective and profitable operations in a vast market concerned with competence in operational skills (Lyotard 1984 ). This “new normal” curriculum is said to be more horizontal and less hierarchical and radically polycentric with problem-solving produced through social networks, NGOs, transnational organizations, and think tanks (Pestre 2013 ; Williamson 2013 , 2017 ). Untouched by the pandemic, the “new (old) normal” remains based on disciplinary knowledge and enmeshed in the discourse of standards and accountability in education.

Such enforced commercialism reflects and reinforces economic globalization. Pinar ( 2011 , p. 30) worries that “the globalization of instrumental rationality in education threatens the very existence of education itself”. In his theory, commercialism and the technical instrumentality by which homogenization advances erase education as an embodied experience and the curriculum as a humanistic project. It is a time in which the humanities are devalued as well, as acknowledged by Pinar ( 2019 , p. 19): “In the United States [and in the world] not only does economics replace education—STEM replace the liberal arts as central to the curriculum—there are even politicians who attack the liberal arts as subversive and irrelevant…it can be more precisely characterized as reckless rhetoric of a know-nothing populism”. Replacing in-person dialogical encounters and the educational cultivation of the person (via Bildung and currere ), digital technologies are creating uniformity of learning spaces, in spite of their individualistic tendencies. Of course, education occurs outside schools—and on occasion in schools—but this causal displacement of the centrality of the school implies a devaluation of academic knowledge in the name of diversification of learning spaces.

In society, education, and specifically in the curriculum, the pandemic has brought nothing new but rather has accelerated already existing trends that can be summarized as technologization. Those who can work “remotely” exercise their privilege, since they can exploit an increasingly digital society. They themselves are changed in the process, as their own subjectivities are digitalized, thus predisposing them to a “curriculum of things” (a term coined by Laist ( 2016 ) to describe an object-oriented pedagogical approach), which is organized not around knowledge but information (Koopman 2019 ; Couldry and Mejias 2019 ). This (old) “new normal” was advanced by the OECD, among other international organizations, thus precipitating what some see as “a dynamic and transformative articulation of collective expectations of the purpose, quality, and relevance of education and learning to holistic, inclusive, just, peaceful, and sustainable development, and to the well-being and fulfilment of current and future generations” (Marope 2017 , p. 13). Covid-19, illiberal democracy, economic nationalism, and inaction on climate change, all upend this promise.

Understanding the psychological and cultural complexity of the curriculum is crucial. Without appreciating the infinity of responses students have to what they study, one cannot engage in the complicated conversation that is the curriculum. There must be an affirmation of “not only the individualism of a person’s experience but [of what is] underlining the significance of a person’s response to a course of study that has been designed to ignore individuality in order to buttress nation, religion, ethnicity, family, and gender” (Grumet 2017 , p. 77). Rather than promoting neuroscience as the answer to the problems of curriculum and pedagogy, it is long-past time for rethinking curriculum development and addressing the canonical curriculum question: What knowledge is of most worth from a humanistic perspective that is structured by complicated conversation (UNESCO 2015a ; Pinar 2004 , 2019 )? It promotes respect for diversity and rejection of all forms of (cultural) hegemony, stereotypes, and biases (Pacheco 2009 , 2017 ).

Revisiting the curriculum in the Covid-19 era then expresses the fallacy of the “new normal” but also represents a particular opportunity to promote a different path forward.

Looking to the post-Covid-19 curriculum

Based on the notion of curriculum as a complicated conversation, as proposed by Pinar ( 2004 ), the post-Covid-19 curriculum can seize the possibility of achieving a responsive, ethical, humane education, one which requires a humanistic and internationally aware reconceptualization of curriculum.

While beliefs and values are anchored in social and individual practices (Pinar 2019 , p. 15), education extracts them for critique and reconsideration. For example, freedom and tolerance are not neutral but normative practices, however ideology-free policymakers imagine them to be.

That same sleight-of-hand—value neutrality in the service of a certain normativity—is evident in a digital concept of society as a relationship between humans and non-humans (or posthumans), a relationship not only mediated by but encapsulated within technology: machines interfacing with other machines. This is not merely a technological change, as if it were a quarantined domain severed from society. Technologization is a totalizing digitalization of human experience that includes the structures of society. It is less social than economic, with social bonds now recoded as financial transactions sutured by software. Now that subjectivity is digitalized, the human face has become an exclusively economic one that fabricates the fantasy of rational and free agents—always self-interested—operating in supposedly free markets. Oddly enough, there is no place for a vision of humanistic and internationally aware change. The technological dimension of curriculum is assumed to be the primary area of change, which has been deeply and totally imposed by global standards. The worldwide pandemic supports arguments for imposing forms of control (Žižek 2020 ), including the geolocation of infected people and the suspension—in a state of exception—of civil liberties.

