Pinker on Violence

Steven Pinker has been getting a lot of attention for his new book about human violence, The Better Angels of Our Nature. His idea is that humans have been getting less violent over the course of history.

That seems counter-intuitive, considering the mass slaughters of the twentieth century. But it's something I've long believed, and that I think we pay too little attention to. When the size of the world population is taken into account, Pinker points out, a vastly greater percentage are now living peaceful lives - and will die in their beds - compared even with just a few hundred years ago.

To judge from the reviews and articles, Pinker is getting a lot of blow-back about this. Most people find it hard to believe. His point, which I agree with, is that we are affected by 'presentism' - we're only really aware of what is happening in our own time. There's also the effect of communication technology. If we could view newspapers and documentary films of days gone by, we would have a pretty lively idea of just how murderous the Mongol hordes were, the Turks, Tartars, Maghyars and all the rest, and just as efficient at doing away with large numbers of people as the Nazis.

We would also understand how vile life must have been for ordinary people, overshadowed by communal violence and the threat of torture and death at the hands of cruel authorities. Fictional representations - in novels, films and TV costume dramas - are really about the concerns of 21st century folk, dressed up in old-time costumes. If we could go back in time the shock would be intense, like being transported to an alien planet. Never mind that we wouldn't be able to decipher their language - the way people behaved to each other, and what they derived amusement from, would have seemed like a waking nightmare.

Whereas a few hundred years ago it was considered normal to roast a wrong-doer alive for fun, and savour his screams (at least according to Pinker), now people in advanced Western societies will sacrifice their lives to try to save a drowning dog. To me this is a remarkable development, and I wonder what has driven it.

Violence - the fear of it, and the fascination - seems to be so embedded in our natures we can't escape. As a journalist I'm strongly aware how selective we are about focusing on negative events. It seems to fill a human need.

I used to work in an office in which a radio was kept permanently on, churning out chit-chat, pop music and hourly news bulletins. These would typically consist of a political controversy followed by a short litany of the day's horrors - a young woman raped and murdered, a father of three beaten to death by feral teenagers, that sort of thing. A (usually) female voice would recite the ghastly details in exactly the same chirpy disconnected tone that she then used to describe the weather. For her they were just words on a page. I dreaded it, and it took an effort of will to remind myself that these were vanishingly rare emergencies, statistical blips in the overall picture of millions of people all over the country living quiet untroubled lives.

Pinker's perspective is that of the evolutionary psychologist. Nothing to do with evolution, of course - today's humans are genetically and anatomically identical to those of five hundred years, and probably five thousand years ago. We have exactly the same impulses: what's changed is in the value we ascribe to them. If the human species has been becoming steadily less violent, that's not from a growing moral sense, but from strategic calculation. Our interests, in terms of our bringing up offspring and perpetuating our genes, are just as likely to be advanced by peaceful cooperation as by violence, and once this perception gains traction it is increasingly preferred.

This is the standard scientific argument, adopted by atheists like Richard Dawkins to dispense with the rather awkward fact of humans appearing to have a tendency towards altruism. I haven't read Pinker's book and I'll be interested to find out his conclusions (while avoiding the slaughter porn in the first half). I gather he ascribes this change to the development of democratic institutions in the modern period, which seems uncontroversial.

But how did this institutions come into being? What motivated them? We should surely consider the role played by a growing compassion arising from conscience. Social reformers, liberal agitators and Christian philanthropists were the ones who helped to forge a new social consciousness over the past few hundred years - appealing not to people's self interest (although that may have been part of it), but to a sense of pity for their fellow humans. That's an appeal which, by now, we appear to have taken so much to heart that we don't think twice about it.

Going further, a spirituality-based view would point to karma as the mechanism by which humans learn to avoid violence and cruelty, having suffered the effects themselves. In this analysis, the impulse to hurt and maim - although often every bit as powerful in the human psyche as it always was - is kept in check by the (unconscious) memory of what we ourselves have been through, and our determination never to inflict it on anyone ever again.

