Anti-Vaccination Unmasked: Part 1

Demystifying a Mysterious Phenomenon

The issue of vaccination contains many of America's clashing cultural codes. It's a Rorschach test onto which we project all our fiery resentments and presentiments. For many, vaccine refusal is unconscionable and frustrating. To others, a clarion call to resist the government and "Big Pharma" oppression, lest we fall into a fascist regime.

Factions who accept or resist vaccines have stringent views on the subject. In the time of COVID-19, antagonism heightens with each battle over the perceived pros and cons of Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson's medical cocktail. Vast sums of time, money, and energy have been spent trying to decide who is "right" and who is just on the wrong side of the equation. Are vaccines good? Are they bad? Are they really as they seem?

Collectively, we might come to some conclusion on this issue was it truly an argument over vaccines. But it's not. 

Feuding Cultural Sentiments

In the past several centuries, humanity has advanced at a dizzying rate. The freak mechanics of homo sapiens' cerebral cortex spawned societies of vastly increasing complexity through accumulated knowledge, both conscious and unconscious. Our ability to speak, write and storytelling has allowed us to gain power over the natural world. At about the turn of the 20th century, such knowledge reached a critical mass resulting in the modern age. Modern doesn't mean only "new" or "up to date," but represents a broad cultural shift involving faith in science, industrial progress, and logic. 

You (seldom) die from a burst appendix, syphilis, cholera, tuberculosis, or polio because of modernity and its procedures of truth-seeking. That therapist you see? Their methods are derived from Sigmund Freud, a modern neurologist. The reason current life expectancy is 70 and not 40? Modern scientific advancements. You can also thank the modern cellphone or tablet for allowing you to read this. 

But about the mid-20th century, people began to question if the modern approach to problems was as good as it seemed. Aren't people often harmed by medical procedures? "Science" can't be an unqualified good, and does it really help everyone? Burning coal has produced broad access to electricity, but doesn't it also contribute to environmental problems? 

Such reactions are known to sociologists as "post"-modern beliefs. They represent concerns about the impacts of modern thinking. Postmodernity has great value: it's what fuels objections to the status quo and asks, "Is this really beneficial? Are you sure? How can you know?" Much of the social progress of the past decade and century is based on postmodern thinking. It deconstructs power structures through skepticism and irony and identifies who’s harmed or "left behind." 

Moving back in time, before modernity was a premodern, or traditional, view of the world. Presently, these people have not been sufficiently exposed to things like computers, taking medicine, or flying on a plane. They may use these things but lack the basic working knowledge of microchips, chemistry, or aviation gained through most Western educational systems.  

Everyone you meet (including you) operates on traditional, modern, or postmodern views of the world. These are not inherently good or bad ways to think, but they have adaptive, maladaptive, or neutral qualities based on the issue at hand. Conflicts around vaccines are subject to clashes between these three cultural factions.

If you oppose vaccines (or are simply hesitant or skeptical), you fall into one of the following categories: 

Traditional Anti-Vaccination: In the most extreme cases, people authentically don't understand things like why we should wash our hands after using the bathroom (in other words, they don't know germ theory). Traditional anti-vaccination can also be rooted in fear of incomprehensible medical interventions such as injections, surgical procedures, or pharmacological agents. Others view "health" as separate from "medicine" instead of relying on religious faith. They'll say things like, “I'll leave it up to God.” These folks tend to defer to intuition, spirituality, or innate biological processes as the means to heal physical or psychological maladies. (Think Eckhart Tolle) 

Postmodern Anti-Vaccination: This cultural software considers vaccination intertwined with vast, oppressive forces like the government, allopathic medical community, or social media corporations. Such folks have modern education but reject it in favor of "different" or "alternative" science or facts. Common statements include "see both sides of the argument,” "don't just believe what you're told," or "dig deeper." They often leverage doubt to advance beliefs and stress the individual over the collective. (Think Robert Kennedy, Jr.) 

On the other hand, if you generally support vaccination, you're in one of the following two groups:

Modern Pro-Vaccination: Modern thinkers have broad faith in the scientific method. This means by the time a therapeutic intervention reaches their doctor and is applied to them (the patient), they generally believe it's the best approach. These individuals defer to an expert, whether it be their surgeon, accountant, or psychotherapist. They trust common logic and think in A + B = C terms. The physical world of biology, chemistry, and physics is emphasized. (Think Anthony Fauci) 

Metamodern Pro-Vaccination: These individuals have learned to balance the binaries of modern and postmodern. Thus, they oscillate between modern, postmodern, and new ways of viewing the world. Unfortunately, there are far fewer examples of these people at present.

So Who's Right!? 

Traditional, Modern, or Postmodern? Answer: All of them, at least in part. Traditionalists? Yes, it's correct innate or indigenous healing ideas have some value. Things like meditation or other spiritual practices existing for thousands of years do have the capacity to heal. And our rather unknowable nervous and immune system does indeed take care of most environmental threats. 

Modernists? You're right too. The median age of death has elevated over the past centuries because of your systematic, practical approach to health. Most of the world functions on modern principles, not just in healthcare but politics, education, journalism, etc. 

Postmodernists? You're on point as well. We can't just willy-nilly apply science without contemplating its benefits and detriments. But, you're also correct, "science" is flexible and subject to individual, cultural, and political influence. We can't thoughtlessly adhere to recommendations from our governments or doctors. 

So what happens if we take all these influences together and see them on a developmental spectrum (in the same way one crawls before they walk)? We arrive at metamodernism, which marries modern and postmodern sentiments while acknowledging the value of traditional thinking. It can oscillate between developmental phases but transcend its limitations.

A metamodern approach asks, "OK, this is all good stuff you [traditional, modern, postmodern] person. So what comes next?" But this is not a middle ground. Sides are taken. Previous societal levels of development in and of themselves are inadequate. Anyone adhering wholly to a postmodern, modern, or premodern mindset is missing the reality of the moment.

The best way forward is to account for your own biases and empathize with those struggling to identify theirs. There are no easy answers, and perhaps there's never been such a thing. Binary attitudes like Democrat vs. Republican, blue-collar vs. white-collar, urban v. suburban do us little good because those siloed identities don't exist in vivo.

Concerning vaccines, identifying what "software" is operating is essential. For those of us encouraging vaccines to combat disease, it's useful to ascertain if the anti-vaccination sentiment is coming from a traditional or postmodern angle. In the case of traditional, the remedy is simpler and entails empathizing with fear and providing education to increase science literacy.

When discussing vaccines with a postmodern objector, the conversation is bound to be stickier. Many people have thoughtful, ethically-based reasons for forgoing the COVID-19 vaccine. However, there are extremist ends of the anti-vaccination spectrum. They rely on pseudo-scientific information, disingenuous claims of objectivity, shifting hypotheses, and censoring dissent by attacking critics (sometimes through litigation)¹. It may not be a good-faith truth-seeking conversation you're having, so it's good to know when to disengage. 

All in all, remember: when it comes to vaccine hesitancy, it's not really about vaccines at all. It's people's underlying sense of how the world should be and a projected venue for our worst fears. 95% of those who choose not to vaccinate deserve our respect, consideration, and empathetic ear. Their ideas, however, require remediation.

And there's a remaining minority of folks deserving of heavy criticism, including the likes of Jason Christoff or Joseph Mercola. Anti-vaccination Unmasked: Part 2 delves into end-stage postmodernism and its hand in creating an extremist wing of vaccine hesitation.

In the meantime, tell your friends!

1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20045099/