The Goodness Paradox by Richard Wrangham

The Goodness Paradox by Richard Wrangham was published this year. In it, the author explores the evolutionary origins of violence, cooperation and altruism in humans. Wrangham is a renowned primatologist and has written several books on human and animal behavior. As someone who is interested in big picture questions about humanity, I found this book to be enlightening and fascinating. 

Wrangham identifies two types of aggression that manifest themselves in both humans and other animals. Aggression and violence can be classified as proactive or reactive. Reactive aggression is unplanned. Proactive aggression is planned. The author goes on to explain that there is considerable evidence that these two different types are triggered by different processes and parts of the brain.  Humans and other animals practice both types of behavior. 

In people, reactive violence leads to the majority of individual murders and assaults. In some primate species, such as chimpanzees, it leads to near constant violence where alpha males prey upon other members of their groups and females are exposed to beatings on a near constant basis. What humans would call rape also occurs among chimpanzees and some other species due to reactive violence. 

In humans, proactive violence manifests itself in everything from state-controlled police activities to preplanned wars. Proactive violence and the threat of it are not always a bad thing. When manifested by moderate and just systems, it prevents society from descending into chaos and even worse violence. In primates, wolves and other animals, it manifests itself in conflicts between groups and packs. Chimpanzees actually engage in small scale warfare between groups. 

However, it turns out that compared to primates and other types of animals that hunt in groups, humans show a lot less reactive aggression and a lot more proactive aggression. The author writes,

overall tendencies are clear: compared with other primates , we practice exceptionally low levels of violence in our day-to-day lives , yet we achieve exceptionally high rates of death from violence in our wars . That discrepancy is the goodness paradox.

Wrangham spends a lot of time looking at the behavior of humans, various ape species, wolves and other animals to illustrate the differences in behavior. He even looks at Neanderthals ad other extinct species and examines available evidence. The book also covers the behavior of domesticated species, such as cats and dogs, to show how humans have bred reactive aggression  out of them in a process that is called domestication. 

Of particular interest are bonobos.  These primates look similar to chimpanzees, but they are a lot less violent. In fact, they are some of the least violent primates. Observation of them shows that coalitions of female bonobos police their social groups and quell the violence of very aggressive males. Furthermore, violent, antisocial males are ostracized to some extent, making it difficult for them to mate and pass on their genes and violent behavioral tendencies.

In regard to humans, the book looks at hunter-gatherer societies and agricultural societies as well as modern society. In all of these societies, Wrangham finds similar patterns regarding the two types of violence. Humans are relatively low, as compared with other social animals, on the scale of reactive aggression and very high on the scale of proactive aggression. The difference has had an enormous effect on human history and culture. 

The author then looks at the various theories as to why humans are not so reactively aggressive and very proactively aggressive. The mechanism that occurs with bonobos does not seem to apply to human societies. He explains the theories in very understandable ways. Some theorists believe that human behavior is simply attributable to higher intelligence. The author believes that something else has happened, however. 

Wrangham is an advocate of something called the execution hypothesis. That is, the extremely dominant and violent alpha-male type rarely becomes the leader of human communities, regardless of whether the community consists of hunters and gatherers, agrarian farmers or more modern societies. It turns out that, in the remote, perhaps pre-human past, this type of super-bully would try to dominate the community, as they successfully do among chimpanzees.  In human society, a coalition of other males would often end up killing the super aggressive males when they began to become too powerful. Furthermore, this tendency to eliminate such violent narcissists has led the human species to be less reactively aggressive, more altruistic and eventually enabled us to develop a system of ethics. Wrangham calls this self-domestication.

On the flip side, this tendency to execute these super bullies has led humans to evolve to be more proactively aggressive. In order to eliminate the alpha males, the tendency to plan aggression and work together is enhanced. 

The author writes, 

A coalition of militant egalitarians was in a position to cut them [the super violent individuals]down. Selection would accordingly have favored those whose spontaneous generosity and noncombativeness protected them from such a risk by minimizing their selfish urges and increasing their tendency to help others

There is a downside to all of this. What Wrangham calls coalitionary proactive aggression led to the rule of groups of men who were egalitarian but tended towards proactive aggression. While they imposed certain benefits on society, they also imposed their own tyranny upon women, anti-conformists, etc. If accurate, the impact of all of this reverberates through present times. 

Near the book’s conclusion, Wrangham tries to look to the future. He argues that despite our genes, humanity has been getting less violent over time as culture changes and is optimistic that this will continue. He discusses both the promise and pitfalls that the future holds. I should also note that the author makes it a point that he is against the death penalty, even though he believes that it played a key part in human evolution. 

