Politics that Regulates the Body — Belonging Before Dogma
Politics that Regulates the Body — Belonging Before Dogma
When I say “politics that regulates the body,” I’m saying something simple:
politics doesn’t begin with ideas — it begins with the bodily states public life produces in us.
Before any vote, speech, or flag, there’s a more basic layer:
how the body feels living inside that society.
If the social environment becomes a constant threat, the body goes into alert. Breathing shortens, listening narrows, nuance disappears. Cooperation starts to feel risky. Thinking together becomes difficult.
But when the social environment becomes minimally predictable and fair, something shifts. The body lowers its guard. Perception widens. Disagreement stops feeling like immediate danger.
And interestingly, that’s where democracy truly begins.
Politics enters through the body first
Recent science on social connection is increasingly clear: human bonding works as a physiological regulator.
Belonging isn’t just psychological.
It’s biological.
Experiences of isolation, humiliation, or exclusion activate stress systems in ways similar to physical threats. On the other hand, social support can reduce emotional reactivity and modulate circuits related to threat and pain.
This completely changes how we should talk about politics.
Because it means public decisions don’t just affect economics or infrastructure. They reorganize collective bodily states.
Politics is, quite literally, state engineering.
The Jiwasa filter: belonging before persuasion
In Jiwasa, we use a simple filter:
before asking someone to believe, create conditions where they can belong.
Because when belonging comes after dogma, the body is already in defense.
And a defensive body does not deliberate — it reacts.
When identities become trenches (us versus them), the organism enters tribal logic. Symbolic threat becomes physiological threat. Disagreement becomes existential danger.
And then something predictable happens: decisions stop seeking solutions and start seeking group protection.
This isn’t collective stupidity.
It’s social biology.
Politics as a regulator of states
If we translate this into the language of the body, politics that regulates well does three very concrete things.
1. Reduces chronic threat
Less institutional humiliation, less arbitrariness, less diffuse insecurity. The body needs to feel it’s not permanently exposed.
2. Increases predictability
Clear rules, fair processes, minimal stability. The nervous system relaxes when the world stops feeling chaotic.
3. Creates rhythms of trust
Real participation, listening, and the ability to repair mistakes. Trust is not born from speeches — it’s built through repeated coherence.
These factors directly shape the emotional metabolism of a society.
They are not abstract. They are physiological.
When politics fails (the bodily signal)
There is a simple indicator that politics has stopped regulating and started dysregulating:
when it becomes a daily stressor.
Not just during crises.
But that diffuse tension that leaks into family conversations, social media, workplaces.
When politics generates anxiety even outside the news cycle, something has shifted in the collective field.
Recent studies already show this clearly: prolonged exposure to polarized political environments can increase anxiety, stress, and psychological exhaustion.
In other words: the body feels politics.
Even when we try to ignore it.
The Mat/Hep lens: states and social rigidity
In Mat/Hep, we frame this as a state problem.
Healthy societies preserve state plasticity.
Sick societies rigidify states.
When political environments activate constant threat, bodies begin operating in rigid modes: defense, vigilance, attack. The ability to transition between states shrinks.
And when transitions shrink, collective intelligence declines.
Because thinking together requires plasticity.
In this sense, politics expands or compresses the library of available states in a society.
APUS: politics as inner territory
In APUS, we call this inner territory.
Territory isn’t just geography — it’s the sensory space where the body feels authorized to exist. When this territory is respected, people can disagree without dissolving.
But when inner territory is constantly invaded by symbolic threat, the body enters a state of occupation.
And no civilization is built under permanent occupation.
Politics that regulates the body is politics that protects collective inner territory — allowing conflict without destroying belonging.
Brainlly: science without anesthesia
Brainlly steps in here to translate what many cultures have always known:
society is an expanded nervous system.
We now have evidence that social support buffers stress, that physiological synchrony enhances group cohesion, and that connection acts as a biological regulator.
But perhaps the most important insight is this: these discoveries are not entirely new. They are rediscoveries.
Science is catching up to something communities never fully forgot:
shared life shapes the body.
The danger of dogma without belonging
When dogma comes before belonging, politics becomes capture.
People belong not because they feel safe, but because they fear exclusion. Identity stops being a bond and becomes armor.
And armor has metabolic costs.
It reduces listening, lowers empathy, and increases reactivity. Over time, it corrodes both individuals and societies.
That’s why the inversion matters:
belonging first, narrative later.
When the body feels safe, disagreement matures.
When the body feels threatened, even truth becomes a weapon.
A simple checklist (Jiwasa in practice)
If I want to know whether a political proposal regulates or captures the body, I ask three simple questions:
Can we disagree without dehumanizing each other?
If not, threat is already present.
Does belonging require a mandatory enemy?
If yes, there is physiological capture.
Does it improve lived reality or just the narrative?
If it doesn’t change the ground, it rarely changes the state.
This checklist is simple, but powerful.
Because it returns politics to the body.
What remains in the end
Perhaps the real civilizational shift is this:
stop treating politics as a battle of ideas and start treating it as an ecology of states.
A mature society isn’t one that eliminates conflict.
It’s one that can sustain conflict without destroying belonging.
Because belonging is not emotional luxury.
It is biological infrastructure.
Without it, bodies enter war mode.
With it, collective intelligence re-emerges.
And maybe the most honest closing line is this:
Before convincing, we need to fit.
Good politics lowers the body’s guard and restores cooperation.
Belonging first, dogma later.
Scientific references (post-2023)
Ortlund, K., et al. (2025).
Politics and mental health under polarized environments. Social Science & Medicine.
➡ Politics as a measurable chronic stressor.Sharika, K. M., et al. (2024).
Interpersonal synchrony and group coordination. PNAS.
➡ Physiological synchrony linked to collective engagement.Ohayon, S., & Gordon, I. (2025).
Multimodal interpersonal synchrony. Behavioural Brain Research.
➡ Integrates neural, physiological, and behavioral synchrony.Rincón-Unigarro, C., et al. (2025).
Collective effervescence and social identity. Frontiers in Psychology.
➡ Collective rituals strengthening belonging (LatAm).Pei, R., et al. (2023).
Neural signatures of social support buffering stress. Scientific Reports.
➡ Social support as a neurobiological buffer.Grasso-Cladera, A., Parada, F. J., et al. (2024).
Embodied hyperscanning in social interaction. Social Neuroscience.
➡ Brain-body synchrony in real interaction (LatAm).Delgado, M. R., et al. (2023).
Mechanisms of social connection. Neuron.
➡ Social connection shaping reward and threat systems.
