A Problem with Pinker—Part 2

Last time I described my disagreement with Pinker's proposal about the decrease of violence in society, and how Johan Galtung helped me to see why I objected to Pinker's proposal. Galtung is well-known for describing three forms of violence—as well as their alternative forms of peace. The forms of violence are:

1. Personal or direct violence—in which the violence is perpetrated by an actor, upon another person. This is the type of violence that usually comes to mind when we think of physical force or brutality. Examples are killing, murder, and physical assaults such as battery, bullying, and rape. Direct violence is the kind that Pinker primarily addresses in Better Angels.

2. Structural or indirect violence—in which there is no specific actor but occurs because it is built into the structure of a society. This form of violence prevents people from achieving their full potential, often through laws and institutions. It results in inequalities of both power and income—exhibited in racism, misogyny, and homophobia. Structural violence can be as deadly as personal violence, but it is usually not as obvious, because it's part of our social and political world. It often even insidiously seems to be normal or acceptable to many people.

3. Cultural violence—which is the beliefs and behaviors of a culture that undergird and perpetuate the other two forms of violence; especially structural violence. Cultural violence can even cause people to view the first two forms of violence as permissible. It warps morals to the point that personal and structural violence are sometimes not even seen as violent.

Galtung went on to describe three kinds of peace that oppose these three forms of violence. Direct peace is, of course, the absence of killing, bullying, and rape. Structural peace gives us a vision that violence can be eliminated, when we discover pockets of equality here and there. And finally, cultural peace can come about when we promote conflict resolution and change society's beliefs and behaviors. Ideals of cultural peace can be found in various documents and proclamations written by nations and organizations—although they too often remain lofty intentions recorded in praiseworthy documents, rather than seen in practice.

I believe that Galtung has helped me to clarify my objections to Pinker's thesis that the human world has experienced gradual and significant reductions in violence, and thus we should feel good about where we are and where we're headed. Indeed, personal and direct violence can be shown to be on the decline, as his prodigious statistics demonstrate. He shows that violence perpetrated by an actor upon another person—whether murder or mass war—has indeed been significantly reduced.

Yet I feel that both structural and cultural violence remain a major factor in society. They may not account for large body counts, but they sure cause much misery. And as Galtung points out, these types of violence are not nearly as obvious; they too often can become accepted as normal or even tolerable—they are almost invisible to many people, who have come to see them as either inevitable or natural.

In the last few years we have seen a large increase in intolerance. Polarization and social media feed the problem. It has become acceptable to attack others online and even in confrontational public displays of contentiousness and fanaticism. We have a president in the US—as well as an increasing number of autocrats around the world—who proclaim and tweet polemical accusations. Their actions embolden prejudice and bigotry. These are not Pinker's direct forms of violence, but the cultural and structural types of vehemence and savagery they exhibit often promote and condone direct violence.

While Pinker casts his glance over centuries of human conflict, I am addressing here current events. It may turn out that we are witnessing a temporary spike in structural and cultural violence and that soon things will calm down and continue inexorably toward peaceful times, when our “better angels” wield their beneficial influence. Maybe so. I hope so, but I still think Pinker is missing the terrible impact of the less conspicuous forms of structural and cultural violence.

A Problem with Pinker—Part 1

About seven years ago Steven Pinker—a prolific thinker, author, and psychology professor at Harvard—wrote a book that has received much attention: The Better Angels of Our Nature. Pinker's main thesis is that, while many of us feel violence is pervasive in today's world, we are in fact living at a time when violence has been significantly reduced. The world today is safer and much less threatening than ever before in human existence. Yes, there are many people being subjected to violence and dying today, but Pinker argues that proportionately speaking, the extermination rate of people is far less in today's societies. We are all safer.

My first reaction to Pinker's thesis was skepticism. How could he propose that violence is on the decline when it seems that the opposite is true? Aren't we being exposed constantly to myriad examples from the media of the savagery of human culture? Aren't we repeatedly reminded of the threat of terrorism, as we shudder at the latest brutal attack on innocent people? No, Professor Pinker, the world is growing worse, not better! How can you justify your stance?