By destroying democracy, the technology of control leads to totalitarianism and barbarism, ending tolerance, difference, and diversity. Remembrance and memory are needed so that historical fascisms (Eley 2020 ) are not repeated, albeit in new disguises (Adorno 2011 ). Technologized education enhances efficiency and ensures uniformity, while presuming objectivity to the detriment of human reflection and singularity. It imposes the running data of the Curriculum of Things and eschews intellectual endeavor, critical attitude, and self-reflexivity.

For those who advocate the primacy of technology and the so-called “free market”, the pandemic represents opportunities not only for profit but also for confirmation of the pervasiveness of human error and proof of the efficiency of the non-human, i.e., the inhuman technology. What may possibly protect children from this inhumanity and their commodification, as human capital, is a humane or humanistic education that contradicts their commodification.

The decontextualized technical vocabulary in use in a market society produces an undifferentiated image in which people are blinded to nuance, distinction, and subtlety. For Pestre, concepts associated with efficiency convey the primacy of economic activity to the exclusion, for instance, of ethics, since those concepts devalue historic (if unrealized) commitments to equality and fraternity by instead emphasizing economic freedom and the autonomy of self-interested individuals. Constructing education as solely economic and technological constitutes a movement toward total efficiency through the installation of uniformity of behavior, devaluing diversity and human creativity.

Erased from the screen is any image of public education as a space of freedom, or as Macdonald ( 1995 , p. 38) holds, any image or concept of “the dignity and integrity of each human”. Instead, what we face is the post-human and the undisputed reign of instrumental reality, where the ends justify the means and human realization is reduced to the consumption of goods and experiences. As Pinar ( 2019 , p. 7) observes: “In the private sphere…. freedom is recast as a choice of consumer goods; in the public sphere, it converts to control and the demand that freedom flourish, so that whatever is profitable can be pursued”. Such “negative” freedom—freedom from constraint—ignores “positive” freedom, which requires us to contemplate—in ethical and spiritual terms—what that freedom is for. To contemplate what freedom is for requires “critical and comprehensive knowledge” (Pestre 2013 , p. 39) not only instrumental and technical knowledge. The humanities and the arts would reoccupy the center of such a curriculum and not be related to its margins (Westbury 2008 ), acknowledging that what is studied within schools is a complicated conversation among those present—including oneself, one’s ancestors, and those yet to be born (Pinar 2004 ).

In an era of unconstrained technologization, the challenge facing the curriculum is coding and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), with technology dislodging those subjects related to the human. This is not a classical curriculum (although it could be) but one focused on the emergencies of the moment–namely, climate change, the pandemic, mass migration, right-wing populism, and economic inequality. These timely topics, which in secondary school could be taught as short courses and at the elementary level as thematic units, would be informed by the traditional school subjects (yes, including STEM). Such a reorganization of the curriculum would allow students to see how academic knowledge enables them to understand what is happening to them and their parents in their own regions and globally. Such a cosmopolitan curriculum would prepare children to become citizens not only of their own nations but of the world. This citizenship would simultaneously be subjective and social, singular and universal (Marope 2020 ). Pinar ( 2019 , p. 5) reminds us that “the division between private and public was first blurred then erased by technology”:

No longer public, let alone sacred, morality becomes a matter of privately held values, sometimes monetized as commodities, statements of personal preference, often ornamental, sometimes self-servingly instrumental. Whatever their function, values were to be confined to the private sphere. The public sphere was no longer the civic square but rather, the marketplace, the site where one purchased whatever one valued.

New technological spaces are the universal center for (in)human values. The civic square is now Amazon, Alibaba, Twitter, WeChat, and other global online corporations. The facts of our human condition—a century-old phrase uncanny in its echoes today—can be studied in schools as an interdisciplinary complicated conversation about public issues that eclipse private ones (Pinar 2019 ), including social injustice, inequality, democracy, climate change, refugees, immigrants, and minority groups. Understood as a responsive, ethical, humane and transformational international educational approach, such a post-Covid-19 curriculum could be a “force for social equity, justice, cohesion, stability, and peace” (Marope 2017 , p. 32). “Unchosen” is certainly the adjective describing our obligations now, as we are surrounded by death and dying and threatened by privation or even starvation, as economies collapse and food-supply chains are broken. The pandemic may not mean deglobalization, but it surely accentuates it, as national borders are closed, international travel is suspended, and international trade is impacted by the accompanying economic crisis. On the other hand, economic globalization could return even stronger, as could the globalization of education systems. The “new normal” in education is the technological order—a passive technologization—and its expansion continues uncontested and even accelerated by the pandemic.

Two Greek concepts, kronos and kairos , allow a discussion of contrasts between the quantitative and the qualitative in education. Echoing the ancient notion of kronos are the technologically structured curriculum values of quantity and performance, which are always assessed by a standardized accountability system enforcing an “ideology of achievement”. “While kronos refers to chronological or sequential time, kairos refers to time that might require waiting patiently for a long time or immediate and rapid action; which course of action one chooses will depend on the particular situation” (Lahtinen 2009 , p. 252).

