Editorial Ethos of science, pathos of war: Social work and pandemic rhetoric Ha ˚vard Aaslund Faculty of Social Studies, VID Specialized University, Oslo, Norway Email During 2020, we have engaged in activities (or refrained from engaging in activities) that we could never have imagined. Wearing face masks, declining a handshake, and keeping six feet apart are examples of altered behavior. Scientific knowledge was transformed into new rules about proper social etiquettes through political discourse. Parallelly, we have adopted a language that not long ago would have seemed strange, idiosyncratic or foreign. Scientific notions like “social dis- tancing” or terms like “effective reproduction number” have infiltrated our daily jargon, as we collaborate to “flatten the curve.” In rhetoric we could consider this the use of ethos – convincing the audience by referring to the authority or credi- bility of the persuader. Normal human interaction such as touching or hugging was quickly wrapped in a scientific understanding, changing the social and emo- tional implications (Green, 2021). An overly scientific and simplistic narrative hides contradictions between policy intentions and everyday life which are readily evident for social workers across the globe. Scientific narratives depict social problems as manageable. Covid-19 is a disruption of this manageable state. By encouraging us to long to return to the “normal state,” we also reproduce the narrative of a “normal” where social prob- lems were still possible to manage through technocratic measures (Crampton, 2021; Leotti, 2021). The language of the pandemic is also the language of pathos – convincing the audience by creating an emotional response to an impassioned plea or convincing story. Take the rhetoric of war for example. The frequently quoted saying: “truth is the first casualty of war,” has been traced back to Ethel Annakin. Corresponding author: Ha ˚vard Aaslund, VID Specialized University, P.O. Box 184, Vinderen, Oslo 0319, Norway. Email: havard.aaslund@vid.no Qualitative Social Work 2021, Vol. 20(1–2) 168–170 ! The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1473325020986009 journals.sagepub.com/home/qsw