“A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”?

“A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? The discussion in the Guardian reflects the controversy over Pinker’s book. Andrew Brown in his review calls the book a “comfort blanket for the smug”. I think the book is important for the big question it asks—are things getting worse?— whether or not you agree with Pinker’s conclusions. The answer each person gives to the big question forms part of everybody’s world view. David Runciman’s review is balanced. The comparison is between a violent past and a violent present. The stronger part of Pinker’s argument is his contention that, as Runciman says: “the past was a far nastier place than we might have imagined.” The second part of Pinker’s argument, as Runciman puts it, is that “the present is far nicer than we might have noticed.” The horrendous events of the 20th century make this argument controversial. One novel approach in support of his claim is that “Pinker argues that the violence of the 20th century is best understood as a series of random spasms rather than part of a trend.” Another argument is based on the increase in instances of humanity of the kind that Nick and Dick Weisfelder point out. Of course, we know even less about past instances of humanity than we do about past violence.