Pinker Post

While reading Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, I found his discussion about the second doctrine of human nature to be an interesting viewpoint. The philosopher Rousseau claims that humans do not need a police force because we are actually gentle beings in our primitive state. As I was reading this, all I could think about was the "primitive" hunter gatherers found in various parts of the world who have had no or little exposure to the modern world due to their violent nature. I seem to recall several tribes in the Amazon Basin and in the Southeast Asian region that have reacted violently to outsiders traveling through their territory. To say humans are simple creatures that wouldn't hurt another if left to their own devices invalidates the oppression imposed by one race or country over others seen throughout human history. This term also carries a racial undertone as I have read similar descriptions used to describe African Americans in the 17th through 19th centuries.

Rousseau is of course writing in response to Hobbes claiming that humans must have a common power, otherwise we are in a constant state of war. Yet, as I was reading that paragraph, the thought that popped into my mind was that many of the wars of the past were fought on behalf of monarchs or emperors who desired more - more land, more resources, more people to tax. Going to war was not the idea of the average person, it was decided by the most elite of a country who often had nothing to lose and everything to gain in terms of those wars. One of my favorite quotes is "When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die." Claiming that humans enter into war because we do not have a strong governance is almost the exact opposite of why wars are usually fought.

Both these viewpoints felt too far separated from each other to be representative of what really leads to conflict. I found both extremely dissatisfying and wish Pinker could have reflected on a more middle ground viewpoint of human nature for his second doctrine.