I’m approaching being 2/3 of the way through residency. *Gulp!*. My opportunities for writing have been fairly minimal for the last two years but, as ever, I am optimistic I’ll have more time in the future. This is something I wrote almost 4 months ago, which remains relevant, and which I’ve finally sat down to publish. I hope you find it thought provoking.
I tend to be a pretty upbeat person. I’m not sure whether I have extra-sensitive serotonin receptors, or higher than average baseline dopamine levels, but I’m definitely someone who tends to be optimistic. Even working 80 hour weeks, I was recently described as “bubbly”.
That being said, it’s hard to stay positive these days when you tune into the news. With terrorist atrocities (international and domestic), attacks on women’s health, disregard for refugees, and stigmatization based on religion, race, or sexuality, it can be hard to stay positive in the face of so much hate.
I struggle to understand the hate that is freely and vitriolically expressed on social media, on some news outlets, and by some political candidates. As someone who finds solace in understanding, and also thinks that natural selection is everywhere, I’ve been trying to understand an evolutionary basis for this general grumpiness.
Before digging into this subject I think it’s necessary to preface the conversation with Hume’s Law aka Naturalistic Fallacy, or in plain English: the is/ought problem. Though we may accept that there is an evolutionary basis to this hatred, we are not saying their ought to be. On the contrary, I would argue that it is important to understand why this hatred exists so that we might better understand each other’s perspectives. I think we can all agree that the current plan of yelling at each other as loudly as possible isn’t moving the conversation forward in any meaningful way.
When I first started to think about this subject I was immediately reminded of Baba Brinkman’s “Rap Guide to Human Nature”. (I’ve written about Baba and his Rap Guides here). One of his songs addressed the differences between conservatives and liberals, touching on xenophobia. True to form, the song is well researched and backed with science. You can hear the song here, or you can watch a live version here (which is worth watching at least for a couple minutes since his preamble nicely summarizes some important research).
Baba’s argument (formed from the work of a number of scientists) is that xenophobia is part of our Behavioral Immune System– an evolved psychological response to things that could threaten disease or illness. This is the mechanism that makes us averse to the smell of food that’s gone bad, people that look infectious, and (in the case of xenophobia) people that look foreign who may be carrying some foreign disease.
This argument is only one of many evolutionary ‘reasons’ that we may have a fear of outsiders. A very simple reason, and one we frequently see cited by those opposing aid to refugees, is the conservation of resources. If you have only limited resources, there is an evolutionary benefit to sharing with those who are related to you, those in your in-group, instead of sharing with outsiders. You can see this theory in action in some of our more distant relatives. Chimps, for example, are very territorial, and are often horribly aggressive to members of outside groups in order to protect their territory and their resources. On the other end of the spectrum are Bonobos, who live in more resource rich environments and who are often friendly to outside groups. There’s a quick public radio piece on this subject here.
This is a very long lecture (or series of mini-lectures), but I thoroughly enjoyed watching and listening to this one quiet evening on night-float. If you have the time, it’s well worth a watch.
There’s far too much covered in these lectures to distill into a blog post, but I think the closing comments are very powerful.
“We have biology, and we have our brains. And we have this incredible problem of fear which has a real basis. But we need to overcome that to live together. But the only way we can really do that is to understand what it is that makes us afraid of others and how the biology works, and how the psychology works, and to try to answer those questions. And so the only way we can ever, it seems to me, move forward, is try to understand what makes us up as human beings.” -Lawrence Krauss
So how can move forward? I have touched on only a couple of the evolutionary reasons for fear, but even on those subjects there is a lot to be done. Baba brings up the point that for some countries wracked with social issues, the answer may (at least in part) be water sanitation and vaccination- protecting people from the things their behavioral immune system has evolved to fight.
Here in America (and in much of the developed world), I think the bigger issue is resources. A frequent cry one sees on social media is along the lines of “how can we care for refugees when we can’t care for our veterans”. Much as food scarcity in chimps can cause hostility towards outsiders, lack of access to secure housing and healthcare may be a major cause of hostility towards refugees in our society. It seems that many fear that something they pay very dearly for may be given for free (with their tax dollars) to outsiders. It certainly doesn’t help that we currently live in an economic environment where many are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and we are not far gone from the time with economic collapse caused many to lose their homes. I think it is no coincidence that the countries in Europe that are accepting the most refugees have solid national healthcare and safety-nets, where their citizens do not live in fear of paying their next bill, or not being able to care for themselves or their family. Obviously there is no easy fix for the situation we are in, though I think that access to healthcare is an important place to start.
