Mid Valley Blogger: Violence in America: Steven Pinker Part 2 of Better Angels Of Our Nature

In his book, Better Angels Of Our Nature, Steven Pinker writes about violence by way of “older” means, namely places like Rwanda, violent genocide carried by machetes and starvation tactics. Pinker's point, of course, is that humans are always capable of violence, no matter technology.

But the other point is that humans have chosen NOT to carry on with barbaric and violent means. And in effect, humans have become LESS violent. Let's take a look.

In this perspective, I will try to examine Kantian theory, and how democracy grows. I will look at Pinker's “Long Peace”, and try to relate it to our future in Oregon. I will discuss Islam, and America's romantic patriotism.

As I begin, let's compare 1 unremarkable study with 2 unmistakably remarkable ones. In the early pages of Chapter 5 in Pinker, the studies of Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Richardson in the 1950's, shows substantial contrast. In my own study, a 5 question survey about gun control, interesting similarities exist between all 3 studies.

Pinker doesn't blame Toynbee for the pessimistic “In our recent history, war has followed war, and it has been ascending evermore intensely,” for Toynbee was writing at a time of wars and hatred. Pinker at the same time, ventures into Richardson's optimistic “A long future may be without war.” In my gun survey, 95% of the surveyed, did NOT have a Concealed Weapons Permit, but were overwhelmingly pro-gun.

Pinker points to the historian(Toynbee) as to being wrong, and to the mathematician as correct in predicting “the long peace.” And Pinker also questions the 20^th century violence, in a way that validates an “anomaly” status. My question is this: Can they all be wrong?

If we assume somebody is correct, does this make the others wrong? In my gun survey, the line in the sand is obvious, as it is in both Toynbee and Richardson. But only one was right. Why? And since this is about violence, what does my gun survey say about American reliance on guns, and the violent effect?

I would argue that both these men were correct. In is not so hard to predict humankind's behavior in the wake of opportunity, and it is equally not hard to predict the use of force in that newfound opportunity. New Orleans during Katrina is a perfect example, and there are many. Occupy Wall Street, was an example of the powerful reaction that governments make when civilians “forcefully” take over in a civil disobedient sort of way.

And the math is also correct, in regards to generally descending statistics of violence. But as we already know, that descent has, and is, being tested. The question here is, when humans hear the news every day, and hear that somebody somewhere, wants them dead, what does that mean for the progress Pinker has been describing? What does it say about education? Social constructs? Did Richardson ignore the ignorance, in favor of math, because he was searching for an optimistic answer?

Pinker examines the first half of the 20^th century in a graph(Better Angels, pg. 230), and the meteoric rise of death from conflict(Europe) during that time is extraordinary. Pinker cites the religious conflict of the early 17^th century as the only comparable time.

The reasons for this “romantic nationalism”, the idea that states are geographically evolved, and so are the people, comes from the unifying of ethnic groups within an area. The accompanying romantic militarism, the idea that war is “cleansing”, was accepted by more folks than claim to admit.

Does that mean that Pinker, and even Richardson, might be wrong? We are clamoring for educated people to lead the way here, and then Pinker goes off and tells us(pg. 243) that the educated had a hand in this. The question here is this: If a large proportion of educated, preach romantic militarism, who is to say stop? In Art Robinson country, how do educated folks, like OSU/LBCC professor Doug Clark and Harvard's Steven Pinker, convince the masses of the virtues of peaceful conflict resolution? We already know that Khrushchev had a handle on game theory and was “cognitive of war”, but what about the ones that do not know? How can we apply that to Occupy? Or even a traffic stop? When does an idea like Global Zero become a “social ideology”, or even better, a school curriculum?

Pinker explains the essay by Immanuel Kant(Perpetual Peace), as a reasoned democratic approach to statehood that breeds peaceful arenas. I would agree with that, but would ask why it's so defined. And I would ask if statehood itself is arbitrary and racist. Obviously, Utah is “different” than Texas. But they are America, so in the case of Israel and Palestine, what in Pinker's assessment of Kant is lost in those negotiations?

As the magnified look at relations continues in Pinker's Better Angels Of Our Nature, one can only read in awe. The statistics on violent conflict in the latter 20^th century, and specifically from 1980 to present, violence in regard to Islam seems out of proportion with the rest of the world. This struggle with religious ideology is more than it seems. Pinker discusses this as as sort of an oppression that increases conflict and reduces resolution techniques.

And so, my final question, for anyone who wants to answer:

Have humans lost a chance to reconcile with Islam? Has democracy lost its chance to sit with Islam, and learn acceptance?

In the same breath, has right wing America, lost any chance it had with minorities? With women?

And if so, what is the approach in the coming weeks? Years?

One last question...

How have organizations like the CIA, ruined democracy's reputation? Has capitalism led to consumerism, and also lessened the credibility of a democratic state?

Okay, really. Last question: Newtown, in Pinker's words, would be a “violent catastrophe”, but how would he classify the response to the shooting?