Neuropolitics: what your brain reveals about your politics

Political neuroscience or neuropolitics is but a foetus in the scientific world, only gaining moderate traction in the last 50 years. It is rather telling that Microsoft is underlining the word “neuropolitics” with their infamous red line as I write. Having added it to my personal dictionary, it is important to note the factors that have led to its belated entrance into the scientific and political sphere.

One of the great impediments of neuropolitics are early insistences that politics, an inherently emotional and subjective concept, cannot possibly be explained in biological and certainly neurological terms. The Renaissance philosopher Rene Descartes separated the mind from the body in his work, establishing a precedent that neurology could not explain one’s behaviour. The brain’s involvement in such traits was limited to “experiences of the mind” as concluded by neurologist Sigmund Freud and philosopher John Locke. Consequently, any role biology may have played in one’s political behaviour was promptly dismissed.

The first rigorous studies of political neuroscience emerged in the 1970s with Roger Sperry’s experiments on split-brain patients. The split-brain arises from patients with severe epilepsy who have the connections between their brain hemispheres severed in order to reduce the symptoms of the disease. Sperry then showed them pictures of political figures such as Hitler and Nixon to only one eye at a time to determine whether both hemispheres were capable of processing and reporting attitudes to the political stimuli. Although revolutionary in its time and earning Sperry a Nobel Prize, it is rather primitive in comparison to the observations made using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI).

The process of fMRI is quite simple. When we think, the brain needs oxygen. Oxygen is carried around in our blood which contain iron. Naturally, iron is magnetic and shows up on a magnetic scanner. In practice, if a person is recalling a memory, blood will rush to the associated region, now called the hippocampus, and the fMRI scanner will record this. This shows neurologists that the hippocampus is responsible for recollection. For neuropolitics, this means being able to link activities in certain regions of the brain to certain political attitudes and behaviours.

One interesting observation relates to tendencies towards political extremism. For those more likely to participate in violent protest, greater activity is found in the amygdala region, a part associated with fear and anger. More so than others, these people will react to political aversion with aggression and are less likely to engage in constructive political discourse. Another trend with extremists is damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area linked with social intelligence and tolerance. This is quite conceivable considering those on the extreme ends of the spectrum have little leniency towards opposing political thought, hence the lack of tolerance. A further neurological link to extremism, rather contentious, is difficulty completing complex cognitive tasks. Those who struggle to take those intricate mental steps may resort to ideologies that simplify the world, labelling groups neatly and churning out sweeping generalisations. Their attraction to impulsive and often violent solutions perhaps overcompensates for their slow perceptual processing.

Other conclusions drawn indicate one’s position on the political compass. Rightist thinkers tend to have higher activation in their dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is linked with scepticism towards change. Such traits lend to greater support for reactionary politics like conservatism and preservation politics like nationalism. Right-wingers tend to place considerable value on historical precedence, explaining their traditionalist stance on the transgender debate, immigration, and wealth redistribution.

For those on the centre-left, increased grey matter volume - indicating increased activity – in the anterior cingulate cortex highlighted greater levels of empathy, with which the region is associated. This may explain liberal support for community-minded policies such as universal healthcare, unemployment and sickness benefits, and social housing. Such policies may not necessarily benefit one directly but the heightened ability and desire to think in place of others encourages support of them regardless.

Ultimately, we must keep in mind that the brain is full of complex, interlinking structures, and it is rather difficult to attribute behaviours to solely one region. However, the relationship between neurological activity and one’s political tendencies cannot be denied. Such predictions can be made with up to 85% accuracy. Whether this will strengthen the fabric of our democracy is a debate to be had, but it will certainly explain why the electorate behaves as it does and, ultimately, why the political sphere is as it is.