Anti-Vaccination Unmasked: Part 2

How pernicious anti-vaccination extremism reflects the worst in us all

A BRIEF PRIMER

In Anti-Vaccination Unmasked: Part 1, we discussed two main approaches to vaccine refusal or unremitting skepticism of vaccines: premodern and postmodern. From the premodern (or traditional) anti-vaccination perspective, vaccines are terrifying and mysterious. A deficiency in basic knowledge of chemistry, biology, and medicine is typically the root cause. Most achieve a working understanding of these subjects in late elementary or middle school, so one need not have a Ph.D. in immunology to grasp the mechanics of vaccines, only to attend school in a modern country. Unfortunately, some people, even in the United States, haven't had access to this primary education, leading to a great deal of apprehension around modern medicine.

On the other hand, postmodern vaccine hesitation rejects modern, mainstream scientific knowledge in favor of "alternative" positions. Scientific methods aren't abandoned outright, but postmodern objectors combine data and theories from vaguely scientific perspectives. Established scientific and medical approaches are critiqued in various ways, and the result is the same: refusal to take vaccines. These folks tend to operate on an epistemology of doubt and view "truth" as highly flexible and always individually subjective.

NARROWING THE FOCUS

Both perspectives are not without merit but can be problematic in a time when public health, economic, and social vitality depends on widespread inoculation (as it has for some time now). The majority of those in the groups above are people who are, from their vantage point, making good-faith arguments against getting vaccinated.

Perhaps one is genuinely terrified of needles or foreign substances entering their body. Another may have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and would prefer to rely on their natural immunity. Maybe a parent is OK getting the vaccine themselves but frightened to allow their child to receive it. Still, others cannot receive vaccines due to the high risk of anaphylaxis or are in the midst of cancer treatment. These are not the types of objections we're talking about here.

When discussing the most damaging form of anti-vaccination sentiment, the pernicious kind, we must be precise. Therefore, we will omit the premodern group altogether as they need only supportive education and empathy1. Much of the postmodern group will be set aside as well. The majority of people, even those operating on wrong information or inaccurate ideas, don't do much harm and make difficult decisions to the best of their ability. Some have reasonable bones to pick with the status quo and deserve a platform in the market of ideas.

After omitting the groups mentioned above, we're left with a set of very troubling ideas, epistemologies, and worldviews in what I'll call postmodern anti-vaccination extremism (PAE)2. PAE is postmodern vaccine hesitation dialed up to the Nth degree. These arguments are made in bad faith3 and rely on the worst of end-stage postmodern thinking: criticism for its own sake, over-reliance on cheap irony and poorly vetted information, ubiquitous injections of doubt, and failure to fold critiques into resulting solutions. PAE is most damaging when wielded by those with influence, status, and economic capital. Sadly, their influence is ingested by those in low economic and high-risk groups and damages individual and public health.

When it comes to PAE, let's also discard the wishy-washy "vaccine hesitation" term. To a degree, may we all be vaccine hesitators. Nobody should willy-nilly shove unknown substances in their bodies without careful consideration. But PAE impulsively and globally rejects, not hesitates, and does so on bases largely unrelated to vaccines themselves. There are clear lines between skepticism involving an honest conversation about the merits of vaccination and radicalized anti-vaccine zealotry.

The latter is problematic, not just concerning vaccination but in tactics prevalent throughout public discourse across a range of contemporary topics. They're employed by the left, right, and center but are now most salient within the vaccination argument. Understanding the workings of this loud, prominent, influential group of critiquers, doubters, and skeptics gives us a reference for unhelpful, even pathological, ways we undermine ourselves in efforts to create a better world and address crises.

In 2021, PAE systems of engagement keep us stuck in endless cul-de-sacs of obstinance, cynicism, and bastardized liberty. The following ideas highlight the methods utilized by which this brand of cultural zealotry. And to all our detriment. 

