THIS BLOG HAS MOVED AND HAS A NEW HOME PAGE.

December 23, 2011

Book review: The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker

The main thesis of Steven Pinker's latest book is that violence has declined dramatically over time and that we are now living in the most peaceful time in history, and to suggest reasons for this. The decline has not been uniformly steady but has a saw-tooth pattern of periodic upticks of violence followed by steeper drops leading to an overall decline over time.

This is not a proposition that is obvious since many people despair of the state of the world now with wars between nations, civil wars, genocides, and the brutal suppression of dissent seemingly taking place all over the globe. It is in order to counter this perception that Pinker has to write such a long book (running to nearly 700 pages even without the endnotes and citations), amassing the data and evidence and arguments necessary whenever one is making a counter-intuitive case. So the book is heavy with numbers and graphs that could easily become tedious except that Pinker has a deft writing style that lifts the reader whenever the going gets tough. The book has sparked considerable interest and on his website Pinker has responded to some of the reactions and criticisms.

Pinker looks at all manner of violence from all kinds of conflicts, from wars, homicides, slavery, genocides, rapes, rebellions, and others as a percentage of the population at the time they occurred. In other words, he is using as his measure of violence not the actual number of casualties but the probability that an individual living at that particular time was likely to suffer violence and death at the hands of another.

Of the many charts, graphs, and tables in the book, the centerpiece is undoubtedly the table on page 195 that ranks the twenty one worst conflicts in history in terms of the absolute number of deaths and also in terms of its population-adjusted rank. While World War II had a death toll of 55 million that is the largest ever for a single identifiable conflict, when calculated as a fraction of the global population, it barely makes it into the list of the top ten worst conflicts of all time, being just number 9. The eight that rank above it involve some events that most people likely have never heard of, at least in the west. The An Lushan revolt and civil war that took place in China in the 8th century is the worst. The deaths caused by the Middle East and Atlantic slave trades are at #3 and #8 respectively while the annihilation of Native Americans is #7. World War I with its 15 million dead comes in at #16.

The reason for this distorted perception is that people tend to magnify events that they or their immediate ancestors have personal experience with, and discount others. So for us, relatively recent conflicts such as World War II, Vietnam, Iraq, the Rwandan genocide, the Stalin purges, etc. seem to dominate history when, when looked at in terms of the number of deaths as a ratio of population, some of them don't even register as significant sources of casualties.

People point to the two World Wars of the twentieth century with their terrible loss of life and ask how it can be that the twentieth century is not the worst century in history for violence. Pinker points out that although World Wars I and II were bad, they both occurred in the first half of the century and that the second half had no major conflicts, so the century average was lowered.

In seeking explanations for the decline in violence, Pinker, echoing Peter Singer in his classic work The Expanding Circle, invokes various revolutions that have led to an expansion in our circle of sympathy, so that we now view more categories of people to be like us instead of as the 'other', and now view as deplorable acts done to them that might have been acceptable in the past. The Age of Reason in the 17th century, followed by the Enlightenment towards the end of the 18th, leading to a humanitarian revolution in the 19th, followed by the various rights revolutions of the 20th century (civil, women's, children's, gay, animal) all led to a rise in the value attached to life and steps being taken to curb violence towards those formerly marginalized groups. While the improvement has been uneven, the overall trend is clear. These measures, combined with the increased state monopoly on the legitimate use of force, the increase in commerce between nations, greater cosmopolitanism, the rise in the status and role of women, and the increased application of knowledge and rationality to human affairs have been major factors in the reduction in the use of violence to resolve conflicts.

So why is it that so many still persist in thinking that things are really bad now and yearn for the 'good old days'? The decline in violence can have the perverse effect of making things seem to be bad now when in fact they have objectively got better. For example, we are now rightly outraged about the harsher prison sentences that African Americans get when compared with white people who commit the same crimes. And while this injustice needs to be corrected, we should not overlook the fact that not so long ago African Americans would have experienced summary and often lethal 'justice' at the hands of a mob for the most trivial of offenses and few would have spoken out in protest. So we have come a long way even as we have yet some ways to go.

While Pinker's analysis of the data showing a decline in violence and his arguments as to the reasons are persuasive, the book's main weakness weakness lies in his political analysis. The Canadian-born writer, who is a professor of psychology at Harvard, tends to view politics through a western prism and accepts much of conventional wisdom about political developments. While he does not spare the US and colonial powers for their historical contribution to violence, when he reaches for graphic recent examples to illustrate his points, he tends to pick on Nazis and Communism and other convetional villains and overlook similar examples that are closer to home. For example, when looking at the role of ideology in making leaders pursue policies that result in the deaths of thousands of people, his examples are of Stalin and Mao. But he could well ask the same question of president Truman and his decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or Lyndon Johnson's decision to carpet bomb Vietnam with conventional and chemical weapons that resulted in massive deaths and destruction and long—term harm to subsequent generations. As another example, when trying to understand what might make a soldier gun down a group of defenseless innocent people, his example is of a Nazi soldier massacring a group of Jews during the Holocaust. He does not mention My Lai, though that would also be apropos and is more recent.

It is easy for those who care about the state of the world and what we are bequeathing to future generations to succumb to a sense of despair and think that violence and cruelty are indelible features of our existence that have always existed and will always exist and may be getting even worse as our capacity to harm others increases with the development of more sophisticated weaponry. What this book argues is that while serious problems and conflicts still exist and we are by no means living in a utopia, such deep pessimism is unwarranted. Things are better now than they have ever been and can be yet better in the future as long as we continue to expand the circle of concern to include more and more people within its ambit.

