In 2004, newspapers and television programs around the world exposed gruesome images of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The soldiers were supposedly in Iraq to liberate its people of the dictator Saddam Hussein and his brutal rule. During Saddam Hussein´s regime, Abu Ghraib was allegedly witness to the torture and execution of countless Iraqis who opposed him. But now the American soldiers, who were there to reinstate freedom and democracy, were carrying out human rights abuses and recording them on film. An image showed an Iraqi man naked on a dog leash. American male and female soldiers are seen laughing and pointing at his genitals, while the man is crawling on the floor. Another prisoner has his head covered and wires attached to his body apparently as part of torture. Those images shocked the world and revealed American atrocities in Iraq.
What aspects of the human mind induce people to commit such inhumane acts? The American psychologist Philip Zimbardo, known for the famous Stanford University prison experiment, proposed an explanation based on his psychological experiments, that normal people may engage in violent acts due to situational forces that they are faced with.
In 1971, as a young professor of psychology in the Stanford University in the United States, Philip Zimbardo conducted experiments on the psychological effects of prison life. Zimbardo converted the basement of the psychology department into a simulated prison, in which a clever experiment of make-believe was conducted. For his experiment, Zimbardo recruited psychologically normal individuals through newspaper advertisements to test how adverse situations such as those in prisons may affect normal people. He then randomly divided his subjects into two groups, namely, ¨prisoners¨ and ¨guards¨. For making the experiment as close to reality as possible, he asked the local police to participate in the experiment by conducting mock arrests of the prisoners on fake crimes. The arrested prisoners were then brought to the basement prison where they were changed over to prison clothes. Initially, the prisoners and the guards acted normally in the clear awareness of the constructed scenario. However, after a few days the situation gradually degraded to resemble conditions of real prisons. Some of the guards became rather sadistic, took away prisoners´ rights, and found new ways to punish them. Prisoners showed varied behavior from rebelling against the guards´ aggression, to being passive, to having mental breakdowns. Zimbardo had to stop the experiment within a week, although it was planned for 2 weeks, to avoid further deterioration in the conditions. Although the appropriateness and scientific diligence of the methods of this experiment have been questioned since then, the Stanford experiment shows that when ordinary individuals are placed in extreme situations, conditions can transform the behavior of psychologically normal people to the abnormal. In the above case, both prisoners and guards had come to assume the roles they were assigned to. The situation provided a system of authority that allowed aggression and abuses to prisoners to become normal.
The above experiment and others, such as the one by the psychologist Stanley Milgram, shows how ordinary humans under situations of authority become dehumanized to inflict unthinkable violence on fellow human beings. Examples abound from history. Christopher Browning, in his book on the Nazi Holocaust Ordinary Men, analyses how racial bias, stereotyping, and dehumanization of Jews helped to make it possible for the German police as well as ordinary German men to commit atrocities on the Jews in such large numbers. Another example of ordinary men obeying authority under situational forces to commit extraordinary crime is depicted in the political philosopher Hannah Arendt´s book Eichmann in Jerusalem. Arendt witnessed, analyzed and wrote about the trials for war crimes of the German SS officer Adolf Eichmann who organized and managed the mass deportation and killings of Jews during the Holocaust under Hitler´s order.
Understanding the conditions in which political behavior is modified by nature (mental makeup, personality, traits and beliefs) on the one hand and nurture (personal experiences and the effect of the environment that one grows up in) is important for improving human condition, public policy and international relations.
The idea that psychological principles may help understand political behavior dates back to the 16th century treatise Prince by the political theorist Machiavelli. Prince contained observations about human nature, relations, moral principles, and strategies to retain political power. The modern field of Neuropolitics is multidisciplinary in nature, combining ideas and methods from psychology, neuroscience, engineering, political science, philosophy and social sciences. The term Neuro here alludes to the neurons, the billions of cells in the human brain, which are the biological computing units of our thoughts and beliefs. Billions of intricately connecting neurons form complex neural networks, whose activity produce sensations, perceptions, emotions and actions.
Many of us who react to the daily throes of political events may not be aware that a systematic approach for studying the neuroscience of politics exists and is gradually helping reveal the reasons for our political behavior. Neuropolitics can provide better understanding of how apparently normal people amongst us can commit politically motivated violent acts under certain circumstances.
In the early periods of its development political psychology worked with the traditional methods of behavioral psychology without delving into the biological and brain bases of its mechanisms. Most recently, though, neuroscience techniques have been applied to better understand brain bases of cognitive processes of political thinking. The modern field of Neuropolitics combines sophisticated techniques of brain scanning, psychological experiments, complex cognitive tests, and analytical and computational methods to study the political behavior.
