Freedomain Radio

I started to read his 2011 book 'Better Angels of our Nature:  Why Violence has Declined'

It is a long (800+ pages), but provocative book.  From what I gather so far, he is saying that violence has been declining since the beginning of human history.  He splits human history into periods and says that we are in the most peaceful time in history.  and violence is being discredited.  He even has graphs that show that hunter-gatherer or 'anarchist' societies had much higher murder rates, when you look at proportions  (murders per 100,000 people).  With around 25 percent of people dying from violence in the medieval period.  And around 300-500 per 100,000 occuring in the renaissance and around 1-8 per 100,000 today.  With western europe being around 1 per 100,000 for about a century.

But he also gives five reasons, some of which we might agree with, others we won't.

The Leviathan (the state; reigns in internal violence) 
Gentle Commerce (economic incentives for cooperation) 
Feminization (empowerment of women; men are naturally more violent) 
The Expanding Circle (empathy; sympathizing with ever wider classes) 
The Escalator of Reason (rationality; application of empathy)

and distinct periods in the history of violence:

Anarchic hunter-gatherer

Civilizing process

Humanitarian Revolution and Enlightenment

Long Peace, since WW2

New Peace, since the Cold War

And the relatively recent 'Rights Revolution':  opposition to bullying, discrimination, beating women and children, etc. among many or most people.

He says that Leviathan is one of the main reasons for the decline of violence.  And violence which still exists occurs because the police and criminals do not really identify or see much use for the other.   Which occurs in some parts of America, usually with white cops who police black civilians, where the civilian does not feel confident that he/she can appeal to the state.  But when the confidence rises, in other parts, this is usually creates more peace.  Hence some parts of the US are comparable to the peaceful Europe.  While others are incredibly high.  

He also takes on some arguments about human nature.  Claiming that Hobbes and Roussaeu were both wrong about many things, since they had no empirical data.  He refutes some beliefs about human nature, while making some evolutionary arguments for what might be more correct.  For instance, if we are capable of constant warfare like our ancestors the chimps.  Or more peaceful like the bonobos.  Scientists do not know which way early humans lived.  Or if indeed we actually know the true lifestyle of bonobos, given their endangered and controlled status.  native americans today, also lived in a controlled environment instead of lush environments, and there is no way to know much about their distant history.  He also looks at some archaelogical data to see signs of violence.

I think this is an interesting, albeit long, contribution to the discussion of states versus anarchism.  With Pinker taking the side of states, in this case.  But with well-documented facts.  This might be one of the most popular political books right now.  So it is definitely worth discussing.

It seems like a silly question perhaps, but does he define 'violence' anywhere in the book?

I think it is implied as aggressive force or murder.

He acknowledges that the state has, or is in theory, a monopoly on this force.  But that because it does, it has decreased the need for competitive force, or vigilance, because people feel safer.  And thus overall numbers of instances of violence, including state kind, go down.

That is the argument, I think.

It's pure blathering insanity. Or, worse, pure insidious propagandizing.

People feel safer? Decreased the need for vigilance? 

Of course, the book won't include things like the threat of force implied in taxation, the threat of force implied in licensure and regulation, the threat of force implied in tort and civil mediation of relationships, the threat of force implied in compulsory schooling, or the constant threat of force that children labor under in those schools.

Violence has "declined" because we choose to lie to ourselves about most of it today. Anyone who "feels confident" when "appealing to the state" is living in a fantasy world, or is sickeningly corrupt.

As a comprehensive compilation of historical data, the book is quite good.  I do not dispute his data.  All of those variables did occur and likely had some effect on decreasing physical violence.  An issue I have related to this topic is this idea that anarchy could have existed in the distant, (or recent) past.  I can fully accept that a leviathian could have an influence on decreasing physical violence.  Whether it is moral or the most effective means to do so is another independent question.  We have evolved out of a fairly tribal and violent world.  As is often discussed on FDR, the state is an effect of the family.  While universal morality does not change with time, our ability to achieve a life congruous with it can, and has.  

