quarta-feira, 3 de janeiro de 2007

Steven Pinker: «The Decline of Violence»

«In 16th century Paris, a popular form of entertainment was cat-burning, in which a cat was hoisted on a stage and was slowly lowered into a fire. According to the historian Norman Davies, "the spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized."

As horrific as present-day events are, such sadism would be unthinkable today in most of the world. This is just one example of the most important and under appreciated trend in the history of our species: the decline of violence. Cruelty as popular entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labor-saving device, genocide for convenience, torture and mutilation as routine forms of punishment, execution for trivial crimes and misdemeanors, assassination as a means of political succession, pogroms as an outlet for frustration, and homicide as the major means of conflict resolution—all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. Yet today they are statistically rare in the West, less common elsewhere than they used to be, and widely condemned when they do occur.

###

(...)

Anyone who doubts this by pointing to residues of force in America (capital punishment in Texas, Abu Ghraib, sex slavery in immigrant groups, and so on) misses two key points. One is that statistically, the prevalence of these practices is almost certainly a tiny fraction of what it was in centuries past. The other is that these practices are, to varying degrees, hidden, illegal, condemned, or at the very least (as in the case of capital punishment) intensely controversial. In the past, they were no big deal. Even the mass murders of the twentieth century in Europe, China, and the Soviet Union probably killed a smaller proportion of the population than a typical hunter-gatherer feud or biblical conquest. The world’s population has exploded, and wars and killings are scrutinized and documented, so we are more aware of violence, even when it may be statistically less extensive.

What went right? No one knows, possibly because we have been asking the wrong question—"Why is there war?" instead of “Why is there peace?" There have been some suggestions, all unproven. Perhaps the gradual perfecting of a democratic Leviathan—"a common power to keep [men] in awe"—has removed the incentive to do it to them before they do it to us. Payne suggests that it’s because for many people, life has become longer and less awful—when pain, tragedy, and early death are expected features of one’s own life, one feels fewer compunctions about inflicting them on others. Wright points to technologies that enhance networks of reciprocity and trade, which make other people more valuable alive than dead. Singer attributes it to the inexorable logic of the golden rule: the more one knows and thinks, the harder it is to privilege one’s own interests over those of other sentient beings. Perhaps this is amplified by cosmopolitanism, in which history, journalism, memoir, and realistic fiction make the inner lives of other people, and the contingent nature of one’s own station, more palpable—the feeling that "there but for fortune go I."

(...)»

(Steven Pinker)

4 comentários :

Miguel Madeira disse...

O impulso para a violência pode ter declinado, mas como os meios técnicos de concretizar esse impulso aperfeiçoaram-se provavelmente a violência moderna mata mais gente.

"Even the mass murders of the twentieth century in Europe, China, and the Soviet Union probably killed a smaller proportion of the population than a typical hunter-gatherer feud or biblical conquest. The world’s population has exploded, and wars and killings are scrutinized and documented, so we are more aware of violence, even when it may be statistically less extensive."

Isso parece-me um puro palpite dele, nada mais.

Anónimo disse...

pffff...
Esse notável linguista, dono da verdade sobre as ciências cognitivas e a antropologia, continua a surpreender o mundo com as suas descobertas e achados. É destas fortunas que se faz Harvard (ponham os olhos, ó portugueses), digam as verdades que tenham mais mercado e conhecerão um mundo de abundância como nunca sonharam.

Muito antes dele já um senhor chamado Norbert Elias havia escrito um livro imprescindível sobre o "processo da civilização".

Ricardo Alves disse...

Miguel Madeira,
a questão é que a proporção da população total morta em genocídios tem vindo a diminuir. Por exemplo, o genocídio de judeus nos anos 40 deve ter chegado a 50-60% do total da população judaica (foram imensos e foi terrível, que não haja dúvidas). Já o genocídio dos índios das antilhas, no século 16, foi total (100%). O genocídio dos índios das Américas, no conjunto dos séculos 16 e 17, pode ter ultrapassado os 90% da população. E além disso, existe um repúdio ético, hoje generalizado, que não existia há duzentos ou trezentos anos.

Anónimo disse...

E a inquisição portuguesa?

cerca de 280 mil judeus foram pelo menos para a Holanda. Sendo a população portuguesa na altura de 1 milhão de pessoas, estamos a falar de 25% da população portuguesa que zarpou...

E os que morreram nas fogueiras?