Back in January, Robert Jay Lifton and and Steven Pinker had an exchange in the
(included below the video) when Lifton wrote a letter the editors in response to the review of Pinker's new book,
, a book that takes a very different perspective than Pinker's. The New School of Social Work invited them to have a public discussion, moderated by William Hirst, Professor of Psychology in the New School for Social Research.
Published: January 7, 2012 Robert Jay Lifton, Steven Pinker and readers discuss violence in this and other eras.
The Letter
To the Editor:
I have been studying violent events for several decades, so I was deeply
interested in Steven Pinker’s new book, “The Better Angels of Our
Nature,” which claims that violence has long been declining and that
this may be our most peaceful era in our species’ existence. Dr. Pinker
argues that, over centuries, human beings have become less prone to kill
and engage in torture and other cruel and sadistic behavior.
I have not experienced the 20th and 21st centuries that way. My work has
taken me to Auschwitz and Hiroshima, and I have come to see these two
dreadful events as largely defining our era.
Our subsequent development not only in nuclear but also chemical and
biological weapons, and our pollution of the planet with our wastes,
suggest further directions of mass killing and dying.
The deaths over the last two centuries reflect a revolution in the
technology of killing. During the 20th century we saw the emergence of
extreme forms of numbed technological violence, in which unprecedented,
virtually unlimited numbers of people could be killed. Those who did the
killing could be completely separated, geographically and
psychologically, from their victims.
Millions of people were also killed during the 20th century in more
old-fashioned, low-tech ways during genocides, induced famines and wars.
There is a terrible paradox here. Dr. Pinker and others may be quite
right in claiming that for most people alive today, life is less violent
than it has been in previous centuries. But never have human beings
been in as much danger of destroying ourselves collectively, of
endangering the future of our species.
We are not helpless about our fate. There could not be a more crucial
moment to draw upon our gradual taming of individual violence, along
with our growing awareness of the grotesque consequences of numbed
technological violence, to achieve lasting forms of what can be called
peace.
ROBERT JAY LIFTON
New York, Jan. 3, 2012
The writer is a psychiatrist and the author of, most recently, “Witness to an Extreme Century: A Memoir.”
Readers React
Robert Jay Lifton has profoundly illuminated the human dimension of the
20th century’s most destructive events. Yet precisely because he has
singled out the worst events of one century, his observations cannot
speak to the prevalence of violence in the world as a whole, or to its
trajectory over history. Only quantitative comparisons can do that, and
they suggest that Hiroshima and Auschwitz do not, fortunately, define
our era.
Contrary to decades of predictions that nuclear world war was
inevitable, no nuclear weapon has been used since Nagasaki, and today’s
threats, as terrifying as they are, cannot compare to the now-defunct
prospect of all-out war between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Nor did the mid-20th-century genocides become the new normal. While the
world has seen some horrific mass killings, the global rate of death
from genocide has plummeted over the decades, and may now be at an
all-time low.
Estimates of the carnage wreaked by the swords, pikes and arrows of
earlier centuries (and by the machetes of the past one) show that
remote-control technologies are not necessary for high-volume killing.
As fellow students of the human mind, Dr. Lifton and I might agree that
the causes of violence lie not so much in the machinery of killing as in
the psychology of killers: in the balance between tribalism, vengeance,
sadism, amoral predation and toxic ideologies on the one hand, and
compassion, self-control, fairness and reason on the other.
The fact that the balance can change (and, I argue, has changed) over
time is perhaps the firmest ground for another shared conviction: that
we are not helpless about our fate.
STEVEN PINKER
Cambridge, Mass., Jan. 4, 2012
The writer is a professor of psychology at Harvard and the author of
“The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.”
Steven Pinker and Robert Jay Lifton may be talking at cross-purposes.
Dr. Pinker may be correct that the actual number of killings has
declined over the centuries, which implies that any given person today
stands less of a chance of dying violently than just a few centuries
ago. But Dr. Lifton focuses on concentrated instances of mass killing in
the 20th century, like Auschwitz and Hiroshima. He rightly implies that
humanity’s capacity to kill has increased exponentially with the rise
of industrialized technology.
