Please use this thread to discuss Ch. 3 - The Civilizing Process.

Let me know if I'm going too fast. I'm not reading the book as carefully as if I had more time, so also let me know if I'm way off in my quick reading. Pinker saw an opening for this book in the current general view that things are bad and getting worse, where violence is concerned. His own view is contrarian--violence has decreased-- and we saw that in the last chapter he has "datasets" to back up his thesis. In this chapter, he starts off on a parallel track, trying to show anecdotally that what we might call manners have also undergone an evolution or progression. We're less gross and rude now than we were back in the day, appears to be his take on things. Here, too, his view is probably contrarian, because ordinarily I think we see our own social-nicety level as being much lower than it was in the past. Maybe we're victims of short-term thinking, though, and are going by a relatively minor drop in social etiquette over the last 200 years or so, or maybe we just don't know enough about how the average person behaved back in the early days of the republic. How to explain such a progression, if again we can call it that, I don't know, and I haven't seen yet that Pinker has an explanation.

I'm glad you got the ball rolling, DWill.

I haven't quite finished chapter 3, but my impression is that Pinker is saying that the Pacification process (chapter 2) was a process of imposing external control on people's behavior and the Civilizing process is more a matter of indoctrinating individuals into a more gentle, respectful, considerate mode of life.

As I understand it at this point, Pinker attributes this process of indoctrination to two causes -- 1) the rise of monarchical courts and the need to learn to behave in a courtly way (i.e., with courtesy) in order to get ahead in that environment, and 2) the rise economic activity as a way to achieve wealth and comfort.

I like the way he provides continuity between the data of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 by presenting the more recent data on a chart alongside the data brought forward from Chapter 2.

I find it interesting that Pinker devotes space in Chapter 3 to considering alternate explanations and showing why he thinks they don't stand up. As far as I can tell, he seems to cover the ground pretty thoroughly. Does anyone see something he has missed? One of the charts does show what he called a "small bounce" in the data for the last third of the 20th century, where violence actually went up for a bit. That might relate to the perceived decline in "social-nicety" you point out, DWill.

I haven't finished the chapter, either, Tom, and as I said earlier, I'll be gliding through some of it. A 70-page chapter? Pinker is quite the detail guy, isn't he? I wonder if we might have been better served if he had used notes more extensively for some of this information, or had stuck some appendices onto the book. I recall getting bogged down in The Stuff of Thought, too. I guess I just like a more punchy, concise presentation than seems to be Pinker's style.

I guess we need the bulleted executive summary, huh?

I was just being cranky. I finished the chapter, and Pinker did manage to hold my attention. He has his work cut out for him in trying to get to explain certain anomalies, such the increase in violence throughout the West in the 60s and the different rates of murder between North and South in the U.S. There are of course going to be multiple causes proposed for any broad social trend, and Pinker isn't very dogmatic about which one or two are the crucial ones in those two situations. Concerning the cause of the decline in violence over the long term, he's pretty certain that the civilizing process that Elias first expounded is the best answer. The civilizing process consists of the Leviathan making everyone tow the line, and "gentle commerce" making us all realize that to get ahead economically it's much better to enter into positive sum relationships with partners than to steal and cheat. I wonder about Elias' theory, though. Pinker hints that it's an older theory that isn't esteemed by contemporary specialists. Maybe it oversimplifies a tremendously complex picture.

There is a lot of interesting stuff here. For example, Pinker shows how our common assumptions about the causes of violence, such as high unemployment and poverty, don't necessarily correlate well with high rates of murder.

Another thought about the 60s and the spike in the murder rate. Pinker attributes it to a "decivilizing" spasm that swept through the West. He asks the reader if the older generation that deplored these social changes at the time was right after all. Of course Pinker (and myself, and also you?) is a child of the 60s, so I can sense a bit of chagrin when he recites what appear to be the error of our ways.

As I'm reading Chapter 3, my impression is that there are two aspects to the effects of the Leviathan.

The first is the Pacification process described in Chapter 2 -- the Leviathan "making everyone toe the line", as you put it, DWill -- an imposition of peace from the outside. The Pax Romana may have been less violent than what preceded it, for example, but the punishments the Romans meted out for disobeying their law were brutal (crucifixtion, decimation for misbehaving military units, where every tenth man would be killed by their own comrades, being exposed to wild animals or forced to fight as gladiators, etc.).

The second aspect is more of an individual indoctrination process, where individuals learned more refined perspectives on life because it was in their interest to do so. It made it more possible for them to get ahead at court (a social structure created by the Leviathan), or engage in economic activity. So it seems to me that the effect of the Leviathan in the Civilizing process described in Chapter 3 is more internal to the individual.

And the "get along" process was motivated in large part by commerce, Pinker says. So business played a large role in settling us down, which makes sense--even though today we don't always give business this much credit!

Pinker is quite readable, despite his length. He doesn't seem that capable of being boring, a definite plus for any author. I think it's probably in the next chapter on the humanitarian revolution where he extols the progress we have made as a species, but it's true, I think. It's good to be able to use the word "progress" without attaching a dubious or ironic tone to it.

I agree with you about Pinker's qualities as an author. I'm enjoying the book very much. Just having too many distractions along the way....