For Macdonald ( 1995 , p. 51), “the central ideology of the schools is the ideology of achievement …[It] is a quantitative ideology, for even to attempt to assess quality must be quantified under this ideology, and the educational process is perceived as a technically monitored quality control process”.

Self-evaluation subjectively internalizes what is useful and in conformity with the techno-economy and its so-called standards, increasingly enforcing technical (software) forms. If recoded as the Internet of Things, this remains a curriculum in allegiance with “order and control” (Doll 2013 , p. 314) School knowledge is reduced to an instrument for economic success, employing compulsory collaboration to ensure group think and conformity. Intertwined with the Internet of Things, technological subjectivity becomes embedded in software, redesigned for effectiveness, i.e., or use-value (as Lyotard predicted).

The Curriculum of Things dominates the Internet, which is simultaneously an object and a thing (see Heidegger 1967 , 1971 , 1977 ), a powerful “technological tool for the process of knowledge building” (Means 2008 , p. 137). Online learning occupies the subjective zone between the “curriculum-as-planned” and the “curriculum-as-lived” (Pinar 2019 , p. 23). The world of the curriculum-as-lived fades, as the screen shifts and children are enmeshed in an ocularcentric system of accountability and instrumentality.

In contrast to kronos , the Greek concept of kairos implies lived time or even slow time (Koepnick 2014 ), time that is “self-reflective” (Macdonald 1995 , p. 103) and autobiographical (Pinar 2009 , 2004), thus inspiring “curriculum improvisation” (Aoki 2011 , p. 375), while emphasizing “the plurality of subjectivities” (Grumet 2017 , p. 80). Kairos emphasizes singularity and acknowledges particularities; it is skeptical of similarities. For Shew ( 2013 , p. 48), “ kairos is that which opens an originary experience—of the divine, perhaps, but also of life or being. Thought as such, kairos as a formative happening—an opportune moment, crisis, circumstance, event—imposes its own sense of measure on time”. So conceived, curriculum can become a complicated conversation that occurs not in chronological time but in its own time. Such dialogue is not neutral, apolitical, or timeless. It focuses on the present and is intrinsically subjective, even in public space, as Pinar ( 2019 , p. 12) writes: “its site is subjectivity as one attunes oneself to what one is experiencing, yes to its immediacy and specificity but also to its situatedness, relatedness, including to what lies beyond it and not only spatially but temporally”.

Kairos is, then, the uniqueness of time that converts curriculum into a complicated conversation, one that includes the subjective reconstruction of learning as a consciousness of everyday life, encouraging the inner activism of quietude and disquietude. Writing about eternity, as an orientation towards the future, Pinar ( 2019 , p. 2) argues that “the second side [the first is contemplation] of such consciousness is immersion in daily life, the activism of quietude – for example, ethical engagement with others”. We add disquietude now, following the work of the Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa. Disquietude is a moment of eternity: “Sometimes I think I’ll never leave ‘Douradores’ Street. And having written this, it seems to me eternity. Neither pleasure, nor glory, nor power. Freedom, only freedom” (Pesssoa 1991 ).

The disquietude conversation is simultaneously individual and public. It establishes an international space both deglobalized and autonomous, a source of responsive, ethical, and humane encounter. No longer entranced by the distracting dynamic stasis of image-after-image on the screen, the student can face what is his or her emplacement in the physical and natural world, as well as the technological world. The student can become present as a person, here and now, simultaneously historical and timeless.

Conclusions

Slow down and linger should be our motto now. A slogan yes, but it also represents a political, as well as a psychological resistance to the acceleration of time (Berg and Seeber 2016 )—an acceleration that the pandemic has intensified. Covid-19 has moved curriculum online, forcing children physically apart from each other and from their teachers and especially from the in-person dialogical encounters that classrooms can provide. The public space disappears into the pre-designed screen space that software allows, and the machine now becomes the material basis for a curriculum of things, not persons. Like the virus, the pandemic curriculum becomes embedded in devices that technologize our children.

Although one hundred years old, the images created in Modern Times by Charlie Chaplin return, less humorous this time than emblematic of our intensifying subjection to technological necessity. It “would seem to leave us as cogs in the machine, ourselves like moving parts, we keep functioning efficiently, increasing productivity calculating the creative destruction of what is, the human now materialized (de)vices ensnaring us in convenience, connectivity, calculation” (Pinar 2019 , p. 9). Post-human, as many would say.

Technology supports standardized testing and enforces software-designed conformity and never-ending self-evaluation, while all the time erasing lived, embodied experience and intellectual independence. Ignoring the evidence, others are sure that technology can function differently: “Given the potential of information and communication technologies, the teacher should now be a guide who enables learners, from early childhood throughout their learning trajectories, to develop and advance through the constantly expanding maze of knowledge” (UNESCO 2015a , p. 51). Would that it were so.

