Anti-Vaxxers: What are they saying when they claim to be ‘anti’?

In this post I will argue that being ‘anti’ something is a powerful stance. It can commit you to be in opposition to more than the actual thing you are against – and by doing so ties you to be opposed to things that could be a power for good. I will suggest that this is most true in areas of moral ambiguity such as those persons who are in opposition to vaccinations or ‘Anti-Vaxxers.’  

When you think about it, we often define ourselves by what we are not. It’s such a powerful device to ensure our personality, our values and our identity are registered correctly by others. But when we claim to be ‘anti’ we are stating not just what we oppose – but all that fosters and sustains that which we find reprehensible.

I was born in the South-East of England but became an Everton fan at the age of ten. It wasn’t until much later when I worked in Leeds that I met “true blues.” I loved the stories of how Everton supporters would define themselves by how much they hated the “reds” of Liverpool FC. There was the grandfather who refused to have tomato ketchup in the house; the parent who would not allow his son’s best mate into the house to play because there was red trim on his trainers – I even worked for an Evertonian who wouldn’t allow red pens in the building! But I want to classify such things as ‘preferences’ because when the people of Merseyside remember the 96 who died at the Hillsborough tragedy over thirty years ago – they are truly one city. 

That’s not to say there’s anything wrong in marking our personality traits through our preferences and dislikes. Announce to a room of strangers that you like pineapple on your pizza, marmite on your toast or cream first on your scone and get ready for a debate. Enjoy the ‘Hampden roar’ as you advocate the ‘correct’ way to put toilet roll on a holder or make a cup of tea. But these preferences, I would argue, are trivial and represent less of a holistic flag in the ground compared to what we are “anti.”  

Understood grammatically – ‘anti’ is a prefix and is from the Greek to mean ‘opposite’ or ‘against’ and there are plenty of examples throughout history of ‘anti’ movements that have halted hate and evinced equality.  

But how does it work for the more culturally divisive and more ambiguous moral panics such as vaccinations? 

I am pro-vaccination, but I am always willing to listen to and be informed by an opposing view and I know that for those who have concerns on either religious, cultural or political grounds their stance on vaccinations couldn’t be starker. They are ‘Anti-Vaxxers’. But by making their position so vehemently and presciently on the negative don’t they risk causing more distance and distrust not only on this position but on a variety of others? I want to be clear on my issue with the prefix, when you say you are ‘anti’ you are saying you oppose much more than the single subject of your ire. If I say I don’t like olives on a pizza – my preferences are clear as to the presence of olives. However, to say I was ‘Anti-Olives’ would surely infer I have greater issues than with the olea europaea itself. I am fuming with the whole matrix of olive oil production from the techniques of olive cultivation, farming and production practices all the way to promotion, advertising and consumption of this small fruit. I would argue that when a person makes a claim to be ‘Anti-Vaccinations’ they are not just stating an opposition to injected medicine, they are also claiming an opposition to the machinery of government and the perceived oppression of the individual and free-will.  

And that is part of the problem of the prefix ‘Anti’. Its power lies in its ability to not just offer a clear opposition to a things purpose – but also to the components of the assembly line that brought it into being and sustain its presence. For the ‘Anti-Abortionist’ the opposition isn’t just on the purpose of abortion (the ending of ‘life’) it is also toward perceived moral flaws or political agendas that maintain abortion as a lawful option. The Anti-Racist isn’t just opposed to a racist act but also the systemic structure which maintains a racist ideology. I would argue then that ‘Anti’ causes fear but also distrust because it demands of the listener a worry about more than the single subject and furthermore; it places the proponent of the ‘anti-stance’ as distrustful of others and as someone who operates within a negative platform.  

But is this necessarily a bad thing?  

I would forgive my fellow humans for waking up each day and finding something else to be ‘anti.’ The feelings of fighting against oppression and pushing back against an injustice are a dopamine hit. We can cast ourselves in the movie in our minds as the hero of the piece with permission to be loud, to be forceful and to be heard. And of course – significant events in history have demanded such action. In areas of moral absolutes – the ‘anti’ stance is justified by clear evidence of wrong-doing either through our shared human values or well as quantitative evidence. In doing so it can expose the objective and demonstrable ways a government, cultural/social institution has been acting in egregious ways to maintain an unequal or oppressive state of affairs. However, on the topics where the moral high ground is ambiguous, what is the value in appearing so demonstrably combative when there is ambiguity or muddier waters? I would argue that for the anti-vaxxers , the ‘anti’ causes them to expose mechanisms where its less obvious (than say ‘slavery’ ) that there is something ill at work. Their anger is not at the concept of ‘medicine’ or the metal millimeter width of a needle – the anger is more abstract – it’s at the concept of free will and more insidiously, the concept of objective truth. So by opening the floodgates to how vaccinations are harmful – the Anti Vaxxer also taints the scientist, observable evidence of ‘good’ and our very own conceptions of self (i.e. am I really in control of my own life  – or am I being controlled?)  

Because ‘Anti’ allows us to ‘expose’ the mechanisms of oppression it causes a greater fear in others. But if the Anti-Vaxer is fighting against the oppression and fear caused by governments and scientists isn’t there a contradiction when their stance causes  exactly the same feelings of oppression and fear in others? I would suggest that negative actions, without dilution or a segue to compromise, simply cause more…negative actions. What if the Anti-Vaxxer were to find positive ways to promote choice for an individual citizen or positive ways to influence the scientific community or local government. Would you be more inclined to find some common ground with the one who makes you feel informed and empowered rather than left questioning and in fear? The issue the Anti-Vaxxer has, unlike the Anti-Slavery proponent, is that the Vaxxer’s ‘anti’ footing is on less firm ground.  

In Conclusion…

We should, when we moved to do so, make our stands for the values and principles we believe in. Our values and principles of the more universally morally reviled human inventions (slavery, FGM, racism) deserve to have the engines of their machines of hate exposed – and we should use our ‘anti’ stance to do that. We should also find solutions and show the vulnerable and the afraid how to be empowered. But where the moral certainty becomes opaque – the evidence flawed or at the very least still open to debate or when, in the heat and adrenaline rush of a fight, Anti Vaxxer’s tarnish more than their perceived enemy, they create distrust to the ‘good’ of objective evidence, the science of healing and place others in the shadow of fear and uncertainty. Call for questions, call for more research – but a second thought towards calls to blanket opposition and the ‘anti’ stance may create more discourse and less discord.