“IS IT ALL IN YOUR HEAD?”
A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday,
All
The idea for this sermon came from a recent newspaper article with a headline “Study of Brain Functions Finds Political Divide.” The article then went on to say how scientists found a neurological source in the brain for having liberal or conservative views.
Actually, that’s not quite true. I mean, it’s not quite true that article is what gave me the idea for this sermon. My conundrum about liberal and conservative ideas has been brewing for some time. I would guess the idea for this sermon first came to me in 1964 during the first presidential election I remember following. I was only 10. It was Lyndon Johnson versus Barry Goldwater. It was then that the words “liberal” and “conservative” first muddled through my head. I was too young and too new to the nuances of politics to grasp what people were talking about. But I knew people had passion about these words.
Ever since then, I’ve had a on-going struggle with these words. Liberal and conservative are stereotypes, and like all stereotypes the meaning they carry may have some truth, but it is just as likely, that they are misleading. Add to that the fact that we each seem to mean something at least slightly different in our use of these words. From all of this the meanings can become so fuzzy that in many circumstances they are more confusing than clarifying.
But let me go
back to that article that I mentioned. A
psychologist from
How in the world, you ask as I do, does this have anything to do with liberal or conservative beliefs? Good question. The theory is that when we get used to some routine, and that routine is unexpectedly interrupted, our brains experience some conflict. What they wanted to know is whether our attitude toward change and conflict can be correlated with our political views.
They concluded there is such a correlation. Those who described themselves as “liberal,” were somewhat less likely to press the button when the unexpected letter appeared. From this, and from something else I’ll mention in a minute, the researchers concluded that liberals are more able to change course of behavior when routine is interrupted by change. David Amodio, the lead scientist in the study, said it this way: “In our study, liberals tended to be more sensitive and responsive to information that might conflict with their habitual way of thinking, compared with the conservatives.”
Let’s see if we got it right, then. Liberals are comfortable with change, conservatives are more comfortable with tradition. As one article I found on this study pointed out, it makes you wonder what the scientific word is for “Duh?”
So far, I was not too impressed. When I dug a little deeper, I found that the difference between liberal and conservative’s button-pushing responses was not all that significant – something around 10% different. Hardly enough to justify a stereotype.
But there was another part of the study that did seem a bit significant. I didn’t yet mention that during the button-pushing exercise, the students were hooked up to electroencephalograms, machines that measure the amount of electrical activity in the brain. It is here that they found a difference that appeared significant.
The part of the brain that is believed to be a monitor of our response to conflict is a region called the “anterior cingulated cortex.” The study looked carefully at this area, and it was found that those who described themselves as politically liberal had about 2.5 times the electrical activity in that region than the conservatives, and they were also more sensitive at the time the “don’t push the button” letter appeared.
So here’s the part that is both compelling and unnerving. As Dr. Amodio said, “Our data, which relate political orientation to the functioning of a very fundamental neuro-cognitive mechanism, may suggest that liberalism/conservatism reflects our basic biological composition, which would be largely genetically driven.”
I say this is compelling because it does make some sense that our natural responses to the world can reflect the way our brains work. I say this is unnerving because I want to think my opinions, at least, are reached by sound reason, good judgment, and high-quality values. That my views come instead from the programming of my peculiar DNA might raise questions about my reason, judgment, and values.
So is it really all in our heads?
This question also returns me to my lifelong ambivalence toward the conservative/liberal continuum. I’ve often wondered how useful it is. Part of my quandary is that I feel both pulling at my own soul. There is a strong conservative tendency within me. I like tradition. I like roots. I am not particularly comfortable with change, even inevitable change. For example, I do not like the fact that eventually the world of books will be entirely digital, and there will be no need, maybe no possibility, for holding a book and turning pages. My resistance to that change feels “conservative.”
I am a Unitarian Universalist, often considered a “liberal” religion. But the conservative in me craves rootedness, and the history of our movement is one of the most important factors for me. In fact, I could fairly say that if Unitarian Universalism were a religious group that began in the twentieth century – but still held the same principles – I would probably not be affiliated, much less a minister.
Many of my views are liberal, but if “conservatism” is defined, as it often is, as “favoring tradition and gradual change,” then my soul is more conservative than liberal. In fact, if I were to be attached to an electroencephalograph to measure my brain’s response to unexpected change, I would guess my brain would measure closely with those who were conservative.
I am bothered also by how these words are so often used as “code words” in the sense that there is no discussion needed about something if the label “liberal” or “conservative” is declared. It happens on both sides where some idea or person is accused of being liberal or conservative, and from that point on neither the idea nor the person needs to be heard.
The words “conservative” and “liberal” have in imprecision about them that is stunning. Each movement can be divided into various components that are not necessarily compatible. There is an economic conservatism, for example, that wants business to have the least possible regulation, with financial progress benefiting society at large. There is a cultural conservatism that seeks to defend and in some cases impose norms of behavior – about marriage, sexual orientation, abortion and so forth. It is difficult to understand just what these two have in common, and why it would be supposed that an economic conservative would necessarily have the views of a cultural conservative, and vice versa. Then there is a more general political conservatism that argues for a very limited government. There is a religious conservatism that says values should conform to specific creeds.
These diverse forms of conservatism do not have a great deal in common, I think.
