A Paris suburb, on the eve of the French Revolution.
The shift to democracy and individualism began under conditions of high
pathogen prevalence and long before modern sanitation (source)
Is stress from parasites a major cause of psychological
differences among humans? Yes, if we are to believe a popular theory in
evolutionary psychology. According to this theory, when people develop in a
parasite-infested environment, they behave in a way that reduces their
likelihood of infection. They become less curious, less exploratory, and less
open to strangers. The result is a cultural system that is less conducive to
learning, openness, and tolerance—in short, what we like to call progressive
values.
As Thornhill et al. (2010) argue:
[…] the predictions of the parasite-stress
model are consistent with the marked increase in the liberalization of social
values that began to occur in the West in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., civil
rights, women’s rights, gay and lesbian rights, anti-authoritarianism, etc.).
In the West, but not outside of it, infectious-disease prevalence was reduced
dramatically a generation or two earlier as a result of widespread availability
of antibiotics, child vaccination programs, food- and water-safety practices,
increased sanitation and vector control.
This theory is used to explain not only cultural
differences over time, but also cultural differences over space, i.e., between
different human populations:
The parasite-stress model of
human sociality provides an evolutionarily informed explanation of why specific
human populations inhabiting different parts of the planet (northern Europe
versus southern Europe, for instance) are often described by different traits,
different values, and different cultural norms.
[…] parasite prevalence also is
expected to predict other forms of political liberalism. For example,
democratization is accompanied by the liberation of women from the tradition of
masculine social control, which manifests in an increase in women’s civil
rights and political representation (Inglehart, 2003; Wejnert, 2005; Welzel,
2007). It follows from the parasite-stress model that this form of liberalism
should be more pronounced within populations that have a relatively low
prevalence of parasites. It is. Across many countries of the world, parasite
prevalence correlates negatively with national indicators of gender equality
(Thornhill et al., 2010)
Several objections come to mind. Liberalism goes
back long before the 1960s. Think of the American and French revolutions. Think
of the abolitionists, the chartists, and the suffragettes. These were genuine
mass movements that caught the imagination of ordinary people, and not just the
elites. Yet they occurred at a time when young men and women routinely died
from pathogens under conditions like those of the developing world today. And
those conditions persisted well into the 20th century. It really wasn’t until
the interwar years that doctors began to cure more people than they killed.
The parasite-stress model has been re-examined by
Hackman and Hruschka (2013) with respect to the United States. They confirm
that pathogen prevalence correlates with collectivism, strength of family ties,
homicide, child maltreatment, and religious commitment. These correlations,
however, hold true only for sexually transmitted diseases. Non-STD infections
show no correlation with the above behaviors. Moreover, the STD correlation may
simply be a side effect of lifestyle choices. As the authors note: “A life
history model can explain these ambiguous results by treating STDs as an
outcome of faster life history strategies rather than a driver of behavioral
adaptations.” Indeed, the data are best explained by two variables: early
childbirth and race, i.e., non-Hispanic white American, Hispanic American, or
black American:
Our two-component measure [early
childbirth and race] showed that across race categories, teenage birth rates
are predictive of three-generation households and proportion of the population
living alone. We conclude that these findings are inconsistent with the PST
[pathogen-stress theory], but fit well with an alternative model based on life
history allocations. (Hackman and Hruschka, 2013)
Parasite-stress theory reverses cause and effect.
Pathogens are less prevalent in those human populations that have integrated
principles of modern hygiene into their lives. Those same populations have also
adopted other aspects of behavioral modernity—pacifism, individualism, reduced
importance of kinship, etc. More broadly speaking, the construction of freer,
more open societies cannot happen without certain psychological
predispositions: first, higher anger thresholds and less willingness to use
violence as a means to settle personal disputes; second, a time orientation
that allocates more resources to the future and fewer to the present.
Evidently, if you’re more oriented to the future, you’ll avoid choices that may
lead to illness and early death.
This point may seem obvious, yet it’s surprising how
unobvious it seems to some people, especially those, like evolutionary
psychologists, who should know better. How come? Keep in mind that elite
approval is necessary for advancement in society, particularly for academics
who work amidst offspring of the elite and who help
legitimize the dominant social agenda. To gain acceptance for their own pet ideas,
academics unconsciously, or consciously, sign on to the elite's agenda.
As Thornhill et al. (2010) note: “[…] public health
initiatives are most likely to have additional consequences for societies
(e.g., promotion of civil liberties and egalitarian value systems).” Here, the
academic is no longer pretending to be a disinterested observer. The role is
more like that of a cheerleader … or worse.
References
Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (eds.)
(1992). The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary
Psychology and the Generation of Culture, New York, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hackman, J. and D. Hruschka. (2013). Fast life
histories, not pathogens, account for state-level variation in homicide, child
maltreatment, and family ties in the U.S., Evolution
and Human Behavior, 34, 118-124.
Thornhill, R., C.L. Fincher, D.R. Murray, and M.
Schaller. (2010). Zoonotic and
Non-Zoonotic Diseases in Relation to Human Personality and Societal Values:
Support for the Parasite-Stress Model, Evolutionary
Psychology, 8, 151-169.
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP08151169.pdf