The one area he blew it on, is his complete lack of acknowledgement to the effects of abuse on the mind.  He excruciatingly explores various areas of the brain that are linked to violence, as well as the effects of evolution on neurobiology.  He does not however, differentiate between a mind brought up in the horrors of life centuries ago, and compare its perception of reality to a mind brought up in a nurturing, (truly) non-violent environment.  To me, this is darn close to deception by omission.

What is human nature in the absence of abuse?  Can one even make a claim of human nature having causal effects in the presence of significant abuse?

GregG:

It's pure blathering insanity. Or, worse, pure insidious propagandizing.

People feel safer? Decreased the need for vigilance? 

Of course, the book won't include things like the threat of force implied in taxation, the threat of force implied in licensure and regulation, the threat of force implied in tort and civil mediation of relationships, the threat of force implied in compulsory schooling, or the constant threat of force that children labor under in those schools.

Violence has "declined" because we choose to lie to ourselves about most of it today. Anyone who "feels confident" when "appealing to the state" is living in a fantasy world, or is sickeningly corrupt.

Actually, Steven Pinker is honest.  He says that the state is violence: taxation and all of the other things. He doesn't deny it.  And even works wars and the rest into the data.

And he gives objective numbers and historical evidence that show that, on the contrary, we see and try to stop more violence today than in the past.  It was in the past, that child abuse and rape and torture and the rest were common place and not even talked about or debated.  Today, they happen, but must happen in secret.  And they are penalized or frowned upon by most.

 That doesn't mean it is all going away.  Only that violence is declining, as versus the rest of human history.

I'm not sure he promotes a lot of the specific things you mention here.  He is pro-market, and sees the state as necessary to promote peaceful markets and commerce for civilized society.

I don't think he has tried to refute market anarchism.  At least I haven't gotten through the whole book yet.  But he has tried to refute notions of primitivist anarchism, which he believes are based on fantasy.  I think he is mainly concerned with countering skeptics who think the modern is something we must oppose, or that think that violence is inevitable product of history and capitalism.  Or that modern people have invented violence.  He is countering also religious notions that our world has gone astray morally because of the collapse of religion.  In the first chapter he goes through all of the violence and terror attacks in the Old Testament and Greek myths.

John Ess:

Actually, Steven Pinker is honest.  He says that the state is violence: taxation and all of the other things. He doesn't deny it.

Can I get a citation on this, since I've never heard him say this.. But if so would certainly challenge my opinion of him thus far.

I don't question a lot of the data showing a decline in actual violence. My problem with his argument, is to my knowledge he never dicusses the 'threat of' violence.. Or if he does imply it, he seems to suggest that it's part of the reason why there has been a decline in actual violence. He misses out on a whole bunch of other reasons why there could be a decline, such as the free market. He vaguely talks about trade, but seemingly gives all the credit to the benevolent state in facilitating such trade.

It is far safer to live in today's world, at least in the west, than in any other point in history.  That said, the amount of violence inflicted on us is still quite massive.  We may experience less interpersonal violence, but with 90% of parents hitting their children at one point or another, the massive predations of taxation, inflation, and debt by the government, I don't know that violence has really decreased.

The threat of violence has shifted to an abstract, an as-long-as-you-pay-we-leave-you-alone understanding between the ruling class and the slave class.  Wars are still massively destructive, and it is an amazing feat of blindness to say that we have been living in a time of peace since WW2 and the Cold War.  To call the Cold War a time of peace is to redefine "peace" into a formless, wet ball of hair.

He released a book on the order of a decade ago which (apparently) had claims which boiled down to environment being insignificant to our development.  I'm sure there's a series of subterranean premises behind that conclusion, but it makes sense that the same guy who says that environment barely matters would turn around and say that the state is responsible for the reduction in human violence.

Because there is a clear phenomenon, it begs explanation.  To a guy who believes that it doesn't matter what your parents did to you, he could have said that cattywampus beelzebub is why we have less violence and it would be just as coherent.

I just want to add that there is a pretty fundamental contradiction to Pinker's statements here, which I'd be interested to find out if he mentions.

If environment does not form who we are, then what is the state?  How exactly does the state reduce violence?

Philosophically, the state doesn't exist, so it couldn't have reduced violence. What has reduced interpersonal violence is the extension of personhood to previously excluded classes.  That was not done through the application of violence but the increased universalization of morality.