But these are two different analyses. Dr. Pinker’s is a statistical
description of actual killings. Dr. Lifton’s is an appraisal of
humanity’s potential to increase that number almost beyond imagining.
Perhaps the moral to be drawn from this comparison is that we can
continue the encouraging trends that Dr. Pinker notes only if we’re wise
enough to heed Dr. Lifton’s blood-chilling advisory.
MARK PACKER
Spartanburg, S.C., Jan. 5, 2012
The writer is a professor of interdisciplinary studies at the University of South Carolina, Upstate.
Robert Jay Lifton, picking up on Steven Pinker’s book “The Better Angels
of Our Nature,” calls attention to the fact that most of the world’s
people today experience less mass killing than in previous eras but
endure the modern danger of “numbed technological violence.” Citing the
horrific events in Auschwitz and Hiroshima in the 20th century, Dr.
Lifton rightly acknowledges yet understates the perilous conditions
facing marginalized peoples in our times.
Having lived and worked in Africa and Southeast Asia for many years, I
have observed structural violence there as a combination of human
indignities and entrenched poverty. For the marginalized, systemic
violence is a spiral of widespread rape, legalized and other forms of
homophobia, chronic hunger and environmental degradation, often worsened
by collusion among local elites and external interests in resource
grabs.
Lasting peace requires measures for controlling technologies of
violence, plus achieving human dignity and alleviating poverty.
JAMES H. MITTELMAN
Bethesda, Md., Jan. 4, 2012
The writer is a professor of international affairs at American
University and the author of “Hyperconflict: Globalization and
Insecurity.”
To judge whether the human species is more or less violent at different
times in history, one requires a definition of violence. I have defined
violence in my studies as acts and/or socially maintained conditions
that inhibit human development by interfering with the fulfillment of
universal human needs, including biological/material,
social/psychological, productive/creative, security, self-actualization
and spiritual needs.
Using this concept of violence when examining global realities, one is
forced to conclude that large segments of the global population of seven
billion are victims of violent acts and conditions. They experience
hunger, malnutrition, material and psychological poverty, widespread
unemployment, lack of health care, including family planning, lack of
meaningful education and adequate social supports, and lack of a sense
of security. Moreover, they are subjected to economic and sexual
exploitation. Their human development is consequently severely
obstructed.
These conditions, in addition to constant local and trans-local wars,
suggest that the human species may be on a suicidal course rather than a
course of declining violence.
DAVID G. GIL
Lexington, Mass., Jan. 4, 2012
The writer is emeritus professor of social policy at Brandeis University and the author of “Violence Against Children: Physical Child Abuse in the United States.”
Robert Jay Lifton’s description of nuclear, chemical and biological
warfare as well as environmental pollution provides him with ammunition
for his argument that the 20th and 21st centuries reflect continuing
fratricide.
We need more Dr. Liftons. We need curbs and restraints, whether
sponsored by the United Nations or promoted by individuals, states or
nations. We need a United Nations with sanctions to halt violence. We
need to be hailed as the decade that defined peace and made war
obsolete.
NANCY M. DAVIS
Avon, Conn., Jan. 4, 2012
Both Steven Pinker and Robert Jay Lifton left out of their observations
what can be referred to a as “structural violence,” a system placing
profit over human need resulting in social problems like extreme
poverty, lacks of security in old age, access to health care, and
socially useful work at reasonable wages.
By and large, we have become dulled to such violence, which is something
like the “banality of evil” that Hannah Arendt spoke about. These
growing economic and social inequalities within and among countries can
easily lead to full-scale wars, as former President Jimmy Carter
suggested upon accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Fortunately, movements
like Occupy Wall Street may have awakened some of us to such inequities,
which are socially violent.
JOSEPH WRONKA
Springfield, Mass., Jan. 4, 2012
The writer, a professor of social work at Springfield College, is
permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva for the
International Association of Schools of Social Work.
