Anti-Climacus

Though I have some skepticism about Steve Pinker's book on the decline of violence (e.g.), I'm not sure John Gray's objections really hit the mark. As I understand Pinker's thesis, the best way to understand the 20th century is two-fold:

1. Though there are a number of events of noteworthy brutality, the overall frequency of those has declined, and there are fewer long-running lower-level instances of death-causing violence. It's a trope for people who study the 17th century, like myself, to note that the Thirty Years War is on an entirely different scale of destruction (at least in Germany) than either of the World Wars.

2. That the reason why we feel this to not be the case is, in part, because the norms of the world, most especially the developed world, have shifted decisively against violence in any form in the last hundred years, give or take.

Neither one of those points seems especially open to dispute, so far as I can tell. And part of point #2 really does have to do with the rise of sentimental theories of morality, and the ability to conceive of oneself as shorn from particular accidents of identity and so fundamentally like (rather than unlike) everyone else in the world, both of which are notable features of the 'Enlightenment,' broadly defined. (It may be true that these ideas existed even in medieval Christianity, which is certainly what I believe, but those medievals seemed remarkably uninterested in working out the implications of those beliefs until denominational difference and secularism began to be significant social problems.)

Now, none of that should be taken as support for any evolutionary claim Pinker may be trying to make (though I'd support a social construction claim), nor am I entirely convinced that his ancient historical data reflects reality and not some omitted variable, but like the tag will say: "modernity? not so bad"