The canonical question—What knowledge is of most worth?—is open-ended and contentious. In a technologized world, providing for the well-being of children is not obvious, as well-being is embedded in ancient, non-neoliberal visions of the world. “Education is everybody’s business”, Pinar ( 2019 , p. 2) points out, as it fosters “responsible citizenship and solidarity in a global world” (UNESCO 2015a , p. 66), resisting inequality and the exclusion, for example, of migrant groups, refugees, and even those who live below or on the edge of poverty.

In this fast-moving digital world, education needs to be inclusive but not conformist. As the United Nations ( 2015 ) declares, education should ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. “The coming years will be a vital period to save the planet and to achieve sustainable, inclusive human development” (United Nations 2019 , p. 64). Is such sustainable, inclusive human development achievable through technologization? Can technology succeed where religion has failed?

Despite its contradictions and economic emphases, public education has one clear obligation—to create embodied encounters of learning through curriculum conceived as a complicated conversation. Such a conception acknowledges the worldliness of a cosmopolitan curriculum as it affirms the personification of the individual (Pinar 2011 ). As noted by Grumet ( 2017 , p. 89), “as a form of ethics, there is a responsibility to participate in conversation”. Certainly, it is necessary to ask over and over again the canonical curriculum question: What knowledge is of most worth?

If time, technology and teaching are moving images of eternity, curriculum and pedagogy are also, both ‘moving’ and ‘images’ but not an explicit, empirical, or exact representation of eternity…if reality is an endless series of ‘moving images’, the canonical curriculum question—What knowledge is of most worth?—cannot be settled for all time by declaring one set of subjects eternally important” (Pinar 2019 , p. 12).

In a complicated conversation, the curriculum is not a fixed image sliding into a passive technologization. As a “moving image”, the curriculum constitutes a politics of presence, an ongoing expression of subjectivity (Grumet 2017 ) that affirms the infinity of reality: “Shifting one’s attitude from ‘reducing’ complexity to ‘embracing’ what is always already present in relations and interactions may lead to thinking complexly, abiding happily with mystery” (Doll 2012 , p. 172). Describing the dialogical encounter characterizing conceived curriculum, as a complicated conversation, Pinar explains that this moment of dialogue “is not only place-sensitive (perhaps classroom centered) but also within oneself”, because “the educational significance of subject matter is that it enables the student to learn from actual embodied experience, an outcome that cannot always be engineered” (Pinar 2019 , pp. 12–13). Lived experience is not technological. So, “the curriculum of the future is not just a matter of defining content and official knowledge. It is about creating, sculpting, and finessing minds, mentalities, and identities, promoting style of thought about humans, or ‘mashing up’ and ‘making up’ the future of people” (Williamson 2013 , p. 113).

Yes, we need to linger and take time to contemplate the curriculum question. Only in this way will we share what is common and distinctive in our experience of the current pandemic by changing our time and our learning to foreclose on our future. Curriculum conceived as a complicated conversation restarts historical not screen time; it enacts the private and public as distinguishable, not fused in a computer screen. That is the “new normal”.

is full professor in the Department of Curriculum Studies and Educational Technology (Institute of Education, University of Minho, Portugal). His research focuses on curriculum theory, curriculum politics, and teacher training and evaluation. Presently, he is director of the PhD Science Education Program of the University of Minho, member of the Advisory Board of the Organization of Ibero-American Studies, director of the European Journal of Curriculum Studies, and director of the European Association on Curriculum Studies.

