The measure of a society

Social issues in America extend beyond equality and justice; they are also fundamental to individual health, as disparities in social status and economic power directly impact physical and mental well-being. Research on the biology of inequality and social hierarchies reveals how our bodies and minds respond to these disparities, with effects on stress hormones, brain chemistry, and emotional states. These physiological responses, in turn, shape our attitudes and behaviors toward others, influencing views on economic policies, social justice, and welfare. Ultimately, this creates a cycle where biological responses to inequality reinforce social structures, making it increasingly difficult for individuals to escape lower socioeconomic conditions. Chronic stress and altered brain chemistry can lead to poor health, impaired cognitive function, and reduced emotional resilience, which further limits educational and professional opportunities. This cycle perpetuates itself: those experiencing the biological impacts of inequality often face greater barriers to self-advocacy and social change, reinforcing systemic disparities. On a societal scale, this entrenches divisions, fuels inequality, and drives up healthcare costs, often directing policies toward increasing marginalization rather than alleviating it. Addressing these health impacts through equitable policies and practices is crucial for building a healthier, more resilient society.

Marginalized communities in America, including those in poor neighborhoods, the Black community, women (especially those without access to abortion), and the LGBTQ+ community, face significant health disparities influenced by social, economic, and structural inequities. These groups encounter unique barriers that exacerbate stress, limit healthcare access, and lead to a higher prevalence of chronic diseases, mental health struggles, and overall poorer health outcomes. The following sections examine specific negative health impacts experienced by each of these communities.

Residents in low-income neighborhoods face a range of environmental challenges and resource shortages that seriously harm their health. For instance, limited access to healthcare facilities and preventive services contributes to significantly higher rates of chronic illnesses; a 2021 study found that adults in low-income neighborhoods were nearly twice as likely to have diabetes and 1.5 times more likely to suffer from hypertension compared to those in higher-income areas. Heart disease also disproportionately affects these communities, with rates up to 40% higher than the national average. Mental health issues are prevalent as well, with nearly 30% of residents in impoverished neighborhoods reporting depression or anxiety symptoms, often exacerbated by constant exposure to environmental stressors like crime, housing instability, and limited access to green spaces, which contribute to elevated rates of PTSD.

Additionally, low-income areas are often situated near industrial sites, highways, and other pollution sources, leaving residents vulnerable to respiratory illnesses and cancer. Studies reveal that children in these neighborhoods are 60% more likely to develop asthma, and adults have a 20% higher risk of lung cancer than those living in cleaner, wealthier areas. Food insecurity further compounds these challenges; nearly 24 million Americans live in food deserts, and a large proportion of these are in low-income neighborhoods. Without access to affordable fresh food, residents often rely on inexpensive, processed options, leading to higher rates of obesity—about 35% higher than in affluent neighborhoods—and related conditions like hypertension and Type 2 diabetes. These interconnected factors underscore the complex, multifaceted health challenges that residents in low-income communities face, illustrating the critical need for systemic changes to improve access to resources and healthcare.

The Black community in America faces entrenched health inequities rooted in systemic racism, economic disenfranchisement, and discrimination within healthcare systems. These factors contribute to disproportionately high mortality rates among Black Americans across numerous health conditions. For example, Black adults are 30% more likely to die from cardiovascular diseases than white adults and face a 20% higher cancer mortality rate due to factors such as delayed diagnoses, less access to treatment, and reduced preventive care options. Chronic stress is also a pervasive issue in the Black community, with research indicating that constant exposure to racial discrimination elevates cortisol levels, leading to a 40% higher incidence of hypertension compared to other racial and ethnic groups.

Maternal and infant mortality rates are stark examples of health disparities within the Black community. Black women experience maternal mortality rates more than three times higher than white women—a disparity largely attributed to systemic healthcare biases, as well as socioeconomic factors that limit access to quality prenatal care. Data from the CDC shows that Black infants are also twice as likely to die before their first birthday compared to white infants, underscoring critical inequities in maternal and infant health.

Mental health challenges, such as depression and anxiety, are also prevalent among Black Americans, with approximately 17% experiencing these conditions. However, Black Americans are only half as likely to receive mental health treatment compared to white individuals, largely due to stigma around mental health and limited access to culturally competent care providers. These interconnected health challenges emphasize the deeply rooted social and systemic inequalities affecting the Black community, underscoring an urgent need for healthcare reforms that address these inequities.

Women, especially those who lack access to abortion services, encounter a broad range of health challenges, facing increased physical, mental, and socioeconomic risks. The inability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy significantly raises maternal health risks; studies indicate that women denied abortions are nearly four times more likely to experience life-threatening complications such as preeclampsia, infections, and, in severe cases, even death, especially if they have pre-existing health conditions. Mental health is also adversely affected by restricted abortion access. Research from the Turnaway Study shows that women denied abortions report higher rates of anxiety, depression, and feelings of hopelessness, with mental health scores 50% lower than those of women who were able to access abortion services.

