The following are excerpts from the new book Our Political Nature; The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us, by Avi Tuschman ( Prometheus Books, 2013):
In relation to the political spectrum, tribalism breaks down into three components: (1) ethnocentricity, (2) religiosity, and (3) sexual (in)tolerance. High measures of ethnocentricity, religiosity, and sexual intolerance are commonly associated with one another. Individuals with this cluster of traits tend to have political views on the right. On the other end of the spectrum, attraction to out-groups (xenophilia), secularism, and higher sexual tolerance are well correlated with one another and with political views on the left.
What, specifically, would be the objects of sexual intolerance? Any form of sexuality deemed less likely to contribute to normatively sanctioned reproduction, economic stability, and social harmony of a given in-group. Examples include nonreproductive sexuality (such as homosexuality), premarital sexual choices made by young people, and extramarital affairs.
What is the logic between these three components of tribalism? The more ethnocentric, religious, and sexually intolerant people are, the more likely they are to reproduce with a mate from their own in-group. Moreover, conservatives are more likely to emphasize group values, such as prioritizing the reproduction and defense of their ethnic group, over other possible competing interests (e.g., personal pleasure, and education or career choices made at the expense of family).
On the other hand, more xenophilic, secular, and sexually tolerant people are more likely to see equal (or even greater) value in out-groups, and to reproduce with them. Thus, liberals place relatively greater importance on individualism and less on in-group values.
Yep. makes perfect sense to me.
But conservatives can claim that they're religious and sexually intolerant while not actually being that way in their private lives. Sarah Palin loses on every conservative score: she isn't ethnocentric, since she married a part-Native American (and benefits through his medical benefits); she isn't religious, since she talks about it but doesn't practice any known religion; and her children demonstrate sexual adventurism, not chastity or self-control.
ReplyDeleteLiberals demonstrate their tolerance, on every scale, through their lives in many ways. Hypocrisy would be noticed immediately.
Conservatives have been shown to be hypocritical constantly. How does this fit into the author's neat framework?
Politically, we were DFL (Democratic Farm Labor), and I’m guessing my mother voted the same way as my father. I know she suffered. She would have loved to be able to send money to Billy Graham and other rightwing evangelists. She would have loved to be married to such a man, to be part of that, her real tribe. She was bitter and resentful, while insisting her life was perfect.
ReplyDeleteTwo of her brothers dropped out of the Lutheran Evangelical church to become Southern Baptists and REALLY get their freak on. Tuschman is correct in his analysis, I think.
I know I’m very critical, even as I try to understand that behavior.
So, using your family dynamic as an example, is it nature or nurture? You don't sound like you moved over to your mom's tribe.
DeleteSo, let me get this 'straight'. Conservatives tend to breed with conservatives thus keeping a tight control over the gene pool which in turn produces MORE conservatives and MORE prejudiced offspring. And liberals, being more tolerant and less prejudicial, tend to expand their gene pool to include conservatives and independents thus producing LESS mentally, socially, and religiously constipated offspring who are inclusive of many more opinions and viewpoints. MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME.
ReplyDeleteStudy Suggests Southern Slavery Turns White People Into Republicans 150 Years Later
ReplyDeletehttp://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/09/2587231/study-suggests-southern-slavery-turns-white-people-republicans-150-years/