The Better Angels of Our Nature, by Steven Pinker

By Roy Goble

Nicholas Kristoff commented that The Better Angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker was Pulitzer Prize worthy. Figuring that Kristoff was unlikely to lightly pass out such praise, I picked up a copy of the book.

The premise of the book is worthy of discussion: violence has steadily declined across the world over the centuries. Yes, there are hiccups along the way (World War II comes to mind), but the level of violence in society has progressively declined. Even wars have become smaller and more focused rather than spreading across the globe. In an era of non-stop media coverage of every bad thing that happens on the planet, the book offers an alternative to the accepted perspective that things are getting worse.

It’s a premise that has a lot of merit. Statistics seem to back it up, at least when looking at the percentages. And Pinker does a relatively good job of laying this out in the book.

But I had a lot of problems with the book. It’s very Western in its scope, for one thing. Seemed like almost all the data came from Europe of the USA. It also comes across as strongly anti-religion, though Pinker says that is not his intention. And the data seems anecdotal at times and not truly comprehensive. It felt Ivory Towerish, as if a professor in a safe and cozy office who had never seen a violent act in his life decided to lecture the rest of us about “the truth”. To be fair, I don’t know if that’s how Pinker operates … I’m merely saying it had that feel.

Another concern is that statistics are hard to come by for centuries past, and they may be unreliable. Even if you accept them as accurate, if millions of people die in a modern war compared to thousands of dead in wars of the past, yet statistically a smaller percentage of the population are dead in the modern wars, is that really progress? I’m not so sure.

So I, for one, take issue with Kristoff’s recommendation. I’m hoping the Pulitzer Prize people agree.

  1. I have been claiming this for a long time.

    I don’t have any data, but I have some observations. I feel comfortable with my wife traveling to the grocery store (Perris for us, not exactly the mecca of safety as far as US towns go) or local mall (Moreno Valley, just barely a step up from Perris) without any fear for her safety. Not that violence is not possible, but I am not seeing many men having this luxury in centuries past.

    I feel comfortable sending my semi-grown children to foreign countries without my personal presence. Levi went to Tanzania, Kenya. Tim went to Kenya, Ireland, England. Caleb went to England and Ireland with a soiree to Spain. Joe leaves for Istanbul, Egypt and Israel in less than a week. I am not fearful for their safety.

    My cop friends shake their heads, but we only lock our door when we are asleep.

    I grew up in East LA/Montebello, and never experienced violence personally. My one armed grandmother who lived in the projects for the bulk of her adult US life (she was an immigrant), experienced only one violent act: a robber attempted to nab her purse off her person – she prevailed.

    In our bad news hungry culture I recently witnessed a local late night news program report on an automobile accident with fatalities in another state. That tells me it was a slow night for violence.

    Maybe I am trying too hard to be an optimist, but it does seem to me that culture/the world is improving. Here is my trump question that I think makes my point: If curiosity is removed as a variable and you could choose any place and any time period in which to live and raise a family, when and where would you prefer to live? The obvious and only answer is here (USA/Western Europe/Japan) and now (21st century). Personal safety is a big factor in landing on that conclusion.

    • Roy Goble says:

      No doubt that here and now is the choice we’d all make. That was part of my angst with the book … I tend to agree with the premise and want to dismiss all the bad news we’re constantly bombarded with. But I didn’t think Pinker did a good job presenting his position. I agree with the idea, but was unimpressed with the presentation.