From the lecture series above (it really is great):
“Simple assumptions: that trade or interdependence or interaction will be, by itself, sufficient is unfortunately too easy, but sets for us an important challenge. It seems like often in human society when there is plenty, everything is fine, and then when stress occurs, when there is limited resources, when there is a need to retract, if you take the crystal of human society and somehow hit it, group boundaries is where it breaks. But not always. And so what I think what we want most to know is what are the keys to resilience and resistance. How do you create a society that, when put under stress, doesn’t break along ethnic or descent based lines.” – Rebecca Saxe
And that, dear readers, is a question for another day…
It seems to me that whatever society you create, no matter how resilient and progressive it is (and those words don’t even go together that well in reasonably homogeneous societies these days), will no longer be that society once it includes members of a different society in numbers sufficient to impose their own traditions or theories of how societies should be.
A liberal society, by definition, will not demand that guests renounce their own beliefs, yet one of these beliefs – held by a minority, perhaps, but a minority large and aggressive enough to have their way- may be that liberal societies are evil and should be reformed.
In fact, such guests can and do insist on the right to persecute their own minorities, the people in their midst who are foreign to them.
Modern societies can tolerate and absorb large numbers of guests who, despite differences in appearance, language, and traditions, are accepting of their host country’s values and only seek political power on the basis of those values – the international Chinese diasporia is a good example of this, but there are many others.
The evolutionary facts about foreignness don’t go far enough to explain conflicts between religions or societies. Does xenophobia, for example, completely explain the Cold War attitudes of the USA and USSR towards the other’s society and way of life?
Thanks so much for your thoughts and comments. You bring up some interesting points. I’ll admit (as I’m sure is obvious) this post was largely a way for me to start wrapping my head around the topic, and I certainly am not an expert on the subject. To address a few of your points:
Societies do evolve with the incorporation of various out-groups, and I think that’s a good thing. America is hopefully a good example of this, as you look back at how it has morphed and adapted with the acceptance of various groups that have immigrated here. We’ve never been very good at the initial phase- overcoming our xenophobia- but eventually the incorporation leads to an interesting and diverse- and I think you could argue more resilient- society. A good example from the last 200 years is how Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants were initially seen as out-group but are certainly now part of the in-group. How that transition from out-to-in-group was made is probably worth exploring as we continue to think about incorporating new out-groups.
Your comment about guests wanting to continue some of their ways in a new home can certainly be a troubling one, and something I don’t have a good answer to other than culturally sensitive conversation. Something we struggle with in the medical community is refuges and immigrants who see female circumcision as part of their culture, and something they want to continue. I’ve been fortunate not to have come across this yet, though it is something some of my co-workers have encountered while working on labor and delivery. Interestingly, at least in the case of my coworkers, after a conversation I’ve heard a number of cases where women have requested not to have a fibulation repaired after delivery… Hopefully a step in the right direction. Here’s a piece on that: http://www.aafp.org/afp/1999/0801/p657.html I know Sweden has some
Thanks again for your thoughts!
Thank you for your eloquent writing style. Even though I disagree with some of what you say, I’ll always enjoy reading your articles and having conversation. My comment will address this subject generally. I’m tired of the rhetoric out there that people who oppose refugees coming into our country is a disregard for refugees or xenophobia or racism or uncaring. I have heard the FBI saying that there is no way to vet refugees coming in from Syria. My main concern is that terrorists are filtering in through many holes in our country, coming over the borders and mixing in with refugees being just a couple. Is that Xenophobia? Is that racism towards Muslims? Some would say yes. I say NO. Call me a Chimp if you’d like, but I will choose protection over a liberal policy that says let’s take a chance. Too many labels get thrown around unfairly. I believe we are such a great country because of our diversity. Unfortunately times have changed since the days of people coming here legally and with a passion to integrate and make a life here. But when you have a system that openly ignores laws regarding illegal aliens (sanctuary cities) or outrightly encourages it, any tolerance there might have been for refugees has been eroded. The bishop sent a letter to our episcopal church and the priest read it to the congregation. It was about the insensitivity of some not agreeing to let in refugees. Then our priest piled on with her opinion. Both were insulting to myself and I’m sure others. I also don’t believe the church is the place for expressing political beliefs. I’m not insensitive to the refugee dilemma. But It’s more complex than a simple label. Terrorists have changed how we think about our borders. If there was a way to vet out terrorists or bad intentioned people that was a sure thing, I may have a different view. I’m not sure there is a way to do so and I don’t trust the government will do it skillfully.
Thanks so much for your comments. Your concerns about who comes into the country and how are certainly legitimate and are things that needs to be addressed. That being said, I think that with a quick assessment we can see that many have a hesitancy that comes from a more visceral response- the response of our behavioral immune system. I think part of the challenge going forward is figuring out a way to appropriately address the legitimate concerns while recognizing, but moving bast, the voice of our evolutionary wiring.
Thanks again for your thoughts!