Chapter 1: The Controversy of Pinker's Claims

Steven Pinker is a name familiar to anyone interested in history, culture, or social dynamics. His influential book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, published in 2011, asserts that we are currently experiencing the least violent period in human history. While this assertion garnered significant attention, it also faced substantial criticism, particularly from experts in fields that Pinker frequently addresses.

Pinker, a psychologist rather than a historian or anthropologist, passionately advocates the belief that Enlightenment principles have greatly improved the world. However, numerous substantial flaws exist in his approach to "proving" this theory.

Are warfare and murder the most effective measures of violence in society? What about various forms of non-lethal aggression that have been prevalent over the last few centuries and continue today? Pinker posits that the past was a chaotic era (which it wasn't) and that the Enlightenment ushered in continuous peace and prosperity (a claim that oversimplifies history). Furthermore, can we accurately extrapolate trends observed in the West to the entire globe, as Pinker often attempts to do? These are significant issues.

Pinker’s belief that increased "civilization" through rationality has led to reduced violence overlooks critical factors. Ideologies like Nazism and Bolshevism employed calculated methods to enact mass violence, an aspect that Pinker conveniently ignores due to its incongruity with his thesis.

Additionally, the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war has escalated in modern conflicts. K.B. Wilson highlights the atrocities in Mozambique, where rape and mutilation were utilized strategically to instill fear and suppress resistance—acts carried out with chilling "rationality" in recent years.

Moreover, cognitive scientists suggest that only about 2% of thought occurs at a conscious level. The vast majority is governed by subconscious beliefs and emotions, influencing our decisions and actions without our awareness. This raises questions about the true rationality of human behavior, challenging the outdated notion that we operate solely based on intention and will.

The Enlightenment (roughly 1685–1815) significantly shaped contemporary views on human rights and individual liberty. Yet, it is crucial to consider the broader context for a comprehensive understanding of these philosophies. The Founding Fathers of the United States were heavily influenced by Enlightenment ideas, yet they also held beliefs that limited rights to a select group of people. Slavery was prevalent, and women were not regarded as equals. In fact, for the first century of the Republic, voting rights were restricted to property-owning white men. These fundamental Enlightenment principles are deeply flawed and restrictive.

Eric D. Weitz, a historian specializing in German and Soviet history, notes that Pinker often sidesteps aspects of Enlightenment thought that contradict his narrative. The delineation of people into "civilized" and "barbaric" was central to Enlightenment discourse and facilitated human rights abuses against those deemed incapable of rational thought. The goal here is not to entirely dismiss the Enlightenment, but to acknowledge its complexities and contradictions—elements that Pinker overlooks. To foster a world more grounded in human rights, we must confront and question the darker aspects of Enlightenment thought.

Section 1.1: The Flaws in Pinker's Generalizations

One major flaw in Pinker’s argument is his assertion that non-state societies—tribes and clans—are inherently more violent than those governed by states. Contrary to his claims, evidence suggests the opposite. For further insights on this topic, refer to [this video](youtube_id).

Pinker relies on outdated philosophies from figures like Hobbes and Rousseau, who lacked access to modern scientific data. Their perceptions of past societies are largely irrelevant in contemporary social science discussions.

Pinker presupposes that a dominance hierarchy is necessary to maintain order, yet the emergence of such power structures around 10,000 years ago correlates with increased violence, often maintained through coercion and brutality. The social contracts that once facilitated peace in non-hierarchical societies began to erode in favor of might makes right.

Linda Fibiger, a senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, critiques Pinker's analysis of historical violence, noting that his data lacks coherence. For instance, Pinker references a Danish burial site to illustrate prehistoric violence, but this single site does not accurately represent broader trends across non-state societies.

Subsection 1.1.1: Misinterpretations of Violence

Chapter 2: The Narrative of Violence and History

Pinker’s broad generalizations, often accepted as fact, must be critically examined. Historian Warren Brown argues that sweeping statements fail to convey the true picture, and raw data must be contextualized.

For example, while thirteenth-century England may seem more violent than today’s US or EU, specific urban areas now experience similar violence levels. The comparison of Mesolithic settlers to Paleolithic nomads, or Western Europeans to those in other regions, illustrates the danger of oversimplification.

To create meaningful change, we must grasp the complexities of history rather than rely on appealing narratives that distort data and ignore critical events.

© Copyright Elle Beau 2023