Economic hardship is another common consequence for women unable to terminate pregnancies. A study found that women denied abortion were three times more likely to experience poverty within two years than those who received abortions. This economic strain often prevents these women from affording healthcare, adequate nutrition, and stable housing—all critical for the health of both mother and child. In areas with limited or restricted abortion access, some women may resort to unsafe abortion practices, a serious health risk associated with 45% of all abortion-related maternal deaths globally. These unsafe methods can lead to severe complications, including hemorrhaging, infections, and, in the worst cases, fatal outcomes. Together, these statistics underscore the profound physical, mental, and socioeconomic implications of restricted abortion access, highlighting its widespread impact on women's well-being and health.

The LGBTQ+ community faces distinct health challenges deeply rooted in discrimination, social stigma, and often limited access to competent, affirming healthcare. Mental health disparities are particularly pronounced: LGBTQ+ individuals experience rates of depression and anxiety that are nearly twice as high as those in the general population, and suicide attempts among LGBTQ+ youth are four times higher than among heterosexual youth. The Trevor Project reports that 42% of LGBTQ+ youth have seriously considered suicide, with rates even higher among transgender youth, highlighting the acute vulnerability of this demographic to societal rejection and isolation.

To cope with these stressors, LGBTQ+ individuals also report higher rates of substance use; for example, 25% of LGBTQ+ adults use illicit drugs compared to 9% of heterosexual adults. Alcohol use is similarly elevated, with LGBTQ+ individuals nearly twice as likely to engage in binge drinking. Additionally, LGBTQ+ individuals, especially gay men and transgender individuals, face a higher risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Gay and bisexual men, for instance, account for 69% of all new HIV diagnoses in the U.S., a rate driven in part by stigma, limited access to preventive care, and discrimination within healthcare settings.

Discrimination in healthcare exacerbates these challenges; nearly one in six LGBTQ+ individuals report avoiding medical care due to anticipated discrimination, and 56% of LGBTQ+ individuals report experiencing some form of discrimination from a healthcare provider. This reluctance to seek care contributes to missed preventive screenings, delays in treatment, and generally poorer health outcomes across the community. These statistics underscore the critical need for inclusive and affirming healthcare policies to address the substantial health disparities faced by the LGBTQ+ community.

Our physiological systems are influenced by our social environment and hierarchical structures. Humans, as social beings, have evolved to respond dynamically to our social surroundings, with status, power dynamics, and economic disparity exerting a profound influence on our biological processes. These reactions impact not only individual health and mental states but also broader societal attitudes, creating a feedback loop that perpetuates and sometimes exacerbates inequality.

At the core of our biological response to inequality is the body's stress-response system, primarily regulated by the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. When individuals perceive themselves as having lower social status or fewer resources, this system often releases more cortisol, the body’s primary stress hormone. Research shows that higher levels of cortisol correlate with stress markers, which can lead to numerous health issues, including increases blood pressure and strains the cardiovascular system, making individuals more vulnerable to heart disease, chronic stress impairs immune function, leaving individuals more susceptible to illness, and how the body stores fat, with chronic stress often leading to increased abdominal fat, which is linked to metabolic syndromes.

These physical manifestations of chronic stress create a feedback loop; as health deteriorates under constant stress, opportunities for social and economic advancement may diminish, further reinforcing the perception of lower status and perpetuating inequality’s physical toll.

Our brain chemistry is also finely attuned to social hierarchies. Neurotransmitters, such as dopamine and serotonin, play significant roles in how we perceive and interact with those above or below us in the social ladder.

Dopamine, known as the "reward neurotransmitter," plays a key role in how we pursue goals and take risks. Higher social status is linked to greater dopamine activity, which encourages people to seek opportunities and engage positively with their environment. However, those in lower-status positions might experience lower dopamine activity, leading to decreased motivation, reduced social engagement, and even anhedonia (the inability to feel pleasure).

Serotonin has long been linked to social behavior and bonding. Higher serotonin levels promote feelings of stability and well-being, which are often more accessible to those with greater social and economic resources. Conversely, lower serotonin levels are associated with depression and anxiety, conditions that disproportionately affect individuals in disadvantaged social positions.

These neurotransmitter variations can influence how people perceive and interact with their surroundings, including their opinions on social norms, economic policies, and their stance on welfare and social justice. As an example, individuals in lower socioeconomic positions may be biologically predisposed, due to neurotransmitter levels, to view wealth redistribution more favorably, as it would reduce stress and improve access to resources.

