Neurobiology of Ideology
Tauhid Nur Azhar
Last week, the news was filled with reports of ministers bidding farewell to their working partners in parliament, who are also their partners in legislation. Although we all know that the relationship between executive officials and their legislative partners is highly dynamic and often marked by high-tension communication, it’s clear that emotional outbursts and heart-to-heart connections are a natural part of human interaction.
Self-actualization can take many forms, including developing unique communication styles that can be identified in various relationship models. However, it’s also important to note that interactions and communication styles can lead to misunderstandings, which can spark friction and conflict.
It was refreshing to hear Sri Mulyani Indrawati, the legendary Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia, apologize and quote the wise words “errare humane est” or “to err is human.” She also cited an Arabic phrase that translates to “humans are prone to mistakes and forgetfulness.” This was a beautiful display of introspection and contemplation, and it has the potential to resolve many deep-seated issues by promoting healthy relationships and mutual understanding.
This made me think that if officials and legislators can be so cordial and even emotional when parting ways, despite their differences in opinion and often tense interactions, what has been driving their opposing positions all along? Perhaps it’s a matter of perspective? The perceptions that arise from different perspectives can create the illusion of diametrically opposed positions, when in fact, the underlying intentions and values may be the same.
The fundamental values of humanity, which drive us to strive for greatness and goodness, are often articulated in different languages and styles, resulting in a diverse spectrum of ideologies. This is what Resza Yushardiansyah, a young lecturer in communication science and doctoral candidate, asked: why do humans create different ideologies? What is the relationship between our neuroscientific thinking and the emergence of various ideologies that often lead to conflicts and heated debates?
Neuroscience, the study of brain structure and function, has shed new light on how humans form beliefs about various ideologies, including capitalism, liberalism, socialism, and more. In political philosophy and social psychology, the formation of ideological beliefs is often linked to life experiences, education, and social factors. However, neuroscience introduces a new perspective that ideological beliefs can be mediated by biological processes in the human brain.
In the context of neuroscience, ideological beliefs can be seen as the result of complex interactions between different brain regions responsible for information processing, decision-making, and emotional experiences. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, argues in his theory of The Righteous Mind that political and moral beliefs are more driven by emotional intuition than rational argumentation (Haidt, 2012).
The human brain responds to ideas that align with its values and personal experiences, shaping a particular ideological mindset.
Studies have shown that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is involved in decision-making and problem-solving, including the evaluation of political ideologies (Kaplan, Gimbel, & Harris, 2016). Individuals with higher DLPFC activity tend to have more moderate political views and are able to consider arguments from different perspectives.
On the other hand, research has found that those with greater involvement of the amygdala, an area involved in emotional responses, are more likely to support extreme or dogmatic ideologies (Schreiber et al., 2013).
Capitalism, with its focus on economic freedom and open markets, is often associated with rational and individualistic thinking. Milton Friedman argued that capitalism allows individuals to make economic decisions freely, with minimal government intervention (Friedman, 1962).
From a neuroscientific perspective, supporters of capitalism may have increased activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), an area involved in value-based decision-making (Kahnt & Tobler, 2017). VMPFC activity enables individuals to evaluate the pros and cons of economic decisions and prioritize personal or small-group benefits.
In contrast, liberalism is often associated with the view that individual freedom and human rights should be prioritized. Research has found that supporters of liberal ideologies are more likely to show activation in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), an area involved in conflict processing and social empathy (Amodio et al., 2007). ACC activation enables individuals to be more open to different perspectives and more tolerant of uncertainty.
John Locke, a philosopher who supported liberalism, emphasized that humans have inherent rights that should be respected by the state and society, a view rooted in empathy and value-driven decision-making.
Socialism, on the other hand, focuses on economic equality and wealth redistribution, often based on collectivist principles. According to neuroscience, supporters of socialism may have greater involvement of the medial orbitofrontal cortex (MOFC), an area involved in empathy, social morality, and collective action (Zaki & Mitchell, 2013).
Karl Marx argued that the working class has a responsibility to fight economic injustice through collective action, which involves decisions often driven by social values and a sense of justice.
The process of forming ideological beliefs is the result of an interaction between neurobiological and social mechanisms. The human brain has a tendency to reinforce existing beliefs, a process known as confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998).
The striatum, an area involved in reward and learning, tends to strengthen ideological beliefs that support an individual’s perspective, while contradictory information is often ignored or rejected.
Additionally, research in neuroplasticity has shown that life experiences and social environments can change neural connection patterns in the brain, which in turn influences how individuals form and hold ideological beliefs (Eagleman, 2015). This explains why individuals from different social, educational, and economic backgrounds tend to have different ideologies.
But ultimately, whatever values or ideologies humans believe in, they are all cumulative products of sensory experiences that are processed cognitively and produce affective projections that become part of perception and communication in various interaction models, and eventually become references that produce communal preferences after interpersonal fine-tuning through intense relational models in closed habitats or ecosystems that give birth to shared interests and needs, don’t they?