However welcome as a development, it brings home just how much human experience depends on the social environment. I guess many of us - and I include myself - behave well in situations where we might otherwise behave badly, not from some innate sense of it being wrong, but for fear of inconvenient repercussions. We can easily see how, in a different environment - for instance Germany under the Nazis - conventional morality can disappear like a puff of smoke. We can see how members of threatened regimes, in Syria for instance, abandon all constraints in order to protect their positions. It's not impossible to imagine circumstances in which our own inner demons might again one day escape.

To be sure, this is a large subject. Pinker has opened up a Pandora's box, and I expect it will generate a lot of speculation.

Comments

[Robert Perry]

Thank you for this. I thought it was well-known that violence is on a slow downward trend. The things the Romans did were unbelievably brutal and barbaric. I remember seeing Linus Pauling say that there was a 19th-century doctor whose discoveries were made by Joseph Mengele-style human experimentation, and this doctor was lionized, while Mengele,a century later, was condemned. That was a clear measure of progress, and thus a source of hope for Pauling.

Another finding that I think is very telling is that the rate of death by war was far higher in primitive cultures. See this link, which says that by primitive standards, there would have been 2 billion war deaths in the 20th century!

http://tinyurl.com/6yzqq5l

So the upward trend seems to be clear, however slow it is.

But as you point out, the issue of to what we attribute this upward climb is an important one.

[realpc]

The idea that humans have been becoming nicer and less violent is very common among progressives. I think it is an illusion. We live in the most dangerous and violent time, by far. But the force has shifted from the individual and tribal levels to the mega-national level. Huge nations posses weapons that could destroy the world in moments. This has made small-scale violence unnecessary.

Progressives tend to be pacifists, because they assume that violence is bad and wrong and unnecessary. I am not a pacifist because I see philosophical semantic problems with the entire concept of "violence."

We have no real definition of violence. To me, the concept of violence is related to the more general concept of force, and force is universal. There are attracting and repelling forces -- positive and negative charges -- and both are required.

Human tribal violence is the same thing as territorial behaviors in other species. It is a repelling force which is required for the survival of each social group. It prevents over-population and starvation.

As human societies became more complex and increased in size, these instincts became perverted. Our "tribes" are now huge nations, and our territorial behaviors now involve enormously powerful technology.

We are not any nicer than ancient or tribal people. We are just insulated from the essential violence of our civilization.

All social animals have altruistic instincts, and they also have sadistic instincts. The sadistic, or cruel, instincts, allow us to defend our selves and our social group by temporarily disabling compassion.

We are in denial about our sadism. In Jungian psychology it would be called the "shadow." As a society we tend to be in denial about our forceful instincts and about the need for force. This is especially true among progressives, whether they are atheists or new-agers or humanistic Christians.

Fundamentalist Christian conservatives tend to be more realistic about human nature, I think. And they are a large faction in the US. But progressives just think they are stupid.

The author of this blog is obviously and definitely a progressive, although not the atheist version. Pinker is of course your typical progressive scientific atheist. No surprise at all he thinks that progress is making us nicer.

[Juan]

In general I agree with realpc, because the shadow side postulated by Jung does not disappear if is denied, on the contrary, it becomes stronger. And that's what seems to happen in modern societies.
Also if the animals were seriously injured another animal, they do not continue to attack it, because it has a system which limits its violence between them. This system also in humans, but it only works if you have perceptual contact with the victim. So, as with modern weapons can kill thousands of human beings without having visual contact with them, that system no longer operates, so modern humans would be more violent for not working the limitation of violence.

[Robert Perry]

I'm a big believer in the shadow side of human nature. I think there is a kind of demonic savage buried in us all, and that it operates through the nice masks we wear.

That being said, imagine you hear the following in the news tomorrow: The United States put down an uprising of its slave population by crucifying 6,000 captured rebellious slaves, along the interstate that leads into Washington DC.

