If there is indeed a decline in human violence, and if there is indeed a Flynn Effect, there is, however, no way of demonstrating that there is a causal relationship between them. They are, if they exist, merely parallel phenomena that could very well both be driven by some third factor acting independently on each one, or they might be completely independent phenomena that just happen to occur together and follow a similar pattern.
In the case of violence, it is much more likely that it is tied to the division of labour than to the rise in the human capacity for reason. The greater the division of labour, the lower the level of violence. Why is this so? Division of labour creates dependence, and the greater the division of labour, the greater the dependence. Now, the more we depend on others, the less likely we are to be violent towards them, for violence towards them is a form of violence against ourselves. We need to maintain positive relations with those we depend on for our existence, for any threat to those relations is a threat to our own existence.
It is worth noting in passing that the Enlightenment was accompanied (though not necessarily causally) by the demise of feudalism and the rise of a new social and economic order in which greater freedom and independence led, paradoxically, to greater dependence of a different sort. The emergence of mercantilism (just prior to the Enlightenment) and the subsequent development of capitalism and industrialization carried the division of labour to new heights. In fact, capitalism set the division of labour on a upward spiral from which there would be no returning, a spiral in which there would be ever-increasing division of labour and ever-increasing dependence of the individual upon the collective. One of the consequences of the Industrial Revolution was a rapid increase in urbanization, which, as Georg Simmel has noted, increases division of labour and thus increases the individual’s dependence upon others. Much as Pinker would like to give the Enlightenment the credit for turning the tide of violence, that seventeenth-century intellectual movement had very little to do with generating the social forces that led to a reduction in violent behaviour. If anything, the Enlightenment was an ad hoc or even post hoc response to what had already been accomplished by other historical events, most notably the end of the feudal system and the rise to dominance of capitalism.
After two centuries of runaway capitalism, and a century and a half of unbridled industrialization and rampant urbanization, we have become so dependent on others that we would not be able to survive for even the briefest period of time if we were left entirely to our own devices. Every aspect of our individual existence is tied to the products and services that others provide. We could not feed and clothe ourselves and put a roof over our heads without the help of others, let alone enjoy the comforts that we have come to regard as our right as human beings. We subconsciously recognize this and consequently treat others with civility and respect; we do this out of crass self-interest rather than out of any moral compunction or rational conviction about the superiority of abstaining from violence. It is not so much that violent behaviour is morally wrong but that non-violent behaviour is socially and practically expedient. Pinker downplays the self-interest aspect. He expands on Peter’s Singer’s claim in The Expanding Circle that “the escalator of reason” (a term Singer invented) leads us ever increasingly to the realization that self-interest is not more important than collective interests. But this is really a sort of circular argument. As we have just seen, collective interests serve self-interest and that is precisely what makes them so important. Collective interests derive their importance from the individual’s need to protect self-interest. This is so precisely because of the division of labour and the interdependence that it precipitates.
In areas where this interdependence does not prevail, violence continues to run amok. Consider the rise of bullying among schoolchildren across the civilized world. It has reached epidemic proportions and is causing alarm among those responsible for maintaining order and safety in the school system. Not only is there violence in the form of persecution of the bullied by the bullies, but there is also the unreported violence of the bullied upon themselves in the form of suicide. The suicide rate among school-age children is rising at a disconcerting rate. How does one explain this, especially in light of Pinker’s appeal to the Flynn Effect and his claim that the average teenager today would score an IQ of 130 on the standard IQ test used in 1910? Teenagers may be smarter today, but are they kinder and gentler? The evidence suggests otherwise. And how might this evidence be explained? Clearly, teenagers and younger children do not see any interdependence between them and the people they bully. Those who are within the social network and contribute to maintaining status in the network are not the victims of bullying precisely because there is a definite element of interdependence among them. It is the ones who are beyond the pale, who are outcasts, who are considered superfluous to the self-interest of the bullies that get victimized. For even within social networks, there is division of labour. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. That’s how social networks operate. You have a role to play in getting me what I want, and I will play a corresponding role in getting you what you want: access, acceptance, popularity, fame, whatever.
Violence per se has not declined, despite Pinker’s impressive amassing of statistics to “prove” that it has. It’s overall manifestation is muted by the increasing realization that we cannot survive on our own and that we need the help and goodwill of others if we are to make it in life, and not just make it, but get ahead. Where and when such relations do not exist between individuals, human nature reasserts itself and we slip back into being our old violent selves. There is nothing particularly rational about this, and it does not require any advanced capacity for reason. Even a dog knows not to bite the hand that feeds it.