John Ess:

...when you look at proportions  (murders per 100,000 people).  With around 25 percent of people dying from violence in the medieval period.  And around 300-500 per 100,000 occuring in the renaissance and around 1-8 per 100,000 today.  With western europe being around 1 per 100,000 for about a century.

 

I am curious, too, as to the definitions he uses.  I do not want to claim your post are his words but when he says murder and you say murder, do you both mean the willful taking or human life regardless of who are the victim and perpetrator?  Would he count "good" (Allies, for example) military body counts as not murder as opposed to "evil" (Axis, for example) military body counts being murder or are state-sanctioned deaths not counted as murder?  Is murder in his definition so narrow as to only include individuals acting alone without legal/state sanction taking the life of another/others?  My point is that if you take the actions of state agents out of the equation then private society seems statistically more peaceful and I would bet it actually is.  If you add in all the deaths caused by the state agents than I am betting his pronouncement on how tranquil and peaceful today's societies are changes quite a bit.

Two questions come to mind:

1. How much does the recent decline in the murder rate depend on advances in medicine?

2. How could he possibly have data of any reliability about murders that occured during prehistoric times or in many more recent periods like the medieval period for that matter?

xelent:

John Ess:

Actually, Steven Pinker is honest.  He says that the state is violence: taxation and all of the other things. He doesn't deny it.

Can I get a citation on this, since I've never heard him say this.. But if so would certainly challenge my opinion of him thus far.

I don't question a lot of the data showing a decline in actual violence. My problem with his argument, is to my knowledge he never dicusses the 'threat of' violence.. Or if he does imply it, he seems to suggest that it's part of the reason why there has been a decline in actual violence. He misses out on a whole bunch of other reasons why there could be a decline, such as the free market. He vaguely talks about trade, but seemingly gives all the credit to the benevolent state in facilitating such trade.

His theory of the state he calls 'Leviathan', taken from Hobbes, and he defines it thus:

The Leviathan, a state and judiciary with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, can defuse the temptation of exploitative attack, inhibit the impulse for revenge, and circumvent the self-serving biases that make all parties believe they are on the side of the angels.

He says that some people can do okay without the state for a time or forever, as long as they know that push-comes-to-shove they can turn to the state.  For instance, farmers can decide on certain norms between themselves over a period of time.  Without resorting to state or judiciary, but that this is because they know that they can go to the state if they so wish.  And this is the 'threat of violence'.  In Hobbes' theory, as in Pinker, the law is always the threat of violence.  Which is used to supercede threat of war or anarchic violence.

Commerce is indeed one of the 'historical forces', in addition to Leviathan, feminization, cosmopolitanism, and the escalator of reason. Which he defines this way:

Commerce is a positive-sum game in which everybody can win; as technological progress allows the exchange of goods and ideas over longer distances and among larger groups of trading partners, other people become more valuable alive than dead, and they are less likely to become targets of demonization and dehumanization. 

Feminization is the process in which cultures have increasingly respected the interests and values of women. Since violence is largely a male pastime, cultures that empower women tend to move away from the glorification of violence and are less likely to breed dangerous subcultures of rootless young men.

The forces of cosmopolitanism such as literacy, mobility, and mass media can prompt people to take the perspective of people unlike themselves and to expand their circle of sympathy to embrace them.

Finally, an intensifying application of knowledge and rationality to human affairs—the escalator of reason—can force people to recognize the futility of cycles of violence, to ramp down the privileging of their own interests over others’, and to reframe violence as a problem to be solved rather than a contest to be won.

JamesP:

I just want to add that there is a pretty fundamental contradiction to Pinker's statements here, which I'd be interested to find out if he mentions.

If environment does not form who we are, then what is the state?  How exactly does the state reduce violence?

Philosophically, the state doesn't exist, so it couldn't have reduced violence. What has reduced interpersonal violence is the extension of personhood to previously excluded classes.  That was not done through the application of violence but the increased universalization of morality.

He doesn't say environment does not form who we are.  In fact, it does to a large extent.  Though, as you'll see in his other books he is a big proponent of human nature.

  He thinks environments which we have formed over time have reduced violence.  While others, have produced violent people.  That is environment affecting who we are.

