The target article has promising implications for controlling violence in society, and also for developing what has come to be known as a “culture of peace.” Many believe humans evolved to be violent and warlike, that these attributes are innate and unchangeable. One might even call this “the received view,” historically speaking, and in terms of a commonly held contemporary perspective on our species (Gat Reference Gat2006; Keeley Reference Keeley1996; Smith Reference Smith2007). However, the view in question is undermined: first, by anthropologists and others who classify and study a broad spectrum of peaceful societies; second, by social scientists using empirical methods to chart historical trends in relation to war and violence; and third, by social scientists who investigate the formation and role of cooperation among humans. The first group (Bonta Reference Bonta1993; Boulding Reference Boulding2000; Fry Reference Fry2007) provides evidence that peaceful peoples exist in the past and present; whereas the second (Goldstein Reference Goldstein2011; Muchembled Reference Muchembled2011; Pinker Reference Pinker2011) documents the decline of violent behaviors and/or the decline (in frequency and destructiveness) of warfare in general; and the third (Knauft Reference Knauft and Gregor1996; Tomasello Reference Tomasello2009) shows that cooperation (in the absence of self-interested payoffs) is an inborn, universal tendency.
This is not the place to evaluate all of these claims. It is sufficient here to note that considerable light has been shed on the nature of aggression and violence. These are widely held to be human universals. Yet every society works out its own ways of dealing with them, some with greater success than others. Violent and bellicose behaviors can be learned, but so, too, can alternative behaviors – such as symbolic aggression displays and nonviolent actions – through social conditioning based on positive reinforcement. As a leading anthropologist observes, “There are few societies in which some form of aggressive behavior, however slight, does not occur…. The variability and absence of stereotypy [in cross-cultural comparisons] suggest that violent behavior is largely learned…. Human beings can learn virtually anything. Among other things, they can learn to be virtually wholly unaggressive” (Montagu Reference Montagu and Montagu1978, pp. 5–6). If so, then tendencies toward aggressive violence and waging war do not necessarily override other human potentials for cooperative and nonviolent coexistence, and therefore also do not prescribe human destiny. More broadly speaking, evolution itself is not destiny, and human choices (such as adopting new values and practices) are important interventions in the process of our species's development.
The research discussed by Wilson et al. enters the picture at this point. Consider the following questions: Could a culture in which violence and militarism prevail be transformed into one in which these features are less significant, and perhaps eventually into a culture of peace? Could we choose nonviolence and peaceful coexistence between humans (and even between humans and nonhumans, humans and nature) as our primary goals? Certainly these choices are in the interest of adaptation to circumstances, or “long-term human welfare” (sect. 3.3, para. 3). Although the questions posed are daunting, I suggest that a science of intentional change might one day yield affirmative answers. Let us see how.
The key concept in Wilson et al. is that of managing evolutionary processes. Specifically, they speak of “managing evolved mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity” (Abstract). From their many examples, we learn about our own ability – as individuals, groups, and cultures – to take charge of our behavior and developmental direction. Furthermore, learning that the social sciences yield numerous techniques by means of which evolutionary processes can be shaped and directed provides us with a better understanding and appreciation of how we might manage our future as a species. But this theoretical standpoint itself also serves as a heuristic principle that encourages a trend toward the unification of the social sciences in the service of chosen evolutionary ends.
More peaceable forms of human life would result from everyday interactions enhanced by new symbolic representations (or “symbotypes”) that expand rather than limit the resources of discourse and imagination by means of which we express ourselves, and with which we confront personal problems and larger scale challenges as individuals, societies, or cultures. The first step would involve gaining awareness about how these processes work (Lakoff & Johnson Reference Lakoff and Johnson2003; Schäffner & Wenden Reference Schäffner and Wenden1995). Standard metaphors that allude to war, violence, and/or threats could then be reframed in terms of images that neither rely upon simplistic and vague allusions nor divide the field of concern into two camps: our group and others, friends and enemies, victors and vanquished. People can learn to create new vocabularies and associations through cognitive alteration techniques, just as they are enabled to change by means of reconceptualization or through exposure to “education or brief training in cognitive reappraisal” or to “a metaphor or exercise that alters the impact of negative thoughts” (sect. 3.1, para. 15).
Visual imagery in advertising, entertainment, and other media that portray or encourage hostile characterizations of others and interactions with them could be replaced by others that convey more constructive messages but still meet the objectives set for themselves by these industries.
Social experiments in living not only illustrate patterns of human evolution that are unfolding; they also determine what may be possible within a given stage, and hence, help reshape our fundamental understanding of evolution itself. Even beyond this, social changes can take on the role of “inheritance systems” (sect. 1, para. 6) that have ongoing effects on the development of new values and practices.
As Wilson et al. forcefully demonstrate, humans are much more malleable than we often give ourselves credit for. Therefore, patterns of behavior (including linguistic behavior) that seem to be intractable can often be changed – and even changed in short order and by surprisingly simple strategies – into more constructive expressions of our evolutionary repertoire. Genetic innateness, they also show, can be an agent of differential development rather than of stasis.
Violent and war-waging behaviors clearly achieve results that are “dysfunctional from the perspective of long-term human welfare” (sect. 3.1, para. 19; Bickerton Reference Bickerton2011; Fox Reference Fox2013; Tyner Reference Tyner2010). If we desire to survive and flourish as a species, then we will need to select for ways of thinking and behaving that favor peaceful outcomes.
