A gene for Liberalism?

Image from telegraph.co.uk

According to a new study published by Cambridge University Press, Liberalism (as in the modern leftist kind, not the Classical kind) may be genetically determined by a certain type of dopamine receptor.

"Dopamine is a neurotransmitter affecting brain processes that control movement, emotional response, and ability to experience pleasure and pain. Previous research has identified a connection between a variant of this gene and novelty-seeking behaviour, and this behaviour has previously been associated with personality traits related to political liberalism."

The implication being that individuals who are genetically predetermined to seek and engage in a wider variety of experiences are more likely to adopt a leftist political ideology based on the principle of social egalitarianism. This may all be well and good - and indeed at least anecdotally verifiable (after all, those individuals who interact with others from more diverse social backgrounds are usually inclined to hold a belief about the equality of all individuals that may then be translated onto a more political spectrum) - but this also seems to suggests that those individuals who do not possess this gene are naturally more callous and inclined to shy away from novelty or excitement. This seems to me to be problematic on two levels. Firstly, it presupposes that political Liberalism is the natural expression of an intrinsic sense of humanity and understanding; and secondly, it assumes that those individuals who do not subscribe to Liberalism per se are necessarily more conservative and more closed than those who do.

And this serves to highlight the whole problem with Liberalism in the first place : that those who subscribe to it often consider themselves to be morally and socially superior to those who don't. Moreover, Liberalism also has the tendency to become polarised and exaggerated into dangerous political ideologies, like Communism and Socialism, that when fully developed threaten to undermine the very sentiment of common humanity that inspired them in the first place. It may well be true that nurturing a sense of human equality can only be a good thing; if it weren't for our concern with universal human rights and equality of opportunity then our society would not be where it is today. But to suggest that political Liberalism is both the natural and appropriate expression of this concern for human welfare betrays the very trap of self-righteousness and moral priggishness that Liberals so often fall into. Just because an act is motivated by a sense of benevolence and altruism (for example, giving money to a tramp on the street despite the likelihood that it will be spent on drugs or alcohol) does not necessarily make it right. Liberals need to take off their rose-tinted glasses and see the world as it really is - because grand theories of social egalitarianism cannot and will not work (as much as we might like them to) within the current social climate.

So this study, in its own way, has exposed two very important issues surrounding political Liberalism. One is the tendency for Liberals to consider themselves to be morally superior to non-Liberals; and the other is to prove, scientifically, that a subscription to Liberalism requires a certain type of mentality: one that is simultaneously idealistic and immune to any sense of reality or pain, be it social or physical (hence the dopamine connection). The fact that a gene that serves to make us more liable to take risks and to seek new and dangerous experiences also tends to make an individual more likely to adopt a Liberal mindset is itself highly telling.