“Enlightenment Now” by Steven Pinker

Another re-read of a non fiction book that I really liked first time around. This is subtitled “the case for reason, science, humanism and progress” and was originally published in 2018. I remember when I first read it feeling that every chapter served to reinforce all the thoughts, values and ways of understanding the world that I have built up through my adult life. Moreover, of course, it gave me page after page of argument and evidence to back it all up. A dream come true really, making this one of my absolute favourite reads. Picking it up again after seven years or so was interesting because while some of the data is now a touch dated, the essential messages are just as valid. It was written just after Trumpty Dumpty first came into office, and so in that respect resonates well now too. It would be just great if Professor Pinker could revise it and publish an updated version.

The meat of the book comprises a completely compelling analysis of how much progress on every measure of ‘human flourishing’ the world has made over recent decades. Chapters reflect in turn on war, economic wellbeing, health, life expectancy, educational attainment, crime / violence, environmental resilience, the spread of liberal democracy etc etc, in each case demonstrating that very real progress is being made globally. It is a very compelling analysis. Of course, the are points at which I did not wholly agree – particularly the section on inequality which focus only on money and not so much on power. But generally Pinker is highly persuasive. The breadth of coverage in these chapters is extraordinary and the weight of evidence in favour of an optimistic view of contemporary life brilliantly articulated.

Pinker is also I think very compelling when he discusses the various reasons that people – especially intellectuals – remain pessimistic in the face of all this evidence. The acid test is a question Brack Obama once posed – if you had the choice to live in any time in history when, on balance, would you prefer to live? The answer, of course, for the vast majority of people in the developed world is ‘now’.

And so the remainder of the book is focused on explaining why people do not perceive that life is improving and are apparently less satisfied with their lives than they used to be. He argues that this is partly natural human psychology – the way our brains are wired:

Evolution left us with another burden: our cognitive, emotional and moral faculties are adapted to individual survival and reproduction in an archaic environment, not to universal thriving in a modern one. To appreciate this burden, one doesn’t have to believe that we are cavemen out of time, only that evolution, with its speed limit measured in generations, could not possibly have adapted our brains to modern technology and institutions. Humans today rely on cognitive faculties that worked well in traditional societies, but which we now see are infested with bugs.

He goes on to make an uncompromising case for enlightenment values and the need not to let them be undermined by those who prefer to defer to authorities that are not derived from reason and education – namely religions, tribal loyalties or ‘great men’. This final section is an equally compelling and thought-provoking read, but I found myself at times questioning some of the points. Steven Pinker can perhaps be criticised a tad for failing to grasp just why large numbers of people are deeply uneasy about some of the consequences that have arisen as a result of adherence to ‘reason, science, humanism and progress’ on the part of powerful cadres in Western liberal democracies. There is I think such a things as ‘progressive overreach’ which sometimes pushes things further than the majority are prepared to support, or at least to support such a rapid pace of change. Its worst contemporary manifestation is in the intolerance shown by some who ascribe to enlightenment values – illiberal liberalism – which dismisses the views of all who do not ascribe to them rather than trying to understand them. To be fair, he touches on this in the context of declining political diversity among faculty in US universities, complaining that a situation has arisen in which people ‘look different, but all think alike’. But I would have liked to see more understanding given in his analysis to those who have entirely legitimate worries about globalisation, liberalism, multi-culturalism and the decline in religious observance.

The other point I was not wholly in sympathy with is Steven Pinker’s apparent assumption – implicit in the book’s subtitle – that ‘progress’ of the kind he absolutely demonstrated has been happening and the greater level of ‘human flourishing’ that has accompanied it, are entirely the product of ‘science, humanism and reason’. Sentiment and affection are also part of the human condition and will always heavily influence the way we act and the decisions we take. Feeling deep personal loyalty towards a country, a church, a tribe or a tradition is not unwelcome in itself, even if it does sometimes involve allowing emotion to override pure reason a lot of the time. Duty and selflessness are important qualities and are often inspired more by feelings than rational decision-making. Love and grief, joy and despair, are inescapable elements of the human condition and will always motivate people every bit as much as reasoned analysis, as of course do hunches and intuition. Our present happy collective human condition must surely therefore have been reached thanks to a product of reason, passion, wisdom and good fortune. Hearts and heads work together in tandem, and I think Steven Pinker tends to dismiss the heart part a touch too readily when considering the antecedents of human progress. Hunches and the exercise of imagination frequently underpin some forms of scientific progress. The exercise of good judgement often involves exercising both intellect and empathy, as well as personal experience. Religious motivations have been a major element underpinning many progressive causes. Perhaps more weight should thus have been given in the final chapters to these kinds of points?

But this is a minor quibble. Basically this is a highly persuasive and superbly written book by one of the most seriously impressive public intellectuals writing today.

The book is supremely articulate, enjoyable to read and laced with quotable passages.