Wrangham has convinced me that there are indeed big biological differences between reactive and proactive aggression. Furthermore, most primates show a lot more reactive aggression than humans. Proactive aggression is much more common in humans than in any other species. In addition, I agree that violence, as well as altruistic and cooperative tendencies, are to a great extent the products of evolution. I am not so sure about the execution hypothesis. The killing of super aggressive individuals in the past may have had an impact upon human evolution, but I suspect that many other factors played a part in formulating human nature. Perhaps the super aggressive males were also shunned and had a harder time surviving and reproducing. The idea that coalitions of individuals helped to tamp down the super aggressive bullies may very well be true. I am not sure that execution was the primary driver of this, however. 

Either way, this is a fascinating book. Even if one does not agree with Wrangham’s theories, the observations of animal behavior contained within these pages are interesting and valuable. I think that even if one does not follow all of Wrangham’s conclusions to their endpoint, the book is still full of important observations about aggression and violence. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in evolutionary science, human nature, culture and history. 

Feminism and Books

From time to time over the coming weeks and months, I am planning on reading and sharing my thoughts on several books that relate to the topics of feminism and violence aimed at women. Before I begin to post about these books and the ideas contained in them, I think that it is important to share a little bit about some of my personal biases, options and associations in relation to these topics. As of late my views have become very strong.

I have always considered myself a feminist. Feminism has always been one of the belief systems that I advocated. As with several other social topics, I would have described myself a moderate on the issue.  Over the past year, for various reasons, on various social media, but especially on Twitter, I have strongly spoken in support of causes focusing on the reduction of violence aimed at women as well as upon feminism. Over the past year, my support for feminist ideals, as well as my belief that violence aimed at women is an enormous societal ill that needs more attention, has strengthened.

 

There are two reasons for the increased level of my convictions. First, I have been reading blogs and articles, as well as listening to women, both in my life as well as on social media, concerning these issues. This has convinced me as to the gravity of the issues that women face worldwide as well as the far - reaching benefits of feminism to all of humanity.

Something else has solidified my beliefs and led me to a point where I would now describe myself as an adamant and committed feminist. Something dark has come along with the recent trend of women speaking out strongly on social media  about violence and sexism. I am not unique in observing unrelenting threats, harassment and insults, some of it perpetuated by semi - organized groups, against women who speak about gender issues on social media. This goes well beyond the usual trolling. It is extremely serious. At its worst it involves death, torture and rape threats directed at both notable Internet personalities as well as against less famous people who I know personally. There have also been campaigns of slander, as well as the release of extremely personal information aimed at women who speak about gender issues. Lately, there has been a fair amount of media coverage, especially on the serious American public policy shows and publications on this issue.

Most of what my friends and acquaintances have experienced was not even the result of speaking about feminism, but instead was prompted as a result of protesting the morally unambiguous issues of rape and violence directed at women.

There is a lot more that I have witnessed that has shocked and angered me. It has been really ugly and unrelenting attempt to silence women who express views on these issues.  If anyone is curious for additional details I will be happy to discuss in either in my comments section or through private email.

All this has helped to convince me that misogyny is a much greater problem in the Western world then I ever imagined, and that the ideals embodied by mainstream feminist thought are directly relevant to what is going in in social media.

I bring this up in context of my future posts to highlight that fact that I am not unbiased in this argument. The unrelenting rage that I have observed by a percentage of my fellow men, directed at women who speak on these issues has influenced my opinion in many areas relating to gender issues as well as feminism.

Though I believe that it a extremely important issue, social media harassment of women is certainly not all there is to gender relations, or to the idea set that is feminism. It is but one of many issues and arguably not the most important.  However, my observation of all this has influenced my personal views and has led to an emotional response. I have become downright furious at times. At other times I have lost my objectivity. I am the first to admit that I must be on guard to the fact that my outraged reaction to the harassment may be distorting my view of the big picture. With that said, what I have observed is clearly relevant to the big picture. As such, I felt the need to air this out before I begin commenting upon relevant books and ideas.

I choose to strive for intellectual honesty. That means I will attempt to examine all ideas critically and fairly. I will listen and discuss dissenting views. I intend to be as open minded and civil as I always am. My regular readers know what I mean.

I can and will apply my usual open mindedness to anti–feminist or the ambiguous opinions of others. Feminism is a set if ideas that like any set of ideas, should be open to scrutiny. There are reasoned and civil arguments against feminist ideals. I would even point out that I do not agree with every pro - feminist idea or concept. I will express my disagreement with ideas, including pro – feminist ones, as I see fit in the context of these books.