The response to his book was very diverse—with some writers expressing agreement (“Thanks for pointing out the truth, professor.”), and others jumping up in fierce opposition. I favored the latter reaction, but also had to acknowledge the validity of many of his central theses. After all, Pinker is known for his exhaustive research. After reading the book, over the next few years I continued to feel of two minds—most of me disagreeing, but the rest of me arguing to hold back on my judgment, as I read additional reviews and reactions that agreed with him or took issue with his stance.

Over time I came to feel that my disagreement might be centered on how differently Pinker and I define violence. Violence is a very broad concept. One person's violence is another's harmless forcefulness, or even tough love. One person's violence can be life-denying and destructive, but another's acceptable behavior towards others.

So let's take a step back and look at the definition of violence. My Oxford American dictionary describes it as “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone.” As I pondered that definition, I came to see that my opposition to Pinker was not about the level of violence in today's society or where it might be going, but about how he defined violence. He was primarily concerned with killing, with the kind of violence that results in the death of another—such as in a war and various forms of homicide. Yes, the proportion of killings has been dramatically reduced—especially in the wake of two world wars and the implementation of smarter policing programs—but has violence really been curtailed and thus can we conclude that we are on the path toward a kinder and more benevolent future, as we rise to our better angelic actions? I continued to balk at accepting Pinker's thesis, and I recently came to an understanding that my disagreement is because of my different view of what violence is.

It helped me to clarify my feelings when a few months ago I came upon Johan Galtung's definition of three forms of violence. Galtung is a Norwegian sociologist who has written extensively on peace and conflict. He founded the Peace Research Institute in Oslo in 1959 and has held professorships at numerous universities all over the world.

More on Galtung's ideas next time...

Hooded Horrors

This summer I built a big, 800-pound Namaste Gnome out of concrete block and mortar. He may be big, but he's cute—as gnomes are supposed to be. We just had a snowstorm that transformed my endearing gnome into something that appeared to me as rather sinister...not cute at all.

Why did I have that reaction as I looked at my gnome? As I approached my sculpture for a closer look, I realized that what made it now seem a little threatening was that his cap had been altered into a straight-up conical point by the snow, rather than have that fetching forward-tilted point that gnome hats typically have. As I pondered my snow-covered gnome, I also notice that his face was covered up. Then it hit me: he looked more like a member of the dreaded Ku Klux Klan than a sweet, peaceful dwarf.

Growing up in America, one becomes enculturated by images and news reports of the KKK, a white-supremacy secret movement that originated after the Civil War. Its members wore white sheets with pointed hoods, that hid their faces—eyes peering through two spooky holes. Ever since that beginning, Klan members have spouted hate messages aimed at blacks, Catholics, Jews, and immigrants. Unfortunately, the Klan is still active today's unforgiving environment. When I look at a photo of a Klan gathering, I cannot keep from shuddering, as I remember some of the horrors they have committed.

Several years ago I saw my first images of religious penitents, parading through the streets of Spanish cities. I was rather shocked to see the costumes that they wore strongly resembled the KKK garb. The Spanish processions occur during Holy Week, just before Easter. Their outfits date from medieval times—their tall conical hoods conceal their faces, so they can demonstrate their penance, without revealing their identities. As with members of the KKK, their eyes peer through holes in their hoods.

I have had a struggle viewing the Spanish religious processions as not appearing sinister, like the threatening KKK. I know that my reaction is because I grew up with those hooded horrors, knowing they had evil on their minds, rather than a pious individual exhibiting regret for his sins.

It is fascinating that something that appears appealing can be transformed into something threatening by a modest change. Cute puppies—with their snub snouts and big eyes—can become menacing attack dogs, as they grow up. Cartoonists can change the look of a sketch from an adorable visage to a menacing face, with the stroke of a pen. I had not realized how a little snow could change my gnome from a cute dwarf into a threatening racist. I quickly brushed the snow away.

The photos below show images of my gnome (before and after snow), contrasted to Spanish penitents and KKK members surrounding a burning cross.

 Ku Klux Klansmen at early 20th century rally, with burning cross.

 Spanish penitents.

 My gnome with cute forward curl of hat.

Gnome hat and face transformed by snow. Click to enlarge.

Urinating Alfresco

The older one gets, bodily elimination activities can become increasingly pleasurable, although middle-of-the-night urinations and incidents of constipation can sometimes spoil the fun. For older men (I'm one), the act of peeing can be either relaxing or apprehensive, depending upon how tight the prostate gland is clamping down on the urethra. 

