Flight or Fight

 

Now, I don't pretend that EVERYTHING about conservatism is answered by its adherents tending to have larger amygdalas (on average) than other groups in society. But I must say that I find it to be a highly useful theory. (Certainly, geographical and political-economic factors also play a part. People from small towns and rural communities tend to conservatism because everyone knows everyone else and people regulate their own behaviour to avoid ostracism. In big cities, people can "sin" in relative anonymity. As well, minorities ... such as homosexuals ... can find kindred spirits and form communities. Everyone is exposed to a greater variety of human behaviour; cultures, religions, sexual practices, artistic expression, etc. and often develop a greater acceptance of difference. Certain sectors of the economy are conducive to fostering attitudes we characterize as "conservative." The oil industry is an extractive, capital-intensive, polluting industry that involves some degree of risk, ... especially early on, ... but which can produce enormous profits for a small group of people. It tends to produce an insanely wealthy owner class who see themselves as the epitome of the capitalist dream. They buckle at the idea of having to care about the environment and they have the liquid cash to bribe politicians to refrain from imposing regulations on them. By definition their business operates in rural areas, where their relatively small workforces, already predisposed to conservative social values, are paid highly enough to identify with their employers and to see any attempts to tax either the industry itself or the high incomes it pays, as offensive. This produces the political cultures we see in Alberta and Texas.)

So, ... there. I don't think the notion of the larger amygdala explains EVERYTHING. However, smart people who study brains have established this correlation. Self-described "conservatives" have larger amgydalas. Which makes one more prone to feel threatened and to stimulate the "flight or fight" instincts. Smart people who study brains are also saying that brains are plastic and develop in response to stimuli. For instance; times of trauma make people more conservative. They amgydala gets larger through prolonged stress. Which makes sense. Times of stress are threatening. Constant threats stimulates the amgydala. You're less trusting. You're less likely to take chances (except for the occasional big chances necessary to get the fuck out of there). [This is a factoid that neo-liberal liberals and the "pwogwessives" who swoon over them should be aware of. When you subject the bulk of the population to insecurity and austerity you make it more conservative and reactionary.] Being stupid makes the world threatening. The noted correlation between conservatism and being a shit-head attests to this.

Anyhow, one day I was going to eat some pizza. And I decided that instead of reading from my laptop and having to scroll down with greasy fingers, I'd grab an old "Harper's Magazine" from off my bookshelf and open it to a two-page spread of small enough font that I probably woudln't need to even turn a page before I was done eating. And I grabbed the August, 2005 issue and ended up reading "None Dare Call It Stolen" by Mark Crispin Miller. And reading it, and all the detailed, documented, often criminal voter suppression and fraud committed by the Republicans (especially in Ohio) that it documents, I was struck by the contrast between the Democratic, liberal, progressive NON-reaction to this obvious "steal" and the over-the-top shrieking, hypocritical, self-righteous bellowing, invasion of the US Capital reaction of the (mostly shit-headed) fans of the (shit-head) Donald Trump over their claims of voter suppression and fraud, that are all based on hearsay and which have been denied by Republican state election officials, Republican governors and Republican judges appointed by Trump. I realized: It's not just "flight." It's also "FIGHT!" A conservative brain is more likely to fight than a non-conservative person's brain is. Not only do they feel more threatened all the time, they have a higher propensity to lash out at perceived threats.

This is problematic behaviour. But it's also a source of strength. When the working class was less divided, and when the border between being able to access food and shelter versus hunger and homelessness was much more brittle, sometimes we (the working class) had people with larger amygdala's who simply couldn't pretend that their bosses and their enforcers weren't the enemy. The culture was such that these individuals' "flight or fight" instincts were focused on the capitalist enemy. And I wouldn't doubt that some of these people were leaders (of a sort) in the class struggle. Now of course, capitalist-oligarchic brainwashing has been even more well developed. Very few working class blowhards are capable of recognizing the enemy. They've all been told to focus on immigrants, gays, artists, socialists. They've been told that trade unions are a threat to their well-being even though the massive historical evidence shows that to be a complete fraud. I'm not pretending that there weren't bigoted, reactionary idiots among the working class of the early-20th Century. Working men who saw their future with Henry Ford over Walter Reuther. I'm just saying that there was a greater CHANCE that we had more fighters on our side.