It is not anti – feminist ideas and opinions that anger me, rather it is the ubiquities and unrelenting harassment of feminists on social media (I must qualify this to say that there are a few extremely odious ideas that I have encountered recently that I have no respect for. For instance, I have run into folks who claim that most women are intellectually inferior to men, that society should accept rape as natural, etc.) . I have had rational discussions with both men and women, who for various reasons are anti – feminists, who are reasoned, respectful and are in no way misogynist. I consider this an intellectual disagreement.

Since I am bandying about the word, I think it is fitting to define what I believe feminism is. In my opinion the term is one of the most misconstrued around. For now, I will start with the basic Miriam - Webster’s definition,

The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.

and

Organized activity in support of women's rights and interests.

The above definition is simple and in accord with my own beliefs. I would go a little further and argue that in order to be a feminist these days also means that one believes that there is still progress to be made in the pursuit of equality.

Some of the thinkers that I will discuss in future posts may have alternate definitions that I hope to explore.

In my opinion feminism has been given a bad name. Feminists have been unfairly stigmatized as all adhering to the most extreme positions. Like most broad based ideologies with a lot of adherents, there are some very controversial feminist thinkers and ideas out there. One does not need to accept all, or any, radical or revolutionary ideas to be a feminist. However, I hope to investigate and weigh in upon some of these controversial ideas in upcoming posts.

I also would like to address the contention that I have heard from some feminists as well as others: that is the opinion that men cannot be feminists. Since I consider feminism to be a set of ideas and ideals, I would argue that anyone who holds such ideas and ideals is a feminist.

I want to mention a couple of books that I have already read and written commentary on.  While not considered a book on feminism, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker, is in my opinion, a profoundly important work that relates to the subject. In this book, Pinker lays out a hardheaded and convincing case for what he believes are five historical forces driving humanity to a more peaceful, prosperous and virtuous future. One of the factors he calls “Feminization”, which is basically the empowerment of women and the increased influence of women on society. My commentary on this work is here.

Christine de Pizan ‘s The Book of The City of Ladies was written in 1405. Christine was amazingly ahead her time in her presentation of what I would call pre - feminist ideals as well as in her identification and criticism of what today we would call stereotyping. I commented upon this book here.

I do think that I will take on some challenging and controversial books. I will be reading authors who have ideas on gender issues that I both agree and disagree with. Thus I anticipate some very interesting posts to come.

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker is a grand and all encompassing study in human violence as well as the trends that the author believes are driving it down. Pinker has succeeded in producing an extremely comprehensive work that provides the reader with a thought provoking and enlightening view of the big picture of this extremely important subject.

The book begins with one vital proposition that the entire work rests upon: over the course of human history, violence in all of its major forms has been declining. Pinker himself acknowledges that for many modern readers this may be a hard sell.

“In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene.”

He subsequently devotes scores of pages to presenting volumes of statistics, analysis of statistics, as well as additional archeological, sociological and historical evidence in proving that the further back one delves into human history, the more violence one sees.

The author explores all major kinds of violence, including wars between states, civil wars, mass killings and genocides, crimes including murder and rape, corporal punishment, capital punishment, bullying, and more. He concludes that over the millennia, every single one of these practices has been on the downswing.

“It is easy to forget how dangerous life used to be, how deeply brutality was once woven into the fabric of daily existence”

My assessment of this bedrock hypothesis is that Pinker is mostly, perhaps even close to entirely, correct. As noted, the book presents both comprehensive statistics as well as analysis of historical evidence to support his assertion. As someone who has pursued a lifelong interest in history, Pinker’s contention indeed fits with what seems to me to be an accurate view of historical patterns. In fact, I mostly agreed with the assertion that violence has been declining before reading this book. My problem beforehand was how to reconcile this theory into what many presume to be the most violent period in world history, that of the first half of the twentieth century. If violence is on a steady decline, how do we explain this era?

Pinker makes a relatively convincing case that the wars and mass murders that blackened the early part of the last century, while being among the worst incidents of this type, in terms of percentage of the world’s population killed, were not the absolute worst. He labels these horrendous events involving the intentional deaths of an enormous number of human beings as hemoclysms. The author argues that hemoclysms such as the Mongol conquests, as well as multiple very obscure events such as the Yuan Dynasty Wars, at the time, actually killed a larger percentage of the Earth’s population. Pinker sees the twentieth century calamities as the last in a series of terrible events that have occurred throughout world history, their frequency steadily diminishing.

