It is clear that it is extremely difficult now to give a full-fledged forecast of what the values of this new world will be, but some first hints can be made now.
The first value of this new world will undoubtedly be associated with global solidarity. In a planetary society of risk, it is solidarity which becomes the key to survival. At the same time, we agree, the first months of the current pandemic showed, along with vivid cases of this kind of solidarity, much more examples of closeness and the cutting off of global social ties. The growth of sinophobia in the world during the early stages of the epidemic has now transformed into tangible tendencies toward xenophobia in relation to other risk groups (white tourists in the developing world, for example). This xenophobia from the level of states, races and peoples descends to lower social levels: to the levels of individual cities, neighbourhoods, down to their neighbours at home. Will this feeling of xenophobia disappear after the end of the epidemic, when everything will return to “the way things were” or will it remain as a long-term mental attitude towards all strangers, due to the fears experienced during the epidemic? If it remains, then serious obstacles will arise on the path to global sustainable development. Thus, we can suggest that, perhaps, the value of global solidarity will become the main value of the post-corona world. Certainly, against the background of contradictory aspirations pushing for closeness and xenophobia.
The second possible value for the new world will be related to the dilemma between freedom and security. The coronavirus epidemic is very acute and extremely quickly puts this dilemma at the forefront of the public consciousness. Rapid quarantine measures limit many human rights. In a number of countries, a fairly wide public debate has begun about the admissibility and extent of this. The thesis that “the epidemic will end, but restrictions will remain” is also gaining popularity. It is clear that these debates are caused not least by the internal political struggle in individual countries. However, it’s obvious that in a society threatened by omnipresent risks, the balance between freedom and security is likely to shift as people place more value on the latter. Thus, if the full political implications of such attitudes are understood, people could indeed continue to make do without personal liberty throughout the world, even after the epidemic. Naturally, can and will be acceptance of the new status quo would be combined with nostalgia for lost freedom. In an extreme case, such a society could take the form of a practical dystopia, like in the film "The Matrix".
The third value, which is now emerging from the response to the epidemic, is also almost unthinkable from the standpoint of globalism and its moral principles. This is the value of state support, and, more broadly, the value of an effective state as such. The pandemic revealed that private business collapses faster and earlier in a global catastrophe than the state. It brings with it unemployment, social unrest, and other problems. In almost all countries, the key question now is the issue of large-scale measures of state support for both citizens and private business. In a society which addresses long-term risks, this request for state assistance will be met. Naturally, there is a dangerous proclivity towards authoritarian tendencies on the part of the state, which may spread non-transparent and corrupt management practices, but nevertheless, the state would be much more highly appraised in a global risk society than it is now.
The fourth value will be related to rethinking the current value of consumption and lead us to rethink the status of the global consumer society as the status quo. Here it’s not my intention to belabour the "horrors" of the consumer society (in quotation marks or without them). But simple logic allows us to assert that in a society of global risk, there is no place for the overvaluation of consumption, there is no place for consumption to be the sole purpose of the existence, be it among the middle class or the broad masses. And, accordingly, the global risk society displaces consumer society.
Naturally, this sketch of possible future values is incomplete and somewhat provocative. Each reader can imagine for him or herself other options that reflect what he or she considers important. In conclusion, everyone would like to hope that the pandemic will quickly end, and everything will be the same again. The optimistic scenario for restoring the pre-coronavirus status quo is understandably more enjoyable and desirable in terms of social psychology. But the need to ensure that the global political framework is ready for possible new challenges does not allow us to discard the pessimistic and transformational scenario, with its new values (or anti-values, as you like)he ongoing coronavirus pandemic is spreading to new cities and countries. An increasing number of people are forced to switch to quarantine and self-isolation. Many lose their jobs and businesses are due to the suspension of economic activity.