Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T06:18:16.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Status politics is the origin of morality policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2023

Dane G. Wendell  and
Raymond Tatalovich
Dane G. Wendell*
Affiliation:
Illinois College, Jacksonville, IL, USA
Raymond Tatalovich
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, IL, USA
*
Corresponding author: Dane G. Wendell; Email: dane.wendell@ic.edu
Get access

Abstract

After drawing a distinction between “class” and “status,” an early but short-lived sociological literature on status politics is reviewed. That approach has lost favor, but moral foundations theory (MFT) offers a new opportunity to link morality policy to status politics. While any of the five moral foundations (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity) can provoke conflict over status, most often sanctity is the cause of status politics because it engages the emotion of disgust. Disgust drives the behavioral immune system, which prevents us from being infected by contaminants in tainted food or by “outsiders” who are perceived to follow unconventional practices. This research note concludes by referencing 20 empirical studies in which feelings of disgust targeted certain groups or practices in society (i.e., immigrants, criminals, abortion). Thus, status politics is the origin of morality policy.

Keywords

status politicsmorality policydisgustmoral foundations theory
Type
Research Notes
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , Fall 2023 , pp. 306 - 315
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarøe, L., Petersen, M. B., & Arceneaux, K. (2017). The behavioral immune system shapes political intuitions: Why and how individual differences in disgust sensitivity underlie opposition to immigration. American Political Science Review, 111(2), 277–294.10.1017/S0003055416000770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarøe, L., Petersen, M. B., & Arceneaux, K. (2020). The behavioral immune system shapes partisan preferences in modern democracies: Disgust sensitivity predicts voting for socially conservative parties. Political Psychology, 41(6), 1073–1091.10.1111/pops.12665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, B. N., Schumacher, G., Gothreau, C., & Arceneaux, K. (2020). Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 613–621.10.1038/s41562-020-0823-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, A. (1987). Moral protest, status defence and the anti-abortion campaign. British Journal of Sociology, 38(2), 235–253.10.2307/590534CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clifford, S., Erisen, C., Wendell, D., & Cantú, F. (2022). Disgust sensitivity and support for immigration across five nations. Politics and the Life Sciences, 41(2), 65–80.Google Scholar
Clifford, S., & Piston, S. (2017). Explaining public support for counterproductive homelessness policy: The role of disgust. Political Behavior, 39(2), 503–525.10.1007/s11109-016-9366-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J. T., Inbar, Y., & Maloney, V. (2014). Disgust sensitivity selectively predicts attitudes toward groups that threaten (or uphold) traditional sexual morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 218–223.10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elad-Strenger, J. E., Proch, J., & Kessler, T. (2020). Is disgust a “conservative” emotion? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(6), 896–912.10.1177/0146167219880191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engeli, I., Green-Pedersen, C., & Larsen, T. L. (Eds.). (2012). Morality politics in Western Europe: Parties, agendas and policy choices. Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137016690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, J., Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. (2004). Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 333–353.10.1177/1368430204046142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24, 56–62.10.1177/0956797612449177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleischmann, A., & Moyer, L. (2009). Competing social movements and local political culture: Voting on ballot propositions to ban same-sex marriage in the U.S. states. Social Science Quarterly, 90(1), 134–149.10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00607.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frendreis, J., & Tatalovich, R. (2010). A hundred miles of dry: Religion and the persistence of Prohibition in the U.S. states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 10(3), 302–319.10.1177/153244001001000305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frimer, J. A., Caitlin, E. T., & Motyl, M. (2017). Sacralizing liberals and fair-minded conservatives: Ideological symmetry in the moral motives in the culture war. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 17(1), 33–59.10.1111/asap.12127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (Eds.). (1958). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., & Wojcik, S. P. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.10.1037/a0015141CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gusfield, J. R. (1963). Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American temperance movement. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, D. P. (2001). Policy diffusion as a geographical expansion of the scope of political conflict: Same-sex marriage bans in the 1990s. