Politics

Science views disgust as a good thing which protects us by steering us away from that which spreads disease. It is a natural, positive influence on society, which keeps us clean and encourages us to be healthy.

But suppression of disgust is also a good thing. It is unacceptable, in 'civilised' society, to express disgust at everything we find repellent. We may feel disgusted by the sight of dirty or diseased people, but it is not deemed acceptable to show this openly.

One theory of disgust argues that we are disgusted by things that are out of place or do not fit into our accepted social classifications. If it is natural — and positive — to be disgusted by things that are out of place, such as dirt in a kitchen, then surely it is also natural to be disgusted by people who are out of place?

Foreigners, homeless people and those suffering from disfiguring diseases do not fit into their 'correct' context. They are seen by many as disgusting.

When ideas derived from science cross over into the realm of politics, they take on a new meaning. The combination of these two central ideas — that disgust is both a protective mechanism and a necessary condition of civilisation — has been used to powerful effect in many places in the world and throughout history.

For thousands of years the caste system in India has used disgust to turn one large group of people into outcasts.

In Rwanda two groups which had lived together for generations were pitched into unrestrained violence, which was made possible by the fanning of flames of disgust by one group for the other.

Similarly, the Nazis compared Jews to rats and disease-bearing bacteria which opened the way for the regime to murder them in their millions.

And today, homophobic people often describe homosexuality as a disease, which must be cured by any means. The Soho bomber could be seen as the logical conclusion.