You have
Access
The target article has promising implications for controlling violence in society, and also for developing what has come to be known as a “culture of peace.” Many believe humans evolved to be violent and warlike, that these attributes are innate and unchangeable. One might even call this “the received view,” historically speaking, and in terms of a commonly held contemporary perspective on our species (Gat Reference Gat2006; Keeley Reference Keeley1996; Smith Reference Smith2007). However, the view in question is undermined: first, by anthropologists and others who classify and study a broad spectrum of peaceful societies; second, by social scientists using empirical methods to chart historical trends in relation to war and violence; and third, by social scientists who investigate the formation and role of cooperation among humans. The first group (Bonta Reference Bonta1993; Boulding Reference Boulding2000; Fry Reference Fry2007) provides evidence that peaceful peoples exist in the past and present; whereas the second (Goldstein Reference Goldstein2011; Muchembled Reference Muchembled2011; Pinker Reference Pinker2011) documents the decline of violent behaviors and/or the decline (in frequency and destructiveness) of warfare in general; and the third (Knauft Reference Knauft and Gregor1996; Tomasello Reference Tomasello2009) shows that cooperation (in the absence of self-interested payoffs) is an inborn, universal tendency.
This is not the place to evaluate all of these claims. It is sufficient here to note that considerable light has been shed on the nature of aggression and violence. These are widely held to be human universals. Yet every society works out its own ways of dealing with them, some with greater success than others. Violent and bellicose behaviors can be learned, but so, too, can alternative behaviors – such as symbolic aggression displays and nonviolent actions – through social conditioning based on positive reinforcement. As a leading anthropologist observes, “There are few societies in which some form of aggressive behavior, however slight, does not occur…. The variability and absence of stereotypy [in cross-cultural comparisons] suggest that violent behavior is largely learned…. Human beings can learn virtually anything. Among other things, they can learn to be virtually wholly unaggressive” (Montagu Reference Montagu and Montagu1978, pp. 5–6). If so, then tendencies toward aggressive violence and waging war do not necessarily override other human potentials for cooperative and nonviolent coexistence, and therefore also do not prescribe human destiny. More broadly speaking, evolution itself is not destiny, and human choices (such as adopting new values and practices) are important interventions in the process of our species's development.
The research discussed by Wilson et al. enters the picture at this point. Consider the following questions: Could a culture in which violence and militarism prevail be transformed into one in which these features are less significant, and perhaps eventually into a culture of peace? Could we choose nonviolence and peaceful coexistence between humans (and even between humans and nonhumans, humans and nature) as our primary goals? Certainly these choices are in the interest of adaptation to circumstances, or “long-term human welfare” (sect. 3.3, para. 3). Although the questions posed are daunting, I suggest that a science of intentional change might one day yield affirmative answers. Let us see how.
The key concept in Wilson et al. is that of managing evolutionary processes. Specifically, they speak of “managing evolved mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity” (Abstract). From their many examples, we learn about our own ability – as individuals, groups, and cultures – to take charge of our behavior and developmental direction. Furthermore, learning that the social sciences yield numerous techniques by means of which evolutionary processes can be shaped and directed provides us with a better understanding and appreciation of how we might manage our future as a species. But this theoretical standpoint itself also serves as a heuristic principle that encourages a trend toward the unification of the social sciences in the service of chosen evolutionary ends.
More peaceable forms of human life would result from everyday interactions enhanced by new symbolic representations (or “symbotypes”) that expand rather than limit the resources of discourse and imagination by means of which we express ourselves, and with which we confront personal problems and larger scale challenges as individuals, societies, or cultures. The first step would involve gaining awareness about how these processes work (Lakoff & Johnson Reference Lakoff and Johnson2003; Schäffner & Wenden Reference Schäffner and Wenden1995). Standard metaphors that allude to war, violence, and/or threats could then be reframed in terms of images that neither rely upon simplistic and vague allusions nor divide the field of concern into two camps: our group and others, friends and enemies, victors and vanquished. People can learn to create new vocabularies and associations through cognitive alteration techniques, just as they are enabled to change by means of reconceptualization or through exposure to “education or brief training in cognitive reappraisal” or to “a metaphor or exercise that alters the impact of negative thoughts” (sect. 3.1, para. 15).
Visual imagery in advertising, entertainment, and other media that portray or encourage hostile characterizations of others and interactions with them could be replaced by others that convey more constructive messages but still meet the objectives set for themselves by these industries.
Social experiments in living not only illustrate patterns of human evolution that are unfolding; they also determine what may be possible within a given stage, and hence, help reshape our fundamental understanding of evolution itself. Even beyond this, social changes can take on the role of “inheritance systems” (sect. 1, para. 6) that have ongoing effects on the development of new values and practices.
As Wilson et al. forcefully demonstrate, humans are much more malleable than we often give ourselves credit for. Therefore, patterns of behavior (including linguistic behavior) that seem to be intractable can often be changed – and even changed in short order and by surprisingly simple strategies – into more constructive expressions of our evolutionary repertoire. Genetic innateness, they also show, can be an agent of differential development rather than of stasis.
Violent and war-waging behaviors clearly achieve results that are “dysfunctional from the perspective of long-term human welfare” (sect. 3.1, para. 19; Bickerton Reference Bickerton2011; Fox Reference Fox2013; Tyner Reference Tyner2010). If we desire to survive and flourish as a species, then we will need to select for ways of thinking and behaving that favor peaceful outcomes.