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 1(1), 5–26.10.1177/153244000100100102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Meier, K. J. (1996). The politics of gay and lesbian rights: Expanding the scope of the conflict. The Journal of Politics, 58(2), 332–349.10.2307/2960229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.10.1007/s11211-007-0034-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., & Hersh, M.A. (2001). Sexual morality: The cultures and emotions of conservatives and liberals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 191–221.10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02489.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature, 133(4), 55–66.10.1162/0011526042365555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., Rozin, P., McCauley, C., & Imada, S. (1997). Body, psyche, and culture: The relationship of disgust to morality. Psychology and Developing Societies, 9(1), 107–131.10.1177/097133369700900105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodson, G., & Costello, K. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18(8), 691–698.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01962.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofstadter, R. (1955). The pseudo-conservative revolt. In Bell, D. (Ed.), The new American right (pp. 33–55). Criterion Books.Google Scholar
Horberg, E. J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohen, A. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 963–976.10.1037/a0017423CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.10.1080/02699930802110007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Knobe, J., & Bloom, P. (2009). Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive disapproval of gays. Emotion, 9(3), 435–439.10.1037/a0015960CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iyer, R., Graham, J., Koleva, S., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond identity politics: Moral psychology and the 2008 Democratic primary. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 10(1), 293–300.10.1111/j.1530-2415.2010.01203.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A., & Fitness, J. (2008). Moral hypervigilance: The influence of disgust sensitivity in the moral domain. Emotion, 8(5), 613–627.10.1037/a0013435CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kam, C. D., & Estes, B. A. (2016). Disgust sensitivity and public demand for protection. The Journal of Politics, 78(2), 481–496.10.1086/684611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, J. (1979). Controlling firearms. Cleveland State Law Review, 28(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Karinen, A. K., Molho, C., Kupfer, T. R., & Tybur, J. M. (2019). Disgust sensitivity and opposition to immigration: Does contact avoidance or resistance to foreign norms explain the relationship? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 1–11.10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleck, G., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2009). Why do people support gun control? Alternative explanations of support for handgun bans. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(5), 496–504.10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.07.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knill, C., Adam, C., & Hurka, S. (2015). On the road to permissiveness? Change and convergence of moral regulation in Europe. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198743989.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, D. L., Tybur, J. M., & Latner, J. D. (2012). Disgust sensitivity, obesity stigma, and gender: Contamination psychology predicts weight bias for women, not men. Obesity, 20(9), 1803–1814.10.1038/oby.2011.247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, K. J. (1994). The politics of sin. M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Meier, K. J. (2001). Drugs, sex, and rock, and roll: A theory of morality politics. In Mooney, C. Z. (Ed.), The public clash of private values: The politics of morality policy (pp. 21–36). Chatham House.Google Scholar
Milfont, T. L., Davies, C. L., & Wilson, M. S. (2019). The moral foundations of environmentalism: Care- and fairness-based morality interact with political liberalism to predict pro-environmental actions. Social Psychological Bulletin, 14(2), Article e32633.10.32872/spb.v14i2.32633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. R., Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Lewis, D. C., Tadlock, B. L., & Taylor, J. K. (2017). Transgender politics as body politics: Effects of disgust sensitivity and authoritarianism on transgender rights attitudes. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5(1), 4–24.10.1080/21565503.2016.1260482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moen, M. C. (1984). School prayer and the politics of life-style concern. Social Science Quarterly, 65(4), 1065–1071.Google Scholar
Mooney, C. Z. (Ed.). (2001). The public clash of private values: The politics of morality policy. Chatham House.Google Scholar
Mooney, C. Z., & Lee, M. H. (2000). The influence of values on consensus and contentious morality policy: U.S. death penalty reform, 1956–82. The Journal of Politics, 62(1), 223–239.10.1111/0022-3816.00011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, G. (2012, March 4). Are you easily disgusted? You may be a conservative. Psychology Today, 1–5.Google Scholar
