Post-pandemic, I’ve been thinking long and hard about how the fear generated by COVID-19 pushed our partisan tribal instincts to breaking point and seemed to cause huge levels of irrationality on both sides of the political spectrum. I’ve known about parasite stress for some time, since near to the beginning of the pandemic. Basically, it’s the proven observation that when a new pathogen is introduced into a society it awakens nascent authoritarianism. The research shows that it is problem which is particularly associated with larger societies.
What causes parasite stress? Fear. What exacerbates fear? People who differ from the in-group, be it politically, ethnically (in the non-West) or culturally. This would tend to suggest that multicultural societies, with high levels of foreign-born citizens, tend to be more vulnerable to parasite stress with its urge towards authoritarianism. Countries which possess a high degree of political partisanship, where each side views the other as an existential threat are going to be particularly high in parasite stress. It’s also highly likely that parasite stress is going to be higher in multicultural societies, with high rates of foreign-born citizens- there is an established literature which shows that as societies become more multicultural, a lack of cultural homogeneity causes social trust to breakdown, jeopardising long established Rawlsian redistribution.
At the outset, I simply wanted to use to concept to illustrate how the irrational and misguided impulses on both sides of the political aisle could inform us about how we might react to future parasite stress events, and in particular show how this subconscious fear-based default setting may be leading humanity to favour solutions which elevate the primitive desire to apply force and coercion over far smarter policies based upon persuasion, technological innovation and fine-tuned policies designed to make it easier to innovate and change. With transport for example, one particular informative piece of research shows that people only really stop driving when cheaper, more reliable and convenient options like short-range rail are offered. In particular, I think parasite stress can explain why many of the climate solutions being deployed are irrational and unlikely to generate the iterative, technology-driven approach, which is the only solution which countries like India, China and the rest of the developing world are likely to accept.
Here’s the thing, going into this I was pretty sure that going into this that many were going to be highly sceptical that certain types of policies are necessarily bad simply because they are driven by fear and the urge to deploy force and coercion on large segments of the population. Some fears are justified, after all. As I began to apply parasite stress to other areas of political decision-making I was astonished to find that it could probably explain a huge number of maladaptive policy approaches in recent history. In many ways it re-establishes my faith in my own heterodox attitudes, because for every bad policy by driven the parasite stress of Left-leaning liberals, it’s possible to find examples of equivalent parasite stresses driving conservative concerns and the policy which arises.
Parasite stress can be applied to a huge range of policy decisions from mass incarceration to immigration, from climate policy to foreign relations. We can see its mark in most poorly informed recent historical decisions. How else are we to explain how America changed so rapidly from the ‘Good Guy’ of history, deploying one of the most benignly long-sighted soft power exercises in human history, the Marshall Plan, to a country ready to stoop to cooperating with mass murderers, willing to derail and disempower legitimately elected democratic governments in the space of little more than a decade- an approach which still exists to this day?
Some may disagree with this characterisation, and legitimately hold the view that any means where justified during the Cold War, given the existential threat the Soviets posed. And this was an argument which might well have carried a significant amount of weight, until just recently. The problem is that China’s recent use of gifts and cheap incredibly favourable loans in Africa, has proven that the soft power approach is, in almost every way, superior to the approach taken by America in the Cold War era. Indeed, for many who have been following developments in Africa, it’s worth noting that there have been a slew of Western journalists and politicians from Kamala Harris to the BBC, who have found themselves chided by African leaders over the relative differences between the attitudes and material approaches taken by West and China in relation to Africa.
Interestingly, as I began to formulate my final thoughts as a preface to writing this, my first draft, I found to some alarm that there was already an academic paper entitled The parasite-stress theory may be a general theory of culture and socialityAlthough it can be edifying to find one’s thoughts are generally echoed by the academic research, for a writer who thinks they’ve come up with an original concept for politics, society and culture, the revelation of unoriginality can be devastating. Thankfully, the paper confines itself to in-group sorting and cross-nationality, and the impacts this may have on wealth resources, wealth inequality and freedom. Although it provides a strong foundation for my theory that parasite stress and the fear it causes will necessarily lead to bad political decision-making, it doesn’t go as far as linking parasite stress to poor group political judgements.
In many ways, the theory I postulate points to the fact that we haven’t really shed our superstitions at all. Sure, we’ve got rid of many of our external superstitious beliefs- we no longer believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden. But parasite stress shows that we haven’t shed our cognitive superstitions. Our primitive and atavistic brains can still seize control from our more reasoned and articulate selves- all it takes is the presence of some amorphous generalised fear which we can’t fight directly, to make us revert to the primitive needs to make ourselves feel safe by applying force and coercion to others. It doesn’t really help- but it does make us feel better.
I even have a mechanism for how parasite stress manifests to pervert the normal rational functioning of government and institutions. It’s about social incentives. As parasite stress or fear grows, the moderate voices of reason are marginalised and sidelined, the voices of hardliners elevated and celebrated, becoming the prevailing organisational narrative. As the fear grows and feeds off the panic it causes eminent scientists and experts who dissent from the group objectives increasingly find themselves treated as heretics, rather than the informed and rational sceptics they so clearly are.
There are a number of subjects I want to touch on in relation to parasite stress and the authoritarianism it causes. My first will be Mass Incarceration- what we got wrong because of fear, and what ultimately proved a far more successful and humane approach.