If you heard that, wouldn't you wonder what planet you were on? But what you really should wonder is what century you were in, since that's what Rome did in the first century B.C.

Also, Juan, I'm not sure your comment about animals allows for the fact that they eat each other. I once heard that only a tiny percentage of sea creatures die a natural death. Something close to a hundred percent die from predation. True, I have heard that a predator will fatally wound its prey and then wait, but I have heard that explained as conservation of energy--letting the animal die of its wounds, rather than having to expend energy to finish it off.

Anyway, I appear to be in the unpopular position here. However, while I don't want to underestimate the savagery in us all, I think reading some history and watching some nature shows tells a fairly clear story that slowly, glacially, we are heading upward.

[realpc]

I mostly agree with Juan. Robert Perry, of course I see your point about history, but I do think it is at least partly an illusion that we are "nicer" and more peaceful now. As Juan said, denying the shadow only makes it stronger. The cruelty that modern civilization is much greater, in some ways, than anything the ancients did. The ancients knew they could be cruel, and accepted it as natural. They also could be compassionate -- probably much more so than us, because they had close lasting tribal relationships. We can hardly imagine what that kind of closeness feels like.

The cruel behaviors of ancient and primitive humans, and of animals, are all in a context where they usually make sense. Yes the Romans had slaves, which they captured from enemy societies, which they hated. Not that I think it was ok, but from their perspective it was natural.

We abolished slavery and we have all kinds of rights and comforts. But the evil is still there, just more clever and less obvious. Evil is built into the fabric of temporal reality. If you want light, you must accept darkness.

Steven Pinker is certainly not the kind of person who would understand any of this. That kind of progressive usually thinks in a very straight and narrow reductionist way. They miss the big picture entirely.

[Juan]

It is true that modern civilization is seemingly less violent than in the past, but only apparently, because it puts more effort to hide the real violence. Modern societies attempt to suppress our lower impulses and our bad emotions, but this is not the proper way of dealing with our demons, because they only get these demons to return with greater intensity, the return of the repressed according to Freud. The proper way to deal with this shadow side would be familiar with it to channel them into high goals.

About animals, I was considering the animals of the same species, because it is clear that predators are completely amoral when hunting. Animals of the same species almost never kill as much as fight. Wildlife is normally brutal, but humans are the only animals that kill other humans for pleasure.
Also note that although we have made ​​great strides in technological progress in moral progress we are almost two thousand years ago. So if the moral progress is measured in less violence to our peers, we have not made ​​much progress in this field.

[Paul]

Hm. I think it may sometimes be difficult to determine what motivates animals to kill other animals, whether of a different species or not. I recall reading how a pod of dolphins of one type, ganged up on and killed a dolphin of a different type and appeared to enjoy tormenting it before they completed the job. What was their real motive? Who can say.(Killer Dolphins)

Perhaps there is a distinction between individuals and groups. I would imagine that very few people would condone torture for pleasure for example. Few people would kill another in cold blood and a straw poll of friends would suggest that even killing an animal in cold blood or for pleasure would be viewed with disgust.

Same sample would not rob or assault another person unless it was a desperate situation. I don't think this is because of a fear of the consequences for many, perhaps most people.

What we are perhaps susceptible to is 'herd' behaviour and fear. Fear of how others perceive us and perhaps fear of being subjected to the same violence if we object. Even though we might know or feel what we are doing is wrong or distasteful.Maybe this makes us vulnerable to the will of a few individuals who are up for torture and murder given an opportunity?

Rob M's comment relating to karma is interesting: if every action we take (or omit) has a consequence, perhaps the laws of decent society might be viewed largely as an attempt to replicate this in some way, perhaps subconsciously.

[realpc]

We should not assume that violence and killing are necessarily bad. Life depends on killing. Force is needed to keep things apart, and as a last resort it becomes violent. Hatred is as necessary as love.

