The previous two articles in the “Innate Conservatism, Innate Progressivism” series explained three key points that describe the biological differences between conservatism and progressivism. These points include the role of the vomeronasal organ and the sympathetic nervous system, serotonin and dopamine, as well as reelin and olfactory receptors. In other words, conservative political tendencies are explained by the territorialism and disgust associated with the vomeronasal organ, social hierarchy behavior related to serotonin, and mating behaviors mediated by pheromones. Avoiding risks, acting according to the order of power, and achieving successful reproduction are all evolutionarily advantageous “natural” traits. In other words, conservative tendencies can be seen as manifestations of evolutionary strategies for survival and reproduction.
As mentioned earlier, this biological conservative mindset is referred to as “system justification” by John Jost, a professor at New York University, and Mahzarin Banaji, a professor at Harvard University. They define it as a tendency to rationalize the current state, accepting that the established system is legitimate or desirable. However, because human societies and cultures are dynamic and diverse, the “current state” that conservatives seek to justify cannot be pinned down to any specific society or culture.
What we must pay attention to is that regardless of the era and culture, humans are always fundamentally biological beings. That is, the most basic system imprinted within the biological brain is nature itself. From this perspective, the principles, laws, or order of nature are the inherent values that conservatives value, respect, and adhere to. Conservative values can be seen as a belief system that rationalizes evolutionary instincts advantageous for survival and reproduction, possibly encoded in genetic mutations as successful products of evolution.
The theory of system justification can explain the conservative inclination to follow the natural order, which in many cases was already entrenched within society’s established privileges. For example, research on system justification was conducted in capitalist societies like the United States, where free-market capitalism embodies the logic of power and competition as a natural order. If such research were conducted in socialist or communist societies, at least for economic matters, the pattern of system justification would likely not be observed. People biologically inclined towards conservatism would not likely support socialist or communist systems because they align their conservative values with free-market economies.
From a conservative perspective, the struggle that humans engage in against each other is not inherently unjust or unfair to the extent that one is willing to stake their life on it. Conservative supporters advocate for the free-market capitalism and elite education based on social competition and natural selection, seeing natural competition based on power and ability as just. According to them, each individual should protect their safety through possessing firearms. From a conservative viewpoint, tragedies like the Itaewon murder case or the Sewol Ferry disaster are considered more as individual responsibilities or misfortunes rather than as failures of national security. Their support for national security and military strength is due to viewing other countries as potential threats. Their negative attitudes towards foreign aid or open immigration policies stem from the perceived threat and aversion felt towards other races or ethnicities.
Within the conservative community, stronger hatred and discrimination against homosexuality are more pronounced and even openly justified due to the prejudice that it is an unnatural sexual orientation. However, this is a misconception as homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon. Similarly, conservatives cannot accept abortion because they see it as artificially taking away a life that was naturally given, a position expressed in the US as “pro-life.” However, lives lost due to gun violence do not seem to receive the same respect from them. Victims of gun violence, unlike babies being born, are considered as lives corrupted by civilization, far from pure natural beings. Perhaps, similar to poor women needing abortion procedures, black individuals primarily exposed to crimes and becoming victims of gun violence are seen as outcasts by conservatives, who value naturalistic principles above all.
Attitudes towards science and technology are closely related to the system justification for nature. Firstly, science and technology inherently aim to manipulate and transform nature artificially, which conflicts with the conservative value of accepting nature as it is. Moreover, conservatism often shows reluctance towards vaccines, nuclear energy, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) according to a survey of over 1,000 Americans. It is well-known that the Republican Party is lukewarm towards science policies and investments. For example, in 2001, President George W. Bush announced the suspension of stem cell research funding under the pretext of religious concerns about compromising human dignity. The Trump administration exemplified this conservative attitude, as highlighted by the international journal Nature, which pointed out the negative impact of the Trump presidency on science, including budget cuts to various scientific institutions, NASA’s revision of moon landing plans, withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, and a brute-force response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey of 892 scientists conducted towards the end of 2020 revealed that President Trump’s support among scientists was only 8%.
On a cognitive level, conservatism and progressivism also differ in terms of intelligence. Satoshi Kanazawa, a professor of political economy at the University of London, in The Intelligence Paradox, presents research results showing that people with progressive tendencies are “on average” more intelligent. Kanazawa points out that having a high intelligence quotient based on modern concepts of intelligence that emphasize scientific thinking and logical reasoning is evolutionarily unnatural. He states, “Certainly, highly intelligent people can be excellent doctors, excellent astronauts, and excellent scientists. Such professions are new from an evolutionary perspective. However, these are not important things in human life.” In reality, what is commonly referred to as intelligence quotient in modern society often contradicts intelligence related to survival or life, such as being able to form good social relationships, have successful relationships, be good parents, or navigate well, among others. In other words, among people with high IQs, there are quite a few “smart fools.”
In this way, conservatism can be understood in the language of natural science as a very “natural” way of thinking for humans, optimized by evolution for survival and reproduction. Of course, humans are also influenced by their social environment.