Navigating Public Health: Life Hacks and Resistance Among Vaccine Sceptics in the Russian-Speaking Community in Germany

The aim of my paper is to analyze the “life hacks” - an emic term — informally exchanged among Russian-speaking vaccine skeptics to prevent the effects of already administered vaccines or to “legally” avoid them. 

The term “life hack” refers to a clever trick or useful tip that allows one to optimally solve a particular problem. In everyday conversation, a life hack encompasses various tips, tricks, or techniques designed to simplify daily life and enhance efficiency. Life hacks can span a wide range of areas, including household chores, work, health, and technology. During my fieldwork, I noticed that my interviewees often use the term 'life hack' when describing their practices related to circumventing complex or excessively burdensome rules.

For my paper, I have selected several examples of life hacks related to adapting to German state policies, shared with me by interviewees who have doubts about the necessity of Covid-19 vaccination. I will present three cases that represent a continuum of doubt, arranged in increasing order. 

For instance, I will analyze the narrative of a 34-year-old female doctor. She expressed the view that governmental Covid control measures were unjustified and shared a life hack involving changing the date of her PCR test. During the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, she was on maternity leave while breastfeeding her child. At the same time, her mother was hospitalized in Germany. In the interview, she stated that she only believes in evidence-based medicine and expressed skepticism toward self-treatment practices that are prevalent in the Russian-speaking community. Although she theoretically supports Covid vaccination, she was actively trying to avoid it. During her visits to the hospital to see her mother, she falsified test results. Ultimately, she got vaccinated after she finished breastfeeding.

The emic term “life hack” is reminiscent of the concept known as “mētis” (Scott, 1999). Introduced by James Scott, “mētis” refers to a vast collection of practical skills and acquired knowledge relevant to constantly changing natural and human environments. According to Scott, the state imposes numerous controlling measures to maintain its power; however, these measures are often ineffective, forcing individuals to adapt their practices in response. As Scott observes, the more carefully the state plans the execution of a particular project, the more it deviates from the original plan. This mode of adaptation also contributes to vaccine hesitancy.

Michel de Certeau's insights further illuminate this dynamic. He argues that the balance of power in society is not equal, distinguishing between two major groups: the dominate and the dominated. The dominant group consists of members of the political elite who are also regarded as experts. Certeau makes a distinction between tactics and strategies; tactics are associated with the dominated and weaker groups, while strategies are associated with the dominant group. A key characteristic of strategies is their proactive nature: they involve the imposition and declaration of specific operations and ways of doing things. The powerful, with their strategies, always make the first move, compelling the weaker to adapt to the circumstances they create. In this light, de Certeau’s perspective suggests that tactics can be viewed as a form of “cheating” or “trickery” - the ability to execute a series of actions at the right moment to gain an advantage. In the case of Covid-19, the state, as the stronger entity, employs strategies to regulate behavior during the pandemic, while ordinary individuals resort to tactics to covertly express their dissent.

These practices are not merely veiled political statements of protest. Behind the motives of individuals making vaccination decisions lie various meanings: intuitive feelings, insufficiently convincing information, and a desire to resist overarching discipline

In general, the paper will contribute to growing research on distrust as a social-scientific concept and on the role of vaccinations in healthcare and social interactions.