Jesus said "Love your enemies" but maybe that was just for religious extremists determined to get into heaven. It is not really something we can do without denial and self-deception.

There is natural joy in killing, as we know from observing cats with mice. Or little boys with toy guns. We have enemies, and we always will.

The philosophy, or religion, of secular humanism has hypnotized segments of our society into a bland hypocritical "goodness."

We are in more danger than humans ever were before. A powerful person loses control of their emotions for an instant, and we are all destroyed. We don't think about that, don't really believe it.

Our natural violence and cruelty is repressed and transformed into depression and addiction. Our love and compassion is watered down and generic.

We love "all humanity." Oh yeah, except all those people who are annoying or stupid. And all those people who disagree with us or belong to a different political ideology.

[Juan]

Yes, about dolphins and lions I had already heard something, it seems that the animals are smarter, more taste for mindless violence have.
And I understand your point of view, RealPC, because it seems that a lot of hypocrisy in modern societies: we all love to humanity, we live in a global village, then we have a deep desire to push us into the neighbor's neck. Repressed desires but does not disappear.

[realpc]

Juan,

Humans have been nature-haters for a long time. Fighting, killing, eating other animals, all are perfectly normal aspects of nature. We like to set ourselves above all other forms of life. We tell ourselves we are so much smarter and so much nicer than they are. It is all a matter of ego. Reasons to feel superior.

I don't think primitive tribal people felt that way, and they seemed to have had respect for the other animals, and all of nature. They didn't look down at other animals for being violent. They admired their hunting and fighting skills.

As we developed agriculture and technology, we began to feel superior, because of these accomplishments. We didn't realize these accomplishments actually made our lives more dangerous and violent, although seeming more pleasant and comfortable.

The invention of agriculture made population expansion possible, since a smaller area could support a larger population. But, as populations increased, the competition for land increased, and was the cause of MANY wars.

And the competition for agricultural land was serious, and the armies had better weapons than before. Military technology became increasingly deadly, and warriors became increasingly distant from their targets.

Our technology gives short-term comfort but in the long run it is the most destructive force on earth.

I am not saying I think we should give up technology. But I am saying we should give up feeling superior, and we should look at our species, and ourselves, more objectively.

I used to think I was oh so nice. Now I know I am an animal that eats meat and needs to defend itself. Yes I am a loving creature, like almost any mammal, but no I do NOT love all humanity indiscriminately.

People like Steven Pinker are very common, and I have known a lot of them. They are caught up in an illusion of continual progress. They have faith that science and technology can improve all aspects of life and solve all kinds of problems.

But in fact our mainstream science has serious limitations, and is trapped in a materialist ideology. It cannot cure the most serious diseases, and never will, if it continues on its materialist path.

Our technology will never make our lives safer. It cannot. As our power over nature increases, we become less able to control that power.

Nature is smarter than we are. Infinitely smarter. Steven Pinker would loudly deny that, as would all the other materialist scientists. Not that all scientists are materialists, but mainstream science is now dominated by a materialist perspective.

Believing that the universe is mindless and dead, and that life originated and evolved because of "chance," has only increased the human tendency to feel superior to the rest of nature.

[Juan]

I agree with realpc, because arrogance and disdain that many feel about nature causes the greatest problems today: ecological problems and economic problems. Humans excel at adapting the environment to our needs through the technique, and not vice versa, but almost all animals excel at something and ours is too valuable for us to believe the masters of nature and destroy nature.

I was not sure whether writing or not, but we could apply the Jedi philosophy of Star Wars in this field: The Jedi seek to protect and defend life in all its forms, so that is not anthropocentric, or consider themselves superior to other living beings. The Jedi know that violence and death are an inevitable part of life, but try to get all living beings are in harmony.

[XXII]

Um. So I would be interested in seeing how Juan and Realpc fare in substantiating their claims. At least the article in question provides some numbers as to asess the situation we find ourselves in and the interpretation that fits it.

