Steven Pinker (Allen Lane (UK); Scribner (US) Out 23 September)
Steven Pinker鈥檚 new book perfectly encapsulates what a contradictory figure he has become. Much of it is a clear, fascinating explanation of a major psychological phenomenon. But then he starts telling you what he thinks about current affairs.
Pinker is a who has written a string of popular science books. Some, like Words and Rules, are rooted in his own research and are a good read. Others venture further afield, such as The Better Angels of Our Nature, which argues there has been a long-term decline in violence in human societies.
Advertisement
The books in the latter category have become massive bestsellers, but they have also been kicked around by reviewers arguing that Pinker is way out of his depth. In The Better Angels of Our Nature, he had to confront the obvious exception to the trend of declining violence: the 20th century, which saw two world wars, the Holocaust and much more. To address this, he cherry-picked statistics to suggest previous centuries saw higher death rates, and also proposed that the 20th century was a historical fluke, claims that met with stiff criticism.
So I approached Pinker鈥檚 latest book with some wariness. Which side of him would be on display: the thoughtful psychologist, or the overconfident pundit? Both, it turns out. His topic is 鈥渃ommon knowledge鈥�: things that everyone knows and, crucially, we all know that everyone knows. He neatly illustrates its importance through Hans Christian Andersen鈥檚 The Emperor鈥檚 New Clothes, in which a child innocently 鈥� and correctly 鈥� points out that the emperor is naked. As Pinker writes, 鈥渉e wasn鈥檛 telling anyone anything they didn鈥檛 already know鈥�, but he added to their knowledge, ensuring 鈥渢hat they now knew that everyone else knew what they knew鈥�. That was enough for the crowd to start laughing.
It is akin to writing about the criminal justice system by only telling stories of miscarriages of justice
Common knowledge can be transformative. Pinker imagines an oppressed population and an authoritarian government. If enough people protest, the regime will fall, no matter how many guns it has. But it is difficult to begin: if no one joins your protest, you may be massacred. You know that the government is awful, but does everyone else? And do they know that everyone knows? Only with common knowledge can people confidently take to the streets.
The first seven chapters develop this idea in detail, using examples from game theory and psychology. Pinker is a graceful and clear writer, and he does a good job of guiding readers through various tangled logic puzzles, even using cartoons and a famous exchange from Friends (鈥淭hey don鈥檛 know that we know they know we know!鈥�).
Occasionally, he makes an asinine aside. He remarks, for instance, that a logic puzzle was first published 鈥渋n the politically innocent early 1950s鈥�, which is a bizarre way to describe the era of the second Red Scare. Still, these are minor annoyances.
But then, in chapter eight, which traces the psychological roots of 鈥渃ancel culture鈥�, everything goes to hell. His argument is that cancel culture is a form of censorship, motivated by 鈥渢he urge to prevent ideas from becoming common knowledge鈥�. It might be OK if people privately believe that one ethnic group is inferior to another, he suggests, but if this became common knowledge, it would lead to discrimination. Hence the urge to crack down on those who share such sentiments publicly.
There might be something to Pinker鈥檚 analysis of what drives people to cancel, but it is impossible to tell because his discussion of cancel culture is so poor. All his examples come from the liberal left, but the right also cancels: such was the fate of the Chicks (formerly the Dixie Chicks), who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And he never considers cases of people cancelled for genuine harms, which is analogous to writing about the criminal justice system by only telling stories about miscarriages of justice.
The final chapter covers how we decide whether to keep something semi-private or make it common knowledge. Pinker concludes that it depends on specifics. Thank heavens you鈥檙e here, Steven. When he sticks to psychological research, he is fascinating. It is a shame he wanders off course.
Michael Marshall is a writer based in Devon, UK
New 杏吧原创 book club
Love reading? Come and join our friendly group of fellow book lovers. Every six weeks, we delve into an exciting new title, with members given free access to extracts from our books, articles from our authors and video interviews.