One of my most enjoyable urinations occurs on those evenings when I partake of a hot tub, just prior to sinking into the bath. I am beginning to mentally and physically relax, to release various tensions, knowing that in a few minutes I will be lowering my body into the blessed healing waters. But first, let me eliminate any urine lurking in my bladder. So I stand in the yard and let go, with a most pleasant feeling coming over me.

Just before a recent hot tub plunge, I was eliminating the yellow liquid, letting go its last remains, feeling the tension drain from my mind, as the pee flowed to the ground. I was content. All was well with the world, at that moment.

As I finished peeing and headed for my bath, I wondered why the act was so pleasurable—far more so than peeing indoors. Then it hit me that while taking a leak outside, decorating the lawn with my liquid deposit, I didn't have to aim! Men experience constant derision from the distaff side of their household for peeing on the toilet seat—and frankly most of them deserve it. Conscientious men—I surely try to be one—try hard not to decorate the toilet seat, say by carefully lifting it up first, but sometimes our aim is off.

Urinals are definitely preferable to toilets, because aim is hardly an issue there. But nothing beats outdoor pissing. I can simply let it go, with no concern, other than wetting my shoes. I can be utterly free, turn in any direction, with no concern. It's much better even than a urinal.

But as I pondered the issue that evening, I could see that there are other advantages to an alfresco urination, besides being carefree about one's aim: it also makes good ecological sense. For one, urine is an excellent plant fertilizer—it contains nitrogen and phosphorus; necessary for plant growth. Norwegian researchers have pointed out that human urine, combined with wood ashes, gives plants the three core nutrients they require. For a few years now, I have decorated our vegetable garden with wood ashes and pee. The veggies thrive, thanks to those Scandinavian ecologists.

The other ecological benefit to pissing outdoors is the savings of water to flush a toilet, which just adds more burden to sewage treatment. Some people are mindful of the wastage of water by placing a sign over the toilet that suggests, “If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down.” Good advice, especially during water shortages. This practice, however, can make for an odoriferous bathroom and stubborn yellow stains in the toilet bowl. Piss outdoors, and these problems vanish.

So an alfresco pee is both relaxing and beneficial to the environment. But there's yet more: it is fun! I call this aspect of the act “target practice.” If I'm not relieving myself in the dark, I often gaze downwards, to see where my stream is going. As mentioned earlier, I don't want to be so casual that I pee on my shoes. If, with my lowered gaze, I happen to spot an ant, I find it great fun to douse it with my yellow stream. That may sound a little cruel, but ants are used to encountering some disgusting things down there on the ground. Maybe they even enjoy the nitrogen bath.

It's also fun to target plants. As I described above, my pee is nourishing for some plants...trees especially. But uric acid can damage tender plant leaves. When fertilizing the garden, therefore, I'm careful not to empty pee jugs on delicate vegetables. For every desirable garden plant, however, there are two or three weeds that are very much undesirable. I like to bathe said weeds with my pee, and if I do it diligently for a few days in a row, I can cause a noxious weed to wilt and die. My success is quite dependent on rain, however. If my application of several coats of urine gets rinsed away by rain, I literally get washed out. I must start my plant target practice all over again. Oh, well, it's work that someone has to do.

My target-practice peeing described above is mostly a warm-weather activity. Winter brings yet another entertaining peeing pastime, when snow and ice are present. Making holes in the snow is fun. It can even become an artistic pastime, depending on the contents of my bladder. For small amounts, I try for perfect holes. For a full bladder I might try to draw a flower or write my name. (There's a 50-year-old joke about Jack Kennedy walking outside the White House with a cabinet member and getting angry when he sees his brother Bobby's name written in the snow. When the aid asked him why he was upset, JFK responded that he recognized that Bobby's name was written in Jackie's handwriting.) Another fun game is to pee on chunks of ice—trying to melt them down or slowly bore a hole.

I sometimes feel a little bad for women, who are by and large unable to engage in alfresco urinating. Sure, nothing keeps them from relieving themselves outside, but Nature did not gift them with a tool for aiming their liquid stream. It's solely a male pleasurable pastime.