[realpc]

"At least the article in question provides some numbers as to asess the situation we find ourselves in and the interpretation that fits it."

More than one explanation can fit the same numbers. Pinker is interpreting the data from his own progressive perspective. I can substantiate my claims just as well as Pinker substantiates his. This is not the kind of thing you can easily prove one way or the other. But we can try to be rational and we can question our own biases and the biases of our culture.

[XXII]

Im sure it can be done, my comment was aimed at pointing out that whilst Pinker offers substantiated claims (which can be argued against, certainly) you and Juan have yet to do it.

Why not share with us some tangible reasons to support your arguement?

[realpc]

"We should surely consider the role played by a growing compassion arising from conscience. Social reformers, liberal agitators and Christian philanthropists were the ones who helped to forge a new social consciousness over the past few hundred years - appealing not to people's self interest (although that may have been part of it), but to a sense of pity for their fellow humans. That's an appeal which, by now, we appear to have taken so much to heart that we don't think twice about it."

This kind of thinking comes from knowing nothing at all about anthropology. Compassion and altruism are nothing new and are found in all human societies, and all or most social animals. The progressive mythology credits 20th century social reformers. They completely ignore so much of what is known about human and animal nature.

There is cruelty and compassion, competition and cooperation, throughout nature.

The 20th century may have introduced self-conscious compassion, most of which is hypocritical and shallow.

[realpc]

"whilst Pinker offers substantiated claims (which can be argued against, certainly) you and Juan have yet to do it."

I can't understand why you think Pinker's claims are substantiated.

[XXII]

Because he offers something we can objectively measure, rather than a rethorical line of development that makes generalized claims without offering anything to drill at. I am not saying that your arguement is a priori false, im saying that so far you have not backed up your claims with anything.

You say that Pinker's arguements rest on a fundamental ignorance of general anthropology. If that is the case, why don't you point us to what anthropology reveals from various societies as to substantiate your position?

I aint saying that there never was any kind of compassion and cooperation in primitive societies, im saying that it may be the case that as the human species has evolved, culturally and otherwise, certain characteristics have been emphasized at the expense of others i.e. compassion over violence.

[XXII]

Because he offers something we can objectively measure, rather than a rethorical line of development that makes generalized claims without offering anything to drill at. I am not saying that your arguement is a priori false, im saying that so far you have not backed up your claims with anything.

You say that Pinker's arguements rest on a fundamental ignorance of general anthropology. If that is the case, why don't you point us to what anthropology reveals from various societies as to substantiate your position?

I aint saying that there never was any kind of compassion and cooperation in primitive societies, im saying that it may be the case that as the human species has evolved, culturally and otherwise, certain characteristics have been emphasized at the expense of others i.e. compassion over violence.

[realpc]

"why don't you point us to what anthropology reveals from various societies as to substantiate your position?"

Almost anything you read on cultural anthropology will show that compassion and cooperation are universal aspects of human societies. Anything you read about other cultures in general, or animal societies, will show the same thing. It is obvious.

"it may be the case that as the human species has evolved, culturally and otherwise, certain characteristics have been emphasized at the expense of others i.e. compassion over violence."

For one thing, even Pinker doesn't think the decrease in violence is a result of biological evolution. He thinks it results from cultural evolution. That is an unsubstantiated claim, based only on opinion.

It is true that the average person is less likely to be directly involved in violence now, compared to other eras. I think it's mainly because we now have a "Pax Americana" similar to the "Pax Romana," but on a gigantic scale.

Rebellions or attacks against the US do not have a chance. 9/11 seemed like a successful attack, but they were suicide terrorists. And they quickly backed off.

And citizens within the US don't have a chance against the government. Since we are relatively prosperous, there are no serious revolutionary movements. But if our government ever evolves into a tyranny, no one will be able to oppose it.

(This is one reason conservatives try to control the central government's power.)

We've had a brief period of short-term peace and prosperity. In a historical context it is very brief. But it gives progressives the illusion of eternal progress.