ABSTRACT
This chapter shows how face masks became a controversial ‘actant’ in the handling of COVID-19 in Denmark. Using data from press conferences held by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, articles discussing face masks in the popular science magazine Videnskab.dk, and a letter from the Danish Medicines Agency, the chapter maps four prominent controversies around the introduction or non-introduction of a mandate on the use of face masks. The controversies are followed by inspiration drawn from the actor-network theory (ANT) tradition and evolve around: (1) a debate surrounding the possibility of a shortage of face masks, (2) citizens’ ability or inability to handle information on face masks and use them appropriately, (3) a discussion on how evidence differs from experiences of the effects of wearing face masks, and (4) face masks as a tool in the government's toolbox of measures. Following these controversies gives an insight into the basis of decisions in handling and communicating a pandemic crisis. This basis highlights the assumptions that evidence is a dominant parameter, that the population is emotional rather than rational, an expectation of people being unable to use the face masks properly, and a continuous search for relevant additional measures.
