Unmasking the Mask Controversy

Masks have long been a part of human life. In ancient times they were used to scare enemies or supernatural forces and as part of religious and social ceremonies. They have been a staple of theater and entertainment, ranging from Kabuki theater, to masquerade balls and carnivals, to television and movie heroes including the Lone Ranger and Darth Vader. They have also been used to conceal things we would rather other people not see. Whether they are hiding the identity of a robber, covering a disfigured face, or protecting a Ku Klux Klan member, they provide at least the illusion of anonymity. From a practical standpoint, masks can also provide protection from environmental threats, as firefighters, medical personnel, and welders know well.

However, the current pandemic simultaneously made face masks a public health tool and a political hot potato. When personal protective equipment was in short supply, members of the public were told not to wear masks to preserve them for first responders and hospital staff. When health officials subsequently began to document that wearing masks reduces the community spread of the coronavirus, those guidelines changed. Tutorials showing how to make masks at home flourished and companies pivoted to mass-producing both medical and fashion-based masks. But it turns out that asking people to cover their faces whenever they are in public, for an indefinite amount of time, is more complicated than it sounds. In addition to the physical hassle and discomfort of wearing a mask, we, as humans are also predisposed to be wary of covered faces.

Facial recognition is so crucial for human survival that multiple brain structures are devoted to the task. Newborn infants gravitate to faces and we are even prone to seeing facial features in the natural objects around us including clouds and the moon, the bark on trees, and even the food we eat. We also use facial expressions to predict behavior. Is that person smiling, or grimacing? Does that mean they are friendly or hostile? We are also sensitive to the consistency between people’s non-verbal cues and expressions and what they are saying. As parents of teenagers know, the word “fine” can be delivered with a huge variety of tones and expressions that don’t make it fine at all. So, covering our faces literally make it harder to communicate with the people around us. When we can’t see a person’s mouth, we have to guess whether they are smiling or frowning or expressing other emotions. Although we can still note their tone of voice, we are forced to pay more attention to eye contact, which can be uncomfortable on a personal level, and is often governed by social rules and expectations.

We also differ in our ability to read and express emotions through facial expressions. Research suggests that empathic people tend to be good at interpreting non-verbal cues, while bullies often have difficulty. Our personalities and beliefs also play a role. Studies suggest that Individuals who espouse conservative world views tend to be conscientious, to value order, and to be unwilling to trust people at “face value.” According to research, conservatives are also more likely to vote for candidates that they believe have a “powerful face” and to react with more exaggerated facial expressions of their own when they see something disgusting, while self-identified liberals tend to be open to new experiences, socially tolerant and to have a higher opinion of human nature. In the Western World, Conservatives are also more likely to object to people wearing face coverings as evidence of their religious or cultural beliefs and less likely to believe what scientific experts say. So perhaps it isn’t surprising that people on the conservative side of the political spectrum see attempts to enforce mask-wearing as an attempt to limit their autonomy while people on the left frame their use as evidence of concern for others. Clearly mask-wearing is more complicated than it looks. Not only are they physically uncomfortable, but they affect our own appearance, and obstruct our view of others. The way we respond to these factors is also a function of both our personality and our world views. The less we trust other people, the more likely we are to resist the mask movement.

As we grapple with the social isolation of living through a pandemic, and variety of deeply rooted social inequities, wearing a mask makes it even more difficult to read and express the real discomfort, anxiety, and fear we all feel, and to find ways to bridge the distrust and misunderstandings. It doesn’t help that politicians and the media have been presenting the fight against COVID-19 as a sporting event where masks indicate our team affiliations, and cities, states and countries gain and lose points as the virus spreads. Both the pandemic and the ongoing debate about police brutality and civil rights are bound to increase our awareness of our own mortality. When faced with such uncertainty our natural response is to seek connection with people we perceive as our allies, and to identify our enemies. Masks are proving to be an easy way to advertises our affiliations. However, this is literally masking the problem. We should be seeing the enemy as the virus and the social-economic and racial inequities the pandemic is revealing. It is easy to be disparaging of people who disagree with us about face masks, but the reality is that we are all scared. Our choices about masks simply reflect what we are most afraid of.