Steven Pinker: the world is gradually becoming less violent, century by century. That’s the big picture at least. In the short term, he admits, we can’t be compacent, especially with the dangers of “national leaders who combine pre-modern sensibilities with modern weapons.”
But in hunter-gatherer societies, the risk of a man dying at the hands of another man is between 15 and 60 percent. Contrast that with the twentieth century: the risk across all men in the 20th century of dying at the hands of another man was under 1 percent, despite WWI and WWII. (via Beck)
Pinker has been waging a war for some time against Romanticism, which he thinks is best represented by the concept of the “noble savage.” This sentimental mindset yearns for a simpler time, rejects modern society, hates individualism, and believes that Western civilization is inferior to primitive or tribal living. In the twentieth century Romanticism, the concept of the “blank slate” (that humans are entirely shaped by their environment) and the myth of the noble savage coalesced into a kind of retro movement, a reaction against science, modernism and the Western intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment. Romanticism is a rejection of the achievements of the West. He articulated his arguments on this topic in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, in which he takes aim at the soppy, anti-modern thinking of much of modern academia, how it has led feminism astray, corrupted the arts, and undermined our theories of education.
This article by Pinker is in keeping with that pro-modern position: it’s another piece of evidence that modern society is something to be lauded. It demonstrates that progress is real.
It shows that civilization is, in fact, civilizing.
(update: deleted clause that mad incorrect claim about origins of Romanticism, thanks reader Bruce).
{ 7 } Comments
I just read this, which contradicts the assertion that Romanticism ‘arose in the nineteenth century as a sort of retro movement, a reaction against science’:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Age-Wonder-Romantic-Generation-Discovered/dp/0007149522
British science, exploration and Romanticism all developed harmoniously together out of the unique British Empiricist objective stance. The only Romantics to whom Pinker’s argument applies are the Continentals – Germans and French – who more often remained philosophical Idealists, polarising into extremes of Right and Left, and were not as successful in Science or indeed anything else as the British were.
Oh and William Blake fits Pinker’s view, but what was his place in British society? Very much an irrelevant outsider I think.
That’s not Pinkers’ view… I made a factual error in the post which you picked up on and I’ve corrected. Don’t mistake my sloppiness for his.
The Blank Slate is mostly about twentieth century social science.
one other thing Bruce, the position that Romanticism was/is in harmony with the enlightenment is not Pinkers position. Certainly, they may have been in harmony when it came to the justification and support of exploration. They were certainly not in harmony in many other ways, and ultimately lead to very different points of view when you’re talking about how to build a society.
Thanks David, on building a society I think I’ll stick with ‘our’ own Karl Popper who puts the blame squarely on Plato:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies
John Locke and (Platonic) Descartes are ideological opposites, hence the British Enlightenment is distinct from the Continental one, and Locke’s Tabula Rasa doctrine is essential in making that distinction and setting the foundations of Empiricism. Empiricism leads to moderation since the real world is never ‘pure’ like the Platonic Idealists mental world. Hence the experience of the moderate progressive British Enlightenment was in stark contrast to the Continentals with their many bloody revolutions in their quest for perfect ‘equality’.
I’d say the EU is still blundering down that Platonic road Popper warned about, with other world leaders now following them unfortunately.
Romanticism? Great British scientists were themselves often Romantics while Coleridge was at the centre of scientific debate in his era. It’s all in Holmes’ book. No one in Britain was aware of any difference between Romantics and scientists, not just harmonious actually, they were the same people pursuing the same goals.
Sir Humphry Davy wrote fine poetry and an extremely Romantic autobiographical book in his last years:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UnU0AAAAMAAJ&dq=humphry+davy&as_brr=1&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Interesting insights, Bruce, and thanks for the reading recommendations. If you do get around to reading The Blank Slate, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it, especially in contrast with Holmes’ book (which I haven’t read).
Incidentally, on the topic of “empiricism”, the word has many meanings that are related and historically interwoven with each other. To the extent that “empiricism” justifies a tabula rasa view of human nature, it’s wrong.
This blog “the empiricist” is intended entirely to mean that I value an evidence-oriented approach to problems, rather than one driven by ideology, mysticism, tradition, or authority. It’s not meant to indicate that I have a fondness for philosophers such as David Hume, nor that I reject the concept of innate knowledge. The problem with the empiricist/rationalist debate of yore was that, ironically, they were operating without sufficient scientific data. We know have a much better understanding about how humans acquire knowledge, and both groups were wrong.
oh and regarding Karl Popper, he really is the best.