He says the state reduces number of instances of violence, through having the monopoly on legitimate force and thus discouraging many acts of violence we can then deem illegitimate.  You cannot kill whoever you want, but the state might put you in prison if you kill someone -- in order to prevent killing from taking place.  this is the choice that is made with the state's monopoly on legitimate force, versus anarchic violence which makes no distinction.  In the case of the state, supposedly they are less frequent and help to maintain the long-term peace.

I think he would say that the state, or better states, represent better cases of universalizaton.  But that the state represents an acknowledgment of the universalization.  People prefer more moral behavior to less.  So they choose the state use of minimal violence to stop murderers, rather than choose to allow or condone murder.

The state exists when there is a choice made to monopolize 'legitimate force'.  And it ceases to exist when there isn't.  And thus you see the difference in both having different results.

 what he is not saying is that there is something called 'a state' which is timeless and eternal or unquestionable.  It really is an institution which exist sometimes but not others.  And people have made choices to respect it or not.  He even agrees as to what it does.  But he is saying that we must look at what it has done -- good and bad -- weigh the data to make a decision about it.   In comparison to when it was weaker or non-existent.  If we look at the present versus the past, we are lead to the conclusion that it has reduced violence.

I've not done a lot of research into this subject but what little I have done has led me to this simple conclusion... The reduction of human violence is wholely attributable to the evolution of human conciousness.

Nation states, religion and other superstitions, organized slavery, the normalization of infanticide and mysogyny, are all constructs of the human mind and are therefore mere side effects of our mental evolution. The same can be said for empathy, morality, UPB and any other thing one can view as a human good.

When one looks at it from that perspective, it becomes clear that the state has done nothing to reduce violence, nor has the church. On the contrary, they're simply tools that we have used over time and to be sure, we have used for much too long... not unlike a 21st century carpenter who still uses hand saws and home cast, square nails. His productivity is vastly hampered by using those old fahioned tools. Religion and the state are those old fashioned tools and while they may not currently be escalating human violence, they are certainly slowing its reduction to a near grinding halt.

In any event, I'm sure he has included some very well sourced and factual information in this book. However, if he is unwilling to move outside his mental comfort zone and treat the state with the same level of scrutiny and brute honesty he applies to all the other components of human history... his theses will be tainted..

Cooper MacLean:

John Ess:

...when you look at proportions  (murders per 100,000 people).  With around 25 percent of people dying from violence in the medieval period.  And around 300-500 per 100,000 occuring in the renaissance and around 1-8 per 100,000 today.  With western europe being around 1 per 100,000 for about a century.

 

 

I am curious, too, as to the definitions he uses.  I do not want to claim your post are his words but when he says murder and you say murder, do you both mean the willful taking or human life regardless of who are the victim and perpetrator?  Would he count "good" (Allies, for example) military body counts as not murder as opposed to "evil" (Axis, for example) military body counts being murder or are state-sanctioned deaths not counted as murder?  Is murder in his definition so narrow as to only include individuals acting alone without legal/state sanction taking the life of another/others?  My point is that if you take the actions of state agents out of the equation then private society seems statistically more peaceful and I would bet it actually is.  If you add in all the deaths caused by the state agents than I am betting his pronouncement on how tranquil and peaceful today's societies are changes quite a bit.

He counts war:  world war II and others.  Here are some statistics about the 20th century from the book.

6 billion people died, in some way or other, during the 20th century.  40 million people died in battle.  That is about 0.7 percent of the population dying from battles.  "good guys" or "bad guys".  There is no distinction in the numbers.

180 million people died, if we add together all war, purges, genocide, and other atrocities.  This would mean that 3 percent of deaths occurred in any of these ways.

In 2005, though, 2.4 million Americans died in total.  But there were 18,000 homicides.  And 945 Americans died in Iraq.  That is 0.0008 percent of deaths.  In that, year about 17,000 people died because of political violence including all wars, terrorism, killings by warlords, etc. Which was about 0.0003 percent of the deaths that year.  He says that even if you multiply that by 20 to factor in all famine and disease that might be caused by political violence, it is still 0.006 of deaths.  This was considered the worst year in the 'war on terrorism'.