Ranger School: The Parasite Stress Hypothesis
~How Pathogens and Disease Influence Authoritarianism.~ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641067/

The concept of the Parasite-Stress Hypothesis was created to investigate to what extent disease and parasites in a community (or nation-state) influence a government becoming authoritarian.

The authors looked to sort out whether authoritarianism arises independent of disease prevalence, or as a result of it. They found that “disease control has historically depended substantially on adherence to ritualized behavioral practices that reduced infection risk.”

Additionally, those that did not conform to the established traditions “posed a health threat to self and others.” In essence, cultural and religious practices often arose from a need to circumvent infectious disease within the community.

The authors: “at a psychological level of analysis, empirical evidence reveals that the subjective perception of infection risk causes individuals to be more conformist, to prefer conformity and obedience in others, to respond more negatively towards others who fail to conform…

Meaning, if a group “perceives” a threat of infection, they will be more prone to navigate towards authoritarianism. Also, those individuals that perceive themselves as vulnerable to infection (whether true or not) tend to favor more “xenophobic and ethnocentric attitudes.”

What the authors also found in their research was that authoritarian governments were less likely to arise from a colonizing of political and systemic ideologies. Rather, this “top down control” originated from the individual, and worked its way to the group or governmental level

In other words, as individuals became more wary of disease prevalence, they either voted for or personally demanded more and more control over the populace. They added that authoritarianism becomes even more likely (and aggressive) when scarcity is added to the mix.

Therefore, a perceived threat of infectious disease, combined with prolonged scarcity will lean heavily towards authoritarian rule.

In their research article, Murray, Schaller, and Suedfeld many times make several references to the “perception” of vulnerability to infection.

They also speak to the psychological evidence that supports their findings in which individuals will become more conformist and intolerant of behaviors that do not comply with implemented control measures

What is especially noteworthy is the statement “the subjective perception of infection risk.” It is not only when facing actual disease pathogens that people become authoritarian, but also the mere fact that the individual suspects there could be.

Therefore, any disease threat detection (whether real or perceived) leads the individual to change daily behaviors and routines in an attempt to prevent infection.

Over time, these new behaviors are pushed out from the single person to the family, church, etc. This new mindset influences how people vote, how they interact with each other, what the local academic curriculum focuses on, and how they view foreigners (the unknown).

It is reasonable to make a hypothesis that many cultural behaviors (especially those that are tyrannical or authoritarian in nature) are a direct result of the collected individual responses to the handling of an epidemic or pandemic.

The authors write in their conclusion that if their findings stay true, the PSH will not only have direct implications for human health and survival, but “they may also have indirect consequences for individual rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms.”

This in turn potentially promotes more xenophobia and other prejudices linked with authoritarianism, while reducing “levels of creativity, innovation, and open-mindedness more generally.”

Essentially, the average person becomes fearful of those who are different for fear of (real or perceived) threats to themselves and their family. The longer that fear goes unabated, the smaller the core of people and institutions that individual trusts.

he length of time that authoritarian rule maintains power over the populace, affects how much more the individual potentially becomes polarized towards their “tribe.”

As a region or culture maintains a prolonged disease prevalence (or perception of one), those peoples “more strongly endorse 'binding' moral values that emphasize group loyalty, obedience, and respect for authority.”

And therefore, there is very real potential for an increase in nepotism and ethnocentrism. Effectively, the individual will default to only those (other people, groups, institutions) whom they know and trust.

In their conclusion, Murray, Schaller, and Suedfeld note a “relationship between a conceptually distinct form of threat—the threat of infectious disease—and individuals’ authoritarian tendencies.”

Emphasizing through their research that while other forms of threat can play a role in bringing about authoritarian rule; it is disease pathogens that have the most influential and lasting impact.

They also go on to express that there is “additional evidence indicating that individuals are sensitive to disease-connoting cues within their immediate environment.”

That these “cues” influence “functionally adaptive shifts in cognition and behavior” in the individual, local group, and national group. Essentially, these shifts in “cognition and behavior” brings about the new normalizing of actions and attitudes into the culture at large.

Recognize that the authors mention “disease-connoting cues” as an evidence based measure that influences authoritarian rule. This means that not only does direct, prolonged threat of disease pathogens promote governmental control (local and national),

but also the mere suggestion of such pathogens evokes emotional responses that lends toward authoritarianism. Effectively, Pavlov’s classical conditioning is manifested at the individual, cultural, and societal level.

So there in lies the conflict; liberal and libertarian values clashing with authoritarian and governmental control. But when do authoritative (not to be confused with authoritarianism) measures become all out authoritarianism?