PAE ARTILLERY

Smarts - The oft-made accusation that those who refuse vaccines are dumb is far dumber. There is simply no argument to be made that intelligence is an indicator of PAE beliefs. It's not unreasonable to hypothesize the reverse is true. Folks of evident cognitive acumen, and across a wide range of societal strata, hold extreme modern medicine and vaccination positions.

Cultural Capital - PAE occurs in well-connected areas of society. The trend is middle to upper-middle-class economically, and members function well socially, academically, and professionally. PAE requires technical knowledge and social connections afforded to those with means. This characteristic allows one to garner an online following with adherents who buttress misinformation, validating even the most ridiculous claims. Each like, share, retweet, and affirmative comment solidifies this form of capital, thus insulating one from the consequences of making absurd statements or unhealthy choices. PAE often occurs in groups not at high risk for health complications or significant economic problems.

Pioneer Self-View - PAE thrives on a "lone ranger" mentality. It positions itself perpetually in opposition to mainstream culture, particularly "the media." Somewhat ironically, PAE produces larger groups with the same isolationist mentality. It's, of course, human nature to find our tribe, but much of the PAE identity concerns itself with shunning perceived groupthink while participating in the same. A pack-based evisceration of dissenters on social media or even litigation4 is commonplace. One can think of it as a perversion of "individuality."

Human Chinese Finger Traps - The status as a relatively small percentage of the population has the intriguing effect of solidifying PAE. The more people (e.g., friends, family, healthcare practitioners) who push back, regardless of the evidence, only reinforce extremist stances. In other words, public critique of PAE ideas increases cultural capital. Thus, criticizing, shaming, or even educating those with anti-vaccination beliefs has proved counterproductive5. Indeed, the harder one pulls, the more stuck we all become.

Disingenuous Scientific Stances - Common statements include, "see both sides of the argument," "facts speak for themselves," "you have your data, I have mine," or "I'm not 'anti-vaccine,' I'm 'pro-safe vaccine'." These are expressions of sincere objectivity, but PAE adherents hold them insincerely. Facts, data, and research are skewed to fit PAE's preexisting, often political, sets of values. Cited studies are typically poorly done, outdated, or even retracted by the researcher or publication6.

Moralizing - Statements can include, "I'm just trying to help people understand their options," "I don't hate anyone," "let's focus on health, not sickness," "I'm sticking up for moms everywhere," or "people need to have a balanced view." Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Children's Health Defense, who pushes anti-vaccination policy,is an apt example. One cannot argue against the defense of children, can they? A more extreme version compares vaccination programs to the Holocaust7 by stoking apparent moral outrage for Nazi Germany and making erroneous connections. Such appeals to emotion and "us v. them" sentiments demonize one authority (e.g., the CDC, physicians) while another purportedly benevolent one (e.g. parents, chiropractors) is created in its place8.

Accusations of Bias - Most recently, these tend to revolve around perceptions of mainstream media bias or the assumption that traditional media outlets fundamentally contaminate worldview. While this is technically true (media influences everyone in one way or another), it's used as a means of delegitimizing an opposing argument regardless of any merit it holds. The source of perceived bias may change; perhaps it's based on politics, profession, or choice of a news source. But it's a red herring tactic, all the same, allowing one to skirt the edges of the subject without directly examining it. Quickly, the conversation becomes about one's identity rather than a discrete issue.

FINAL THOUGHTS

End-stage postmodernism deconstructs the world to such a level we are convinced nothing is real. Or that reality is so fickle we can't possibly participate outside our narrow version of it. In a digitized, transnational, unendingly complex society, this doesn't work. PAE, currently the most prominent example of end-stage postmodernism, sneeringly goes about its coercive deconstructions with unabashed hubris. Combating such extremism at the level of ideas is futile because there's little interest in finding even slivers of common ground. PAE's fundamental way of thinking and being is remarkably impervious to outward influence, as the ideology seeks to double down at every turn. Any opposition is just further reinforcement of the preexisting conviction. PAE's deluded arrogance is both a tonic and poison, it offers comfort but no solutions.

That's why it's essential we "critique the critiques" and their associated means and methods. Especially when they come in the guise of liberty, freedom, and health. We're stuck and must find a way out.