My thanks to William F. Pinar. Friendship is another moving image of eternity. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer. This work is financed by national funds through the FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project PTDC / CED-EDG / 30410/2017, Centre for Research in Education, Institute of Education, University of Minho.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Adorno, T. W. (2011). Educação e emancipação [Education and emancipation]. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
• Aoki, T. T. (2011). Sonare and videre: A story, three echoes and a lingering note. In W. F. W. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key. The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 368–376). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Badiou A. Theory of the subject. London: Continuum; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berg M, Seeber B. The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Couldry N, Mejias U. The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel SJ. Education and the Covid-19 pandemic. Prospects. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies D, Beauchamp G, Davies J, Price R. The potential of the ‘Internet of Things’ to enhance inquiry in Singapore schools. Research in Science & Technological Education. 2019 doi: 10.1080/02635143.2019.1629896. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delors J. Learning: The treasure within. Paris: UNESCO; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doll, W. E. (2012). Thinking complexly. In D. Trueit (Ed.), Pragmatism, post-modernism, and complexity theory: The “fascinating imaginative realm” of William E. Doll, Jr. (pp. 172–187). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Doll WE. Curriculum and concepts of control. In: Pinar WF, editor. Curriculum: Toward new identities. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013. pp. 295–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eley G. Conclusion. In: Thomas JA, Eley G, editors. Visualizing fascism: The twentieth-century rise of the global Right. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2020. pp. 284–292. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gil, J. (2020). A pandemia e o capitalismo numérico [The pandemic and numerical capitalism]. Público . https://www.publico.pt/2020/04/12/sociedade/ensaio/pandemia-capitalismo-numerico-1911986 .
• Grumet, M.G. (2017). The politics of presence. In M. A. Doll (Ed.), The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. A Festschrift in honor of William F. Pinar (pp. 76–83). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Heidegger M. What is a thing? South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger M. Poetry, language, thought. New York, NY: Harper and Row; 1971. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger M. The question concerning technology and other essays. New York, NY: Harper and Row; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koepnick L. On slowness: Toward an aesthetic of the contemporary. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koopman C. How we became our data: A genealogy of the informational person. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lahtinen M. Politics and curriculum. Leiden: Brill; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laist R. A curriculum of things: Exploring an object-oriented pedagogy. The National Teaching & Learning. 2016; 25 (3):1–4. doi: 10.1002/ntlf.30062. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Latour, B. (2020). Is this a dress rehearsal? Critical Inquiry . https://critinq.wordpress.com/2020/03/26/is-this-a-dress-rehearsal
• Lyotard J. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macdonald BJ. Theory as a prayerful act. New York, NY: Peter Lang; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marope PTM. Reconceptualizing and repositioning curriculum in the 21st century: A global paradigm shift. Geneva: UNESCO IBE; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marope PTM. Preventing violent extremism through universal values in curriculum. Prospects. 2020; 48 (1):1–5. doi: 10.1007/s11125-019-09453-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Means B. Technology’s role in curriculum and instruction. In: Connelly FM, editor. The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2008. pp. 123–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . OECD learning compass 2030. Paris: OECD; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD . Trends shaping education 2019. Paris: OECD; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacheco, J. A. (2009). Whole, bright, deep with understanding: Life story and politics of curriculum studies. In-between William Pinar and Ivor Goodson . Roterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
• Pacheco, J. A. (2017). Pinar’s influence on the consolidation of Portuguese curriculum studies. In M. A. Doll (Ed.), The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. A Festschrift in honor of William F. Pinar (pp. 130–136). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Pestre, D. (2013). Science, technologie et société. La politique des savoirs aujourd’hui [Science, technology, and society: Politics of knowledge today]. Paris: Foundation Calouste Gulbenkian.
• Pesssoa F. The book of disquietude. Manchester: Carcanet Press; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinar WF. What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinar WF. The worldliness of a cosmopolitan education: Passionate lives in public service. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinar, W. F. (2011). “A lingering note”: An introduction to the collected work of Ted T. Aoki. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key. The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 1–85). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Pinar WF. Moving images of eternity: George Grant’s critique of time, teaching, and technology. Ottawa: The University of Ottawa Press; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shew M. The Kairos philosophy. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy. 2013; 27 (1):47–66. doi: 10.5325/jspecphil.27.1.0047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spiller, P. (2017). Could subjects soon be a thing of the past in Finland? BBC News . https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39889523 .
• UNESCO (2015a). Rethinking education. Towards a global common global? Paris: UNESCO.
• UNESCO (2015b). Education 2030. Framework for action . Paris: UNESCO. https://www.sdg4education2030.org/sdg-education-2030-steering-committee-resources .
• UNESCO (2017). Global citizenship education . Paris: UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced .
• United Nations . The sustainable development goals. New York, NY: United Nations; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations . The sustainable development goals report. New York, NY: United Nations; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wells W. Permanent revolution: Reflections on capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Westbury, I. (2008). Making curricula. Why do states make curricula, and how? In F. M. Connelly (Ed.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
• Williamson B. The future of the curriculum. School knowledge in the digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williamson, B. (2017). Big data in education. The digital future of learning, policy and practice . London: Sage.
• Žižek S. PANDEMIC! Covid-19 shakes the world. New York, NY: Or Books; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]

Essay from The New Normal in Asia Series

The “new normal”: thoughts about the shape of things to come in the post-pandemic world.

Nicholas Eberstadt offers insights into the challenges to U.S. leadership in a post-pandemic world. This is the inaugural essay in the series “ The New Normal in Asia ,” which explores ways in which the Covid-19 pandemic might adjust, shape, or reorder the world across multiple dimensions.

Though we are as yet barely weeks into the Covid-19 pandemic, what should already be apparent is that it has precipitated the deepest and most fundamental crisis for Pax Americana that this set of global economic and security arrangements has faced in the past three postwar generations.

We are still very much in the “fog of war” phase of the calamity. The novel coronavirus and its worldwide carnage have come as a strategic surprise to thought leaders and political decision-makers alike. Indeed, it appears to be the intellectual equivalent of an unexpected asteroid strike for almost all who must cope in these unfamiliar new surroundings. Few had seriously considered the contingency that the world economy might be shaken to its foundations by a communicable disease. And even now that this has happened, many remain trapped in the mental coordinates of a world that no longer exists.