Robert Jay Lifton’s critique of Steven Pinker’s thesis brings to mind
the usefulness of the adage that not everything that counts can be
counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.
Dr. Pinker’s argument depends on statistics, but Dr. Lifton’s rejoinder
depends on the historical sense that modernity has been permeated by
violence in ever-diversifying forms.
We have come to accept a permanent state of war as the “new normal.”
Societies throughout the world, including our own, suffer from the
structural violence of poverty, inequality, pollution, hunger, racism
and so on. And now we read daily reports of soldiers suffering from
post-traumatic stress disorder — invisible violence that is often
overlooked by the statistics.
MARK HUSSEY
Nyack, N.Y., Jan. 4, 2012
I side more with Robert Jay Lifton than with Steven Pinker. My recent
book looked at war frequency and fatalities since 1816. Sadly, the
number of wars remains about the same.
For instance, in the period 1816 to 1825, there were eight wars
continuing in the world; in 1996 to 2005, there were twice that — a rate
of 17 a year.
In the last five years, there have been eight wars a year, the same
number as two centuries ago. Forty-two civil wars started in the 1990s,
more than in any previous decade in the last two centuries.
Not surprisingly, the number of civil wars has gone down in the first
decade of the 21st century. Statistically, something that’s been the
worst ever will tend to improve at the next measuring point. This also
happens if one compares current death rates to World War II.
Meanwhile, as Dr. Lifton indicated, millions can die with the push of a
button. We continue to live in an age of great power, great insecurity
and, alas, war.
FRANK WAYMAN
Dearborn, Mich., Jan. 4, 2012
The writer, a professor of political science at the University of
Michigan, Dearborn, is co-author of “Resort to War: 1816-2007.”
I couldn’t agree more with Robert Jay Lifton. He knows history. He knows
humanity. His books about Hiroshima and nuclear war are a testimony to a
human being who cares about the survival of the species.
His statement that “we are not helpless about our fate” points to a
future where “occupiers of the Progressive mind” will bring the nation’s
power brokers to their knees, and their deadly game of nuclear roulette
will become a dim memory for generations to come.
DAVID ROTHAUSER
Brookline, Mass., Jan. 5, 2012
The Writer Responds
My concern is with the new dimension of violence at this moment in human
history. The lethal technologies of Hiroshima and Auschwitz have vastly
improved since the mid-20th century. Nuclear weapons can be made in
various sizes, can continue to proliferate to other countries and
possibly terrorist groups, and now enable us to do what in the past only
God could do: destroy the world.
This capacity for killing in numbers nothing short of the infinite
cannot be adequately grasped by statistics concerning past war-making
and killing.
Nor can we simply say, as Dr. Pinker does, that “the causes of violence
lie not so much in the machinery of killing as in the psychology of
killers.” Rather, I would point to the dynamic of mind and technology,
in which the technology creates a psychological attraction to ultimate
power and protection from painful feelings associated with more direct
forms of killing.
People who construct nuclear weapons or plan their possible use do not
have to be angry. They need only be socialized to the ideology of
nuclear necessity, whether for “national security” or “deterrence” or
other plausible purposes.
Of course there has been more to the 20th and 21st centuries than
Auschwitz and Hiroshima. But they are nonetheless defining events in
that they brutally displayed this new killing potential and created the
imagery of extinction that continues to haunt us.
I agree with Drs. Mittelman, Gil and Wronka and Mr. Hussey about the
more insidious and widespread effects of structural or systemic forms of
violence. As for Ms. Davis’s generous sentiment that “we need more Dr.
Liftons,” I have to say that there are those who think that one is more
than enough.
I’m also in full agreement with Dr. Pinker and the other letter writers
about our capacity to take constructive steps to diminish the dangers we
face. Indeed, much protest over the years has sought to do that,
whether as 1960s and 1980s opposition to war and weaponry or today’s
Occupy movement. We would do well to channel more of this protest into
combating all violence, but especially the numbed technological variety.
ROBERT JAY LIFTON
New York, Jan. 5, 2012
Curcumin has been implicated in numerous studies as a booster of brain health.
