Cognitive psychologist and science populariser STEVEN PINKER declares a cause for celebration in ‘A History of Violence’, an essay published in The New Republic on 19 March 2007. Despite the inundation of horrific reports of war, murder and mayhem, writes Pinker, the early twenty-first century is in fact the most peaceful moment humanity has experienced. This proposition rests both on the findings of much recent quantitative social science as well as on less systematic observation of contemporary social reality around the globe. Reliable records show that, in relative terms, such indices as homicide rates and battle deaths have been in steady decline for centuries, and register an especially sharp reduction in the twentieth and twenty-first. Meanwhile, a host of plainly observable phenomena suggest that modernity induces a shift toward gentleness and compassion. Official legislative acts — national and international — against slavery, torture and cruel punishment are complemented by the adoption of ever more delicate ordinary manners. The sociologist NORBERT ELIAS had proposed in the late 1930s that this collection of phenomena attests to a ‘civilizing process’, an increasing human tendency toward ‘self-control’, empathic sensitivity and ‘long-term planning’ — a thesis in which Pinker puts considerable stock. Our fortunate current circumstance is not attributable to any material change in basic human psychology; the answer lies instead in our modern cultural and institutional arrangements, Pinker submits. He lists four likely causal candidates: a) state government’s role as the holder of a monopoly on legitimate violence, which discourages offensive violence and makes retributive and preemptive violence redundant;1 b) a positive change in the perception of the worth of human life, greatly aided by the global rise in the standard of living; c) the wide adoption of a non-zero-sum outlook, in recognition of the fact that cooperation can be vastly mutually beneficial, especially in the presence of such catalysts as modern transport and communications technologies — an idea that owes much of its currency to the author ROBERT WRIGHT; d) the expansion of the ‘circle of empathy’, whereby the welfare of people (and animals) unrelated to us becomes morally salient — an idea popularised by the philosopher PETER SINGER.
No matter its causes, one would think that news of the decline of violence would be greeted with enthusiasm. Yet, more often than not, the reception is of the shoot-the-messenger kind. Pinker mostly attributes the negativity to a combination of cognitive bias and bad incentives. The ‘availability heuristic’, the well documented error of misjudging the frequency of an event based on the ease with which one recalls instances of it, makes violence appear more prevalent than it is.2 On the incentives front, the ‘opinion and activism markets’ thrive on the perception of permanent crisis. If activists, pundits and NGO professionals admitted that things were getting better, they would be setting themselves up for obsolescence. In some intellectual circles, the hostility to Pinker’s thesis is due to its corollary conclusions. The notion of Western-originating, Enlightenment-inspired progress ironically irritates Western, progressive, left-leaning critics, not least because the unfavourable comparison between state-governed societies and pre-modern, stateless ones undermines the all too pervasive idea of the ‘noble savage’. At the opposite end of the political spectrum, the implication that Enlightenment rationalism could produce a moral universe that is an improvement on that of the frequently blood-soaked pages of the Scriptures predictably offends right-leaning religious apologists. The transparently motivated reasoning of all these actors, which comes with varying levels of bad faith and cognitive dissonance, gives Pinker the option to be casually dismissive. There are, however, lines of critique that are less easily dismissible. For some, mere data, however suggestive, do not provide a basis for causal claims. Such critics point out that statistics are ever susceptible to the agendas and creativity of the practitioners. A trend, they add, is not a reliable predictor of the future; indeed, some of history’s most monumental sociopolitical crises occurred in the wake of expert predictions of a bright future.3 To others, the very notion of ‘progress’ is an import from monotheism, a secular adaptation of divine ‘providence’, and a purely scientific outlook — to which Pinker regularly avows his commitment — would have no place for it.4 To a critic of this ilk, Pinker’s thesis is outside the realm of science, and within the realm of doxa.
See post no. 1, also titled ‘A History of Violence’.
See post no. 5, ‘But can he hit?’.
The probability scholar, trader and author NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB is known for such views, though he typically delivers them in more abrasive tones. See, for example, Antifragile, which contains an aphorism-rich, lay-friendly narrative as well as a technical appendix for the numerate.
This is an objection frequently voiced by British political philosopher JOHN GRAY, for whom pricking liberal and progressive bubbles is both vocation and avocation. Readers can get a taste of Gray’s worldview in his brutally unsentimental collection of observations, meditations and vignettes titled Straw Dogs. See post no. 38, ‘Newspeak Lesson’.