But what is political behavior? Political behavior encompasses activities humans engage in ranging from mundane ones such as voting, to more intense undertakings such as dissents and protests, to violent behavior such as terrorism, genocide and war. Neuropolitics aims to answer questions such as, ¨why some people are conservative while others are liberal in outlook?¨, ¨why people hold on to their opinions even when they see evidence that contradicts those opinions?¨, ¨what determines who people vote for?¨, ¨what causes racism and genocide?¨, and ¨why nations involve themselves in wars?¨. Neuropolitics asks fundamental questions about our political beliefs and actions.
Human perceptions, emotions, beliefs, memories, decisions and actions are the result of biochemical processes in our brains. Hence, the proper understanding of our political attitudes, beliefs and behavior require the understanding of the brain bases of these mental functions. Neuropolitics uses the scientific methods of experimental and theoretical research to answer questions related at the individual level as well at the group level.
Recently, there have been political upheavals and large-scale protests in different parts of the world, including Chile, Hong Kong and India, to name a few, against the rise of authoritarian rule. In India, the passing of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has led to protests by students and later by a large number of people from different sections of the population. Interestingly, there have been demonstrations from both supporters and detractors of the CAA. This raises the question on why there is such polarization in the masses on political issues. What makes one individual or community oppose a government policy, an act, or a social issue while another individual or community vehemently supports it? What differences in the minds and the experiences of the opposing groups result in such disparate behavior? How do politicians exploit situations to increase polarization for their own benefit?
An example of how individual disposition can be studied in answering such questions is the use of the psychological construct called Confirmation Bias. Confirmation bias relates to an individual´s disposition to selectively gather evidence and place undue emphasis on only parts of evidence that support one´s belief. Conversely, it also means the selective neglect of evidence that contradicts one´s position. One may carry out selective choice either consciously and deliberately, or subconsciously, without being aware one´s own motives. Psychological experiments have shown that confirmation bias can be so strong that it could form the basis of misunderstandings, conflicts and disputes between individuals and nations.
Confirmation bias can be illustrated with gun control debates in the United States. If one is opposed to gun control, one would seek information that are aligned to this position. On the other hand, if one were to support gun control, one would seek news stories and opinion articles that reaffirm the need for gun control. When the two opposing parties hear or read news of shootings in the country, they interpret the information in ways that support their existing beliefs. The open question that Neuropolitics research may answer in the future is why confirmation bias exists, and the brain mechanisms and the individual dispositions that facilitate bias.
Given the adverse effects of confirmation bias to the individual and the society, research in Neuropolitics could provide a scientific and rational approach to overcome confirmation bias. With proper education in Neuropolitics, one may be able to maintain a belief that one holds in balance with an opposing view that one doesn´t hold and give both views rational consideration. The question as to whether political attitudes and beliefs can be overcome by certain ways of thinking would be important for the individual, society and the nation. Neuropolitics can a play a crucial role in this endeavor.
An excellent example of how research in Neuropolitics can shed light on the brain correlates of our strongly held political views was shown by a brain imaging study conducted by Amodio and other researchers of the New York University and the University of California and published in 2007 in the scientific journal Nature Neuroscience. The study showed the difference in the functioning of the brain area called Anterior Cingulate whose function is related to cognitive control and self-regulation. Liberals were shown to have greater sensitivity to conflicts in environmental cues in comparison to one´s own behavior, and hence had greater ability to change habitual behavior to differing circumstances. In contrast, conservatives showed greater rigidity in their minds that hindered them from adapting to novel situations.
Let´s now return our problems of polarization on CAA in India. It follows from Neuropolitics that to understand the mental and situational bases of the political, social, communal and religious unrest in India requires the application of the scientific principles and experimental findings in Neuropolitics by public intellectuals, politicians, political analysts, policy makers, and citizens of India. This movement should be led by the educated youth, professionals and leaders of India, taking active interest in the topic and by analyzing the contemporary political history as well as the ongoing situation. We may then find a new path away from the current religious bigotry, caste-based prejudice, communal bias, regressive superstition, authoritarian rule, irrational faith in our political leaders, and indifference to the breakdown of democratic institutions.
Further readings
Amodio, David M., John T. Jost, Sarah L. Master, and Cindy M. Yee. 2007. “Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism.” Nature Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1979.
Arendt, Hannah. 1999. Eichmann en Jerusalén. Claves de Razón Práctica.
Cottam, Martha L., Elena Mastors, Thomas Preston, and Beth Dietz. 2004. Introduction to Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609885.
Houghton, David Patrick. 2011. “Political Psychology.” In 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412979351.n7.
Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.
Schreiber, Darren. 2017. “Neuropolitics: Twenty Years Later.” Politics and the Life Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2017.25.
***
Eclectic Musings by Ranga Sitaram 