Image

So today we are talking about disgust…

This is from yesterday’s Discovery on the BBC World Service, a documentary by Claudia Hammond on disgust – its natural purpose in helping us to steer clear of disease risks, how we learn disgust, its possible role in moral judgment, and even a possible link between disgust sensitivity and political opinions. I decided to split my response to this very interesting piece into two posts (see Part 1 here) because the types of disgust I wanted to talk about naturally fall into two camps – the physical or “basic” disgust response to perceived disease risks and the moral or social disgust response to people or actions of which we strongly disapprove.

There is by all accounts some fairly plausible evidence that disgust is not just an emotional but also a physical reaction: we don’t just feel mentally or emotionally repelled, we feel physically repelled. Well, duh. When the idea of touching something makes you want to vomit, or makes your insides literally and physically clench – that’s physical. But there are other, measurable physiological effects as well, including a slowing of the heart rate and activity in a specific part of the brain. This is quite different from other possible reactions such as fear or anger, where the heart rate increases and different parts of the brain are involved.

Consequently, it is possible to analyse what images, sounds or experiences evoke disgust in a subject who is wired up to a heart rate monitor or brain scanner.

Studies have been done to see whether the moral judgement of “disgusting” (such as we might feel for, say, Richard Littlejohn) is merely metaphorical or whether it really does involve the physiological form of disgust. Some studies showed a clear link, in that when people were shown things that they found to be morally “disgusting” they really did exhibit the physiological symptoms of disgust.

Interestingly, where the disgust related to images of people – homeless people or drug addicts evoked disgust in many subjects – the symptoms of disgust were associated with something rather disquieting. There is a part of the brain that reacts when a person is looking at another human being. The “disgusting” people did not cause that reaction – in the minds of the person who was disgusted by them, they were not really seen as people at all. Less than human.

Other studies have been done suggesting a plausible link between disgust sensitivity and political opinions. People were tested on how disgusted they were by a range of possible disgust triggers, and were then asked about their political views on a range of issues. It turns out that people who scored high on disgust were also more likely to have conservative / rightwing opinions on a range of political issues including such seemingly neutral issues as tax rates.

The interviewee speculated that this connection was based on or stemmed from sexual disgust. People who were sensitive to disgust were more likely to feel (morally?) disgusted by sexual acts that they did not personally enjoy and therefore more likely to align themselves with people (in groups including political groups) who shared that disgust – and then to pick up political opinions on unrelated issues simply because they have mixed with those people.

To my mind that whole idea is rather circular – why is a shared disgust for certain sexual practices related in the first place with conservative or rightwing views on tax or foreign policy? On this basis, the coincidence of disgust and rightwing politics might just as easily work the other way around: maybe people who come together to talk about tax or foreign policy influence each other’s disgust sensitivity. That is, people who like to pay the minimum taxes necessary to bomb the crap out of brown people might influence one another to be disgusted by homosexual acts; while people who don’t mind paying more taxes if it means we can have decent schools and hospitals and a humane foreign policy might influence one another to believe that whatever you want, man, that’s cool. But why would they? We could go round like this for ages.

As usual, I have my own theory, which seems to make a lot more sense.

People who are more easily disgusted by, say, bowls of sick or hairy warts, are certainly more likely to be disgusted by obviously physical things like sex acts they don’t like the sound of, or by the idea of someone injecting drugs into their body, or by images of an aborted foetus. But as research suggests, they may also be more easily disgusted by other people, and more likely to view other people as not really human.

Consequently, they will be less likely to care if lower taxes mean more hardship for those already living in poverty; they will be less likely to worry if an aggressive foreign policy means that brown people will suffer or die; they will be less likely to view certain people (women, brown people, disabled people, gay people, poor people, the drug-addicted, criminals, fat people, vagrants and basically anyone not like them) as fully deserving of the same basic rights and standard of living that people like them take for granted.

And you know what’s really disgusting?
The idea that people who are not like you are not people.

Image

Yesterday, Discovery on the BBC World Service was a documentary by Claudia Hammond on disgust – its natural purpose in helping us to steer clear of disease risks, how we learn disgust, its possible role in moral judgment, and even a possible link between disgust sensitivity and political opinions.

As for how we learn disgust, I was pretty unconvinced by the section on this.

One theory (Freud, hey-ho) is that we learn to be disgusted by poo when toilet training takes place. That one is clearly wrong because, Reason Number Blatantly Obvious 1, even in cultures where toilets and nappies are unknown and so there is no transition between the two, people are disgusted by poo. Also, Reason Number Blatantly Obvious 2, as anyone who knows any actual children (other than the Standard Issue Child that scientists seem to use when theorising about how we learn stuff) will tell you, children learn different things including disgust at different stages.

I know people whose children were, or at least seemed, disgusted by the contents of their nappy long before they were able to use a toilet or potty reliably.

And I know at least one child (mine) who is not disgusted by the contents of the toilet when she has done a poo. She knows, because she has been taught, that poo is dirty, that you shouldn’t touch it if you can help it, and that you certainly shouldn’t eat it. But she isn’t disgusted by it. She is if anything curious about it, comparing sizes and shapes and colours with Other Poos We Have Seen. “Look mummy I done a big one and a little one and the big one looks like a sausage. But we don’t eat poo because its horrible. But we do eat sausages because I like sausages and they are yummy.” – does that sound like disgust?

Another theory is that children are hard-wired to be disgusted by certain things, and this just sort of kicks in at, coincidentally, the same time as Western children are often learning to use a toilet and – more importantly in evolutionary terms – Stoneage children are starting to gather and select their own food. That one has a ring of plausibility but must also fail, because in different cultures people are disgusted by different things. OK, pretty much everybody is disgusted by some core items (like poo), but clearly disgust is learned to some extent or why would some poeple find the idea of eating snails or rats disgusting while others think it perfectly acceptable?

Clearly children do learn disgust at some point – or at least they learn at some point what is disgusting. That’s pretty much my theory anyway. That children may be hard-wired to start feeling disgust at some stage, quite possibly at about the time they start making their own food choices while out and about in the wild; but that what disgusts them is learned from their carers.

What ought we to teach our children to find disgusting?

When it comes to disgust that comes from potential disease risks (rotten food, unidentified bugs, bodily wastes, other people’s suppurating pores) I make an effort with Ariel to model not disgust but curiosity mixed with common sense – we want to know what things are but we know it isn’t always sensible to touch or eat them because we know that some things aren’t good for you or don’t taste very nice. This is quite deliberate. I don’t want to teach Ariel to be viscerally disgusted by everyday things, because I don’t see disgust as a very helpful response to most situations. If she decides later in life to work in healthcare, strong reactions of disgust to bodily waste are not going to be helpful to her. If she finds herself in a jungle with nothing to eat but grubs and snakes, disgust will not be a useful tool for her. Armed with common sense and a little knowledge about the world, she doesn’t need disgust.

With luck, the only use Ariel will have for disgust is moral disgust: and that’s a whole nother story. See Part 2.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started