Pinker is careful not to make predictions for the future since who knows what might happen but argues the future can be bright. This book's main virtue is that it provides hope that is not based on wishful thinking but on data.

In a TED talk on this topic, delivered in 2007, Pinker outlines the main theses that were later developed in the book.








Although long, this is a book that is definitely worth reading and having on your shelf because of the wealth of data that it gathers together between its covers. It is an encyclopedia of the history of violence and thus, at the very least, will be a useful reference work.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry is: http://blog.case.edu/singham/mt-tb.cgi/26192

Comments

Percentages are a far better measure than sheer numbers. The Khmer Rouge murdered about 1.5 million Cambodians, but as a percentage of the population that exceeded the atrocities of the Holocaust and was done in a shorter time than the Holocaust.

It's not just violence, but disease. The Black Plague killed a third of Europeans in the two times it hit. People flipped out over SARS, but H1N1 would have had to kill 240 million Europeans to even be comparable; SARS killed less than a thousand.

Or think about the influenza epidemic of 1917. It killed 2 million people at a time when the world's population was around 2 billion. In other words, influenza killed about one in every thousand people. The swine flue of a few years ago would have to kill 650 million to be comparable.


"The Expanding Circle, invokes various revolutions that have led to an expansion in our circle of sympathy, so that we now view more categories of people to be like us instead of as the 'other', and now view as deplorable acts done to them that might have been acceptable in the past. The Age of Reason in the 17th century, followed by the Enlightenment towards the end of the 18th...."

That's something I would have mentioned if you hadn't. Prior to the Renaissance, many atrocities were the result of absolutist thinking that rationalized unjustifiable acts such as the crusades. Waging wars against other nations for trifles and insults between kings, or doing so out of hubris (e.g. Alexander, the Khans) was commonplace.

After the enlightenment, atrocities had to be justified through poor logic (e.g. slavery) or political posturing and imperialism (e.g. the Thirty Years War, colonialism). Today, it's much harder to get people in open societies to swallow the lies and back such things, though George Bush's illegal wars show that it can still happen.

.

Posted by P Smith on December 23, 2011 09:41 AM

This sounds like the exact hypothesis Gwynne Dyer put forward in his classic book "War" ( http://gwynnedyer.com/books/ ). Though Dyer points out the optimistic historical trends, he does caution that with modern technology--nuclear weapons in particular--such numbers can be subverted dramatically overnight, and we shouldn't take the end of the Cold War for granted as being clear of such danger.

Oddly enough, both authors are also Canadian.

Since reading Dyer's analysis years ago, I've taken it as a boost of positivity that helps remind me when things seem bleak, that history is perhaps on my side in the long haul.

Posted by Joshua T on December 23, 2011 10:30 AM

World population has increased from 2 billion, at the time of my birth, to 7 billion today.

Judging violence based on the proportion of people at risk and living at a given time is a poor way to evaluate the magnitude of violent act. A murder today would count so much less by this standard because the proportion of society that would be impacted today would be so much smaller than that at the time of my birth. At some point, following this logic, a murder will barely be worthy of notice; that is, except for the few who were directly targeted and involved. This mode disinterest and acceptance of violence is in effect today in the USA’s war against Iraq due to the low information and means of recourse available to the public, in whose name it acts.

The terror of war is known only by those who experience its realities. The American public knows little of the terror of war in comparison to those who are its targets.

In addition, imprisonment without trial is a form of violence and is an egregious response to a non-violent and an often arbitrarily illegal act. The USA has 25% of the world’s prison population but only 5% of the world’s total population. Either the people of the USA, or its government, would appear to be disproportionately evil by world standards.

The USA uses Food Terrorism on the populations of regimes it decides to undermine; the death of 500,000 children in Iraq was deemed worth the price by Madeline Albright.

Through the continuing series of USA’s wars without declaration, it must be seen as capable of terrorizing significantly large proportions of the world’s population in furtherance of its foreign policy through demonstration of large scale violence capability through demonstrations of violence on proportionately small populations.

Posted by Glenn on December 27, 2011 01:35 AM

Wow!!! this is an amazing post which has great information in it and I have to thank you for sharing this information with everyone. I think the information mentioned in this blog are something people need to read and think about it. It is worth reading this article and I think I will try to read the book mentioned in this blog....

Posted by Ronnie on December 27, 2011 02:19 AM

Glenn,

You raise a good point that many other people have raised. Pinker specifically addresses this in his book and on his website in the link given above.

Posted by Mano on December 27, 2011 09:40 AM

Yeah, in a way I am glad that those days are long gone when there were more of violence. However I really don't think violence has reduced in our present world, as I still see and hear about murder all around the world especially the latest incident happening in the Middle East countries.

Posted by Maria on December 29, 2011 12:11 AM

If this book is supposed to be an exhaustive study of all manner of violence, where are the statistics that suggest a correlation of self destructive behaviors such as depression, suicide, (obesity, drugs etc.) and abortion to countries with increased taxes, commerce, literacy etc? There is also an increase of atheism in developing countries. Theism has been demonstrated to be more conducive to health than atheism.(Zuckerman) Is self destruction not violent? We should not be so quick to pat ourselves on the back.

Posted by Dee on January 6, 2012 05:53 AM

Dee,

An author has to draw the line somewhere and Pinker's book was not meant to be about all manner of violence but only about violence at the hands of others.

Posted by Mano on January 6, 2012 12:58 PM