“Liberalism” is
likewise a fuzzy term. In our history
textbooks, what is called “classical liberalism,” in term of economics, is laissez-faire
capitalism. In today’s
Liberalism has its own self-contradictions. The word derives from the word “liberty,” and holds individual freedom central. Yet those identified as liberals seem more inclined than conservatives to allow the government to regulate society in terms of social planning.
Social and cultural liberalism can include, on one hand, an embrace of cultural diversity, and on the other a libertine approach that puts no boundaries on acceptable behavior.
If I were to ask, “Which approach, liberal or conservative, is more inclined to restrict government regulation of the private sector of society?” most of us would probably answer that restricting government regulation is pretty close to a definition of political conservatism. And that is true – the government should not, they say, restrict free trade or regulate how we use our property, and so forth. But social liberals, it could be said, are equally concerned about government intervening in personal affairs. Social liberals would restrict government regulation of private behavior, such as abortion, expression of art, marriage, and voluntary euthanasia. In this sense, should social liberals be considered “conservative”?
The labels get confusing in religion as well. Unitarian Universalism is often identified by those within and without as a “liberal religion.” There are reasons for that, primarily because of the centrality of freedom in our tradition.
But within our movement, does it make sense to use the labels “liberal” and “conservative”? For example, in worship style, are the Unitarian churches like ours, with pews and a powerful organ and a minister in a robe more “conservative” than a Unitarian church across town that has folding chairs, a piano keyboard, and the minister in jeans? In what sense would the word “liberal” be justified to describe the second church?
There is within our UU tradition a strong group of Christian Unitarian Universalists. Are they “conservative” because their views are closer to the views of Unitarians 200 years ago, or are they “liberal” because as a minority, they represent a change from today’s mainstream of Unitarian Universalists?
It is important for me to state outright here something that should just be taken for granted, but isn’t. Unitarian Universalism is a religion that is centered around a cluster of values such as a love for freedom and for reason and for tolerance. All those who love those values are welcome. If we are true to our principles, there should never be a political test for membership at this church. Freedom, reason, tolerance, respect for the inherent worth and dignity of each person, the free search for truth – none of this has anything to do with whether social security should be privatized or how much control the U.S. Department of Education should have over local schools. Our principles do commit us to protecting the individual liberty of every person. Our principles do not tell us whether liberty is better protected by less government intervention into society or by more, or under what circumstances government involvement is helpful or harmful.
It is true that the majority of Unitarian Universalists identify themselves as political liberals. No one knows that better than those among who identify themselves as conservatives. What counts for either is devotion to the religious principles we share, and it seems to me it may take an extra dose of devotion, an extra measure of courage, to stay devoted in a group when you find yourself in the minority.
However we define ourselves on such a continuum, we all benefit from the contribution of those who share our values but not necessarily our opinions. It is a gift to have someone, for example, who loves freedom as much as you do, but offers some different perspective about how to safeguard freedom through public policy. To have someone that provides honest and principled ideas that are different from ours helps us all to keep our thinking honest, to challenge our prejudices, and to help us from falling into the smothering featherbed of conformity and groupthink.
So these have been some of the problems I have had most of my life with the stereotyping of liberal and conservative. As with any stereotype, nuances are ignored. These two words are not shorthand for good and bad. A conservative Barry Goldwater had far more in common with a liberal like Bill Clinton than he ever did with a conservative like Pat Robertson.
So it’s time to return to the brain. The landscape of liberal and conservative, it seems to me, is far more complex than can be accounted for by a simple button-pushing experiment to determine neural response to unexpected change. Other factors should be recognized as being involved, it seems to me. Such as values. Such as upbringing. Such as the thinking mind and not just the impulse of neurons. I am willing to accept that something like “the anterior cingulated cortex” can affect our political orientation or even predispose us toward a certain path, but I can’t believe it decides for us. Our opinions and values are more than brain chemistry. They are our soul and spirit.
If they were only brain chemistry, then how could any of us change our minds? And yet we have all seen people during their lifetime swing strongly from one set of views to the opposite. It happens frequently. Most of the people whom the press label “neo-cons” or “neo-conservatives,” are former left wing ideologues who converted to right wing ideologies. We all know people who have switched the other way as well.
The tendency to label others too often works to cut off any give-and-take conversation from which we would all benefit. The attempt to reduce human values to neurological impulses in the brain has the same effect. It’s not all in our heads. It’s in our hearts as well. What is needed in a society is more conversation, respectful conversation, between those who view life differently.
That, after all, is what we honor as Unitarian Universalists, regardless of any individual “label” each of us might have. It is the search for truth in love.
From the Indianapolis Star
(By Denise Gellene of the LA Times)
“Study of Brain Function Finds Political Divide”
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
Scientists at
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments, whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations, but also influence everyday decisions.
The results showed “There are two cognitive styles – a liberal style and a conservative style,” said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the research.
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from “very liberal” to “very conservative.”
They were asked to watch a computer monitor and tap a keyboard based on the letter that appeared. The experiment was designed to condition them to press the key in a knee-jerk fashion, forcing a quick decision when a non-key-pressing letter popped up.
Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a letter that they were not to press a key for, researches said.
Frank J.
Sulloway, a researcher at the