Such “prewar” thinking is evident everywhere right now in the earliest phase of what may turn out to be a grave and protracted crisis. Here in the United States, we watch, week by week, as highly regarded financial analysts from Wall Street and economists from the academy misestimate the depths of the damage we can expect—always erring on the side of optimism.

After the March lockdown of the country to “flatten the curve,” the boldest voices dared to venture that the United States might hit 10% unemployment before the worst was over. Four weekly jobless claims reports and 22 million unemployment insurance applications later, U.S. unemployment is already above the 15% mark: north of 1931 levels, in other words. By the end of April, we could well reach or break the 20% threshold, bringing us to 1935 levels, and 1933 levels (25%) no longer sound fantastical. Even so, political and financial leaders talk of a rapid “V-shaped recovery” commencing in the summer, bringing us back to economic normalcy within months. This is prewar thinking, and it is looking increasingly like the economic equivalent of talk in earlier times about how “the boys will be home by Christmas.”

This is moreover a global crisis, and vision has not yet focused on the new realities in other leading powers and major economies. If we try to take an unflinching measure of the impact globally, we can see both good news and bad news—although the two are by no means equally balanced.

The good news is that policymakers the world over have learned from the prewar Great Depression and are unlikely to repeat its exact mistakes. Instead of reducing the money supply and forcing bank collapses, the U.S. Federal Reserve this time is flooding the world with liquidity. Likewise, U.S. fiscal policy, far from attempting to impose further austerity on an already imploding economy through balancing budgets, is embracing Keynesianism with an abandon that might have startled Keynes himself. Given the “stimulus” packages already passed in the last month, this year’s U.S. budget deficit to GDP ratio is already certain to be of World War II scale. And, at least so far, no emanations of Smoot-Hawley-like impulses are on the policy horizon. Last time around, protectionism had devastating reverberations on an already severely stressed international trade and financial system. Confidence in U.S. and international economic management of the current crisis, at least for the time being, is reflected  inter alia  in the surprisingly sanguine valuations of the stock indices both in the United States and abroad.

The bad news, on the other hand, lies in the nature of the virus itself and in its implications for human life and socioeconomic arrangements. Covid-19 is an extremely contagious virus with high lethality for those exposed to it, and it can be transmitted by asymptomatic “super spreaders.” Further, since this disease is zoonotic (contracted from another species) and novel (our species has no preexisting immunity), the pandemic will roam the world in search of human quarry until an effective vaccine is invented and mass-produced—or until so many people are infected that herd immunity is conferred.

A Darwinian experiment to invite global herd immunity is unthinkable because it could entail untold millions of deaths. New vaccines, for their part, typically take many years to develop. Barring some miracle, even a crash program to perfect a vaccine is currently expected to take at least a year, and it could be a year and a half or longer before a serviceable serum is generally available to the public. Reports now emanating from South Korea, moreover, suggest that survivors might also be susceptible to reinfection. If so, the quest to come up with a lasting inoculation against Covid-19 may be all that much more daunting.

Consequently, societies the world over face the prospect of rolling lockdowns and quarantines until such time as a technological breakthrough rescues them from this condition. This would seem to mean that not just a single national lockdown of a country’s population and economy is in store to fend off mass contagion but rather quite possibly a succession of them—not just one mother-of-all-economic-shocks but an ongoing crisis that presses economic performance severely in countries all around the world simultaneously.

The potential downside of this crisis looks dire enough for affluent societies: even with excellent economic management, they may be in for gruesome recessions, both painful and prolonged. But the situation for the populations of low-income countries—and for least-developed, fragile states—could prove positively catastrophic. Not only are governments in these locales much less capable of responding to pandemics, but malnourished and health-compromised people are much more likely to succumb to them. Even apart from the humanitarian disasters that may result directly from raging outbreaks in poor countries, terrible indirect consequences may also lie in wait for these vulnerable societies. The collapse of economic activity, including demand for commodities, such as minerals and energy, will mean that export earnings and international remittances to poor countries are set to crash in the months ahead and remain low for an indefinite period. Entirely apart from contagion and lockdowns, this can only mean an unavoidable explosion of desperate need—and under governments least equipped to deal with this. While we can hope for the best, the worst could be much, much worse than most observers currently imagine.

Eventually, of course, we will emerge from the current crisis. Envisioning the post-crisis “new normal” is extraordinarily difficult at this early juncture—not that much less demanding, perhaps, than imagining what the postwar world would look like from the vantage point of, say, autumn 1939. Lacking clairvoyance, we can only peer through the glass darkly at what may be the shape of things to come in the post-pandemic order. Yet it is not too soon to offer one safe prediction about that coming order, and to identify three critical but as yet unanswerable questions, the answers to which promise to shape it decisively.