Interesting thesis. I’ll be following your development. I can see where sheep get very fearful, even irrational, in response to stress. That was certainly observable in the covid fiasco, as you note. What is concerning is that the shepherds, who should be expected to be calming influences on the sheep while simultaneously responding to the source of stress, instead fed the fear and panic.
Reasons and rationale should be studied and understood. If the anticipated benefit was achieved the behavior will be repeated.
Not sure I’m following the connection with the China-Africa issue. Not disagreeing with your general critique of US handling though it should be noted that both China and Soviet/Russia have been involved in ways they may not acknowledge in the turmoil that is Africa. Also, the soft influence of China is young and where it may end is not yet seen. Africa is a dysfunctional family and the Powers have little interest in allowing peace to bloom should that even be a possibility. To your earlier point, multiculturalism is the enemy of peace as we are seeing clearly in this country. Your thesis may shed light on why.
"Here’s the thing, going into this I was pretty sure that going into this that many were going"
Edit?
Yeah stress. No question that it corrodes trust and rationality. Fear > stress > hate > irrationality > mayhem. But as you say, sometimes fear is necessary. Yet you seem to presuppose that the stresses we feel today are not justified. I think they are justified but would still much prefer they were calmed than see them blow up.
It might be splitting hairs but let me draw an analogy: in aerodynamics they distinguish between parasitic drag and induced drag -- the latter being unavoidable. It seems to me that much of the stress in society today is likewise 'induced', not parasitic. Seeing one's heritage replaced, one's standard of living slowly eroded, one's institutions breaking down, one's culture attacked, one is rather naturally stressed, no? Induced stress. Now, demagogues will no doubt whip that up and one might reasonably call that added stress 'parasitic'.
I take it China’s “soft power” approach would include sinking Vietnamese fishing vessels, making incursions into Indian territory and killing Indian soldiers, building islands in the South China Sea to host military bases, and playing games of chicken with US fighter jets? I used to work with a guy from Bangladesh. He didn’t think there was anything soft about the way the Chinese basically ran everything in his country.
Nice article. It addresses fundementals without the side issues and ideological irrelevancies a lot of other theories labour under. I think that there may be some refinement possible though. This relates to closed and open systems. I wonder if parasite stress is more likely to occur in a closed system rather than an open system. Thus a multi-cultural society paradoxically may be better positioned to resist the effects because it by its nature is more flexible and more able to cope with differences.
Your example of America seems to bear this out. There are 2 closed systems at play, the Trumpian/populist Republican system and the Leftist/'Progressive' system neither of which allow or can allow the other space. Whilst the Republican is the more open and wiser it's been hijacked by fanatics and voices of reason are struggling to make themselves heard.
Thoughts on this interpretation would be most welcome.
Interesting thesis. I’ll be following your development. I can see where sheep get very fearful, even irrational, in response to stress. That was certainly observable in the covid fiasco, as you note. What is concerning is that the shepherds, who should be expected to be calming influences on the sheep while simultaneously responding to the source of stress, instead fed the fear and panic.
Reasons and rationale should be studied and understood. If the anticipated benefit was achieved the behavior will be repeated.
Not sure I’m following the connection with the China-Africa issue. Not disagreeing with your general critique of US handling though it should be noted that both China and Soviet/Russia have been involved in ways they may not acknowledge in the turmoil that is Africa. Also, the soft influence of China is young and where it may end is not yet seen. Africa is a dysfunctional family and the Powers have little interest in allowing peace to bloom should that even be a possibility. To your earlier point, multiculturalism is the enemy of peace as we are seeing clearly in this country. Your thesis may shed light on why.
"Here’s the thing, going into this I was pretty sure that going into this that many were going"
Edit?
Yeah stress. No question that it corrodes trust and rationality. Fear > stress > hate > irrationality > mayhem. But as you say, sometimes fear is necessary. Yet you seem to presuppose that the stresses we feel today are not justified. I think they are justified but would still much prefer they were calmed than see them blow up.
It might be splitting hairs but let me draw an analogy: in aerodynamics they distinguish between parasitic drag and induced drag -- the latter being unavoidable. It seems to me that much of the stress in society today is likewise 'induced', not parasitic. Seeing one's heritage replaced, one's standard of living slowly eroded, one's institutions breaking down, one's culture attacked, one is rather naturally stressed, no? Induced stress. Now, demagogues will no doubt whip that up and one might reasonably call that added stress 'parasitic'.
TYVM for another interesting article, Geary.
'm still 🤔 about your points .
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1148580
I take it China’s “soft power” approach would include sinking Vietnamese fishing vessels, making incursions into Indian territory and killing Indian soldiers, building islands in the South China Sea to host military bases, and playing games of chicken with US fighter jets? I used to work with a guy from Bangladesh. He didn’t think there was anything soft about the way the Chinese basically ran everything in his country.
Nice article. It addresses fundementals without the side issues and ideological irrelevancies a lot of other theories labour under. I think that there may be some refinement possible though. This relates to closed and open systems. I wonder if parasite stress is more likely to occur in a closed system rather than an open system. Thus a multi-cultural society paradoxically may be better positioned to resist the effects because it by its nature is more flexible and more able to cope with differences.
Your example of America seems to bear this out. There are 2 closed systems at play, the Trumpian/populist Republican system and the Leftist/'Progressive' system neither of which allow or can allow the other space. Whilst the Republican is the more open and wiser it's been hijacked by fanatics and voices of reason are struggling to make themselves heard.
Thoughts on this interpretation would be most welcome.