The name Steven Pinker resonates with anyone interested in history, culture, or social dynamics. His acclaimed work, The Better Angels of Our Nature, released in 2011, argues that we are living in the least violent period of human history. This claim sparked considerable debate, garnering both acclaim and criticism, particularly from experts in the fields Pinker discusses.

Pinker is a psychologist, not a historian or anthropologist, and his enthusiasm for the idea that the Enlightenment brought about a more civilized world has driven him to seek evidence supporting this view. However, his approach raises several significant concerns.

Is warfare and murder the most effective way to gauge violence in society? What about other forms of non-fatal violence that have occurred historically and continue to happen today? Pinker suggests that the past was a brutal existence (which it wasn’t) and that the Enlightenment led to ongoing prosperity and peace (a much more complex issue). Additionally, Pinker's tendency to generalize Western trends to the global context is problematic.

His assertion that increased "civilization" through rational thought has reduced violence overlooks critical factors. Ideologies like Nazism and Bolshevism have employed systematic and deliberate methods for mass violence—an aspect Pinker tends to overlook since it contradicts his narrative.

Moreover, the use of rape as a systematic tool of war has intensified in recent centuries. K.B. Wilson highlights that in Mozambique, horrific acts such as rape and cannibalism were used to instill fear and dismantle organized resistance—actions carried out with disturbing rationality in recent years.

Cognitive scientists argue that only about 2% of thought occurs consciously, while the majority stems from subconscious beliefs and emotions that guide our actions, suggesting that human rationality is far more complex than Pinker's perspective implies.

While the Enlightenment (approximately 1685–1815) significantly shaped modern beliefs about human rights and individual freedoms, it's essential to recognize the broader context to fully grasp this philosophical movement. Although the American Constitution was influenced by Enlightenment ideas, it is crucial to note the inherent inequalities in those beliefs—only certain individuals were deemed worthy of rights, leading to a legacy of slavery and gender inequality. The Founding Fathers, for instance, owned slaves and did not consider women equal to men. For the first century of the Republic, voting rights were restricted to property-owning white men. These Enlightenment principles are not only historically significant but also deeply flawed.

Historian Eric D. Weitz critiques Pinker for ignoring elements of Enlightenment thought that do not align with his arguments. He states, "The division of humanity into civilized and barbaric groups facilitated human rights abuses and violence against those deemed incapable of rational thought. The goal isn't to dismiss Enlightenment as a whole but to acknowledge the contradictions and complexities within its philosophy, which Pinker overlooks. To advance toward a world enriched by human rights, we must confront and challenge these darker aspects of the Enlightenment."

Another flaw in Pinker's reasoning is his claim that non-state societies—composed of clans or tribes—are inherently more violent than those with governments, a stance contradicted by existing evidence. Hobbes and Rousseau were not social scientists but philosophers without access to modern data, rendering their views on historical violence largely irrelevant in today's social science discussions.

Pinker assumes that a hierarchy of power is necessary to maintain societal order, but the emergence of such structures approximately 10,000 years ago coincided with an increase in violence, as order was often enforced through coercion and punishment. The social contracts that maintained peace in pre-hierarchy societies began to erode in favor of a might-is-right mentality.

Linda Fibiger, a senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, critiques Pinker's interpretations, stating, "Pinker’s analysis of historical violence is flawed. For instance, his table comparing warfare deaths in non-state and state societies is based on a limited and unrepresentative sample of sites."

Fibiger emphasizes that a single site from Denmark cannot represent the broader prehistoric context, and comparing it with geographically and temporally distinct sites is problematic.

The notion that violence was prevalent in the Paleolithic era is often based on sparse evidence—such as cave art and skeletal remains—that does not provide a comprehensive view of historical violence. Many social structures exist that mitigate war, including kinship ties and norms promoting peace, suggesting that while humans have always possessed the capacity for violence, it was not a dominant aspect of life until the last 10,000 years.

The first recorded war is believed to have occurred around 10,000 years ago, marking a shift from sporadic instances of violence to more organized forms of conflict. Pinker's own data reveals a transition from a long period of relative peace to a time when domination and coercion became common.

Discussions on what constitutes violence are also essential. Does a ritual sacrifice carry the same weight as murder? How do we categorize prolonged suffering inflicted on individuals, such as slavery, even if they survive?

Weitz further argues against a linear progression from barbarism to civilization, emphasizing the complexities involved in societal development. The struggles for freedom by marginalized groups throughout history often involved significant violence, which Pinker's statistics may overlook.

Historian Warren Brown notes that broad generalizations fail to capture the nuances of historical violence, stating that the levels of violence in different societies cannot be simplistically compared.

Pinker’s narrative of human history does not reflect the intricate dynamics that have shaped societies across time and geography. It is vital to understand that progress toward a more civilized world is not automatic or inevitable; it requires a critical examination of history and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.

© Copyright Elle Beau 2023