The safe prediction is that the Indo-Pacific, then as now, will be the locus of global economic, political, and military power—and will remain so for at least the coming generation, possibly much longer. Currently, countries belonging to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) account for as much as 60% of the world’s estimated GDP and close to half of global trade. If we add India, which is not an APEC member, to that roster, the economic predominance of the region looks even more overwhelming. APEC plus India likewise accounts for much—perhaps most—of the ongoing knowledge production in the world today. By such necessarily imprecise measures as publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, authors from the APEC-plus-India region are responsible for about three-fifths of current global output. The only state with truly global military capabilities (the United States) is part of this region, as are the only other two governments entertaining global strategic ambitions (China and Russia). In addition to these countries, India and (alas) North Korea are nuclear weapons states. For the moment, the combined nuclear potential of all nuclear powers outside the APEC-plus-India region (France, Britain, Pakistan, and Israel) is dwarfed by the atomic arsenals within it.

Barring a catastrophe of truly biblical proportion (a formulation that may admittedly seem to be tempting fate, given current circumstances) it is impossible to see what configuration of states or regions could displace the Indo-Pacific as the epicenter of world power anytime soon. Someday Africa might in theory become a contender for geopolitical dominance, but that date looks so distant that such scenarios for now are perhaps best narrated by science fiction writers.

“Will the Covid-19 pandemic bring a brutal end to the second age of globalization that began in 1945, just as World War I heralded the cataclysmic death of the first globalization (1870–1914)?”

As for the questions that stand decisively to shape the coming global order, the first concerns the scope and character of what we have been calling “globalization” in the years and decades ahead. Will the Covid-19 pandemic bring a brutal end to the second age of globalization that began in 1945, just as World War I heralded the cataclysmic death of the first globalization (1870–1914)?

At this early point in the crisis, it would take a brave (or foolish) soul to assert confidently that an end to our current far-reaching arrangements for world economic integration simply could not happen. That said, at least for now, it would look as if a lot of things that have not yet gone wrong would have to go wrong, and at the same time sweep away the foundations (and memory plastic) for the networks of trade, finance, communications, technology, culture, and more that have come to deeply connect societies all around the world today. Not much less than a continuing, cascading, and unabated series of worldwide political blunders—not excluding military adventures—would be required to burn this edifice to the ground.

On the other hand, it is also hard to see how a post-pandemic world will pick itself up and carry on with commerce, finance, and global governance as if nothing much happened around the year 2020. Even under the optimistic assumptions—i.e., the assumptions wherein the second age of globalization survives Covid-19’s heavy blow—much will need to be dramatically different. Until the advent of some biometric, post-privacy future, the more or less free movement of peoples across national borders will be a nonstarter. “Davos” stands to become a quaint word, somewhat like “Esperanto,” as national interests and economic nationalism come roaring back. International supply chains will tend to be resourced domestically, notwithstanding the immediate apparent cost in terms of production and profits. At the same time, today’s crisis may explode and wipe out old inefficient business models that had already outlived their usefulness: the “big box” store and retail malls, the unproductive (but sociologically alluring) office, the law firm (with its Soviet-style valuations of its services on the basis of inputs rather than outputs), perhaps the cartelized, price-fixing university as well, and more.

On the positive side, the creative destruction the crisis will unleash will eventually offer immense opportunities for innovation and dynamic improvements in productivity, so long as resources from inefficient or bankrupt undertakings are reallocated to more promising new purposes. To give just one example, the returns on remote communications will likely be high, incentivizing impressive breakthroughs. Post-pandemic economies around the world will need all the productivity surges they can squeeze out of technological and organizational innovation, too—for they will almost certainly be saddled with a far higher burden of public debt than today. Moreover, given current demographic trends and the prospect of significantly less immigration, the shrinking of labor forces and the pronounced aging of national populations may be characteristic of a growing number of economies in the APEC-plus-India region and the rest of the world, and not just in high-income settings. Japan may become a model here, but not in a good way: avoiding “Japanification” could become a preoccupation of policymakers, pundits, and populaces in an epoch of diminished expectations for globalization.

A second huge question for the post-pandemic world concerns China: more specifically, how will the rest of the international community treat this increasingly powerful but intrinsically problematic state?

The world has yet to conduct the authoritative blue-ribbon scientific inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic that is obviously and urgently needed. However, there is little doubt that heavy responsibility for the global health and economic crisis we are now coping with falls on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—and to a lesser but by no means negligible degree, on China’s collaborators within the World Health Organization. Had the CCP placed its population’s health above its own—had it behaved like an open society or followed international transparency norms—there is no question that the global toll from the Covid-19 pandemic would only be a fraction of what has been exacted to date. Epidemiologists from the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom have suggested that the damage might have been contained to just 5% of what we have thus far suffered with an expeditious (and honest) response to the Wuhan outbreak. If that estimate is overly precise, it nonetheless gives a sense of the price the world has paid for the CCP’s priorities and standard operating procedure. We also already know of the complicity of the World Health Organization at its highest levels in buying time for Beijing as the regime figured out how to spin the story of what happened in Hubei Province.

