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...