Social hierarchies also have a substantial impact on emotional states. Emotions like empathy, compassion, and aggression are not solely psychological experiences but have biological underpinnings. For instance, Oxytocin, often called the "love hormone," is released during social bonding activities. Individuals who feel secure in their social status may release oxytocin more readily, allowing them to feel empathy and compassion more strongly. Conversely, those in lower social ranks may have a more guarded emotional response, shaped by a constant need to prioritize self-preservation over empathy.

Studies suggest that testosterone, commonly associated with aggression, can increase in individuals who perceive a threat to their social status or a challenge to their position in a hierarchy. This response can be observed in various social contexts, from competitive work environments to social movements aimed at addressing systemic inequalities.

The interplay between hormones like oxytocin and testosterone can shape not only personal relationships but also wider social attitudes. For example, individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds might exhibit stronger in-group bonds (fueled by oxytocin) and resistance to authority (potentially influenced by testosterone) as a means of coping with perceived inequality and social injustice.

The physical toll of inequality extends into individuals’ beliefs and behaviors, shaping collective attitudes toward policy decisions and social structures. For example, the chronic stress experienced by individuals in lower socioeconomic positions can lead to increased support for policies that promote economic equality, such as social welfare programs or minimum wage increases. Those affected by inequality are more likely to advocate for social justice reforms that address systemic biases in the healthcare, legal, and educational systems, recognizing that these inequities further entrench disadvantage.

Leaders in organizational settings who hold higher status may unknowingly reinforce hierarchical dynamics through non-verbal cues and behavior influenced by elevated dopamine and serotonin levels. These behaviors contribute to the perpetuation of social hierarchies in professional environments, which can influence hiring practices, team dynamics, and employee satisfaction.

The relationship between biology and social hierarchies is not unidirectional. Social structures and cultural norms create conditions that affect individual biology, which, in turn, influences attitudes and behaviors that reinforce or challenge those same structures. For instance, the physiological toll of inequality, including health impacts and cognitive impairments, can hinder social mobility, effectively reinforcing the very systems that caused the stress in the first place. Conversely, as society becomes more aware of the health impacts of inequality, there may be increased advocacy for policies that promote health equity. Public awareness can create shifts in policy and collective attitudes, potentially reducing the biological burden of inequality on future generations.

The biological effects of inequality create a powerful feedback loop in which physiological responses and social conditions perpetuate each other, reinforcing disparities. Chronic stress—commonly triggered by economic instability, social marginalization, and limited access to resources—elevates cortisol levels, leading to long-term impacts on both physical health and cognitive function. Over time, this persistent stress depletes emotional resilience, impairs decision-making, and dampens motivation, which can reduce individuals' capacity to organize, advocate for change, or improve their socio-economic standing. This biological toll thus indirectly discourages collective action, as people dealing with the effects of chronic stress and limited resources may struggle to participate actively in efforts toward social reform, feeling either constrained by their immediate needs or disconnected from broader goals.

On the other hand, individuals with greater access to resources and stability experience significant psychological and physiological advantages. Lower stress levels, enhanced emotional well-being, and access to healthcare promote resilience, cognitive flexibility, and higher levels of motivation. These biological benefits often reinforce positive self-perceptions and foster a belief in self-efficacy, which can lead to a stronger adherence to ideals such as meritocracy and self-reliance. With fewer perceived barriers, those in higher socioeconomic brackets may view their success as evidence of personal effort rather than systemic advantage, reinforcing the notion that their achievements are solely due to hard work.

This disparity creates a cyclical reinforcement of social hierarchy: those with fewer resources face biological and cognitive challenges that limit their capacity to alter their circumstances, while those with more resources gain both physiological and psychological reinforcement of their social views. This loop not only entrenches inequality but also shapes social attitudes, as those who benefit from existing systems may be less inclined to support policies aimed at reducing inequality, viewing such measures as unnecessary or even counterproductive. As a result, this feedback loop serves to further entrench existing inequalities and widen the gap between different social groups, creating a complex interdependence between biology, psychology, and social structure.

Wealthy, white males are consistently reported as the healthiest demographic in the United States, benefiting from a combination of financial resources, social privileges, and systemic advantages that contribute to their overall well-being. White males in high-income brackets live, on average, up to 15 years longer than Black males in low-income brackets, according to a 2016 Brookings Institution study. Specifically, high-income white men have a life expectancy of around 87 years, compared to just 72 years for low-income Black men.

Wealthier individuals generally have lower rates of chronic diseases, and white males from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to experience conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease compared to individuals in lower income and minority groups. According to the CDC, high-income white men have a 20% lower prevalence of heart disease compared to Black men and those from lower-income brackets.

White men, especially those from wealthier backgrounds, are more likely to access mental health services and report better mental health outcomes. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that affluent white males are twice as likely to receive mental health care compared to men of color or those from lower-income backgrounds. Additionally, they report lower rates of depression and anxiety, partly due to better social support and fewer environmental stressors.