Likewise, the violent crime waves that most Western societies began experiencing in the 1960’s, as well as the rash of civil wars and political and ethnic violence that have plagued Africa and other regions since World War Two, are shown be part of a long pattern of temporary, relatively small upward bumps that have always been part of the pattern. Furthermore, Pinker argues that both of these trends are past their peaks and are on the downswing. Deaths caused by terrorism, which has occupied so much of our attention over the past few years, are so relatively low, that they do not even appear as a blip in the statistics. Nevertheless, Pinker argues that the rates of terrorism are also on the decline.

If we put into perspective these temporary and less frequent upswings in violence, the picture of the downward slope in violence over time does become clearer. Pinker details what many perceptive students of history know; as bad as things seem today, the past, in virtually every society, was a place where wars, rape, torture, slavery, child abuse, animal cruelty, as well as countless other human evils were much more commonplace.

Next, Pinker, a Harvard psychology professor, turns his attention on neuroscience and tries to explain not only the neurological and evolutionary reasons for violence, but also the reasons for our “Our Better Angels” such as altruism, sympathy, cooperation, etc. He then attempts to connect these neurological phenomena to explain the trends and patterns related to the history of violence.

A good chunk of the book consists of Pinker attempting to explain why violence has been subsiding, as well as why there are often temporary but real setbacks in the trends. The book digs into the history, philosophy, psychology and sociology of humanity to find answers.

Pinker identifies five major trends over the course of history to explain this waning of violence. First, what he calls the “Leviathan effect”. That is the decline in violence that resulted as nation states became more and more organized (he comprehensively explores the countertrends that occur when such states wage wars as well as when they murder their own citizens). Second, “Gentle Commerce”, which is the gradual growth of commerce, trade and capitalism. Third, “Feminization” is the process where women become more and more empowered. Fourth, “Expanded Circles of Sympathy” by which sympathetic and empathetic feelings which humans originally reserved for family and tribe eventually expanded into larger and larger groups. Fifth, the “Escalator of Reason”, which is the ascent of reason over the centuries in opposition to irrational thought processes. According to the author, these forces have not just led to the reduction in violence, but to the betterment of humankind in innumerable ways.

At over 800 pages this is a massive work. Pinker journeys deeply into his contentions and does not give short shift to counterarguments. He tries to explore every angle of the subject. Readers of this blog will likely find some disagreements with these assertions. The arguments that I have laid out here are explored in such intricate detail in the book itself that I am not really doing them justice in this outline. There are so many avenues that the author ventures into that my synopsis overlooks really big parts of this work.

An example of just one of dozens of important points that Pinker makes here that I think is of particular consequence: the author talks about a number of immense significance to every human being alive.  It is a number that I have been cognizant and thought about over the years long before I had even heard of this book. That is the number zero. Zero is the number of direct major power violent conflicts that have occurred on Earth since 1952. It is a historically unprecedented span of time without such a war. It would have left informed citizens of past ages incredulous. Those who predicted such a period in times past were labeled as naive and foolish utopians. If it continues, it bodes well for the future.

Pinker is ultimately championing knowledge, rationality, and modernity. According to the author, behind all of the five major forces lay an increase in the dissemination of knowledge and/or the continued development of rational thinking. Contrary to the stereotype of cold and soulless logic, the text lays out a convincing premise that rational viewpoints and analytical thinking encourage such virtues as empathy, altruism, cooperation, nonviolence, etc.  The author even contends that such rational and critical cognitive processes encourage the propagation of non-violent and humane religious- based morality over exclusory, discriminatory and violent theologies.

Pinker’s line of reasoning is more or less in line with my views. I am a big advocate of rationalism as a driver of much that is good in the world.  There are such an enormous number of contentions and theories presented in this book that any thinking reader will find at least a fair amount to disagree with. However, in my opinion the author gets it mostly right.

I believe that this is a vitally important work. It is what I like to call a “big picture” book that is a key to understanding where humanity has been and where it is going as a species. As Pinker puts it,

“The decline of violence may be the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species.”

In a world of nuclear and other potential doomsday weapons, if Pinker is wrong then we are certainly doomed. If he is right, and if we can overcome an environmental calamity, we will likely make it as a civilization.  This is my conclusion, not Pinker’s.

Pinker is no utopian. He acknowledges that to some degree violence will always be a human problem. He faces up to what are clearly the downsides of modernity. He also concedes that predicting future trends is difficult. However, if his conclusions are correct, what he describes as the “arrow of history” is headed in a direction that promises somewhat better days ahead.