Navarrete, C. D., & Fessler, D. M. (2006). Disease avoidance and ethnocentrism: The effects of disease vulnerability and disgust sensitivity on intergroup attitudes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(4), 270–282.10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olatunji, B. O. (2008). Disgust, scrupulosity and conservative attitudes about sex: Evidence for a mediational model of homophobia. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1364–1369.10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, A. L., & Clelland, D. A. (1978). The Kanawha County textbook controversy: A study of the politics of life style concern. Social Forces, 57(1), 265–281.10.2307/2577638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. H., Faulkner, J., & Schaller, M. (2003). Evolved disease-avoidance processes and contemporary anti-social behavior: Prejudicial attitudes and avoidance of people with physical disabilities. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(2), 65–87.10.1023/A:1023910408854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. H., Schaller, M., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Pathogen-avoidance mechanisms and the stigmatization of obese people. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 410–41410.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rodgers, H. R. Jr. (1975). Prelude to conflict: The evolution of censorship campaigns. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(2), 194–205.10.2307/1388632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roh, J., & Berry, F. S. (2008). Modeling the outcomes of state abortion funding referenda: Morality or redistributive policy, or both? State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 8(1), 66–87.10.1177/153244000800800105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roh, J., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2003). All politics is not local: National forces in state abortion initiatives. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 15–31.10.1111/1540-6237.t01-1-8401002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozin, P., & Singh, L. (1999). The moralization of cigarette smoking in the United States. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 321–337.10.1207/s15327663jcp0803_07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruonavaara, H. (2022). Moral regulation as status politics: A critical reconstruction of Joseph R. Gusfield’s theory. Journal of Classical Sociology, 22(3), 304–319.10.1177/1468795X211025169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, M., & Park, J. H. (2011). The behavioral immune system (and why it matters). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 99–103.10.1177/0963721411402596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, M. A., & Tatalovich, R. (2018). The rise and fall of moral conflicts in the United States and Canada. University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442625044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, W. J. (1985). The Equal Rights Amendment as status politics. Social Forces, 64(2), 499–506.10.2307/2578653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smelser, N. J. (1962). Theory of collective behavior. Free Press.Google Scholar
Steidley, T., & Kosla, M. T. (2018). Toward a status anxiety theory of macro-level firearm demand. Social Currents, 5(1), 86–103.10.1177/2329496517725332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steidley, T., & Trujillo, D. (2021). Status politics and the political influences of concealed handgun license demand in Texas. Sociological Quarterly, 62(4), 665–689.10.1080/00380253.2020.1803157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studlar, D. T. (2001). What constitutes morality policy? A cross-national analysis. In Mooney, C. Z. (Ed.), The public clash of private values: The politics of morality policy (pp. 37–51). Chatham House.Google Scholar
Tatalovich, R., & Daynes, B. W. (Eds.). (2011). Moral controversies in American politics (4th ed.). M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Tatalovich, R., & Wendell, D. G. (2018). Expanding the scope and content of morality policy research: lessons from moral foundations theory. Policy Sciences, 51(4), 565–579.10.1007/s11077-018-9329-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrizzi, J. A. Jr., Shook, N. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). The behavioral immune system and social conservatism: A meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(2), 99–108.10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrizzi, J. A. Jr., Shook, N. J., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 587–592.10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 103–122.10.1037/a0015474CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanaman, M. E., & Chapman, H. A. (2020). Disgust and disgust-driven moral concerns predict support for restrictions on transgender bathroom access. Politics and the Life Sciences, 39(2), 200–214.10.1017/pls.2020.20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, C. R., & Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34(1), 107–126.10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00922.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendell, D. G., & Tatalovich, R. (2021). Classifying public policies with moral foundations theory. Policy Sciences, 54, 155–182.10.1007/s11077-020-09399-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, M., & Hughes, M. (1984). The moral basis of moral reform: Status discontent vs. culture and socialization as explanations of anti-pornography social movement adherence. American Sociological Review, 49(1), 86–99.10.2307/2095559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurcher, L. A. Jr., Kirkpatrick, A., Cushing, R. G., & Bowman, C. K. (1971). The anti-pornography campaign: A symbolic crusade. Social Problems, 19(2), 217–238.10.2307/799486CrossRefGoogle Scholar