Wealthy white men have higher survival rates for cancer than other demographics. A study from the National Cancer Institute indicates that white men have a 10% higher five-year survival rate for prostate cancer and a 15% higher survival rate for colorectal cancer compared to Black men, which is attributed to earlier diagnoses, better access to healthcare, and more comprehensive treatment options.

Wealthy white men have more access to preventive care, including routine screenings, vaccinations, and wellness programs, reducing their risk of both acute and chronic illnesses. They are more likely to live in neighborhoods with access to quality healthcare facilities, lower pollution levels, and amenities like parks and gyms. According to the CDC, high-income white men report significantly higher levels of physical activity, with 72% meeting federal guidelines for exercise compared to just 54% of lower-income individuals.

The infant mortality rate for children born to high-income white men is also significantly lower than that of other groups. Data from the CDC shows that infant mortality is 5.5 per 1,000 live births for white families, compared to 11.2 for Black families, with socioeconomic status being a critical factor in this disparity.

White men constitute a substantial share of the Republican Party, comprising about 55% of its membership, though this percentage may vary slightly by survey and year. Overall, white individuals represent approximately 85-90% of the Republican Party’s base, with white men forming the largest demographic group. In contrast, white men make up a smaller portion of the Democratic Party, accounting for roughly 28-30% of its membership. The Democratic Party's base is notably more diverse, with a higher representation of women, younger individuals, and members of various racial and ethnic backgrounds. Altogether, white individuals comprise about 57-60% of the Democratic Party, with a significant proportion of the party's membership being women and people of color, underscoring its more inclusive demographic makeup.

Approximately 40-45% of Republicans identify as upper- or upper-middle class, while about 30-35% of Democrats identify within this income bracket. Republicans tend to draw more support from wealthier individuals, particularly due to alignment on economic and tax policies favoring higher income brackets. The Democratic Party has a larger portion of its base from lower-income brackets. Around 20-25% of Democrats identify as lower-income, compared to roughly 10-15% of Republicans. Democrats’ policy positions on social welfare, healthcare, and income inequality resonate more with lower-income voters, leading to stronger support from this demographic.

Given this demographic breakdown, it becomes clearer why policies supported by the Republican Party may often prioritize issues other than general welfare and social support systems. With a base that skews toward upper- and middle-income earners, the party’s platform often emphasizes economic strategies that align with the interests of wealthier individuals, including lower taxes, deregulation, and reduced government spending on social programs. Since many in this demographic are less directly impacted by issues like income inequality, healthcare access, and housing instability, these policies may reflect a different set of priorities compared to those of lower-income communities.

For those in upper-income brackets who are less affected by social safety nets or public welfare programs, there can be a greater emphasis on self-reliance and a belief in a meritocratic system where success is viewed as the result of individual effort. This perspective can influence policy direction, leading to reduced funding for programs such as Medicaid, food assistance, affordable housing, and other resources that are essential for marginalized communities. Meanwhile, groups that experience marginalization—often found in lower-income brackets—tend to support policies aimed at reducing disparities and enhancing social welfare, as these issues directly affect their well-being.

This dynamic reinforces a cycle: policies that do not address or improve conditions for marginalized groups can exacerbate social and economic divides, entrenching inequalities. Since those most affected by marginalization often have less political influence, the focus on policies that serve the affluent may persist, leading to a political landscape where general welfare is deprioritized in favor of economic structures that benefit a select demographic.

These systemic inequalities indeed create a compounding effect that intensifies challenges for marginalized communities, resulting in poorer health, limited economic opportunity, and an increased need for social support. Marginalized groups often face barriers to healthcare, leading to untreated health issues and higher incidences of chronic conditions. Without adequate healthcare access and preventive care, these communities experience worsening health outcomes, which only increases the need for support services.

Similarly, limited access to stable, well-paying jobs leaves many individuals in marginalized communities reliant on financial assistance to meet basic needs. High barriers to employment, whether due to educational disparities, discrimination, or lack of economic investment in underserved areas, create a cycle where dependency on social support becomes unavoidable.

Unfortunately, these very struggles are often used as evidence by policymakers, particularly within the Republican Party, to argue that such communities are a burden on society, a viewpoint that fuels support for policies aimed at reducing social safety nets. This withdrawal of support not only exacerbates existing disparities but also leads to even greater reliance on limited resources, perpetuating a self-reinforcing cycle of poverty and need. Instead of addressing the root causes—like healthcare inequities, employment barriers, and education gaps—these approaches frame marginalized groups as inherently dependent, justifying further reduction of the support structures they rely on.

This cycle underscores the urgent need for policies that address structural inequalities rather than diminish social support, to break the loop and create pathways toward health, opportunity, and stability for all communities.