“…the post-pandemic world will have no choice but to contend at last with a problem long in the making: the awful dilemma of global integration without solidarity.”

It would be one thing if this crisis were a one-off—dreadful as the tragedy would be. The problem, unfortunately, is that it is not a one-off, and in fact cannot be. At the heart of the tragedy is an uncomfortable but unavoidable truth: the CCP simply does not share the same interests and norms as the international community into which it has been so momentously and thoroughly integrated. Moreover, there is scant evidence that integration into the world economy and global governance has been “reforming” the Chinese regime, in the sense of bringing its politics and behavior into closer alignment with those acceptable to Western populations. Quite the contrary: in the Xi Jinping era, China’s politics have manifestly been moving away from convergence as the regime has concentrated on perfecting a surveillance state policed by “market totalitarianism” (a social credit system powered by big data, artificial intelligence, and more).

Thus, the post-pandemic world will have no choice but to contend at last with a problem long in the making: the awful dilemma of global integration without solidarity. China is deeply interlinked with every APEC-plus-India economy and with those of the rest of the world as well. Chinese interests are likewise deeply embedded in much of the institutional apparatus that has evolved to facilitate international cooperation. How will the rest of the countries in the international community manage to protect their interests (including health security interests, but by no means limited to this alone) in such a world? Will it be possible to accurately identify and carefully isolate all the areas in which win-win transactions with the CCP are genuinely possible and cordon off everything else? Or will the CCP’s authoritarian influence compromise, corrupt, and degrade these same institutions, and likewise constrain or poison opportunities for truly free international economic cooperation and development after the Covid-19 pandemic?

Last, but by no means least important, there is the question of the United States’ disposition in a post-pandemic world.

Even before the Covid-19 crisis, it was not exactly a secret that the United States—which is to say, Americans—was becoming increasingly reluctant to shoulder responsibility for world leadership in the global order that Washington had been instrumental in creating and that U.S. power was indispensable in supporting. The skepticism and disfavor with which American proponents of internationalism were increasingly greeted at home, however, was not entirely explained by the deep historical roots of isolationism in our country. Nor can it be dismissively described as yet another paroxysm of paranoia and anti-intellectualism on the part of the yahoos, as would-be Hofstadters from today’s chattering classes would like to have it.

Such discontent with our nation’s considerable international obligations skews strongly with socioeconomic status. For those in the bottom half of the country, grievances with the status quo (which not so incidentally includes a strong political commitment to Pax Americana) are by no means delusional. Over the past two generations, the American escalator has broken down for many. Just before the Covid-19 crisis, at the supposed peak of a business cycle, work rates for prime-age American men (the 25–54 age group) were slightly lower than they had been in 1939, near the end of the Great Depression. It is hardly reassuring that this alarming situation has attracted relatively little attention from the talking and deciding classes (many of whom are shielded from personal familiarity with how the other half lives by Charles Murray’s famous bubble).

Scarcely less disconcerting than the work rates for American men are the dismal trends in wealth formation for the less well to do. According to estimates by the Federal Reserve, the mean real net worth for the bottom half of households in the United States was lower in 2019 than it had been in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell. By these estimates, in fact, the net worth of such households was at least a sixth lower in 2019 than it had been three decades before. Voters from these households might be excused if they were prompted to ask what the fabled “end of the Cold War” had done for them. Recall that these same Americans witnessed a decline in net household worth in a period when overall nominal net worth in the United States soared by almost $80 trillion—an average of almost $250,000 for every man, woman, and child in our country today. Since the arrival of Covid-19 on our shores, the net worth of the bottom half of Americans has dropped still further, as their indebtedness has risen and the value of their assets (mainly homes) declined. It could be quite some time before the balance sheets of those homes look as “favorable” as they did in 2019.

In the United States, the constitutional duty to obtain the consent of the governed obtains for the little people, too, even if they happen to comprise a majority of voters. And in a post-pandemic world, it may be even more difficult to convince a working majority that the globalized economy and other international entanglements actually work in their favor.

If U.S. leaders wanted to generate broad-based domestic support for Pax Americana, they need to devise a formula for generating prosperity for all. Such an agenda, of course, would win on its own merits, with or without an eye toward international security. Absent such a credible agenda, popular support for U.S. international leadership could prove increasingly open to question in the post-pandemic United States. The peril that declining domestic U.S. support poses to the current global order should not be minimized. If or when Pax Americana is destroyed, its demise may be due not to threats from without but rather to pressures from within.

Nicholas Eberstadt holds the Henry Wendt Chair at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and is a Senior Advisor to the National Bureau of Asian Research.

Correction (June 18, 2020): An earlier version of this essay stated that the real net worth for the bottom half of households was a third, rather than a sixth, lower in 2019.

Nicholas Eberstadt

American Enterprise Institute,

• United States
• globlization
• Chinese Communist Party (CCP)