A Political Koan

Most of us abhor the smell of death. Perhaps there is a biological reason for it - being around death may result in one's own death.

In a similar way, there are also a finite set of fears that are hardwired into our body-consciousness. Examples include snakes, falling, things associated with disease, and loud noises.

Many of us are fearful of those who may be distinguished from ourselves on certain attributes, as perhaps singularly captured in the following excerpt from the Social Workers Code of Ethics "(d) Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability." See: https://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp

But why?

In an effort to overcome this, the Social Workers Code of Ethics is basically saying that it frowns upon people who have aversions to any of the listed attribute.

What follows will walk through some touchy subjects for more or less all of us.

It starts by asking the question: Is rejection of people with attributes listed in the Social Workers Code of Ethics possibly a function of evolutionary biology in the same way that an ugly person may not gain as much acceptance as someone who is considered to be beautiful?

Perhaps such mechanisms are there to propagate genes adapted to the current environmental situation . We are informed by Psyc 101 courses in university that individuals considered beautiful basically have average faces. To borrow from Jung et al, perhaps these faces are merely as 'subconscious' symbolism of an averaging of the collective gene pool of humanity - a representation of the average traits of all of us, at least as it applies to bodily structure.

Consider the revulsion that some have described upon seeing:

• persons with extreme characteristics such as obese, anorexic; or
• public displays of affection.

While one could argue that such attitudes are learned in childhood, and perhaps they are, but there are other things that humans are reportedly afraid of from birth - true scientific understanding is hardly complete.

Perhaps the body has mechanisms, hard wired, to find certain things revolting and if you're still not convinced, I return to the smell of death, which is captured in a particular molecule, or the smell of sulfur seen in rotting eggs or gaseous admissions from people and animals alike. Consider that in the the selection of your mate there was some level of their appearance that was considered a factor in the selection criteria, whether you were consciously aware of it or not. If your mate had an extra 200 pounds on their body would you have accepted them? 900lbs? OK fine, what if they looked like Cousin It of the Addams family?

Whether this revulsion function is biological or mental it's hard to say, and it may differ from person to person, as will be explained. I'm about to really touch some nerves, so let me remind everyone we are talking about people on all accounts. If the above attributes described in the Social Workers' Code of Ethics are truly not a choice, then perhaps being revulsed by them (or other attributes) is as well, not a choice? That shoe being on the other foot may cause shock, in some.

Case in point, I personally have no idea what women find attractive about men. I find them to be pretty gross and it literally turns my stomach to even think of kissing one, in the same way that I'd be repulsed by the notion of incest. Different strokes for different folks. But if I see two guys being gay, I don't really think about it all that much - unless they're just being obnoxious or something.

IF it is true that these revulsion functions of the mind are a result of evolution, then perhaps they exist to prevent further propagation of such attributes into the gene pool, or dare I say - to retain the purity in expression of certain genes. Perhaps a polar bear is less apt to select a grizzly bear as a mate if a grizzly bear would make children that are easier to spot in the Artic, and thus would reduce the chances of sneaking up on prey/

Of course, this form of evolutionary biology assumes that we are nothing more than advanced animals.

Perhaps we have an animal side and another side that can also be evolved, a mental side.

Evolution of this mental side may include rising above our basal "evolutionary code" -- which may include revising or attempting to overcome the existing 'hardwiring' where it makes sense. For example, the author of this article will hang onto the fear of snakes, for now, but since humanity is no longer threatened by genes which could endanger the propagation of humanity's own gene pool, perhaps there is good reason to override some of the other functions. Humans certainly do this when going to the amusement park and confronting the fear of heights and falling - why not apply overcoming such fears or revulsion elsewhere and apply some compassion for folks who perhaps through no fault of their own have a heavier burden to carry with respect to the social acceptance of the attributes listed by the Social Workers' Code of Ethics.

Further, we must ask - in the same way that fear could be the driver for the rejection mechanisms or biases include in some people's constitutions, is there perhaps another driver for mental development? While it may not mean it this way, the Social Workers Code of Ethics could be interpreted dissimilar codes or specifically, political beliefs which reject the Social Workers' Code of Ethics.

If true, One may ask, does the above assertion work, if the political belief in question does not support the above notions? What if the political belief in question chooses to differ on some of the noted attributes? Perhaps one resolution to this seeming problem is that groups of differing political ideology could be allowed to exist in the same system, apart from the influences of force by other political beliefs. In addition, the above list of traits no doubt originates from a place of acceptance and welcoming; however, it has perhaps reached some breaking point, in that, those who differ on the basis of the attributes described, may find themselves "dominated" by that very political belief of inclusion, when separation is what is desired, stated simply, removing the word, expectant mother, in favor of expectant parent is a little over the top for some. and may include not only revising that code, but learning that others may not have yet evolved their own code to the point of being able to evolve their own code or at the same rate. This may lead us to

And on my own journey I'm slowly but surely learning as I encounter different mindsets that each one tends to contain a certain nugget of truth. Although, like The Princess and the Pea, it may be wrapped in layers upon layers of other things. The golden(?????) is to dig for the nugget of gold, to find the element of truth buried in those perspectives that one may encounter in life. Mother nature or God or whatever term you prefer has surely formed such individuals in the same way they have formed yourself.