Pinker on Violence, then and now...
Friday, May 1, 2009 at 9:17AM

In lamentations over the dire state of the nation/world/universe, we often hear tell how violent modern (Western) society is. This alleged fact is often proclaimed, almost joyfully, by religious groups in order to prove that, yes, we are indeed evil and in dire need of a transcendent power to save us; but it is also simply a background belief of many who have never had reason to stop and think about it. Enter Steven Pinker.
Pinker argues (in The Blank Slate and elsewhere) that modern Western society is much less violent than in the past. I think this position is correct, though it may need refining with respect to exactly what we mean when we say that a culture is violent. In defense of Pinker, I quote from Foucault's Discipline & Punish in which he describes a punishment meted out to Robert Francoise Damien, who attempted to assassinate the French king, Louis XV. Foucault first recites the court's penalty, which commands Damien be taken to
the Place de Greve, where, on a scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs and calves with red-hot pincers, his right hand, holding the knife with which he committed the said parricide, burnt with sulphur, and, on those places where the flesh will be torn away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax and sulphur melted together and then his body drawn and quartered by four horses and his limbs and body consumed by fire, reduced to ashes and his ashes thrown to the winds. (3)
He then proceeds to quote from newspapers and eye witness accounts:
[Bouton, an officer of the watch:] 'The sulphur was lit, but the flame was so poor that only the top skin of the hand was burnt, and that only slightly. Then the executioner, his sleeves rolled up, took the steel pincers, which had been especially made for the occasion, and which were about a foot and a half long, and pulled first at the calf of the right leg, then at the thigh, and from there at the two fleshy parts of the right arm; then at the breasts. Though a strong, sturdy fellow, this executioner found it so difficult to tear away the pieces of flesh that he set about the same spot two or three times, twisting the pincers as he did so, and what he took away formed at each part a wound about the size of a six-pound crown piece... After these tearings with the pincers... the same executioner dipped an iron spoon in the pot containing the boiling potion, which he poured liberally over each wound.''
[Gazette d'Amsterdam, 1 April, 1757:] 'Finally he was quartered. This last operation was very long, because the horses used were not accustomed to drawing; consequently, instead of four, six were needed; and when that did not suffice, they were forced, in order to cut off the wretch's thighs, to sever the sinews and hack at the joints...
'The spectators were all edified by the solicitude of the parish priest of St. Paul's who despite his great age did not spare himself in offering consolation to the patient.'
This was the last (officially sanctioned) use of the "draw and quarter" punishment that was de rigueur in the 17th century and before.
Examples like this successfully show the difference in the Western mindset between the 18th century and the 21st. Other arguments, though superficially compelling, are more problematic. For example, Pinker compares the kill ratios of ancient hunter-gather societies with those in modern society. Here is the gist of his argument: Hunter-gatherer societies engaged in warfare which killed up to 60% of their population. The seemingly violent 20th century didn’t come close to this percentage even including the two world wars, in which we managed to kill "only" 2-3% of our population. Therefore, modern Western society is much less violent than ancient hunter-gatherer societies.
I think the statistics in this argument may be hiding something. Consider the following two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Suppose HG clan A has a population of one hundred and commonly interacts with HG clan B of the same size. A disagreement occurs over wealth distribution and there is a battle in which twenty warriors from clan B are killed.
Scenario 2: Suppose HG clan A has a population of one thousand and commonly interacts with HG clan B of the same size. A disagreement occurs over wealth distribution and clan A mounts a surprise attack on the village of Clan B, slaughtering one hundred men women and children.
According to the statistics clan A is more violent in Scenario one (killing twenty in a pitched battle), for they have killed twenty percent of clan B, while in scenario two (killing one hundred indiscriminately) they have only killed ten percent of clan B. But this doesn’t seem right. The statistics here hide some very important details, which seems to indicate that violence cannot simply be measured by numbers killed. For instance, consider:
- Intent: The intent of the population is important when assigning "violence" as a characteristic. All other things being equal, if clans A and B kill the same number of people but clan A kills only in self-defense while clan B kills indiscriminately, clan B is more violent than clan A.
- Ability: Numbers alone are not important, though, for there may be intent without ability or ability without intent. For example, in 1945 Russia may have had the intent to annex all of conquered Germany, but lacked the ability; the U.S. may have had the ability (possessing the atomic bomb), but lacked the intent. These distinctions seem important in determining the violence of a culture.
- Delineations: There is an inherent problem of delineating a specific group with respect to both time and space when assigning the characteristic. Consider Germany. If we look at the first half of the 20th century we would probably conclude that the Germans were an extremely violent bunch, but if we look at only the second half of the 20th century we would have to say they were a peaceful people. What judgment do we make of Germans over the entire 20th century? or the millennium? The problem lies in assigning the label "violent" to a group of people at all. What does it mean to say that Germans are violent or Westerners or the Yanomamo?
- Instantiations: Can one violent person who controls a society determine the violence level of the society. A Hitler or a Stalin may not have had qualms over indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons to achieve their dreams of empire, but does it follow from this that the people they ruled were violent? Examples like the Christmas soccer games in Ypres between German and British soldiers during World War I seem to promote the idea that the true cause of violence is often the few rather than the many.
These points do not negate Pinker's conclusion. For example (from points 1 & 2), the fact that we have developed weapons of mass destruction and have, for the most part, refrained from using them, seems to confirm his point. In the past, technological innovations such as iron production, gun powder, and the stirrup, were used to the maximum of their potential in warfare. On the other hand (from points 3 & 4) we need more clarity with respect to what constitutes a violent society.
It's hard to deny that we Westerners have made moral progress over the years. The drawing and quartering of Damien in 1757 was followed shortly after by the "Terror" of the French Revolution, symbolized by the guillotine, and yet despite the excesses, the guillotine was introduced not only as an egalitarian method of execution, but as a more humane method as well. Despite our many past failings and current cruelties, we have managed, in the modern age, to prohibit slavery and many other barbaric acts, and the fact that we even debate the morality of capital punishment and torture is a step forward. The claim that we are more violent now than in the past can only be maintained by turning a blind eye to history.
Violence in
History,
Morality,
Philosophy 






